Talk:The Empire Strikes Back/Archive 3

message: The fair use of :image:Empire-AlWilliamson.jpg in this article is questionable. Listed below is/are the reason(s) for this:
Spotimage that tagentaly relates to the topic but is not really discussed in the article.
If the above concern(s) can be addressed in light of the relevant policies and/or guidelines, the image use can be retained. If not, the image needs to be removed from the article.
- J Greb (talk) 20:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Image removed as only decorative. - J Greb (talk) 01:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Image issue(s)

message: The article states that "During production, great secrecy surrounded the fact that Darth Vader was Luke's father... Until the film premiered, only George Lucas, Irvin Kershner, Mark Hamill, and James Earl Jones knew what would really be said." How can it be true if the movie was premiered on May 21, 1980, and the novellization was released on April 12, 1980, thus more than a month before the film? Arctifox (talk) 21:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well then those who read the book the month before would know the secret, however, a month before the movie premired filming was wrapped up, so its still true that all the cast did not know about it. There are also sources that say that this is true, I think its actually in the bonus footage of the film as well. 97.126.59.26 (talk) 06:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Great secrecy?

message: I wonder if any info can come from this article: Hanks, Henry. "30 years later, 'Empire' left a lasting mark." CNN. May 21, 2010 WhisperToMe (talk) 22:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: 30 years later

message: Its been awhile since I have been logged off and looking at a featured article (or bothered to read one at all), however, isn't it customary to at least simi-protect a featured article, that way we don't get crappy edits that people see?
We surely don't want some guy to sneak in that Chewbacca was gay with Han, and someone not catch it for 10-20 minutes or more. If its at least simi-protected we can limit the amount of vandalism. :) 97.126.59.26 (talk) 07:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:TFAP --Siradia (talk) 16:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit Protected?

message: "While patrolling near the base, Luke tells Han Solo that he is going to be late returning to base camp because he is going to investigate a meteor that had crashed nearby (really an Imperial probe droid)". The rest of the article is not much better. How did that make it to the front page? I can only infer that nobody with a decent command of English reads such nominations. Embarassing. 192.44.242.18 (talk) 10:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree. Whoever gave this FA status clearly didn't read the article. The introduction to the article sounds like it was ripped right out of a theatrical trailer. Vrinan (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Why you do not fix it? TbhotchTalk C. 19:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Because we have better things to do, but at a quick glance it is clear this isn't something we should showcase. I'm starting a featured article review, this was promoted 3 years ago. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: How on earth did that make it to the front page?

message: Would it be appropriate to focus more on information about the actors?  The Cast section in this article currently contains items such as this:
In contrast, other film articles (like Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film)) give real-world information about the actors:
:--Doradus (talk) 14:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Many movies have both a Cast section and a Characters section. In the case of Star Wars, there are character articles, so I'd suggest following suit with Harry Potter. Link to the character, but explain the real-life situation of how the actor/actress came to be that character. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 14:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: "Cast" section is all about the characters, not the actors

message: "For the original viewers of the film, this scene made it clear that Vader is not a shablabchabfabkab nob wanted the screen credits to come at the end of the films." - Is this vandalism or something? What does "shablabchabfabkab nob" mean? 74.69.251.170 (talk) 20:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It was vandalism, and it has been reverted.Guy546(Talk) 20:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Odd sentence

message: The article currently states that Empire was the second Star Wars film released, and the fifth by internal chronology.  However, as the Clone Wars movie was a full-fledged theatrical release, wouldn't it be more correct to say that Empire is the sixth film (out of seven) by internal chronology?  12.45.255.66 (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The retun of Jedi is the sixth, like title says "Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back. TbhotchTalk C. 20:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you mean the animated movie The clone wars, it is not inlcluded. TbhotchTalk C. 20:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Sixth, Not Fifth?

message: A cleanup page has been created for WP:FILMS' spotlight articles. One element that is being checked in ensuring the quality of the articles is the non-free images. Currently, one or more non-free images being used in this article are under discussion to determine if they should be removed from the article for not complying with non-free and fair use requirements. Please comment at the corresponding section within the image cleanup listing. Before contributing the discussion, please first read WP:FILMNFI concerning non-free images. Ideally the discussions pertaining to the spotlight articles will be concluded by the end of June, so please comment soon to ensure there is clear consensus. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion pertaining to non-free image(s) used in article

message: Hi there, just wanted to clarify if the plot section should also contain the sub-section on cinematic and literary allusions (as you can see in the article proper). I believe the two areas serve different purposes (allusions refer to referential mention; while plot refers to the development of a story), so perhaps it would be a better idea to create a new section to host content on allusions. I'm not an expert on Star Wars, nor on film articles, so I'll just like to raise this point for consideration here. Thanks, AngChenrui (talk) 13:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and separated the two. Thanks for the heads-up! Erik (talk | contribs) 20:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Plot' and 'Cinematic and literary allusions' should be separate sections?

message: I removed the GAN because this article has just been delisted following a FAR, whose issues nobody has addressed yet. Until the improvements have been made, I do not believe this article to be of GA quality. There is far too much work to be done.--The Taerkasten (talk) 15:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: GAN

message: I noticed that this article is nominated for GA status. A couple of things that probably need to be addressed before anyone reviews the page are the cinematic allusions and the reception section. The first seems out of place right after the plot section. Normally, you have production right after the plot section. Secondly, you might want a bit more of a "summary" of what that entails before sending a reader off to another page. Otherwise, why bother having it when you can just put it in a "See also" section. Next, you need to clean up the reception page. If I was reviewing this for GA, I'd be forced to fail it instantly because it would meet the criteria for instant fail with all of the clean up tags and unsourced content riddled throughout the page (see all the "citation needed" tags). In addition, the Darth Vader image fails WP:FUC and WP:NONFREE. There is no critical commentary on the image itself. The information about him in this film is about the character, not about the appearance. Thus, a non-free image here doesn't meet the necessary requirements for use. Also, you may not want Rotten Tomatoes precentage so close to the top and used as if it represents the views of critics from when the film was released, because it doesn't. It actually represents the views of critics within the past 10 years, which is not the same as those from 30 years ago. Also not seeing where the " also one of the highest rated science fiction films of all time" is being appropriately sourced. All I get is another page of RT reviews.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 15:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it per the FAR concerns.--The Taerkasten (talk) 15:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would probably make a recommendation to remove any sentence that is tagged with . − Jhenderson 777 16:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, It's not GA yet, the article still needs improvements before it is ready for GA. JJ98 (Talk) 20:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

text: No, you are engaging in adding original research, which will not be tolerated on Wikipedia. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 13:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments about the article

message: Did George Lucas tell Irvin Kershner that he made Empire Strikes Back "too good" and "didn't need to spend as much money" on it? Are there any sources on this?--87.178.98.25 (talk) 14:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  George Lucas vs. Irvin Kershner

message: Somebody has once again added the name of Hugo Reyes as the writer of ESB.  This time it's on the side box, and I'm unable to edit that.  Lost ended a long time ago, folks.  I once thought it was funny too, but it's time to move on. Could somebody with access please fix it?Wyldstaar (talk) 02:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed Ckruschke (talk) 14:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hugo Reyes 

message: What was the budget? This is all currently in the article:
* $18 million, per IMDb and Box Office Mojo.
* $18.5 million, increasing to $22 million after the January 1979 Stage 3 fire, then increasing "$3 million more" by July. So, $25 million. This is apparently attributed to Marcus Hearn's The Cinema of George Lucas, p. 122–127.
* $33 million, according to the Empire of Dreams documentary. This is mentioned twice in the article.
So what do we do about these conflicts, and what do we put in the infobox? —mjb (talk) 04:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be better to give a budget range. Maybe it could be "between $25 million and $33 million" with both of the last two references. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with Erik's suggestion. It can be quite difficult with an "Pre-Internet" film to find cited sources. So a range, with sources, would be appropriate. -- MisterShiney ✉  20:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Budget again 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 19:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: Consideration should be given to the Time Magazine Cover at the time of the Falklands War- which used the film title as it's headline  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.51.43 (talk) 21:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That is very trivial.Mezigue (talk) 22:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with that. I think that it fails the WP:GNG and is basically not notable enough to be included in the article. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Time Magazine Cover

message: The second paragraph includes the sentence "The Galactic Empire, under the leadership of the villainous Darth Vader, is in pursuit of Luke Skywalker and the rest of the Rebel Alliance." Throughout the film, the Galactic Empire is ruled by the Emperor (Darth Vader is his subordinate). While technically accurate (because "lead by" doesn't necessarily mean that person is the supreme commander) the sentence is deceptive to someone unfamiliar with the film. Maybe change it to "The Galactic Empire is in pursuit of Luke Skywalker and the rest of the Rebel Alliance. While the villainous Darth Vader chases..." Sephalon1 (talk) 05:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccuracy in second paragraph 

message: The running time of the original version is 124 minutes, while the running time of the special edition is 127 minutes. Is there a difference? AdamDeanHall (talk) 16:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there a difference between the running times of the original version and the special edition? 

message: Why does the article say "later released as"?  This film has always had in its opening crawl as "Star Wars Episode V The Empire Strikes Back."  The promotional posters read "Star Wars The Empire Strikes Back."  Why on earth were all the original trilogy films moved?  All six Star Wars movies should be "Star Wars Episode (number of episode):  Specific movie subtitle."  Lucas officially changed the title of the 1977 movie within a year of releasing it and Empire and Jedi were released under their full titles.  I propose that these changes be done immediately.  All three articles were at their full titles for years.  All modern fans know them by their full titles.  The only people I've seen that refer to the original trilogy as "Star Wars", "Empire Strikes Back", and "Return of the Jedi" are people who watched the movies in the 1970s and 80s.  Today people refer to them by their full titles, or for short, their respective episode numbers or subtitles.  Emperor001 (talk) 00:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Later released as?

message: When are we changing this? Should we do it now?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.98.72.152 (talk) 12:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: When another film is released.  Mezigue (talk) 17:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course, who knows when that'll happen?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.168.7.37 (talk) 11:55, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I've edited the article to remove the reference.  There's little point stating the number of films, because this information can be found in the main Star Wars franchise article.  After all, you wouldn't describe Thunderball saying "one of the 23 films"  Mrstonky (talk) 01:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "One of the six main films" 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Star Wars (film) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 02:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: Umm, I'm pretty sure this was released in theaters as Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back and not just The Empire Strikes Back. The same goes for "Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi". Also the claim "The title, number and episode never actually appeared until after the release of "The Phantom Menace" is incorrect. Despite popular belief, the films were not given numbers for the 1997 Special Editions, nor the 2004 DVD releases. Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope was just called Star Wars in 1977, but was given its number and subtitle for it's 1981 re-release. Empire and Jedi were originally released with their respective numbers and subtitles.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 00717F (talk • contribs) 16:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This is correct. The original movie didn't have an episode or the subtitle "A New Hope". The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi were both released with the episode number. S806 (talk) 01:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think that is correct.  The vintage poster on IMDB for instance just reads The Empire Strikes Back, with Star Wars sort of wrapped around but not mention of episode.  EDIT: heh, it's the same poster used on this page.  Mezigue (talk) 15:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  But it is true. I have the original theatrical release movie, it says Episode 5 in the movie. Empire and Return both had the episode number in the original release.  S806 (talk) 15:29, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are you talking about the scrolling text at the beginning or what's written on the box?Mezigue (talk) 17:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  The original title of the movie  IMDB says "Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi" (original title). It has always been that. S806 (talk) 17:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

text:  As well as Empire strikes back. S806 (talk) 17:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not just about using the official title for the article title. WP:CRITERIA comes into play as well. For example, Borat is officially a much longer title, but it is simple and doable to render it in the current state. Similarly, The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi are universally recognized in their concise states; additional detail is just extraneous and can be mentioned in the opening sentence. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not arguing that the page be moved to "Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back", however the actual title needs to be the first thing in the  lead, and at the top of the info box. Those have always been the official titles, and the page needs to reflect that. S806 (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure about the infobox, but I think it is appropriate for the opening sentence of the lead section. (Think about actors' Wikipedia articles; full names in the opening sentences, but common names in infoboxes.) Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The full title and the four word title have both been in the lead, in bold, all along. What's changed is which one is first and which one is second. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, we put the true title first, and what it's also known as second. It's the way titles work.S806 (talk) 01:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

text:  They were released as The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi and the episodes numbers were incorporated into the titles much later.  I have no idea why you claim otherwise when all the posters, trailers, VHS sleeves and reviews of the time document this! Mezigue (talk) 20:42, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  This isn't true. The only one that was released without an episode number is the original star wars. Evidence "With this new backstory in place, Lucas decided that the series would be a trilogy, changing Empire Strikes Back from Episode II to Episode V in the next draft." Star Wars S806 (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  What is that sentence and how does it prove anything? And what is this "original theatrical release movie" you claimed to have yesterday?  What format is it and what does it say on the packaging? Mezigue (talk) 14:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with S806, Empire and Jedi were originally, theatrically released into theaters with their Episode numbers and subtitles, regardless of what the posters, trailers, VHS sleeves, reviews etc. say. The only film, in all of Star Wars, that wasn't released with a number was the original Star Wars, which was given its number and subtitle for the 1981 re-release. From May 21, 1980 to May 19, 2005 all Star Wars films were released with a Title, Number, and Subtitle.  Saying "The Empire Strikes Back (later released as Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back)" is like saying "The Phantom Menace (later released As Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace)"!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 00717F (talk • contribs) 04:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  No it isn't, because The Phantom Menace had Episode I on the posters, trailers, etc., at the time of its first release, and The Empire Strikes Back did not. A film is known by the title used in the promotional materials. That is the WP:COMMONNAME. Very few in the public notice if the title on the film itself is different. So the lead is quite accurate. - Gothicfilm (talk) 06:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

text:  "Empire and Jedi were originally, theatrically released into theaters with their Episode numbers and subtitles, regardless of what the posters, trailers, VHS sleeves, reviews etc. say."  Are you actually serious?  They were secretly called something else than what they were called? Mezigue (talk) 09:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Both of you aren't listening. It doesn't matter what the posters, trailers, etc., call it. They were both released into theaters as Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back and Star Wars Episode VI: Return Of The Jedi. You want proof? Go to any thrift shop and pull out a VHS from the 80s. The number and subtitle will be there, I promise. They weren't released just as The Empire Strikes Back and Return Of The Jedi. And yes Mezigue I am dead serious. And no they weren't "secretly called something else".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 00717F (talk • contribs) 16:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

text: It's you who isn't listening. You need to read WP:OFFICIALNAMES and WP:COMMONNAME. - Gothicfilm (talk) 20:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

text:  Like this VHs from the 80s of The Empire Strikes Back or this VHS from the 80s of Return of the Jedi you mean?  Mezigue (talk) 00:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, if you buy then play those home vidoes, the opening crawls will clearly say "Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back" and "Star Wars Episode VI: Return Of The Jedi". I bet my bank account on it. And no Gothicfilm, I don't care what the rules say, the official titles of these films are in the opening crawls in their original releases! Bite it!00717F (talk) 00:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well yes, it says the episode number before the title in the crawl, but it wasn't part of the title back then.  Hence not appearing anywhere else until the 90s. Mezigue (talk) 21:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Given that a number of the people posting here were not alive when the films were released, as a primary witness I can confirm that the phrase "Episode V" was NOT used in promotion for the film back in the 1980s. Despite "Episode V" appearing in the crawl -- confusing a whole load of cinema-goers in the process, who were not aware of the re-numbering/re-titling of the first movie -- all posters and merchandise referred to it only as either "The Empire Strikes Back" or "Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back".  (You can see this clearly in these images from the period: London Evening News front page Cinema hoarding)  (Indeed, much of the mainstream media of the day referred to it as "Star Wars 2".) Mrstonky (talk) 02:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titles Issues 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on The Empire Strikes Back. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110109001917/http://www.starwars.com:80/themovies/saga/preorder_bluray/index.html to http://www.starwars.com/themovies/saga/preorder_bluray/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There seems to be a bit of an edit disagreement between user:Robynthehode and an anonymous IP concerning whether the Emperor is to be referred to as "Darth Sidious" or "Emperor Palpatine", so I thought I'd throw in my two cents. I am not a Star Wars aficionado, having seen the trilogy fewer than a dozen times, none of the prequels, and maybe only a couple of the (non-canon) books that have come out. My only contributions to the Star Wars articles have been the inclusion of alt text for the benefit of visually impaired users of this encyclopedia who use screen readers.
As a non-expert in Star Wars, I had never heard of "Darth Sidious" until now. From my non-expert point of view, calling the Emperor "the Emperor" is to be preferred. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 11:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have also reverted that user numerous times over this.  They come back every few days and make the same incompetent edits on the same bunch of articles again and again.  This is a real-world versus fictional perspective issue really.  The name Sidious was invented for the prequel trilogy long after this film came out. Mezigue (talk) 12:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

text: Thanks to you both. I have been reverting the edits because: one, the facts regarding the 'Darth Sidious' inclusion are on the side of non-inclusion (unless I am mistaken and another editor can provide sources) and a non visible note asking for the Darth Sidious text to be excluded is repeatedly being ignored and often the note is also being removed. Such anonymous editors are essentially vandals. They don't have the decency to take their argument to the talk page or to make any comments when they make their edits. I for one will keep reverting such edits (as I do in other articles) on principle although I do regularly politely ask them in my reverts to take their challenge to the talk page - although this is ignored Robynthehode (talk) 13:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:   "Darth Sidious" versus "Emperor Palpatine" 

message: Should there be reference to the famous Time Magazine Cover during the Falklands Crisis, (soon to be Falklands War), in this article?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.88.20 (talk) 23:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time Magazine Cover 

message: There is a discussion in progress concerning the "epic space opera" label being used throughout the Star Wars film articles. Both epic and space opera are being questioned in the lead. Please voice your opinion on the matter at: Talk:Star Wars (film)#Epic sf war film. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genre classification 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on The Empire Strikes Back. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060526122446/http://movies.yahoo.com:80/movie/1800061638/awards to http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1800061638/awards
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: When Luke flies from Dagobah to Cloud City to help Leia and Han, there's no explanation of how he knows they are supposed to be there.
Whether he knows for some reason or just senses it or is told by the Force or the spirit of Obi Wan Kenobi or whatever, it should be mentioned.
And if the movie itself doesn't explain it, it's also worth mentioning. Teo8976 (talk) 12:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus, you know, the movie DOES explain it anyway. "I saw a city in the clouds." (L) "Friends you have there." (Y) DP76764 (Talk) 20:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

text: Yes thanks DP76764 (Talk) I'd forgotten about that but my general point still stands - an encyclopeadia article does not have to contain every piece of minor information about the article's subject Robynthehode (talk) 21:35, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  How did Luke know... 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Star Wars (film) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 04:59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: The second to last paragraph has some weird and anachronistic descriptions of events from prequels, with an incorrect citation (#27) to Kaminski's book.  I'm not sure why such a specific description of prequel events, starting with the parenthetical comment about Sith Lords is part of this section.  What does it contribute to an understanding of the writing process of Empire?  Also, I can't even verify that it is accurate -- those ideas are not in Kaminski's book.  I propose that the extra descriptions be deleted, and instead end the discussion with the act of combining Anakin and Vader into the same character, as that is the only supported claim from the citation.    Thekappen (talk) 01:17, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues in the "Writing" Section 

message: Many people incorrectly remember a famous quote from the movie as"Luke,I am your father" when it is really "No, i am your father" This confusion has generated multiple theories to explain the memories, including a change made for the special edition version, time travel, or parallel universes and has been described as an instance of the Mandela effect.
http://mandelaeffect.com/visual-cues-and-the-mandela-effect/
https://verumetinventa.wordpress.com/2015/09/16/mandela-effect-star-wars-time-shift-luke-i-am-your-father-proof/
https://www.reddit.com/r/MandelaEffect/comments/4pc1ly/james_earl_jones_confirms_luke_i_am_your_father/
http://paranormalglobe.com/2015/09/27/the-madela-effect/
https://www.thesun.co.uk/living/2131689/do-you-quote-the-luke-i-am-your-father-line-from-star-wars-if-so-youre-getting-it-wrong-and-this-is-the-reason-why/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:841:4100:8319:25b9:485d:9513:9e0f (talk) 05:32, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  quote confusion 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on The Empire Strikes Back. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160822120854/http://www.empireonline.com/movies/features/500-greatest-movies/ to http://www.empireonline.com/movies/features/500-greatest-movies/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/art-film.html?2004-09%2F09%2F11.30.film
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090919175551/http://connect.afi.com/site/DocServer/quotes400.pdf?docID=205 to http://connect.afi.com/site/DocServer/quotes400.pdf?docID=205
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150311190755/http://thewaltdisneycompany.com/sites/default/files/reports/fy13-form-10k.pdf to http://thewaltdisneycompany.com/sites/default/files/reports/fy13-form-10k.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Empire Strikes Back. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120505040737/http://blogs.starwars.com/holocron/4 to http://blogs.starwars.com/holocron/4
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:29, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on The Empire Strikes Back. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070427113114/http://www.ugo.com/channels/dvd/features/starwarstrilogy/makingthetrilogy.asp to http://www.ugo.com/channels/dvd/features/starwarstrilogy/makingthetrilogy.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060901065433/http://www.jitterbug.com/origins/flash.html to http://www.jitterbug.com/origins/flash.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930172348/http://uk.gamespot.com/atari2600/action/starwarstheempiresb/index.html to http://uk.gamespot.com/atari2600/action/starwarstheempiresb/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on The Empire Strikes Back. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://thewaltdisneycompany.com/walt-disney-company-acquire-twenty-first-century-fox-inc-spinoff-certain-businesses-52-4-billion-stock-2/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927080611/http://www.hometheatermag.com/news/100104hamill/ to http://www.hometheatermag.com/news/100104hamill/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: The plot section seems to do a good job of following the activities of most characters, save for C-3PO and R2-D2. It makes no mention of C-3PO after the droid's escape from Hoth. C-3PO did not stay on-board the Millenium Falcon the whole time after that, and the droid's exploration of Cloud City was key to revealing the Imperial presence there to viewers. C-3PO was carried on Chewbacca's back and even helped the band escape Cloud City by pointing out the presence of Stormtroopers on their heels.
Likewise, the plot section fails to indicate how R2-D2 came to be onboard the Millenium Falcon before the droid reactivated its hyperdrive in the final few scenes. Last we saw R2-D2, the droid had been on its way to Dagobah with Luke. Did R2 sink into the swamp? No. 
This plot summary seems to dismiss the importance of these droids to the film's plot. Nothing new. Though, I believe, Lucas had a different vision for them in the saga.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.184.249 (talk) 16:12, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  C-3PO & R2-D2 

message: Thread to add academic sources when we come across 'em:
* "Complex Design in 'The Empire Strikes Back'" from Film Criticism vol. 5 issue 3, Spring 1981 (exact date is March 1, 1981), pp. 38-52, by Anne Lancashire.
* https://www.starwars.com/news/studying-skywalkers-themes-in-star-wars-the-empire-strikes-back
* https://www.cbr.com/star-wars-last-jedi-empire-strikes-back-faith-religion/
* http://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1728&context=jrf - on page 33: "In the next Star Wars film, the "Empire Strikes Back" we see perhaps the most overtly religious of the films. While the prophecy of the Chosen One in the prequels, and statements about "the Will of the Force" conjured up images of monotheistic and Judeo-Christian overtones, now the Force is described more nebulously. It has been compared to Buddhism, Taoism, or other eastern religious beliefs."
JOEBRO64 02:17, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Academic source/analysis gathering 

message: Joe, I totally understand why you want to include the bolded part:
I agree that it's worth mentioning in the lead. BUT I think there are a few problems with this construction. 
First, if this information is important, it shouldn't be explained by embedding it in another sentence. Every clause or subclause you add to a sentence adds complexity and cognitive load on the reader and makes information harder to absorb. This is why I avoid parentheses in Wikipedia articles generally - information is either worth including or not, and if it's worth including, it's not worth burying. The "albeit" doesn't help.
Second, is it actually technically true? If you include the prequel trilogy and the more recent Solo and Rogue One spin-offs, isn't it actually the seventh chronologically? What if we include the Clone Wars movie (which I know nothing about)? In that case, the argument that this helps explain the confusing Episode V subtitle doesn't really hold up.
There has to be a better way to cover this information. It might need to be spelled out explicitly in a sentence or two, covering Lucas's intentions for a bigger saga etc. Popcornduff (talk) 02:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I second this. Not only is the comment arguably unnecessary there, it's also poorly worded. However, there is an alternative: the term "Skywalker Saga" more accurately refers to the trilogy of trilogies, but you could also say "the second film in the Star Wars trilogy" or "the second film in the original Star Wars trilogy". Toa Nidhiki05 02:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Valid points. I'm not too keen on the "Skywalker saga" wording—I personally consider it too promotional—but I will try to come up with a solution, maybe explaining it when the original trilogy is brought up in the fourth paragraph. JOEBRO64 20:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

text: The best way to communicate this information is the "Episode V" part of the title. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "albeit the fifth chronologically" 

message: Is it necessary to include in the lead what twist the talk is about? Or include the sentence in another part of the article, e.g. Reception? 37.252.82.120 (talk) 20:47, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. I've tried a slight rephrase. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's very significant and a milestone in cinema history. Plus it's 40 years old, and see WP:SPOILERS. Canterbury Tail talk 14:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: +1 JOEBRO64 15:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: plot twist

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Do or do not, there is no try. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 29#Do or do not, there is no try until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Aasim (talk) 09:15, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Do or do not, there is no try" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The story that Irvin Kershner told Harrison Ford to "improvise on the spot" and then he changed his line from "I love you too" to "I know" appears to be false.  There's a transcript of an audiotape made at the time that has them discussing the scene before shooting, and that's where Ford comes up with the line.  Also, the original line being replaced had Han promising Leia that he'd be back.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.88.64.228 (talk • contribs) 
:This is correct. An excerpt from the transcript of the on-set recording:
:The original line was "I'll be back," not "I love you too" as Kershner always tells it. Kershner and Ford talked extensively in between takes trying to work out an alternative line. Kershner is actually the first one to suggest Han respond with, "I know." The story Kershner has always told appears to be an embellishment.2601:14C:8300:2C3B:98B1:C9D0:3985:31B7 (talk) 04:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ad Lib During Filming 

message: The "Writing" section states that the Wampa scene was added to explain Hamill's face scar, while the "Filming" section debukes that statement. One of the two must be true, but the article should not contradict itself. Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:30, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hamill's scar 

message: The name "Watts" appear three times but never reveal his (or her?) full name and identity.--Jarodalien (talk) 02:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Another name need clarify: "Sutton, Varney, and Burtt", who's Burtt?--Jarodalien (talk) 03:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who's Watts? 

message: How is it that this page has only gained Featured Article status this month (January 2022) despite appearing on the main page as early as 2010 according to this page?
Thanks YappityYapp (talk) 18:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it was Demoted that year Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Would look forward to have it refeatured on May 4th. ZKang123 (talk) 07:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well it has. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:46, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  2022 FA on main page in 2010??? 

message: Forgive the seemingly banal inquiry but scrolling sections, using page search - this page offers quite a lot to unpack.
Does the production/filming/any section cover John Barry's unfortune and why he was replaced as second unit director?
Arcsoda (talk) 20:14, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, as stated in the Filming at Elstree Studios section, "Second unit director John Barry died suddenly in early June; Harley Cokeliss replaced him a week later."$chnauzer 20:26, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  TL;DR Any mention of John Barry's demise? 

message: As far as I know, the Emperor in Episode 5 was Marjorie Eaton, not Elaine Baker. JuleCA2021 (talk) 22:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The book by JW Rinzler is pretty clear it's not that way around, and the only evidence to the contrary is a tweet. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 00:04, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The Marjorie Eaton article cites a later edition of Rinzler's book.  Does the later edition of the book change the story? Anyone have access to a copy?--Srleffler (talk) 22:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Palpatine / the Emperor 

message: What about adding Empire's A+ CinemaScore to the critical reception section? I have 6 original news clippings of the A+ score in 1980 papers. https://i.imgur.com/fOSuTJT.jpg https://i.imgur.com/RY8KUyc.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/Ef1kBBT.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/9J9fohi.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/kblPdnE.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/Bp0u33e.jpg  --Egoshoppe (talk) 05:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A+ CinemaScore? 

message: The description of the weather sounds a bit extreme, it is usually pretty still when it is really cold. Finse has a meteorological station, and I found the official records at https://seklima.met.no/days/min(air_temperature%20P1D),max(wind_speed_of_gust%20P1D),max(max(wind_speed%20PT1H)%20P1D),surface_snow_thickness/custom_period/SN25840/nb/1979-03-05T00:00:00+01:00;1979-04-01T23:59:59+01:00
and indeed, the lowest temperature was -32 deg C on the 18th of March, but then, the winds were just at 6.7 m/s. The temperature fell the next day, and the wind picked up, so that storm would have been pretty extreme, but not as extreme as the text makes it seems. I have myself been skiing in conditions with -12 degC and 20 m/s at that time of the year at Finse, and that can be pretty terrifying if you're not equipped for it.
I'll leave it to others to add this to the text if it is interesting. Kjetil Kjernsmo (talk) 00:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes Finse has a weather station, however the filming was on the glacier, not in Finse. It's much higher, more exposed and colder than in the town of Finse where the weather station is, so I'd fully expect the weather to be much worse during the winter. Canterbury Tail talk 02:38, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weather at Finse 

message: There was an album of the entire movie also released.  One of the small records 2601:584:101:B0D0:7DFD:7FBA:C800:553B (talk) 02:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other media