Talk:Return of the Jedi/Archive 2

message: I have added a link to a website that I think is relevant (http://www.keithshortsculptor.com/returnofthejedi.htm) to this article.  The images are genuine production photos of the Emperor's chair, sculpted for this film.  I know Wikipedia does not like too many external links but I am not going to upload images due to the risk of copyright fraud. Do you think the link is relevant or irrelevant? Should it stay or go? The link is for Keith Short, not for the other "film sculptor". If you want to read more on this issue please go to my user talk page. Thanks.--Chloecshort 16:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: I've dropped the backstory section, as it was nothing but EU material that, while it may be considered canonical by some fans, is not referenced in the film at all. This is an article on THE FILM, not EU material, most of which would not be of interest to the common viewer, and for those who ARE interested, those items have their own articles.  TheRealFennShysa 23:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to add it back with references. IMHO, it provides useful background information to those who have no prior knowledge on the EU. In addition to being the official backstory, it lets newcomers see that there is more to it than what is presented in the films. This isn't Star Trek. Lucasfilm Ltd. considers nearly everything canon. The Wookieepedian 00:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: DO NOT add this material back into the article. It is not necessary information to watch the film, it DID NOT EXIST prior to the film's creation, and it is NOT part of the film. If you must add info, add links to the various pieces you want to reference in a "See Also" section - but non-film material has NO PLACE in a section about the actual STORY presented in the film. TheRealFennShysa 01:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shadows of the Empire gives essential background to major events in the film, such as the rescue of Han, the emperor allowing the Death Star II plans to come into the hands of the Alliance, and it explains the line of "Many Bothans died to bring us this information." I added this backstory section in the first place in order to let readers know that there is more to the story than the films. Now, as you said, some may be uninterested. On the other hand, some may see the infomation and find it interesting. That's the nature of an encyclopedia. The Wookieepedian 10:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to report fact. And the simple truth is that, at the time these films were made, the EU stuff you're talking about adding in did not exist, and was not "fact" for the film. It was written later, by other authors, drawing inspiration from references in the film. Had Shadows of the Empire existed before Return of the Jedi, I might cede you this point, but it didn't - it wasn't written until 1996 - it wasn't necessary background information to viewers for some thirteen-odd years, and no one missed not knowing about it, as it didn't even exist!  Heck, it may not even "exist" in the future, if Lucas decides it contradicts something he may want to do later - that's already happened with EU storylines and the prequels. The EU stuff has its own articles here - but in an encyclopedic article on the film itself - it has no bearing here, as it in no way had any bearing on the creation of the film. TheRealFennShysa 14:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: EU is just as "fact" as the films are, therefore it belongs in an encyclopedia. It is irrelevant when the backstory was written. The simple truth is that it is the official backstory to the film, therefore it is notable in the film article. With only a short summary and a link to the article, it should be no big deal. The Wookieepedian 15:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not according to Lucasfilm - see my reply on the Episode 4 page... TheRealFennShysa 15:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry. It's ALL considered part of the story by Lucasfilm, per those two very quotes you gave. The Wookieepedian 15:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My god, Adam, can't you read? "Gospel, or canon as we refer to it, includes the screenplays, the films, the radio dramas and the novelizations. These works spin out of George Lucas' original stories, the rest are written by other writers."  - this clearly states that version tied to the films are the main ones, the others are derivative, and not on the same level. "When it comes to absolute canon, the real story of Star Wars, you must turn to the films themselves — and only the films." - I don't know HOW much clearer that can be - ONLY the films are the main story! TheRealFennShysa 15:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct. The films are "absolute" as in G-canon. The rest of the story is told in C-canon. The Wookieepedian 15:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then WHY are you trying to drop the information in as if it was film canon? It doesn't belong there... put it in an EU section much later in the article. TheRealFennShysa 15:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There. The SotE info is now moved to the EU section. A good compromise. The Wookieepedian 15:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Backstory 

message: (I have made an identical comment on Talk:Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back, because the same problem appears in that article)
The "Production" section is an interesting and informative read—right up to the point when you start reading the last, big paragraph. It is simply a long list of trivia, seperatied by periods with no apparent connection. I suggest that it either be turned into a list and moved further down into a new "Trivia" section, or it be reworded into a more coherent text. As it is, it just doesn't fit there and reads terrible. Opinions? — Mütze 14:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big hunk of trivia 

message: I'm surprised no one has mentioned the allusions to the Oedipal complex in ROTJ. I've rectified the situation and added a "Cinematic and literary allusions" section here.Smiloid 01:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As User:Judgesurreal777 noted in his revert summary, that would right now be considered original research, and that is part of what Wikipedia is not. As soon as a consensus on this outside Wikipedia can be verified, the paragraph can be reinstated with proper sources/references added. — Mütze 09:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Freudian influence

message: The last paragraph is a collection of tidbits about the film... It's really messy and needs to be cleaned up! The sentences run one after another with no sort of organizations... so someone please clean that up in to a bulleted list or perhaps even a facts section? 24.87.73.104 07:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I said, but nobody seems to read this talk page. It's the same on the Empire Strikes Back article. — Mütze 09:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It's not just the last section either. The whole Production section suffers from a lack of sources. It is rife with 'some suggest', 'it is rumoured that'. Wikipedia articles are not the place for sci-fi industry gossip. Everything needs to be sourced to reliable, notable sources or get the chop. Ashmoo 02:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Production" section cleanup 

message: It was called "Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi" since it was released in 1983. See the IMDb profile. Osaboramirez 07:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming 

message: How come this is the only Episode of the Star Wars Saga that doesn't have an image in the "Production" section of the article? Osaboramirez 18:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about "Production" section 

message: Luke returns to Tatooine to rescue Han Solo
The caption on this picture is misleading. It is correct in a vague sense, but in that specific scene Luke and gang are actually captured and being led to execution. The captions for the other pictures do a more accurate job of describing their respective scenes, so I believe that this one should, too. si»abhorreo»T 14:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a caption that better describes the situation. By the way, for future reference, fair use images aren't allowed to be displayed on talk pages because it violates their fair use. I've switched it to a link. Cheers, H4cksaw (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks si»abhorreo»T 21:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading picture caption 

message: This article contains several elementary editing mistakes. For example, it has sentences of the type, "The first_subject first_verbs, however the second_subject second_verbs." An example is, "The working relationship between George Lucas and Marquand was said to be bad, however Lucas has insisted that he and Marquand had a good working relationship and has gone as far to praise Marquand for being a very nice person who worked well with actors." Other examples of substandard writing include "For instance, the ewoks were going to be the giant wookiees..." (no article required) and "However, a few weeks before the film's premiere, George Lucas changed the title, stating revenge could not be used because Jedi do not seek revenge. However, the original teaser trailer for the film still carried this moniker." (repeated "however") Such mistakes should not happen in a "Good Article".
In my opinion, the article is also overly long, and could be tightened up by at least 10%-20% without losing content. Some of it also seems rather POV, though in an article of this sort that's probably always going to be an issue. Spoxjox 22:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... this article needs work. On my talk page, Deckiller will give me a list of ideas on improving the overall article. Deckiller, Darthgriz98, anybody, any other responses on the failed status? Sjones23 21:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FailedGA 

message: The Synopsis part of this article requires clean-up. A user tried to include the opening crawl, but it is confusing as only the words "Opening Crawl" appear in a box. The rest just appears to be with the rest of the article. I tried fitting the whole opening crawl into the box, but the box stretches to the end of the page (Which isn't good as the opening crawl is written as a few words per line,) and the box also catches the picture inside it. Could someone that actually knows how to fix this issue please do so? --Twipie 21:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like to point you to the Star Wars opening crawl entry. The opening crawl was seen on Wookiepedia's entry, too. I also should note that I am a member of the Star Wars Wikiproject and I have been working on this article. Sjones23 01:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Synopsis