Talk:Star Wars Holiday Special

message: Shouldn't this article be called The Star Wars Holiday Special rather than Star Wars Holiday Special?
Agree Czechia2016 (talk) 00:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: "The" Star Wars Holiday Special

message: "The only element from the holiday special where the canonicity is disputed is its claim that Chief Bast survived the destruction of the first Death Star from A New Hope."
I believe Greedo exists in the special, after being killed in Episode IV. 206.124.7.150 (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the Rodian character that appears in the special is named Bludlow, although I wouldn't be at all surprised if the costume was identical to the one created to represent Greedo.  Even so, it's not the same character. MaxVolume (talk) 06:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canon Error? 

message: It's not entirely correct that the special was broadcast in its entirety only once. Unfortunately I can't give precise details, having been rather small at the time, but in or around 1978/79 I saw the special in its entirety on television in New Zealand. At the very least, I'd imagine this would also mean that it was probably broadcast in Australia, and perhaps also England. Te Irirangi  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.154.97.226 (talk) 08:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it was broadcast on Network TEN in Australia. I had a recording of it on U-Matic tape at the time, that has since been damaged beyond repair. I daresay TEN still has the original 2" broadcast copy in their library/vault... wish I knew somebody who worked there! BTW, I believe the "aired only once" claim refers to the United States only; not world-wide. PSB136 (talk) 14:25, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

text: I'm sure that somewhere I read that it was broadcast a second time in the USA, but only on one station deep in rural southeastern Idaho and the last program before sign-off. Why? So it could qualify for some awards nominations. Bizzybody (talk) 00:15, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

text: Your memory as to where, when and whether it was broadcast is not a reliable source. To say anything about the show being broadcast will need a reliable source. - SummerPhDv2.0 23:25, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but information like this is often helpful for people searching for reliable sources. The anonymous user has given us a likely timeframe for an Australian broadcast (correctly providing it here on the talk page and not adding it to the article) so if someone now wants to look through TV listings for the month of August 1979, they might just find it. Then we could have the reliable source the article needs. -ProhibitOnions (T) 07:17, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only Once? 

message: I see that Ebay is on the article from where pirated video/DVD versions of the special is available and also peer to peer file sharing is on here as well under "Availability". IOffer also has pirated DVD copies of this special for sale through it's various sellers on it's site. I feel that IOFFER should be on the article under "Availability" regarding how it can be sought by collectors because if you were to look on that site and type in the search "The Star Wars Holiday Special" and click the search icon, there are lots of copies for sale on the site through their various sellers. I think that it is important that IOFFER also be added. 
What do any of you think? Thoughts and comments are appreciated Frschoonover (talk) 01:44, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ebay vs IOFFER 

message: * Someone moved it, although BDD dropped "The" and closed the request. George Ho (talk) 06:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's a confusion here. What I wrote above was what I wrote on the Technical Moves request, which is solely about uncontroversial moves. Moves requested on that page need to be uncontroversial, and by it's nature, and the fact that we need a discussion here, it clearly isn't. I didn't post that here, nor did I intend it to be included in a discussion about where the page should be. I have no particular opinion either way; merely that there's a consensus. GedUK  11:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move? 

message: For lack of a better term, there's a "plot hole" in this article. It states that Lucas had little if any involvement in the Special, quoting him as saying others made it. Yet, that doesn't explain the Boba Fett cartoon. Surely Lucas had to have been intimately involved in the making of that segment, given that not only does it feature a major character two years before his film debut, but even back in 1978 I remember people speculating that Nelvana might be lining up to do a spin-off animated series or standalone special. So while I can accept that Lucas may not have been involved in, say, the decision to have Carrie Fisher sing the theme song, or the Harvey Korman comedy skit, there must be something in the myriad of reliable sources relating to Star Wars to flesh out his involvement in the cartoon. Including whether there was ever any plans for a spin-off at that time (Nelvana, of course, went on to do the Droids and Ewoks cartoon series only a few years later so obviously Lucasfilm didn't hold anything against them!). 68.146.70.124 (talk) 16:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I edited the main article to quote Patty Maloney ("Lumpy") who stated that Lucas did indeed approve the "dailies" of each day's shooting... so he certainly did see Carrie singing and so on... and yet let it stay in. Further, the Muppet Show episode of Star Wars had the same look and feel as the SWHS, with C3PO doing a Fred Astaire Dance, the mighty Chewbacca dancing, Luke gargling a song... all as lame and cringe-worthy as Carrie and Korman in the SWHS. My vote is that he liked what he saw, and so repeated the variety-show concept in the Muppets; but then reneged later when the public ridiculed it. He should just man up and confess that it was all his fault. :) PSB136 (talk) 14:32, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Lucas involvement

message: Looking at the derivative version of the poster, I mistakenly assumed that it used "The". (closeup of the original) As it turns out, it didn't. Neither did the other poster. Although the opening includes "The", I am very sure that the decision to drop "The" is correct. The current infobox image uses "TM" in a teeny-tiny small font (and hard to see). --George Ho (talk) 19:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no posters.  These are ads from TV Guide.  The show itself uses "The" and the announce actually says "The Star Wars Holiday Special".  As has been noted, it is *never* referred to as "Star Wars Holiday Special".24.149.45.52 (talk) 00:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Posters don't use "The" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Star Wars Holiday Special. 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/20050528090452/http://www.staticmultimedia.com/content/film/features/feature_1115643931 to http://www.staticmultimedia.com/content/film/features/feature_1115643931
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051103040257/http://www.starwars.com/episode-ii/bts/me2/9.html to http://www.starwars.com/episode-ii/bts/me2/9.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061230030727/http://www.starwars.com/welcome/about/news/f20041222/indexp4.html to http://www.starwars.com/welcome/about/news/f20041222/indexp4.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080517050749/http://www.starwars.com/hyperspace/member/kessel/f20031119/index.html to http://www.starwars.com/hyperspace/member/kessel/f20031119/index.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://smdb.kb.se/catalog/search?q=%22stj%C3%A4rnornas%20krig%20och%20fred%22%20typ%3Atv%20datum%3A1978-2013&x=0&y=0
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) 07:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Pinging the user who originally added that the distributor was Disney when they bought Lucasfilm.As per the common understanding of the purchase (reffed and removed by IP/Huggums) Disney acquired all the distribution rights of the Star Wars films from Lucasfilm with the exception of the six films in the original trilogy and specifically all content originally aired on television. As this special was originally aired on television and it is not one of the films in the first two trilogies, it is clearly under the purview of Disney's distribution rights.The IP's argument that "Disney did not distribute this" is moot because one need not have distributed to be the entity legally allowed to. This assertion is actually original research, in my opinion. Huggums did not provide any rational for removing this content either. But the panoply of data suggests it's Disney's content, for instance whenever a version is uploaded to YouTube the copyright team that takes it down saying it's theirs is Disney, "This video contains content from Disney, who has blocked it on copyright grounds.".I know that's not admissable on its face, but there's nothing to suggest that this one special is somehow exempt from Disney's purchase, or, even more bizarre, actually counts as one of the six films in the first two trilogies. JesseRafe (talk) 17:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm weary of this debate. Your sources do not support the claim. I suggest removing them by restoring the original Wikipedia:STATUSQUO and adding a citation needed tag for someone to add a reliable source that actually supports the claim. This will make everyone (except maybe the IP user) happy. I will be done with the debate, JesseRafe will have the beloved content, and perhaps the baseless attacks against me will then stop. Also, I would kindly ask you to strike my name from the false statement "reffed and removed by IP/Huggums" per WP:BLP. Huggums537 (talk) 20:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: There's something you should know: As of yesterday, 20th Century Fox Television is now the property of The Walt Disney Company. AdamDeanHall (talk) 14:19, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks AdanDeanHall for that interesting information. Perhaps we can restore the content reflecting that new change along with a citation needed tag. Huggums537 (talk) 16:01, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Making all of this Mickey Mouse, more or less. Jonathunder (talk) 16:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't really change the status of this film, which was already always with Disney. The distributor should be restored and there should not be a citation needed tag because for the umpteenth time, refs do not go in the infobox. JesseRafe (talk) 16:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: All information added must be reliably sourced and there are other ways of sourcing other than putting it in the infobox such as inline attribution and footnotes... Huggums537 (talk) 17:17, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

text: JesseRafe The sock puppet investigation has now closed in my favor. I'll ask you kindly one last time to strike or remove the defamatory remark about me. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 20:48, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

text: No, Disney and fox have made a purchase agreement, but the sale has NOT gone through and it's not even clear if the DoJ will allow it due to antitrust concerns. --Ahecht (TALKPAGE) 15:46, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

text: I'm going to remove the line. Disputed info shouldn't be in the infobox, as complex issues such as who distributes a show that has only been aired once and never distributed again would better be described in the prose of the article. Per MOS:IBX, . There aren't any reliable sources claiming that Disney-ABC is the distributor, but MeTV, a TV network who are in a position to know who distributes content, credited it to 20th Century Fox Television in a 2016 article, IMDB lists CBS, etc. --Ahecht (TALKPAGE) 16:59, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahecht, please seek consensus before singularly making changes. I agree with your decision, but we should give Jesse and Adam a chance to respond before making changes. I'm going to revert your edit if it hasn't been done so already until we reach a consensus on this. Thanks for your input and participation. Also, JesseRafe was mostly right that it didn't really matter much either way since the issue here was that, though it's logical enough to combine all of JesseRafe's sources to come to the conclusion that Disney (is rightfully) the distributor even though none of the sources explicitly state that fact, so doing is expressly forbidden by policy as the very first specified form of synthesis, which generally constitutes original research. That is why we removed those sources and added the citation needed tag as a compromise. However, since Jesse pointed out that sources don't go in boxes and you brought up that this info should be in the proseline, I suggest we move it to the proseline. Huggums537 (talk) 17:46, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dsitributor? 

message: The sentence "It was also broadcast in New Zealand on TVNZ and in Australia on the Seven Network." is an uncited claim and I believe needs a  tag.-- Tenebrae (talk) 19:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:02, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 14 December 2017 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Star Wars Holiday Special. 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/20051020072824/http://starwarsgalaxies.station.sony.com/content.jsp?page=Wookiee%20Life%20Day to http://starwarsgalaxies.station.sony.com/content.jsp?page=Wookiee%20Life%20Day
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) 21:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I've tagged this "better source" needs. It misspells Carol Burnett as "Burnette", erroneously claims Art Carney, Diahann Carroll and Bea Arthur only made cameo appearances, and also appears to repeat a purported Maxim quote that only appears on Wikipedia and sources using Wikipedia to make that claim. I don't have time at the moment, but there's nothing in that article that can't be cited to better, more accurate sources.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:06, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: ABC News citation

message: There are assertions that appear multiple times within the article. An example is the repeated note that the Boba Fett animated short is considered the best part of the special. We get it. It doesn't have to be said over and over.
I don't have time to clean this up now (hit-and-run complaint, I know), but if anyone can strip out the redundancies, the article will be improved. Cernansky (talk) 19:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Article is Repetitive

message: The article implies that copies of the Holiday Special are hard to locate and need to involve "underground" sources.  However, there appear to be several versions floating around on YouTube for unrestricted public viewership (herre is one: Likely copyright violation link removed, per WP:COPYVIOEL. ). --Legis (talk - contribs) 16:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The special is copyrighted. Only the copyright owner (or their licensee) can distribute the work legally. So, for example, in the link you provided, "DJameyson" who posted the video would need to have either clearly owned the copyright to the special, been licensed by the owner or be using the work in compliance with fair use provisions. There is no indication any of these apply (and strong reason to believe they do not), so I removed the link per WP:COPYVIOEL. Most likely, that particular post will be taken down at some point when YouTube gets a DMCA takedown notice. - SummerPhDv2.0 19:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: YouTube

message: I have heard this repeated in fan circles ever since the sale LucasFilm to Disney but I have never heard an official conformation or denial. Can anyone clear this up?
2601:188:C502:7F50:1523:DB39:6D7B:9CE0 (talk) 03:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Did Lucas retain the rights to this?

message: Boba Fett actually made his first appearance in Star Wars: A New Hope
at the end of a scene where Han Solo talks with Jabba The Hutt about his bounty 216.223.198.134 (talk) 03:29, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: That was added in the 1997 Special Edition. Raymond1922 (talk) 15:55, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  This was not Boba Fett’s introduction in the Star Wars Universe 

message: Not sure if this is relevant or not … but, Disneyland,Anaheim, during the winter holidays, sells all sorts of “Life Day” souvenirs - shirts, mugs, ornaments - in their Star Wars area. So, love or hate the special, it’s definitely still being referenced. ( Experienced first hand in January 2023.) 75.107.41.198 (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural Impact, Etc. … 

message: Wouldn’t say the Inspector Spacetime special is “ a clear nod to the Star Wars Holiday Special” as Inspector Spacetime is a parody of Dr. Who, which has numerous holiday specials. 75.108.235.183 (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Community reference?