Talk:Star Wars (film)/Archive 2

message: Honestly I can't think of anything wrong with it, but for aesthetic reasons maybe get a picture of Luke to counter the picture of Vader in the plot summary, but that's minor, good work everyone
(The Bread 06:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Passing 

message: Currently I have a sentence that connects Fisher with the quote and citation of video evidence from a film documentary. If the sentence is changed, even if a number of sites report the person as Ford, it will conflict with the current citation. Another citation from a random Star Wars fan site would be inferior to the current citation. However, if a number of sites report this and their sources are provided, than the sentence could be changed to something akin to "Harrison Ford and Carrie Fisher". The Filmaker 19:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The mention in  the article does not specifically cite Empire of Dreams, and Fisher was likely paraphrasing Ford, since Ford's original quote was "You can type this shit, George, but you sure can't say it", which was never filmed, as far as I know. However, the fact of the matter is that it is a Ford quote originally, as I have a more trusted citation than a fan site to back it up. See  for starters, and then , , ,  as well. There's also a reference in Skywalking, but I don't have a copy handy at the moment. Most of those pre-date Empire of Dreams. I will be changing it to the full Ford version as well. TheRealFennShysa 20:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ford vs. Fisher 

message: If you think that this article is ready to be nominated for Featured Article status, sign your username and the date (just use four tildes) in the following subsection.KdogDS 20:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: FAC

message: *KdogDS 20:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Users who think that [[Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope]] is ready for FA status

message: *I was the prime editor in the nominations of the prequel trilogy films and am the one working on the article currently for FAC, the article still needs a copyedit or two. My first copyeditor is using a program to edit, meaning that he will use one edit to copyedit the entire article. He was having some computer problems that have since been resolved and the copyedit will be done shortly. After that if User:Deckiller has the time, I'm hoping he will copyedit it as well. The last FAC received some major criticism for the prose problems, therefore the article shouldn't be resubmitted until they have been corrected. The Filmaker 22:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Users who do ''not'' think that [[Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope]] is ready for FA status

message: How come none of the Star Wars movies don't have a trivia section, while most of the other movie pages do? Can I add a trivia section without causing an incident? (lol) Rewt241
:An FA or GA article is made of flowing prose rather than a bulleted trivia section, the trivia is right in the article if it needs to be in there.  So if you added a trivia section, you would probably get reverted.  Darthgriz98 18:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, per WP:AVTRIV trivia sections are avoided as not only are bulleted lists, but they often times contain useless non-notable info that cannot be cited by a suitable source. If the information is notable enough, it can be merged into the other sections. You will notice that there are not any featured film articles that have trivia sections. So yes, if you attempt to create a trivia section you will most likely be reverted. :) The Filmaker 19:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Trivia? 

message: ..in my opinion, since "Star Wars" was the name of this film when it was released.  The fact that it was subsequently re-named should be less important.  The article that currently appears as Star Wars could be re-named "Star Wars Film Series" or something to that effect.  This "Episode IV" business only became widely known during the marketing blitz for "Episode 1" in 1999.  Before that, this film was known widely as Star Wars, with even the 90's VHS releases not saying "Episode IV" on them. Does anyone agree--I suppose if anyone agrees then this issue should be resolved before the FAC is closed. Spebudmak 00:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dissagree, although it was released as Star Wars, it is now officialy dubbed A New Hope and has been released under that title since then.  To name it Star Wars would be extremely confusing, as when most people search the term 'Star Wars' they are looking for the series on whole. Darthgriz98 00:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and according to WP:NAME, titles are to be chosen based on what the majority of English speakers would recognize. After Episode I, the majority of English speakers are familiar with the "Episode" titles. Titles are also chosen for "making linking to those articles easy and second nature." If you were to mention to someone on the street "Hey! I just saw Star Wars last night!" they would most likely reply "Oh yeah? Which one?" This would be a constant conflict issue among other articles. Finally, as a side note, it would upset the symmetry between the six film articles. The Filmaker 03:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The Wookieepedian 13:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  I kind of disagree.  For people the majority of people that didn't actually see original Star Wars film in the theater, they might not know what you mean when someone says Star Wars; but, if you saw the film (in the theater 1977) then you KNOW what someone is talking about when they say Star Wars.  I would agree with you on the consistency it creates for the name of the six articles. --Supercoop 22:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree. "Star Wars" was it's original for the 70's and 80's. The re-name was not very important. Same with V and VI. They should just be "The Empire Strikes Back" and "Return of the Jedi". Now the prequel ones, I don't mind having I, II, and III in the names. --James W.  20:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, for one, ROTJ and ESB were titled with the Episode title when they were released. The fact is that renaming the articles would create an enormous linking problem within other articles, which is also an element mentioned in WP:NAME. The Filmaker 20:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would love to live in a world in which Star Wars was Star Wars. Unfortunately by the actions of Lucasfilm and its president and business partners, this is not that world. The title "Star Wars" now signifies a much larger collection of work, both creative and commercial, and most of it garbage. We can't put the genie back in the bottle. Let's be satisfied that there is a rose among the thorns and that, by any name, it is still a rose. --Dystopos 01:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The title of this article should be "Star Wars" 

message: Congrats everyone! Now onto The Empire Strikes Back :) — Deckiller 17:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: FA status

message: If you have a "reliable" source that claims all jidaigeki are about samurai, I would very much like to see it so I can explain to them exactly how they are wrong. (BTW, even the Wikipedia article on the subject open states that they show the lives of the samurai, farmers, craftsmen, and merchants, and the film I mentioned in my edit summary makes almost no mention of samurai.) I did cite a source for the only potentially controversial change I made, but I will not reinstate it until I have checked it again (which may prove difficult as my DVD is missing). I also fixed a bad link. Please do not blindly revert edits like that again. If you have an issue with something I say, you are welcome to bring it up here or on my talk page (although if you do the former, please inform me personally or else I will likely not be made aware of it). elvenscout742 12:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do blind reverts of almost inherently valid edits not also need citations? 

message: Is Dennis Lawson really noteworthy here? I mean, his character is important to the plot, but he really doesn't have as much of a speaking part as, say, Garrick Hagon (Biggs Darklighter), who does not get mention. elvenscout742 10:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  In he ''Cast'' section... 

message: I've made a slight edit to the summary of the reviews. The selected quotes made it seem as though the picture was recieved negatively upon first release, which was not the case. --Jimmyrabbitte 14:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reviews and Reception

message: Shouldn't there be something about awards - especially as it won several Oscars ? -- Beardo 05:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awards 

message: So is this going to be showcased on the main page on May 25? The Wookieepedian 05:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the main page for the 30th? 

message: Frequent editors of this page might want to browse this reference. Berserkerz Crit 10:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Past History of Production

message: At Hostel (film) there is a template saying that the plot summary is to long. Well, here the summary is even longer, and yet it's a featured article. Shouldn't someone make the plot summary something like 50% shorter? If you want to know what it's about, just buy it. --Steinninn 17:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, looking at it again, the part that I thought was the plot summary was actually the production article with a spoiler warning on it. Maybe the plot summary isn't to long after all. --Steinninn 17:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot summary 

message: The Cinematic and literary allusions contains material that looks like original research to me, and is referenced to Star Wars Origins on http://www.jitterbug.com/ .  None of those references go anywhere, the jitterbug domain is now a cellphone site.  Are there other reliable references available? RB30DE 03:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Star Wars Origins References