Talk:Star Wars/Archive 1

message: Do you think that I should put this in the article? It seems logical to do so, but I am not sure about it. Maybe I should put it in one of the other minor articles like Yuuzhan Vong? BTW, I made it myself.
Also, if anyone needs some good boilerplate or article text effects (i.e. background color, borders, etc.) all you have to do is point me to the article. ;)
:JediMaster16 02:27, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  That boiler plate isn't encyclopediatic (sp?).  If anything, it should go here in discussion where things are significantly more informal.  Oberiko 02:48, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open SW wikipedia tasks 

message: What was the result of the lawsuit? The commentators on the DVD said one of the terms of the settlement was that the laser guns could not shoot "beams" of light. Can anyone document this and other terms of any settlement or judgment? Ellsworth 15:25, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suit against [[Battlestar Galactica]] 

message: At Talk:Grand Moff Tarkin, User:Husnock says that his understanding was that the Star Wars Homepage (i.e. Lucasfilm's starwars.com) had given permission for text from their article on Tarkin to be copied to Wikipedia (this edit). Can anybody here confirm that? It seems unlikely to me, but I'm not a Star Wars specialist. --rbrwrˆ 13:49, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Grand Moff Tarkin

message: Does anyone know much about Lucas' original plans for the movie(s) back in the 1970s? Various articles give snippets (e.g. a lot of action in A New Hope was shifted from Coruscant [then named Alderaan] to the Death Star; Mace Windu was originally intended to be one of the key characters) - anyone bold enough to do an article on the full development? Timrollpickering 15:50, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Lucas' original plans

message: Look at it - see if the artist minds--Txredcoat 06:58, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  what about this picture? 

message: I'd like us to take a look at the last edit (dated 16 Dec 2004 by user Jon Hart - I don't want to start a war on this page. 
Much talk is made of Canon and it's application. However, we've got to come to an agreement. Please see the following comparison:
Opposing Viewpoints
Your thoughts regarding this please.
Also, to the posters - if you wish to defend your statements, please submit evidence.--Txredcoat 21:43, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerning the last edit 

message: The article says Star Wars takes place in the Vordarian Beltway Galaxy.  Do a Google search for "vordarian beltway galaxy".  Every site that mentions it says the same thing about it, and at least one admits to getting this information from supershadow.com.  I say we remove the information right away.
User:SpaceCaptain
:If every site reads the same, then maybe its generally accepted as being canon. It also says the same on the Star Wars galaxy article. Riffsyphon1024 01:12, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the general policy is to leave fanon out of articles.  Only information with a legitimate source should be written in here. Oberiko 16:09, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My mistake. I realize the fathom of the situation now. Shall I also remove it from the galaxy article? Riffsyphon1024 23:11, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location of the Star Wars galaxy 

message: We need to work out how much of Star Wars III is speculation and how much is actually known. Help. DJ Clayworth 22:42, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Need some Star Wars experts

message: The article contains this sentence:
''
The movies revolve around the transition between the Galactic Republic and the Galactic Empire during the Battle of Naboo and the Clone Wars against the Trade Federation and its allies in the Confederacy of Independent Systems led by the Sith (wrongly thought to be long dead after the Great Jedi-Sith Hyperspace Civil Wars that ended in the Battle of Ruusan, but in reality, operated in secret) who also secretly control the Old Galactic Republic, as well as the Galactic Civil War that erupts between the Rebel Alliance and the Galactic Empire in an epic struggle between good and evil. 
''
Can someone translate it to English?
:I threw it out entirely; it didn't make any sense at all to me, and made the movies seem more like a ancient Greek history lesson. I rewrote it. Feel free to rewrite my rewrite. - Brian Kendig 23:18, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation request 

message: I just rewrote this section, and I now believe it's more accurate. I also cut out some information that I felt wasn't important enough to be in the main Star Wars article. The old version will be at my user page for the time being.  Thoughts?-LtNOWIS 04:23, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanded Universe 

message: "The prequel trilogy seems to pose a mistrust for neo-capitalism, displayed by the greedy Trade Federation.  The Federation's own profit agenda is their downfall. Perhaps this entails Lucas as a democratic socialist."-I removed this from the the Themes section, shortly after an anon. user put it in. I have several reasons.  First, I couldn't find "neo-capitalism" on Wikipedia, not even under another article. Second, based on what I found looking up "neo-capitalism" it doesn't seem to match the trade federation's practices. Third, the main reason they fail is that they break the law and are mean to people, who proceed to fight them. Sure, they wanted profits, but it didn't really have anything to do with any neo-capitalist sentiments-LtNOWIS 04:32, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Themes-text removal

message: Any idea how the Dark Side and Galactic Empire equates to Communism and Soviet Union?  After all, this was in the Cold War.  Boohoo to those who claim this was a Nazi thing; so Godwinesque.
This sounds like crap, I don't see any way in which the two are linked.
----
Does anyone know what the line "Star Wars makes brownies" means in the article?  Am I just missing a very simple joke?
: It was probably vandalism.  It does not seem to be there now.  Johntex 21:34, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Themes 

message: According to the Interview on the 1995 Video release of Star Wars Episode IV Lucas states that Ep4 is the first act of the original Star Wars movie script. He clearly states in that interview that there were only two other parts, thus he wrote the episode 4 5 and 6 as one movie and splintered into 3. the second Interview on the Episode V tape goes into this even more, Down to calling it the middle act of a three act play. On the interview on Episode 6 he clearly says he is currently writing the script for the episode III.
He also states that in order to write the first script he had to write a back story, where Vader came from and his wife and Luke and Leia. He said that is the basses for the story he was working on "now" being 1995. That says to me he had yet to write episodes 1 2 and 3, he only had a general story that helped him write the scripts.
Because of this I am changing what it says on the page about being 6 movies as one. --68.4.250.200 23:02, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Six movies or three?

message: *Is there any concrete knowledge on the three theoretical sequels? -Litefantastic 19:30, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That depends on what you mean by "concrete".  Lucas has recently claimed he never intended to make nine films and that he is done with the main movies.  However, it has been speculated that his successors-in-interest (his heirs and the corporations involved) will end up making them, even if it is over Lucas' dead body after Lucas' death. For example, see: This Houston Chronicle article off a recent newswire. The trouble is, any denial by Lucas that any more will ever get made can't be considered the final word.  There is no way to know for sure that he (or his heirs) won't change his mind later.  Therefore, the only thing concrete would be an announcement they will be made, or their actual making, depending on how strict you want to be. Johntex 22:01, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: VII, VIII and IX

message: I deleted the section "Comparison to Other Themes". The section was nothing but barely concealed propaganda. It was purely speculative, and contained no useful information. George Lucas did surely not intend Star Wars as a parable on protestant christianity.
 -- Dedalus
I disagree.  The mere fact of his association with Campbell, and the virgin birth part with Anakin, point to quite the opposite.
 -- MaxiPad
Then go ahead and produce some evidence! As far as I remember from an interview, George Lucas is not even a christian, save a christian propagandist. If you have better evidence, go ahead and prove me wrong. And then adapt the section to contain some facts. Until then, leave it as it is.
 Dedalus 09:29, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
It makes as much sense as Lucas' theming it after the Nazi Holocaust. From what I know- Lucas is neither Jewish nor German!  It does however have 1) A virgin birth, 2) a religion at centerpoint (As Han Solo described Jediism on board the Falcon), 3) Romanesque names (Palpatine, similar linguistically to Constantine, elector of Trinitarianism).  Further- Jediism/Judaism (pre Pauline Christianity), not much difference there!  The content should be in there if the Nazi stuff is there. It is no less plausible.
 -- MaxiPad 
I've meanwhile reread some interviews with Lucas. Lucas states that for him all religions are equal. So I guess he wouldn't deem one of the world's largest religions the "evil" side, would he? Secondly, you're quite right about the nazi stuff: I don't think that belongs in here, either. But we can take care of that at some other time and at least the nazi stuff is not offensive to one sixth of the world's population.
Dedalus 13:00, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
Whatever the facts, someone make it make sense. I have no idea what it's saying after the first two or three lines.
S. Way
I agree with Daedelus. I was about to put a disputed fact or NPOV dispute message on the article. I have researched the contributions of anonymous user 24.176.6.165, and they seem to be bewildering and contradictory, but on the whole, take an anti-trinitarian, and in particular, anti-Catholic slant. He has contributed to a number of different articles, and I am beginning to suspect he is a vandal. I am a fairly new contributor, so could someone tell me where I should report suspicious activity from anonymous users? Thanks InFairness 09:58, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison to other themes 

message: The meta-narrative of "good vs evil" as an abstraction, has unnecessarily burdened the Original Saga via its simplistic reductionism.  This is not to say that there are not any profound and diametrically opposed modes of human reality in them.  And clear no less.
Contrast this with the tendency in the leading films of the 1970's, which sought out the ineffable and ambiguous for contention of the Oscar.
I choose to term the two modes, as forcibly in tension as any, short of the "Ten Commandments", as any American film:  Domination and Freedom.
And it is these very "horizon motivating" impeti, so permeating both character, dialogue, (however "wooden" these are to have been criticized as) and scenic management and driving them along "necessarily" towards realization and fulfillment, and informing all of their developments, that the later Prequels lack.
Indeed, a great deal of waste is to be observed.  Note this especially in scenic management, where the effects seam to be their own raison d'etre, being arbitrary and superfluous, instead of being of value only in service to the drama:  Domination/Freedom.
Little wonder of the fans' rage - as in baseball, it is the fans who are the reason for the thing, or at very least, are its best gauge.
Domination and Freedom pursue their "inner logic".  It's really a relational logic that garners its being from its role in the drama of "human reality"(non-human aliens or other species could potentially share in our being - self and cosmically aware).  Though the actual cosmos, by all signs, is cold, dark, empty, and radically uninterested in the struggle.
Freedom wants an openness towards the cosmos; it places a premium on experience.  It is singular and unique.  If this doesn't work and does not express itself, that aspect of "human reality"(I know not its name) which gives rise to it will fold in upon itself as a cancer, or at the very least, if "freedom" wasn't an overriding motivating issue to begin with, a sort of "spiritual diabetes".
Domination is easy...  to understand!  Yet this impetus has its place.  If your body did not try to "lock down" on the situation, keeping everything in order as much as it could, hunting down parasites, obsessing over equilibriums, etc. you would cease very shortly.
Clearly freedom, since its essence is desire, earns our sympathy over the base and rote, however valid on its own level, domination.
It is this tension that is the essence of the drama in question here.  Other modes of tension include: Love and the experience of its limitations and disappearance(Sophicles, Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliette, Wagner's Tristan und Isolde, and virtually all 19th Century(non-Russian) literature).
Meaning in life and the experience of its limitations and disappearance(Hamlet, Macbeth, Lear, Wagner's Woton, the Russians! ...or nearly all of 20th Century lit.).
And also, starting out unawares, and reaching fufillment(Goethe's Wilhelm Meister, Wagner's Parsifal).
Though the Prequels leave us gasping for air in regards to drama, they do, to be sure, display an impressive command of the intricacies of the political world that gives us much to "chew on" in regards to backstory.  But, even nonwithstanding the wasted scenes, characters, and dialogue, is it necessary to use up precious film time and space for this?
P.S. This writing on the Prequels does not take into account the yet-to-be released Revenge of the Sith.  However, from many reports, it leaves us with a "New Hope".  
Indeed, it's looking like it's going to be the "smorgasbord" of the series.                                     
                            
--Scroll1 04:16, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the Films' Focus. 

message: In my opinion, the whole second part of section "Themes" is useless and does not belong here. That is for several reasons:
1. True, one can compare Palpatine to Adolf Hitler in certain respects. Both turned a decaying democracy into an evil dictatorship, limited freedoms of the people, used fear as their primary tools, they turned the focus of public antipathy to some ethnic or political or whatever group to distract from internal problems, etc. But then again, most of that can be said about most despots in world history: Nero, Oliver Cromwell, Robespierre, Mussolini, ...
2. There are a lot of crucial aspects in which the two differ. First of all, even Palpatine did not pursue the complete extinction of a whole ethnic group. It that respect, a comparison to Hitler would even do Palpatine unjustice. And, what is worse: it relativizes the crimes of Hitler. A comparison to Moussolini e.g. would be much more fitting, especially since Moussolini was indeed overthrown by an internal rebellion.
3. Most of the shown similarites are quite obvious and to my opinion they do not qualify as the sort of information you would expect in an encyclopedia.
--Dedalus 16:55, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
"Palpatine did not pursue the complete extinction of a whole ethnic group"
But Palpatine attempts the entire destruction of the Jedi race.
Here are the main simularities I see between the two - 
You have the Weimar Reepublic 
You have the Galactic Republic 
Hitler gets appointed Chancellor of the Republic and issues emergency decrees and pronounces himself Fuhrer 
Palpatine gets appointed Chacellor of the Republic and issues emergency decrees and pronounces himself Emperor for ever 
The Third Reich is formed 
The Galactic Empire is formed 
Hitler has stormtroopers 
The Emperor has stormtroopers 
Hitler purges all his enemies and "inferiors" 
The Emperor launches the Jedi purge 
Hitler puts Jews and others in ghettos 
The Emperor puts non-human species in segregated parts of Coruscant 
Eventually both lose in wars and eventually both become Republics again
--------------
Dear anonymous,
excuse me if I'm wrong, but it appears that you just wrote a summary of the section I'm criticizing. I guess it would be more helpful if you tried to reply more directly to my arguments. Anyway, I'll take the opportunity to illustrate again what I mean:
* You talk about the "destruction of the Jedi race". - Hm, the Jedi don't seem like a race to me. They are a religious order, an occupation group, and for palpatine they are first of all political opposition which -- like any good tyrant -- he has to get rid of. This is nothing like Hitlers antisemitism, which targeted anyone of jewish descent, regardless of political affiliation, profession or practised religion.
* "Hitler did not have "stormtroopers. "Sturmtruppe" is nothing but the German word for "assault team". Assault teams in the German army were no special feature of the Third Reich nor had they any special role in the holocaust whatsoever.
* All the other similarities -- while true -- do not exclusively apply to Hilter. Palpatine is more the archetype of the dictator who rises to power by quasi-legal means. E.g. if you make yourself acquainted with the biography of Benito Mussolini you will find that he fits the comparison to Palpatine even better than Hitler, as Mussolini -- unlike Hitler -- was toppled by an internal rebellion and not by an outside force.
* Even if we assume that Palpatine actually represented Hitler, there would be no need to have such an extensive section on that matter. A small statement of one or two sentences would be enough. All that delving into the details of actual and supposed similarities is quite obvious and trivial. It is not information. Therefore, it does not belong into an encyclopedia.
Regards, Dedalus 15:05, May 20, 2005 (UTC).
--------
"Palpatine is more the archetype of the dictator who rises to power by quasi-legal means"
Umm, and Hitler didn't. He was appointed chancellor (the same position that Palpatine obtains) of the Weimar Republic by President Hindenburg in 1933 which was a legal move and completely how the Weimar constitution said that things should be done. He then used his power to turn himself into a dictator. 
"Hitler did not have "stormtroopers"
Ummm, yes he did he just got rid of them in the Night Of The Long Knives, learn your history.
"Mussolini -- unlike Hitler -- was toppled by an internal rebellion and not by an outside force."
Int the context of Star Wars an outside force in your words would have to be another galaxy and I can't see that happening. If you are reffering to the inside force being Darth Vader when he kills the Emperor then I can actually see where you are coming from. 
--------------
"Umm, and Hitler didn't. [...]"
Um, hello? "quasi-" is defined by Merriam-Webster as "in some sense or degree". "In some sense legal" seems to me a pretty good summary of Hitler's way to power. What's your problem with that? (Consider the crucial role of the Enabling Act and the circumstances under which it was passed.)
"Ummm, yes he did [...]".
You mean the Sturmabteilung (SA). Concededly, this term has been (mis)translated as "stormtroopers". Nevertheless, the SA was a band of thugs in party uniforms and not an army like the Palpatines stormtroopers.
"[An] outside force in your words would have to be another galaxy and I can't see that happening"
True. That's my point. (Unless you suggest that Lucas accidentially made the Empire to emcompass the whole galaxy, so he couldn't ("oops!") bring an outside force into play. That's not your point, is it?) The "internal force" I am talking about is, of course, the rebellion. (Regardless of whether Palpatine was finally killed by Vader or not.)
Besides, it would be nice if you got yourself an account an signed your contributions. Regards, Dedalus 17:42, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
--------------
Errr, the Jedi ARE NOT A RACE. The Jedi are made of many races. Sheesh. Same thing with the jewish fanatics who seem to insist that
jews comprise a "race" which they don't. There are indian and african jews as well as slavs arabs and germanic jews. Sheesh.
----
If the Jedi are not a race and Jews are not a race then it cannot be said that Palpatine and Hitler are different because one tried to wipe out a race but another didn't. If, like the Jews, the Jedi are made up of lots of races then they, like the Jews, constitute an ethnic group and so simularities can be seen.
----
Dear anonymous,
Hitler saw jews not as a religious but as an ethnic group. That's why practitionors of other religions of jewish descent suffered just like practicing jews under Hitler (see e.g. Edith Stein). That's why Hitler called his ideology anti-semitism and not anti-judaism (see Anti-Semitism for details).
Regards, Dedalus 15:05, May 20, 2005 (UTC).
----
"That's why practitionors of other religions of jewish descent suffered just like practicing jews under Hitler"
I think you'll find that Christians didn't get sent to the camps and many Christian churches collaberated with Hitler, there was even a Reich church. And the Catholic Zentrum party supported Hitler on his enabling laws. Also many Arab and Islamic countries cooperated with the Nazis in attempt to wipe out "the greater evil" of the Jews.
----
Dear anonymous,
it would really help if you read my contributions carefully. I said "of jewish descent". You even quoted it! (That's "practitioners of jewish descent" of course.)
Regards, Dedalus 07:16, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
--------------
Question:  If Palpatine was a pro-human 'racist,' why did he have Darth Maul as a Sith Padawan?  He didn't know about Anakin by then, did he? Citizen Premier 03:09, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Themes: The nazi stuff 

message: A few years ago, there was an exhibit here in San Diego of 'The Art of Star Wars.'  It had real models and such.  Does anyone know if it's still touring?  If so, it should be mentioned in the article.  Citizen Premier 03:15, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Star Wars Exhibit

message: I'm removing the entire "Third Reich" section because I believe it draws parallels which either aren't there at all, or are weak. In specific:
*Both men begin their careers as outspoken political activists who gain control of their respective governments after the Chancellors of each are removed from office. But Palpatine was elected fairly and peacefully before he began his dirty work, whereas Hitler was an outspoken force before he was part of the government.
*The first measure both enact in office is one limiting the freedoms of the people. No specifics are given about Palpatine's "emergency powers" in the movies, are there? I see no reason to believe he's imposing hardships on citizens or restricting business; I get the idea his "emergency powers" are more along the lines of being able to act without Senate debate or approval.
*Both use the disenfranchised and down-trodden to perform their dirty work. Palpatine isn't shown recruiting the unwashed masses or organizing any grass-roots movements to overthrow the government.
*The governments both men create are openly racist and xenophobic. There's no evidence that Palpatine is racist, and the xenophobia is an Expanded Universe concept.
*Both enact mass exterminations of certain groups of people. I don't think the Jedi are numerous enough to be a "mass extinction". Also, they are killed after they are declared enemies of the Republic; their deaths are more like the deaths of enemy soldiers.
*Both men's troops are called Stormtroopers. Also, the uniforms of officers in the Empire are extremely similar to the uniforms worn by members of the Nazi party. The Nazis did not have "stormtroopers", and I don't think the officer uniforms are particularly similar.
From the wikipedia page on the SA - "The Sturmabteilung (SA, German for "Storm Division" and is usually translated as stormtroops or stormtroopers)"
So the Nazis did have storm troopers.
And also a mass extinction does not relate to the amount of people killed it refers to a extremely high percentage of a group of people. Seeing as nearly all the Jedi got killed I think it can be counted as a mass extinction. The fact that they are declared enemies actually links them more to the Communists in Germany after the Reichstag fire much more than enemy soldiers.
"I get the idea his "emergency powers" are more along the lines of being able to act without Senate debate or approval" Isn't that exactly what Hitler did so that he didn't have to rely on Reichstag support?
There are parallels between Palpatine and many other controversial leaders throughout history, but the connections to Hitler in specific aren't very strong ones. - Brian Kendig 12:08, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Third Reich 

message: Does anybody else find that last bit, especially the last paragraph to be very POV? I mean it seems clear the people who wrote it are siding with the fans who hate George Lucas's revisions, especially when you end that section like that. At the end of the day, it's still his works, and talking about the artists involve and whether they're okay with it doesn't totally jibe with me. Just my two cents. --67.70.22.78 19:12, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Re-release stuff

message: I think this article needs another name change. First of all, it should be Star Wars saga, not Star Wars Saga. Second, it should be in parentheses (I think). Third, should it be Star Wars (series) or Star Wars (saga)? KramarDanIkabu 19:44, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  saga or series? 

message: I think Bacon's version reads better, personally. — Phil Welch 22:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  General Plan of Action 

message: This doesn't make any sense to me: Star Wars is a science fantasy saga inspired from a fictional universe created by writer/producer/director George Lucas in the early 1970s." This would suggest that George Lucas created the Star Wars universe first and then, inspired by his own creation, decided to create a saga set in that universe. But that doesn't match the apparent reality of Lucas' creation process. I'm changing it back for now. Justin Bacon 01:45, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's fair to say that George Lucas ended up creating a fictional universe, commonly referred to as "Star Wars" or "the Star Wars universe", which has become important in its own right. I simply object to the claim that the universe inspired the creation of the films; rather than the reality, which is that the creation of the universe arose from the films. Justin Bacon 03:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  In my view, Lucas' contribution comes far short of "creating" the "universe" in the sense that it is described here. He did create the "saga" in the sense of the 6 films, and he is active and inescapable in the development of the bigger phenomenon, but it is only by the unlikeliest stretch "his creation" (and, as you note, NOT the inspiration for the 1977 film by ANY stretch) Dystopos 04:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant that he came up with the general and basic ideas, the universe, the characters, the locations, etc. He, along with all the other authors created stories (the saga) based on his characters. The Wookieepedian 04:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually, I think it would stretch things to credit Lucas with the creation of all the ideas, characters, and locations. The basic premise of the universe is not Lucas's sole creation just like the stories weren't his sole creation. — Phil Welch 03:28, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm more than willing to credit Lucas with the initial impetus of the Star Wars films and the Star Wars universe, though, and to describe him as the "creator" of both. Clearly other creators have contributed, but if someone asked you, "Who created Star Wars?" The answer would still be, "George Lucas." Justin Bacon 03:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Just saw your most recent revision, removing the phrase "fictional universe" entirely. I can live with that version, too. Justin Bacon 03:43, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I think your wording of the phrase "Star Wars saga" is notably not a standard one. For example, Revenge of the Sith was promoted as "the saga comes to an end". In other words, IME, when someone refers to the "Star Wars saga" they're talking narrowly about the story of the six films. If they want to refer to the wider body of Star Wars material, they'll use a differnt term (such as "Expanded Universe" or "Star Wars tie-ins" or whatever). IOW, I find your version to be factually questionable and very misleading. Justin Bacon 03:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on how you look at it. Some refer to the films as the "saga," others, the entire story as the "saga." What I mean by the choice of words I had is that he created the general ideas, and he, and other authors and artists created stories based on his ideas. I didn't reallize at first that this would seem confusing. The Wookieepedian 03:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You will find that many of the truths you cling to depend greatly on your own POV. Dystopos 04:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saga Influenced Universe? Saga is Universe? Universe influenced Saga? 

message: Maybe some of you are familliar with the Marvel Chronology Project.  It's an effort to catalogue every canon appearance of every Marvel character and arrange them in chronological order.  Has anyone started such an effort for Star Wars?  There are so many SW characters spread across various media.  It'd be great if there was a way to track character arcs this way.--StAkAr Karnak 21:36, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This information exists in other places.  For example, see www.theforece.net/timeline.  Wikipedia does currently have some Timeline articles to aid in navigation.  For example, see Timeline of the Texas Revolution.  I think a Star Wars character based chronology would be appropriate for inclusion conceptually.  It would be difficult in practice because of the sheer amount of information.  Why not Be Bold and start the article?  Johntex 21:51, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We already have the article: Dates in Star Wars.  Star Wars timelines have been around for a long time.  Lucas's publishing wing even includes timelines in most of its books. Palpatine 01:32, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Star Wars Chronology Project 

message: "Some purists reject the Expanded Universe, believing that only the events in the Film Series are part of the "real" Star Wars universe."
This is true, so is it POV for wikipedia articles to indiscriminately mix EU and movie source material when describing a particular character?
I don't think it matters if it's in the movies or not as long as it's authorized by George Lucas.
In my mind, a good article about the Millenium Falcon (for example) would have more information about which model-builders contributed to its design and what model-kits were scavenged for parts and how its flight was storyboarded and composited into the final print than about which fictional shipbuilder built it in what speculative timeframe and how the fragmentary dialogue from Ep. V may or may not conflict with the backstory presented in Comic Book X or Novelization Y, or what the actual nature of its weaponry might be based on how a TIE fighter explodes when hit... But that's just me and my POV. Dystopos 04:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the only correct answer here is all three: A good article about the Millenium Falcon should detail the ship in the real world (model-builders and conceptual art); the core canon of the films; and the Expanded Universe. And clearly distinguish between all three. Justin Bacon 23:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus, the EU is official canon, so it really doesn't matter the POV of the editors. The Wookieepedian 00:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But there's acknowledged dispute over whether EU material should be accepted as canon or not. Even if you don't want to consider this a POV issue, the distinction exists (even in Lucasfilm's acknowledge of EU material as canon, they draw the distinction), so it not only makes sense to acknowledge that distinction; it makes the article genuinely more useful. Justin Bacon 13:56, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: These are good points. I wholeheartedly support clear distinctions between three contexts, the film production, the 6-film storyline, and the fictional universe as it has been fleshed out beyond the films. Dystopos 05:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem 

message: I personally think the article should be expanded a bit and cleaned up a bit before it could become a Featured Article. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:22, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Right now this article isn't nearly up to Featured Article quality. But I would like it to be. Anyone interested in improving the quality of this article should take a look at The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, a featured article that Star Wars should try to emulate. TheCoffee 08:24, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Article 

message: Can we get some form of consensus on whether to use the VHS or DVD box set art? Is there REALLY all that much difference? Devilbat
:I'm in support of the DVD release box. It represents the latest version of the series and also has a more epic look to it than the VHS look. I think, though, that eventually this page will need an image, hopefully from the boxed set, that stands for the entire saga, rather than just the classic trilogy. Adamwankenobi 23:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We'll get one this November when the six DVD set is released. Until then, the 2004 release DVD box is better looking, even if it's not as ideologically correct with the Han-shoots-first crowd. — Phil Welch 02:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it has been confirmed that a boxed set will be released this November, that was more of a TFN rumor. Anyway, if anyone can find a fan-made image, but professionally made, I think that that would be welcomed on here by all types of fans. I agree that the DVD box is the best right now, but this edit war will continue that way. I suggest an administrator protect this page until a compromise can be made. Adamwankenobi 02:22, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: Is there an article on any of the tv series yet? Not the cartoon. Some information can be found here. Jacoplane 02:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I created it. The one for the live action series is called: the "Star Wars: Live Action TV Series" page that is on the template. The animated series, since it is a continuation of the Clone Wars micro-series, I combined it with that article. The micro-series is listed under "2-D Run" in the article, and the new series is under "3-D Run" Feel free to contribute. Adamwankenobi 02:10, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  TV series 

message: Today I had a good read of the article, and looking at it more thouroughly I noticed many flaws. I already prepared a possible new version of the text, and am working on extensions for the parts I would like have edited out. Then those elongated paragraphs could be used for a new article or employed in the articles of each seperate episode. What do you guys reckon? 
Here is my idea for a possible reconception of the article: 
Any information on the writing process I think should be added to the Episode IV article.
--E.P.I.C. 22:44, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion for changes 

message: My friend and I had an argument, the argument was besides the obvious suspects (Chewbacca, the Ewoks, Owen Lars), who were the most outwardly hairiest and unhairiest Star Wars characters from the movies? I think it is Obi-Wan Kenobi for hairiest, and Mace Windu for unhairiest. Croat Canuck 05:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hairyness 

message: I have protected this page temporarily to let all the editors involved in this article, especially User:A Link to the Past and user:Adamwankenobi.  Hopefully for the good of the wiki these disputes can be quickly and easily resolved so that this article can get back to normal editing, I for one am starting to get tired of the constant warring between you two on articles. Jtkiefer T | @ | C  ----- 03:37, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
:(pointless bickering moved to User_talk:Adamwankenobi)
I've unprotected the page, since things seem to have cooled down. Guys, remember to assume good faith, act with civility toward one another, and don't be a WP:DICK. Coffee 23:30, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And I went ahead and moved the above "discussion" to Adam's talk page. Coffee 23:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  protected 

message: According to my (8 year old, at the time) memory, the title on the crawl in a drive-in in 1977 was "Episode IV: A New Hope", however, many people I have talked to are equally sure that they saw no such heading on the crawl. I recently found an explanation:
George Lucas, who conceived, wrote, and directed Star Wars, always envisioned it as part of a larger whole, and as soon as it became apparent that the series was successful enough for the sequels Lucas intended, a new batch of prints was ordered, and audiences began to see “Episode IV – A New Hope” added to the opening crawl (the words that float up the screen at the beginning of the movie).
I remember the first time, back in ’77, that I saw the new lines in the opening crawl, and I heard people around me in the theater saying, “Huh? What? Episode IV?” as soon as they saw it. They had already seen the movie from its original set of prints, and (not being as in touch with the fan magazines as I was at the time) they weren’t expecting the new line.
:-http://www.decentfilms.com/reviews/starwars4.html
I think that making note of the second printing and the fact that many of us saw this film with the Ep4 title in '77 would be called for. -Harmil 15:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name on the crawl 

message: The box office numbers listed for the movies are misleading since they haven't been adjusted for inflation.  They do seem to be unadjusted since they match up with the numbers from the site below.
http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/records/worldwide.html
Prator 22:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The adjustment seems to have been done inexpertly (assuming that all the money was made in the first year). A lot of the box office earnings for the original trilogy came in with the re-releases and should not be counted with inflation since 1977. Also, the creation of the re-releases cost extra money that might be mentioned. Maybe a better comparison would be box office numbers of first release, adjusted for inflation, if that data exists somewhere. Kusma 03:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effect of Inflation on Box Office Take 

message: I noticed there is yet another distracting edit war going on re: the "proper" Star Wars template to append to the bottom of the page; however, I cannot find any discussion about the appropriate template to use. Could someone point me in the direction of such discussion? – Mipadi 22:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have tracked down the conversation to here, for anyone interested. – Mipadi 22:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template 

message: This doesn't pertain specifically to this article, but to the entire series of Star Wars articles as a whole.
As far as I can ascertain, there are at least two (and possibly as many as four) disputes over style in the various Star Wars articles. For example, the last 50 edits in Star Wars are only reverts back and forth over templates or links, and Empire Strikes Back didn't go two days after being protected before the revert wars over the cast listing and use of templates began again.
I honestly don't know who holds what opinion and why, but I do know all this reversion even over points of style needs to stop. Would there be any significant objections to calling reversion ceasefire and taking this to the mediation committee? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 10:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: May I recommend you list a comment at WP:RFM? Redwolf24 (talk) 20:30, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The star wars articles are being reverted by about four or five people at this point. These people need to all discuss this at an rfc page, along with comments from outsiders. The Wookieepedian 22:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually, that's why I was posting this. I was making sure noone had any objections to me bringing this up on RFM. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 02:45, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation 

message: "The film series is widely considered to have launched the new era of high-budget, special-effects blockbuster movies that continues to this day."
I find it hard to give Star Wars this much credit...2001: A Space Odyssey came out nine years before A New Hope, and definitely has comparable effects.
If you want to say that it's more for Empire Strikes Back, since A New Hope didn't even have that many effects, I would say that Star Trek: The Motion Picture, which came out 2 years after A New Hope, has far more impressive effects for V'ger.
:Well, it's just that the star wars films are generally considered to be the movies that started the big-budget special effects movies. I agree that 2001 did go far in establishing that right, and both brought effects to the attention of the movie industry. Maybe it can be reworded to say "the film series is widely considered to be one of the major players in launching the new era of high-budget..." The Wookieepedian 08:04, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There, I went in and slightly reworded that part. The Wookieepedian 08:12, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quibble with wording 

message: Copperchair, could you explain your reasons for continually removing the "Fan Works" section of the article? These fan works, while not canon, are officially supported by Lucasfilm. And, even if they weren't, the phenomenon would merit mention. IMO. Justin Bacon 05:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the Atari arcade game was never called A New Hope. It was always called Star Wars and nothing else. It doesn't matter whether you prefer the '97 Special Editions or not; while Lucas may have retitled his film, no one ever retitled the arcade game. Please stop introducing this inaccurate information into the article. Justin Bacon 05:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Lucas retitled his film in the 1981 thatrical release. Though I wouldn't exactly call it retitling, more like restoring the correct name. The Wookieepedian 05:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. But I suspect Copperchair's obsessive compulsion with changing every reference to the original film from Star Wars to A New Hope lies in the same preference for the Special Editions (which were the first time the film was commercially released with A New Hope on the slipcase,  IIRC) which has led to his edit wars throughout the Star Wars pages (like the ESB credits, for example). I just wish he could be convinced to actually discuss these issues rather than simply making a nuisance of himself. I was actually planning to do some substantive work on the article (we need a short section on the John Williams' soundtrack, IMO, for example); but instead I spent most of my time working with you to untangle Copperchair making a mess of things. Justin Bacon 05:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: These edits you speak of are welcomed. It looks like someone's actually interested finally in helping to get the article featured. Copperchair's not helping anything. All of his edits are special edition-purist edits. He constantly removed references to Temuera Morrison playing Fett in the ESB DVD, calling it non-notable, or removing the fact that Clive Reville played the original version of the emperor in ESB. He seems to insist that any type of fan works are not notable as well. As many times as I have tried to discuss things or reason with him on his talk page, he either removes the comment, ignores it, or gives some lame excuse for what he is doing. I see someone has added some of his edits from tonight into his rfc page. Hmmm... The Wookieepedian 05:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I know that he originally wrote that one big script. I can see him calling that simply Star Wars. Yeah, in thinking he would only be able to make one section of the whole thing, he likely didn't mind calling it just Star Wars. The Wookieepedian 14:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I know. The movies were billed with these names, but when you actually viewed them, they had the episode numhbers, on ALL video/laserdisc releases. So it was really a matter of the studios and the public pretending that the names were "Star Wars," "The Empire Strikes Back," and "Return of the Jedi." Now, if you take something like "Raiders of the Lost Ark," people are justified in calling it that, becuase Lucas hasn't actually changed the opening titles to "Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark." Like you said, it has been only recently when the studios actually began calling them by their episode numbers and chapter titles. Though Lucas seems to still be in the habit of calling ANH "Star Wars," as seen on the dvd commentary. The Wookieepedian 22:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

text: We include the section in the article because fan works have been notable in the last few years, not to mention that Lucas approves and officially sponsors an awards program for them. See The Official Star Wars Fan Film Awards. Please don't remove the section anymore. If you've seen the Star Trek article, despite the fact that Paramount Pictures doesn't consider anything other than the TV series and films canon, the editors have a section on the books and video games, and fan works, becuase they are notable. The Wookieepedian 02:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

text: This is an encyclopedia article about Star Wars. It's not about the Star Wars canon storyline, it's about Star Wars. Derivative works, whether authorized EU or unauthorized fan stuff is relevant to the subject. — Phil Welch 03:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Adding my voice to the cacophony: As I said before, these fan films are not only officially approved by Lucasfilm, but they are also a significant Star Wars-related phenomenon. As Phil says, this is not an article about Star Wars canon. It's an article about Star Wars. Justin Bacon 04:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

text: One more voice in favor of the fan works section, especially The Official Star Wars Fan Film Awards - whether this Copperchair person likes it or not, not only does Lucasfilm approve of them, as another editor pointed out, they have officially endorsed and licensed these films from the filmmakers, paying them royalties... It may not be "canon" but it sure as smeg is officially sanctioned and accepted by Lucasfilm... TheRealFennShysa 04:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copperchair: Fan Works and A New Hope 

message: (This is for facts that are not in dispute. Any argument here will be moved below.)
NOTE: Empire Strikes Back is currently protected, related to this dispute. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 05:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: and . - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:05, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And who is arguing for what? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 01:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Myself and Link to the Past for the Starwars template and Wookiee for the Star Wars episodes template. By the way, I think this is well within the means of easy moderation, since all three of us who are here now seem to be, in the here and now, reasonable good-faith contributors. — Phil Welch 01:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, it's actually: I'm for the "Starwars" template and Phil and Link are for the "Star Wars episodes" template. The naming is just messed up. The Wookieepedian 01:45, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I've attempted to explain my view on why the template I have on the pages should be there. See Link's talk page. The goal of the template is to be film-specific, not try to cover many aspects of star wars. That is the purpose of the main page, or a portal. I agree that the films and EU are one story, but, on the other hand they are two different divisions of continuity. The Wookieepedian 05:19, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Situation 

message: The article currently reads: "Although the film series itself spans the events of only two generations, other stories set in the Star Wars universe cover events over more than 4,000 years." There are a couple of different versions floating around recent revisions:
* Wookieepedian prefers 7,500,000,000 years, which is the date of the Big Bang in official Star Wars continuity.
* I had originally changed this to 25,000 years, based on the material in the article being linked to.
* However, while working on the Expanded Universe article, I came across some references that made me double-check. It turns out that I had misread the article. The earliest story in the Star Wars universe, according to that page, actually took place 4,000 years before the films (hence the current version of the page).
* Copperchair likes to cut the wiki-link. This appears to be simple vandalism. I doubt he'll show up to explain his rationale.
Wookieepedian has now referenced the Star Wars Timeline Gold, claiming that there actually is a story set during the Big Bang. However, this is not what the Star Wars Timeline Gold actually says. What it actually says is:
:According to Yuuzhan Vong legend, on a plane of physical realty that beings in this reality cannot accurately conceive, the Creator, Yun-Yuuzhan, sacrifices pieces of himself to create all that exists, including a pantheon of lesser gods. Those gods include the Twin Gods--Yun-Yammka (the Slayer) and Yun-Harla (the Cloaked Goddess), Yun-Ne’Shel (the Modeler), Yun-Shuno (the Pardoner), and the Lovers, Yun-Txiin and Yun-Qaah. Yun-Yuuzhan promises the Lesser Gods that they will one day ascend to his level, but only after they prepare a chosen people to ascend to their place as new Lesser Gods. (conjecture based on Star Wars: The Roleplaying Game—“The New Jedi Order Sourcebook”)
Note that this is not only not a story, but is merely conjecture by the creator of the timeline. Looking through the timeline, the earliest reference I can find to an actual story is The Golden Age of the Sith, a comic series by Kevin J. Anderson. This is dated at approximately 5,000 years before the films. So I propose that the passage be changed to read 5,000 years. Justin Bacon 21:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Any chronicled event in the Star Wars project techniacally begins the story. That is the reason for my choice of years. The Wookieepedian 22:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And, BTW, his "conjectures" are more like logical conclusions. The Wookieepedian 22:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Sounds OK. It's just that it's more effective to read when it gives the precise years. For instance, the star wars timeline gold calaculates that the events span a total of 7,999,999,480 years. The Wookieepedian 23:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've inserted the "span millenia" wording. If nobody else has any objections, I think this point of contention is resolved. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 23:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. Dystopos 05:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As do I! (as stated above) The Wookieepedian 06:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto. Justin Bacon 06:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates in Star Wars 

message: First off: Sorry about my last edit, Wookieepedian. I removed the lists at the end of the EU section because I thought I had just forgotten too. Then I noticed you had actually put them back in. I still think they should be removed, but I wouldn't have done it without discussion if I'd been paying attention. Specifically, I'm uncomfortable with the lists being longer than the remaining section. Plus, I think it's redundant: If people want to know more about the EU, they'll go to the EU article now. And once they're there, those links will already be on the EU page.
More generally, I think this article is suffering from some link list bloat. Right now we seem to have some excruciatingly long lists which are far from complete, but seem to go pretty far into trivia, as well. Do we really need a direct link from this article to List of Yuuzhan Vong, for example?
For a first pass, I'm going to go through and eliminate any links which are already replicated elsewhere in the article. I'll wait to do any more trimming until we've had some discussion here. Justin Bacon 06:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there isn't any order at the moment. Basically, all lists at the bottom at the moment are all the lists on wikipedia. I'm going to add the Yuuzhan Vong list link back, as they are major players in the new jedi order. I do think they should be in an alphabetical order, as at the moment they were just randomly added by anaons. The Wookieepedian 06:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is there a list of all the Star Wars articles at the bottom of this list, instead of relying on :Category:Star Wars? Generally, see also links are used for significant related subjects or spinoffs from the main article that aren't linked with a  link. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 07:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's pretty much what I'd like to see: I don't think we need more than, say, a dozen links at the bottom of the article (none of which should be duped from significant links earlier in the article). These links should be to major sub-categories. Readers can follow the links in the general direction of any narrowly specific topic they're interested in without bloating the article. Justin Bacon 07:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Very well, very well. It's so hard for me to see it from a non-fanboy (I admit it), non-geek POV. The Wookieepedian 07:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've done a first pass at pruning the list down to size. Here's something you could do, Wookieepedian: I notice that a lot of the articles we had listed here were not, in fact, properly categorized. You could go back to the previous revision of the article and look through the lists, adding categories wherever appropriate. Justin Bacon 08:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Link Lists 

message: I've reverted back the line about Lucasfilm "explictly allowing" derivative fanfilms to exist, as this is incorrect... in regards to the Official Star Wars Fan Film Awards, this is true, but at the point this is referenced in this section, it seems to be in reference to the serious fanfilms, which Lucasfilm does NOT allow, nor do they really acknowledge. There is no document or statement from Lucasfilm where they say that such films are allowed. I feel the line about "for the most part, turning a blind eye" to them is more accurate, seeing that Lucasfilm is generally content to let those projects be without endorsement or comment, since they function essentially as free publicity. However, Lucasfilm has been known to impose themselves on the serious fanfilms in the past, as was the case with the near shut-down of The Dark Redemption back in 1997.   TheRealFennShysa 14:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fan Works 

message: OK, I have changed the templates on the page to how I had them before. However, as a compromise, I am leaving the current template from the consensus on the individual episodes pages. I made the change becuase I feel the main star wars page should act as more of a portal to other articles than it does. The Wookieepedian 00:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template choice. 

message: This section is full of rather shallow trivialities (The final episode of each trilogy features an elaborate battle involving bearlike creatures is one example). I think it should be trimmed, and only some good examples that are true motifs remain. A complete list could be in an extra article, not here. (At least it should not be called "recurring themes", but "things that happen in several Star Wars movies". 
Also, the list features many characters not introduced before, and wikilinked only in the list that comes later. It assumes people know who Qui-Gon and Dooku are, for example. So can this be turned into a short section about themes instead of the current list?  Kusma 01:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. That section should act as more of a summary, like the other sections do. A page needs to be created called "Recurring themes in Star Wars," or something. That's what we did with the EU, so it shouldn't be too hard with the recurring themes. The Wookieepedian 01:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just an observation, but a lot of the material in the "recurring themes" section might better be described as "parallel narrative structures" or even "running gags." (see this definition as WP's Theme (literature) is a bit underdeveloped, too). Dystopos 14:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, then we should create a page: "List of parallel narrative structures in Star Wars" and "List of running gags in Star Wars," in addition to the page of revurring themes, which are underdeveloped. The Wookieepedian 14:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I'm not sure how much of any of this is "encyclopedic". If I were the sole editor I could probably summarize the themes in one paragraph in the Star Wars article and then start a list of all the recurrences and gags in the Star Wars Wiki. Dystopos 14:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I welcome you to do just that. Except, don't just move the parallels and stuff to the star wars wiki, make them into "lists" as I suggested above. The Wookieepedian 15:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recurring themes section 

message: Hmmm, it appears that this article is #41 on the list of the articles with the most edits. 
Just letting everyone know. The Wookieepedian 07:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top 50 

message: After looking at the page, I think what it needs work most in is the "conception" and the "references" sections. Anyone up to the challenge? The Wookieepedian 00:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wooki may you need to step back and let edits "work itself out" and maybe try consrcutive edit and let someone else do the reverts. then maybe the article would be of a better standard. Your on what, revert #4 in the 24 hours?    . Seriously, let someone else do the reverts for a while. Try a zero revert rule for a few days or maybe even a week and see how it works out. There are pleanty of people watching the articles that you dont have to be to one to jump on the revert clicky. It makes the wiki experience less fun for me at least (maybe others too). --Supercoop 00:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it would would be more fun for me as well if I didn't take every opportunity to revert. I suppose it is a result of my OCD. I'll try to hold off on the reverts. At least it's not like when Copperchair was around! The Wookieepedian 02:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs work