Talk:Clone Wars (Star Wars)

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Clone Wars (Star Wars). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071017090951/http://radicalcenter.net:80/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=52 to http://www.radicalcenter.net/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=52
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked the refs today. Some of the archived URLs aren't working. The two remaining deadlinks are flagged as such in the ref tags. --EEMIV (talk) 01:17, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Pulled one of those two deadlinks out. At least, I think so. There remains just the one. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 01:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Saw that; thank you! --EEMIV (talk) 01:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I don't think the two tables of films, books, etc. are helpful. The first expands on some plot detail, but it gets into the weeds as it progresses. The prequel summaries in the lede and preceding paragraph are a sufficient summary of the conflict, and bluelinks handy to the notable works for folks interested in learning more. Aesthetically, the table is also a hindrance to easy reading; nitpickily, the column with BBY dates is too inside baseball to be appropriate for a general audience. The second table I worry invites expansion into an exhaustive list of Clone Wars references and appearances, and that becomes indiscriminate. It likewise also interferes with reading. And between the two of them, as I mentioned in the section above, schisms between "canon"ness aren't a primary concern for Wikipedia; really, these two tables would most appropriately be a single item if we were to retain them. 
All that said: if there is a need for such a large-ish table, there's a solution at e.g. Spacecraft in Star Trek about halfway down we could adapt. --EEMIV (talk) 17:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I wasn't sure with the BBY dates, considering, and I'm not attached to them whatsoever. They're hell to verify anyway because, in my experience, a lot of it is deduction. And, this morning actually, I was thinking about how the summaries are kind of unnecessary, really, so that would cut the table down. As for the canon/Legends split, I was emulating List of Star Wars planets and moons and just kind of went to split them because that's how the works are typically categorized in my experience (in addition to why I do it in the previous section). I did note in an edit summary somewhere that I wasn't sure if the tables were wise. I did think it worth having a list of works set during the Clone Wars, perhaps at this point explicitly about the conflict rather than simply set during it, (definitely excluding anything that simply mentions it as, like, an event in the past). Meh, I'm not making much sense here. The tables are extremely unwieldy, but I was hesitant to nix them and didn't know how to fix them to be workable. (and I just sort of dumped everything on the page.) ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 18:34, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tables 

message: I agree with 's removal of this content at the beginning of the Depiction section, and I don't think it had anything to do with an in-universe tone. Some of the plot points can be integrated into the sub-sections, but more broadly it delves too much into individual plot threads/details for a general overview of the subject. --EEMIV (talk) 00:35, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the lengthier, similarly-themed "narrative summary". It is excessive in-universe plot summary that far exceeds the scope for a general-audience understanding of the subject; the "summary" contents are more apt for in-universe projects like Wookieepedia. --EEMIV (talk) 03:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary removal 

message: I've moved the paragraph and blockquote from Lucas up to the development section, since it's from the creator's POV rather than third-party analysis. Likewise, some of the "concept and development" content that is sourced to third-party commentary/speculation is more appropriate in the analysis/allusions section, and I've moved it there.
I removed a paragraph about Palpatine using a false flag. It repeats plot summary from the depiction section, and its citation solely to dialogue in the primary source is inapt for an analysis/allusions section. --EEMIV (talk) 20:13, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: My copyediting became a bit more involved than the shifts above. There are a few more morsels regarding concept, development, and response, pls additional tightening of language around the allusions. I removed the tremendous run-on about the American Civil War because it was cited to just one source, and that source didn't make nearly as big a deal about similar word use as the article text suggests. I shifted the assertion earlier in the section and cut it do a much more manageable sentence. That same source was also inaccurately cited to some other claims about jerky documentary-style filming for the Battle of Geonosis, so I removed that claim. I also scoured the old sources, with access dates ~8-10 years ago. We went from five dead links to just two, so that's good. I think I'm fairly well done with the major edits. --EEMIV (talk) 01:15, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shifting some paragraphs and removing one-ish 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Clone Wars (Star Wars). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.radicalcenter.net/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=52
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: User:Sjones23 earlier today removed ~1.5K additional text about details in the Clone Wars, and I just trimmed or removed an attempt to restore it. I didn't excise quite as much as Sjones23, but I agree with the sentiment that the plot description in this article is pretty much at capacity. Additional plot details are more appropriate at e.g. the Clone Wars TV show article, or possibly even Wookieepedia. We do not need an exhaustive list of every type of activity depicted in the Clone Wars TV show (deaths of protagonists! of antagonists! big battles! little battles! peace negotiations! new weapons!). Similarly, I removed an expansion of three titles in Other Media that include the Clone Wars. That path leads to the dark side of an exhaustive list of every title from all media that include the Clone Wars, which becomes unreadable and unwieldy. 
Additionally, we need to remember a focus on a non-fan, general audience. Expressions like "the Outer Rim sieges are in full swing" is cryptically jargony to a general reader. --EEMIV (talk) 03:43, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Excessive detail

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Clone Wars (Star Wars). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.radicalcenter.net/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=52
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Checked, again. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 15:03, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I was looking at the article, and it doesn't seem to warrant standing on its own. It's largely in-universe, and it contains barely anything that supports notability. Even if it technically goes on beyond the Clone Wars, it is part of it, as it's the event that marked the end of the Wars. And I think it can be sufficiently covered here. Unrelated to merging, but the article title has long bothered me. "Great Jedi Purge" is very in-universe, especially as it's called that much less than it's called Order 66. At any rate, it should be merged here, not necessarily in its own subsection or even in a way that noticeably expands this article, but in some capacity. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 18:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Merged the pages. Mostly, it involved pasting the former resources section into a new further reading section as the rest is all plot and statements that have no sourcing (and that I couldn't find sourcing for). Placed merge template at top of this page. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Great Jedi Purge]] 

message: Why is it being called "the first Star Wars film" on this article when it clearly has a name? That constant "consensus" discussion was a 3-1 democratic vote that went on the title of the page but is being plastered across Wikipedia even though that discussion was about a page. WP:COMMONNAME does not support changing the name. It has been known by it's title since 1981. An outdated poster does not count as a "source", not even close.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 02:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I've laid out my response to this exact issue when you raised it last week at Talk:Star Wars canon#Selectiveness in episode numbers on titles and my stance is the same: "As far as this article is concerned, it's following how the nomenclature elsewhere in the project, i.e. the films' article titles, are given. This article will follow that until a new consensus across the project is established. Following what the articles themselves are called is to prevent constant reversions and edit warring over this very issue. [...] As far as this article is concerned, again I state, it is best that it use what the article titles themselves are. To get that changed, that requires another series of move discussions for each of the three original trilogy articles." ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 03:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode IV has no title? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :List of Jedi survivors of Order 66 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at  until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  BDD (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "List of Jedi survivors of Order 66" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]