Wookieepedia | Wookieepedia | Fandom powered by Wikia "So we'd call it Wookiepedia? [sic]" ―Chad Barbry, first suggesting the name of the Star Wars Wiki [src] Steven Greenwood at Celebration IV Wikipedia is a collaboratively developed, free content encyclopedia. It is a general-knowledge encyclopedia, rather than being specific to one topic (as Wookieepedia is Star Wars –specific). Because of this, it is not always particularly friendly to in-depth knowledge specific to a given fictional universe. Founded in 2001 , Wikipedia allows anyone to edit it. Due to the broad nature of its editors, the site covers a wide variety of topics, and has millions of articles. Chad Barbry, under the screenname of " Cbarbry ," was a regular contributor to Wikipedia, participating in a number of different subjects within the online encyclopedia, including Biblical history and technology since October 17 , 2004 . [1] In January of 2005 , Steven Greenwood joined Wikipedia under the screenname of " Riffsyphon1024 ," adding articles in the subject of geography and popular culture.

Immediately after working on these articles of interest, he took the job of sorting the various Star Wars articles on the site. As Wikipedia was concerned, only notable items would have complete articles, with the rest of the minor subjects with descriptions on a giant list. Planets, characters, weapons, and vehicles were all done in this manner. Over a short period of time, Steven found that he disliked this format and sought another way to gather and place information on the saga and its Expanded Universe. On January 21 , Steven posted on a section on a talk page regarding the creation of a new Star Wars Portal, but suggested that instead of a portal it should be a wiki. [2] Chad Barbry Two days later, Chad entered the discussion and began working out ideas with Steven. Both agreed that this new project would run alongside Wikipedia as a separate, but equal entity—something more than simply a WikiProject . It was here in the discussion that Chad proposed the new nickname of "Wookieepedia," which caught on with Steven and others immediately, and the idea was trailblazed (Steven's request of "Wicketpedia" was an alternate name which did not work nearly as well).

However, since Steven was not sure how a new wiki would be created, Chad contacted Angela of then Wikicities (now Wikia) and requested the creation of the new wiki. Wiki creation The very first Star Wars Wiki logo (5–22 March 2005) The second Star Wars Wiki logo (22 March 2005 – 8 January 2006) Other Wikipedia contributors seemed to be getting more hostile toward new Star Wars articles, so in February 2005, Chad decided to make a request of the Wikipedia Board of Trustees to make a "Star Wars Wiki." His intent was more than just another WikiProject, but an official sister project similar to Wikiquotes. He thought the best solution was a separate, but linked project—a project that was separate enough for the "anti-cruft" Wikipedians, but still one that was officially Wikipedia, so there would be no need for redundant articles between the projects. In early March 2005, after meeting, the board came back with their answer. They did not want to move Wikipedia the direction proposed by Chad, but recommended creating a Star Wars Wikia.

Angela of Wikia was on the Board of Trustees, and contacted Chad to let him know of the board's decision and to set up the new Star Wars Wiki. [3] Part of the process that Angela set up was creating interwiki links so Wikipedia could link to Star Wars Wiki articles and vice versa. The wiki came online on March 4, 2005, though it sat idle for a few days. Chad, now under the screen name of "WhiteBoy," [3] was the first user to officially edit the new wiki on March 9 , starting with the logo and the moving of articles from Wikipedia to Star Wars Wiki space. The next day, Steven joined the site, using his previous Wikipedia screenname. [4] A third Wikipedian edited that day as well, and was able to add some key image templates to the wiki, before leaving the project altogether. [5] By the first few months, numbers of editors from both Wikipedia and across the web would dramatically increase. For a brief time, there was some confusion as to how to move articles over from Wikipedia.

Chad devised a template for use on Wikipedia to place on talk pages of articles of interest, alerting users that the article would be redirected or moved entirely. The idea was to move as many existing articles from Wikipedia to the new wiki, under the GFDL , making sure to save those under threat of deletion first, and then "wookify" them to the new wiki's standards. The hope was that, though separate, Wikipedians would begin to put the more obscure articles (essentially anything but the most encyclopedic of articles) in the Star Wars Wiki. Main articles, such as Luke Skywalker , would remain at Wikipedia. Wikipedians in general ultimately saw the Star Wars Wiki as an external site, one not affiliated with Wikipedia enough to actually " transwiki " articles over, like one would with Wikibooks or Wikirecipe.

Creating redirects to the Star Wars Wiki was not what the Wikipedians had in mind, and they requested that Chad and Steve immediately cease what they believed was legal transwikification; [6] however, articles could still be copied and pasted under the GFDL copyleft license and then "wookified" to fit the scheme of the Star Wars–themed wiki, making sure to place an in-universe article in past tense, or remove redundant sentences. In this aspect, it was decided to have all articles, not just those that were more trivial, lesser known, or more detailed, at the wiki. Later articles were copied in this fashion and the originals were left alone on Wikipedia for its users to edit under its rules. Eventually Wookieepedia would develop so many articles that Wikipedia would no longer have any to copy. It should also be noted that Wookieepedia was created independently of the Wikimedia Foundation and of any events occurring on Wikipedia.

Great LucasCruft Purge In March of 2005, perhaps unaware of the formation of the new wiki, a Wikipedian (considered by some a deletionist who wished to prove a point) began to place several Star Wars articles in the Votes for Deletion system (now Articles for Deletion ) in an attempt to get these articles deleted from Wikipedia. The purge was later dubbed the "Great LucasCruft Purge" by Steven himself. [7] It was Steven's goal to save as many articles from this individual before the damage was made permanent, and would then impede Star Wars Wiki's ability to grow as it did within the first month. One such article that became a focus of this battle was Order D6-66 , which became one of the first stub articles added to the new wiki via the "transwiki" process. The purge garnered the Star Wars Wiki a great deal of public attention, which gave some the erroneous impression that Wookieepedia was created because of the purge. By year Master Qui-Gon, more to say, have you? It is requested that this article, or a section of this article, be expanded. See the request on the listing or on this article's talk page .

Once the improvements have been completed, you may remove this notice and the page's listing. 2005 Just days after the official founding, administrative powers were given to Steven ( Riffsyphon1024 ) by Chad ( WhiteBoy ). This set up the dual administrator system until the adminships of the users QuentinGeorge , Aidje , and SparqMan later in the year. The wiki, now going under the moniker of "Wookieepedia," developed a steady rate of contributions by new members from all over, and over time lost its reliance on Wikipedia. Eventually Wookieepedia became the primary name for the wiki and an official renaming took place with the creation of a new logo by Tracy Duncan . Wookieepedian of the Month (WOTM) was first started in June 2005, with Imperialles as the first user to be recognized by the community for his contributions. As of April 2014, 106 different users have been recognized as WOTM. In April 2014 the user Cavalier One was the first to be voted WOTM for a second time. [8] July brought the first Quotes of the Day on Wookieepedia.

Though now considered minuscule in comparison to the current number of quotes now passed through four subcategories, it was a sufficient means to create a new feature on the wiki. Today, QotD/In-Universe is the most edited page of Wookieepedia. [9] Pages such as these show the significant growth of each area over the course of only a few years. In the same month, Wookieepedia's largest ever boost came when an explosion of editors hit the site, sending the wiki's article count over 10,000. Factors to this expansion could be attributed to advertising and the release of Revenge of the Sith . (See wiki growth table below.) In September 2005, Did You Know? was experimentally created and added to the Main Page, where it has remained as an active feature since. Consensus Track , a voting and discussion system designed to improve site-wide policies and practices, was formed onto a single page in October 2005. In the same month, Eric Przybylski of Nav-Computer.com allowed Wookieepedia to use his fan-made sector maps on certain articles. His maps have since been replaced with versions directly from canon sources.

2006 The first bot, known here as a " droid ," was released onto Wookieepedia on February 8 . R2-D2 was designed to clean up instances of repeating words, categories, as well as clean the sandbox page. Since then, another bot named Whistler has made over 150,000 total edits on Wookieepedia. [10] A new Forum area dubbed the Senate Hall was constructed in March 2006 as part of Wikia's MediaWiki updates, and as a result, the Community Portal talk page no longer was the primary form of wikiwide discussion. Senate Hall was chosen as a name that would not be considered too cliché or overly used for a Star Wars name. Consensus Track was subsequently moved into the forums, and becoming its own section, used specifically for policy creation and alteration on the wiki. 2007 On February 20 , 2007, the first Wookiee-Cast was posted. The podcast was parody and commentary by Thefourdotelipsis on subjects relating to Wookieepedia and Star Wars in general. It did not, however, represent the official views of the wiki.

The Wookiee-Cast podcasts were released throughout 2007 , but have since been on hiatus. Also in February, the Inquisitorius was formed to handle the structure of the featured article system. See this essay on a history of the Featured Article movement from 2007 onward. Wookieepedia's Reference desk became the new Knowledge Bank within the forums, where general questions on Star Wars not relating specifically to articles or Wookieepedia could be asked. Over the course of the spring leading up the 30th anniversary of Star Wars, Wookieepedia held votes for the Coolest thing ever! and Lamest thing ever! with Darth Vader and SuperShadow winning respectively. A group of Wookieepedians after the Stump the Wookiee contest at Celebration IV In May, at least ten Wookieepedians from across the globe attended Celebration IV to help monitor Wookieepedia's table alongside The Completely Unofficial Star Wars Encyclopedia founder Bob Vitas , advertise the wiki, and host a trivia contest named "Stump the Wookiee." In the months before the convention, admins and users came across a notice by Mary Franklin that a group could obtain a table at CIV for free.

Immediately the wiki reacted and set up a page for those interested as well as other details of the event. By February, it was known that Wookieepedia won the table and final preparations were made. Some users and administrators that attended and helped man the table alongside Vitas included Riffsyphon1024, Xwing328 , jSarek , LtNOWIS , Ozzel , Graestan , Taybo20 , Azizlight , Adamwankenobi and Lord Hydronium . As a result of Wookieepedia's appearance and contest at Celebration IV, it was mentioned by the official site for the first time, marking another level of awareness in the Star Wars community. In addition, the event allowed the wiki to express itself to the fans directly. Also in May, the Votes for Deletion page was renamed to the more in-universe-sounding Trash compactor . In 2007, the wiki's Main Page underwent a major change, which allowed for exploration of the Star Wars universe within films, Expanded Universe , and in-universe categories to be hidden on a subpage with the use of Javascript.

In addition, the single search icon in Wookieepedia's sidebar was upgraded in April to include rotating search icons . 2008 In late February 2008, a Facebook fan page for Wookieepedia was started by Riffsyphon1024. As of April 2014, it has over 67,000 fans. Wookieepedia began its fourth year on March 4, 2008 . A new project of Wookieepedia was the interview process with established authors, artists, actors, and anyone else related to the creation of the Star Wars universe in order to gain more insight for its articles. Some of Wookieepedia's first interviews were given to authors Kevin J. Anderson and Tom Veitch and artist Christian Gossett . This project, however, was short-lived in gaining access to interviewees. By August of 2008, the wiki had reached 60,000 articles. [11] 2009 As with many wikis over time, certain features render other ones redundant or useless.

Such was the case during what was described by some Wookieepedians as the "Great List Purge" that occurred in late December 2008 and early January 2009 , where many old lists created years before were simply out of date as categories had accumulated a far greater number of articles on each topic. The start of 2009 also saw the addition of an official blog to Wookieepedia, named the Wookieepedia Newsnet . The blog began regular entries in January, with regular features summarizing monthly Featured Article output, Consensus Track results, Wookieepedian of the Month interviews, and Canon Updates. An RSS feed for the blog was added to the Main Page on April 1st, 2009, with the blog receiving an impressive 1,072 hits on that day. 2010 Wookieepedia's Main Page in the Wikia skin. July 2010 brought forth a new classification of article, partly inspired by Wikipedia practices. Improvement of minor articles and stubs would lead to the creation of comprehensive articles , those which were complete topics, but too small to be either Good Articles or Featured Articles.

In October 2010, Wookieepedia underwent another skin change by Wikia (see right). 2011 In September 2011, an overhaul at StarWars.com resulted in a new Encyclopedia with every entry linking to a Wookieepedia article. By November, the Senate Hall was altered to include listings for sticky threads , which would stick to the top of a separate list. 2012 Wookieepedia attended a table at Celebration VI in Orlando, Florida and was interviewed by The Dork Night Podcast. [12] In February, the wiki surpassed 90,000 articles. 2013 On January 10 , Wookieepedia surpassed 100,000 articles, with the creation of the article Jela Reneke . 2014 With Lucasfilm Ltd. 's announcement on April 25 , 2014 to replace the Expanded Universe with the " Legends " brand, members of Wookieepedia subsequently discussed and voted to retain all information within Star Wars media, [13] but split applicable articles into their respective canonical parts—Canon and Legends—with the use of tabs.

[14] Editors on the site began creating new articles reflecting information only relevant to the new system of canon and by October 21 had created over 1000 in-universe canon articles . 2015 Star Wars: Episode I The Phantom Menace | Wookieepedia | Fandom powered by Wikia Star Wars: Episode I The Phantom Menace 133,461pages on (DVD, Blu-ray, 3D and Digital HD) Budget "Every saga has a beginning." ―Tagline[src] Star Wars: Episode I The Phantom Menace is a 1999 Star Wars film written and directed by George Lucas . It was the fourth live-action film to be released in theaters and the first film of the prequel trilogy. It was also the first Star Wars film to be re-released in 3D. The film was produced by Rick McCallum and stars Liam Neeson , Ewan McGregor , Natalie Portman , Jake Lloyd , and Ian McDiarmid as the primary characters.

The film takes place thirty-two years before Star Wars: Episode IV A New Hope , the first film released in the saga, and begins as two Jedi attempt to resolve a trade dispute and eventual invasion of the planet Naboo by the Trade Federation . Unknown to the Jedi is that the situation is being manipulated by Sheev Palpatine , the Senator of Naboo and secretly a Dark Lord of the Sith called Darth Sidious. The Sith , the ancient enemies of the Jedi, reveal themselves to the Jedi after a thousand years in hiding; while the Jedi discover a young Tatooine slave named Anakin Skywalker , the Chosen One destined to bring balance to the Force —and who will grow up to become Darth Vader. Meanwhile, Queen Padmé Amidala of Naboo fights to save her people from the invasion. The Phantom Menace was released in theaters on May 19 , 1999, becoming the first Star Wars film since Star Wars: Episode VI Return of the Jedi sixteen years earlier. The release was accompanied by extensive media coverage and great fan anticipation. Despite mixed reviews from critics and fans, the film grossed $924.3 million worldwide, making it the second highest-grossing Star Wars film when unadjusted for inflation.

The film was re-released on Blu-ray in September 2011 , and was re-released in theaters in 3D on February 10 , 2012 . The film was the first major story in the prequel era and began fifteen years of canon Star Wars storytelling that would primarily take place around the time of the prequel storyline. The success of the film allowed for the next two chapters of the prequel trilogy, as well as the Star Wars: The Clone Wars film and television series . Numerous Star Wars Legends stories were also told in or influenced by The Phantom Menace and the prequels. Contents Episode I THE PHANTOM MENACE Turmoil has engulfed the Galactic Republic. The taxation of trade routes to outlying star systems is in dispute. Hoping to resolve the matter with a blockade of deadly battleships, the greedy Trade Federation has stopped all shipping to the small planet of Naboo. While the Congress of the Republic endlessly debates this alarming chain of events, the Supreme Chancellor has secretly dispatched two Jedi Knights, the guardians of peace and justice in the galaxy, to settle the conflict....

Synopsis "I have a bad feeling about this." "I don't sense anything." "It's not about the mission, Master. It's something…elsewhere…elusive." ―Obi-Wan Kenobi to Qui-Gon Jinn[src] Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan prepare to fight their way out of the Trade Federation flagship. There is trade dispute between the Trade Federation and the outlying systems of the Galactic Republic , which has led to a blockade of the small planet of Naboo . Supreme Chancellor Finis Valorum , leader of the Galactic Senate , has secretly dispatched two Jedi , Master Qui-Gon Jinn and his Padawan , Obi-Wan Kenobi , to serve as "the ambassadors" to the Federation flagship , in order to meet with Viceroy Nute Gunray and resolve the dispute. Unknown to them, the Trade Federation is in league with the mysterious Darth Sidious , Dark Lord of the Sith , who secretly orders Gunray to invade Naboo (as well as implying that he would ensure that their invasion was made legal when asked if it was illegal by Gunray) and kill the two Jedi upon their arrival.

Using poison gas, the Viceroy attempts to poison the two Jedi knights as an assassination attempt, but fails. After having to battle their way through squads of battle droids, Jinn and Kenobi make their way to the command deck where Gunray is located, shielding himself behind blast doors. The Jedi are forced to flee upon the arrival of two Destroyer Droids, but with their ship, Radiant VII , now destroyed, the two Jedi stow themselves aboard two separate Federation landing craft leaving for the surface of Naboo to begin the invasion. Queen Amidala then contacts Gunray expressing her disapproval of their blockade of Naboo, with Gunray explaining that they wouldn't have done it without the approval of the senate. After questioning Gunray regarding the arrival of ambassadors sent by the Chancellor, Gunray claims that they have been greeted by no such ambassadors, leaving Amidala startled. Gunray, after ending communications with her, informs his aide that they should disable all communications on the planet in case she suspected an invasion. Meanwhile, Amidala is conversing with Senator Sheev Palpatine regarding the recent attempt at negotiations and how Gunray claimed that they did not receive any ambassadors.

Surprised, Palpatine states that he had assurances from the Chancellor that his ambassadors did arrive. However, Palpatine is unable to finish his sentence and his hologram begins to short out. Naboo Governor, Sio Bibble , suspects that the shorting out of communications is a sign that an invasion from the Trade Federation is imminent. The Jedi liberate the Queen and her guards from the battle droid invasion. On the planet's surface, Qui-Gon saves local native outcast Jar Jar Binks from being crushed by an MTT . Later, STAPs attack but are destroyed by Qui-Gon. Jar Jar Binks shows the two Jedi the way to an underwater Gungan settlement, Otoh Gunga , escaping the Trade Federation army. Meanwhile, the Trade Federation invades Naboo and captures Queen Amidala. The Jedi meet the Gungan leader, Boss Nass , and ask him to help the people of Naboo, but Nass refuses and sends them off in a bongo submarine . They are attacked by an opee sea killer and a colo claw fish but both fish are eaten by a sando aqua monster .

The Jedi, with Binks in tow, reach Theed , the capital city of Naboo, and rescue Queen Amidala from the Trade Defense Force . They depart for Coruscant , the Galactic Republic's capital planet, to ask for help from the Senate. An astromech droid named R2-D2 manages to repair the Queen's starship and they narrowly escape an attack from Federation battleships . Due to the damage the ship's hyperdrive sustained in the attack, the Queen's party is forced to land on the desert planet of Tatooine for repairs. While searching for a new hyperdrive generator, they befriend young Anakin Skywalker , a slave boy, whose master is Watto , a Toydarian junk dealer. Watto has the required parts in stock, but Qui-Gon is unable to purchase them, as Republic credits are worthless on Tatooine. Anakin races ahead of Sebulba during the Boonta Eve Podrace. Anakin is gifted with piloting and mechanical abilities, and has built an almost-complete droid named C-3PO .

Qui-Gon senses a strong presence of the Force in Anakin, and feels that he may be the Chosen One – the one who will fulfill a prophecy by bringing balance to the Force. By entering Anakin into a podrace , Qui-Gon orchestrates a gamble in which the boy (alone, since Qui-Gon was unable to include the youth's mother in the bargain) will be released from slavery while also acquiring the parts needed for their ship. The night before the race, Qui-Gon does a blood test on Anakin and discovers that the boy's midi-chlorian reading is off the chart. Anakin wins the race and joins the team as they head for Coruscant, where Qui-Gon plans to seek permission from the Jedi High Council to train Anakin to be a Jedi. Meanwhile, Darth Sidious sends his apprentice, Darth Maul , to kill the two Jedi and capture the Queen. Maul appears just as the group is leaving the planet, and duels with Qui-Gon. The fight is cut short when Qui-Gon manages to escape his black-robed assailant by jumping onboard the Naboo Royal Starship as it takes off.

Amidala and Palpatine plead before the Senate to intervene with Naboo's crisis. On Coruscant, Qui-Gon informs the Jedi Council of the mysterious attacker he encountered on Tatooine. Because of that being's obvious mastery of the Jedi arts, the Council becomes concerned that this development may indicate the reappearance of the Sith , a religious order who were followers of the dark side of the force and thought to be long gone. Qui-Gon also informs the Council about Anakin, hoping that he can be trained as a Jedi. After testing the boy and deliberating with one another, the Council refuses, deeming him too old for training according to the Jedi Code . They are also concerned due to their sensing of a seemingly clouded future and a strong presence of fear in the boy. Meanwhile, Senator Palpatine, warning of the corruption in the Senate, advises Queen Amidala to call for a Vote of No Confidence in Supreme Chancellor Finis Valorum. Seeing no alternative, the Queen takes this advice when she addresses the Senate. Palpatine is among the candidates to replace the Supreme Chancellor, and the Queen later announces to Palpatine that she herself will return to their home planet to repel the invasion of her people.

She is frustrated by the Senate's deliberation and lack of action, and feels that even if Palpatine is elected Chancellor, it will be too late. The Jedi Council sends the two Jedi to accompany the Queen back to Naboo, hoping to shed light on any Sith involvement. Boss Nass at the Gungan Sacred Place. Queen Amidala, back on Naboo, attempts to locate the Gungans at Otoh Gunga, but Jar-Jar, after searching Otoh Gunga, informs them that it was abandoned. He then leads them to a sacred area which he was certain they were at. Upon arriving at the Gungan Sacred Place , Amidala negotiates with Boss Nass to form an alliance and unite in battle against the Trade Federation. Captain Panaka and several other security forces were also dispatched to rescue anyone imprisoned in the Trade Federation's prison camps, although they were only able to successfully extract a handful.

Next, Amidala informs Qui-Gon and Nass of her battle strategy: with the Grand Gungan Army acting as a distraction to the bulk of the main Trade Federation forces, the Naboo resistance led by Amidala, Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan will infiltrate Theed via a secret entrance located inside one of the waterfalls. Nute Gunray, taking the bait regarding the Gungan Army, informs Darth Sidious about the Grand Army, the latter then promptly ordering Gunray to wipe out the Gungans and the Naboo as the Trade Federation prepares for battle. Captain Roos Tarpals orders the Gungan Grand Army to start up their shield , to protect them from ranged attack. OOM-9 has his tanks fire first, but seeing them fail to penetrate the powerful shield, orders them to cease fire. Daultay Dofine gives the command to activate the battle droids. These droids march through the shield, and its generator is destroyed. After much fighting against the Federation's droid army, defeat for the alliance seems imminent.

However, victory comes when young Anakin Skywalker accidentally takes control of a starfighter and goes on to destroy the Federation's Droid Control Ship from the inside, killing Daultay Dofine and rendering the droid army useless. Meanwhile, Amidala and her force fight their way back into the royal palace and capture Nute Gunray. Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan fight against Darth Maul during the Battle of Naboo. At the same time, in a Theed hangar bay , Darth Maul (an apprentice of the Darth Sidious) engages in combat with the two Jedi, using a double-bladed lightsaber . The battle moves from the hangar, across a series of catwalks, to the Theed Generator Complex. During the fight, Obi-Wan is separated from his master when he is kicked off of a catwalk and falls. He grabs the edge of another catwalk below and jumps back up to where Qui-Gon and Maul continue to fight. By this time, Qui-Gon and Maul have become separated by a force field in the entrance to the Generator Room. Obi-Wan catches up to them, but is divided from his master by four force fields.

When the force fields deactivates, Jinn and Maul continue their battle while Kenobi remains divided from the battle by one force field when they all reactivate. After a lengthy duel, Maul suddenly hits Qui-Gon on the chin with his lightsaber handle, stunning him, then rams his lightsaber straight into Qui-Gon's chest, mortally wounding him. Devastated, Obi-Wan redoubles his assault upon Maul and chops the Sith's lightsaber in half, but Maul eventually overpowers and nearly kills Kenobi when he Force pushes him over the edge of a seemingly endless reactor shaft. Obi-Wan saves himself from falling when he manages to grab onto a pipe protruding from the wall of the shaft. Maul then kicks the Jedi's lightsaber into the pit and prepares to finish him off. After Obi-Wan calms himself, he uses the Force to jump out of the shaft and summons his fallen master's lightsaber to his hand. Within an instant, he lands behind the surprised Maul and cuts him in half; Maul's upper and lower body falls into the shaft.

Obi-Wan reaches Qui-Gon moments before he dies, as Qui-Gon instructs Obi-Wan to train Anakin to become a Jedi, reiterating that Anakin is the Chosen One. Obi-Wan gives his word that he will. The newly-elected Chancellor Palpatine arrives to congratulate Queen Amidala on her victory, as Nute Gunray is sent to stand trial for his crimes. The Gungans and the Naboo celebrate their victory. After the battle, the Jedi Council names Obi-Wan a Jedi Knight. Kenobi conveys his master's wish regarding Anakin Skywalker to Yoda , who reluctantly allows him to become Obi-Wan's apprentice. Qui-Gon's body is cremated, and Mace Windu and Yoda agree that the Sith are definitely to blame for the tragedy. Being that there are only ever two Sith at any given time (a Master and an apprentice), both Masters believe that one must still remain. The Naboo and Gungans organize a great victory celebration on the streets of Theed, in front on the palace.

Obi-Wan and Anakin are present, the younger now wearing formal Jedi attire, and in his hair is a special braid : the mark of a Jedi Padawan . Queen Amidala presents a gift of appreciation and friendship to Boss Nass and the Gungan people. Development Edit Along the lines of The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles, all three prequel films were originally intended to be written and shot as one large production, and released back-to-back. [2] The role of director was offered to Steven Spielberg, Ron Howard, and Robert Zemeckis. According to Howard, Lucas didn't necessarily want to direct Episode I. He further commented that all three directors turned down the position as the film was Lucas's "baby." [3] Many fans began waiting outside cinema theaters as early as a month in advance of ticket sales. [4] The budget of Menace was estimated $115 million. Shooting took place from June 26 to September 30 , 1997 . As with Star Wars: Episode IV A New Hope , Episode I's main exterior filming locations were in Tunisia . The podrace was filmed in a canyon near Sidi Bouhlel and Oung Jmel .

A set was built near Oung Jmel to represent Mos Espa on Tatooine. The Slave Quarters Row were filmed in ksour's near Tataouine and Ksar Medenine . Small parts were filmed in Royal Caserta Palace in Italy and Whippendell Woods in the United Kingdom , but Hever Castle was later cut. Studio work was mainly done at Leavesden Studios in the United Kingdom. Unlike the latter two films in the series which were shot on digital video , most of this film was shot in 35 mm, with a few scenes shot in digital video. This episode was also the first of the Saga to be referred to primarily by its number (Episode One) by media and fans, to contrast it with the classical saga the public already knew. This reference also gave finally some sense to the riddling numbers IV-VI of the previous movies.

Release Edit One of the most popular marketing posters for the film The Phantom Menace received enormous media-created hype, which made Lucasfilm's $20 million advertising campaign – with the distinctive artwork of Star Wars series artist Drew Struzan gracing the movie poster and other advertising – seem modest and almost unnecessary because of the unprecedented interest amongst both fans and the wider audience in the return of the franchise. Few film studios released films during the same week as the release of The Phantom Menace; among the more courageous were DreamWorks and Universal Studios , with the releases of The Love Letter and Notting Hill respectively. The Love Letter resulted in a box-office flop, whereas Notting Hill fared rather well and followed The Phantom Menace closely in second place. [5] Challenger, Gray & Christmas of Chicago, a work-issues consulting firm, estimated that 2.2 million full-time employees did not appear for work to attend the film, resulting in $293 million in lost productivity. The Wall Street Journal reported that such a large number of workers announced plans to view premiere screenings that many companies shut down on the premiere day. [6] Many fans began waiting outside cinema theaters as early as a month in advance of ticket sales.

[7] More theater lines appeared when it was announced that cinemas were not allowed to sell tickets in advance until two weeks into the release. This was done out of fear that family theater-goers would either be unable to receive tickets or would be forced to pay higher prices. Tickets were instead to be sold on a traditional first-come-first-serve basis. [8] However, after meetings with the National Association of Theatre Owners , Lucasfilm agreed to allow advance ticket sales on May 12 , 1999 , provided that there be a 12-ticket limit per customer. [9] As a result, however, some advance tickets were sold by " scalpers " as high as $100 apiece, which a distribution chief called "horrible", stating it was exactly what they wanted to avoid. [10] Daily Variety reported that theater owners received strict instructions from Lucasfilm that the film could only play in the cinema's largest auditorium for the first 8–12 weeks; no honor passes were allowed for the first eight weeks, and they were obligated to send their payments to distributor 20th Century Fox within seven days.

[11] Servers at the film's official website became gridlocked soon after the release of the first teaser trailer , [12] and many fans of the series paid full admission to see Meet Joe Black only to leave after the trailer had run. The same tradition followed months later when the theatrical trailer was featured in front of Wing Commander . [13] The theatrical trailer caused even more notable media hype, because it not only premiered in theaters, but screened at the ShoWest Convention in Las Vegas , and was aired on television on Entertainment Tonight and Access Hollywood . [14] An unusual marketing scheme was pursued across the United Kingdom , where the teaser trailer was released on December 2 , 1998 and then pulled from theaters six weeks later. [15] Despite worries about whether the film would be finished in time, two weeks prior to its debut Lucasfilm pushed the release date up from May 21 , 1999 to May 19 , 1999 . At the ShoWest Convention, Lucas stated that the change was to give the fans a "head start" by allowing them to view it over the week and allowing families the chance to view on the weekends.

In a nod toward his future with digital technology, Lucas stated that the film would be released on four digital projectors on June 18 , 1999 . [16] Eleven charity premieres were staged across the United States on May 16 , 1999 ; receivings from the Los Angeles event were given to the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation with corporate packages available for $5,000-$25,000. [17] Other charity premieres included the Dallas premiere for Children's Medical Center , the Aubrey Fund for Pediatric Cancer Research at the Sloan-Kettering Hospital in New York, the Big Brother/Sister Assn. of the Philadelphia premiere, and the Children's National Medical Center in Washington D.C. A statement said that tickets were sold at $500 apiece and that certain sections were set aside for disadvantaged children. [18] Reception Wikipedia:AFDLIST - WikiVisually WP:GAFD Deletion of a Wikipedia page removes the complete page (and all previous versions) from public view. Deletion happens when a page is unsuitable, unhelpful, or does not meet the required criteria.

Two further deletion processes exist to address undesirable material that may have been added to a page or visible in a log. The deletion policy explains when deletion is acceptable. This page explains the processes available, and how deletion discussions work. You may have come here because a deletion notice of some kind was added to an article that you wrote. Please read this guide to see what happens now and how you can be involved in the decision. Summary of deletion processes[ edit ] Deleting an entire Wikipedia page or file: Any user may suggest deletion of a page for good cause. However, pages may only be deleted summarily via the speedy deletion process if certain criteria are met. In cases of a borderline article, a notice of proposed deletion may be used, giving time for response. In all other cases where removal of an entire page is being considered, a "deletion discussion" happens. The main deletion process for encyclopedia articles is known as " articles for deletion " (AFD). Other kinds of pages have similar processes . An "appeal" process ( deletion review ) also exists. Deleting specific text within a page: Undesirable text can be removed by anyone by editing the page . However, the text will remain publicly accessible in the article history.

If this is unacceptable, then an administrator can permanently delete the content, and it will only be visible to administrators. This is called "revision deletion"; to request it, see how to request revision deletion . A form of extreme deletion known as Oversight also exists, which is operated by a very few specially authorized users. Users with Oversight access can often remove certain serious privacy-breaching and defamatory material so that even administrators cannot see the material. This is requested by email via requests for oversight . Overview of the AFD deletion process[ edit ] All text created in the Wikipedia main namespace is subject to several important rules, including three cardinal content policies ( Wikipedia:Neutral point of view , Wikipedia:Verifiability , and Wikipedia:No original research ) and the copyright policy ( Wikipedia:Copyrights ). Together, these policies govern the admissibility of text in the main body of the encyclopedia, and only text conforming to all four policies is allowed in the main namespace.

A failure to conform to a neutral point of view is usually remedied through editing for neutrality, but text that does not conform to any of the remaining three policies is usually removed from Wikipedia, either by removing a passage or section of an otherwise satisfactory article or by removing an entire article if nothing can be salvaged. This guide deals with the process of addressing articles that contravene Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research , which are often listed or " nominated " on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion . Articles that violate Wikipedia:Copyrights are listed on the project page for copyright problems for further action. When an article is nominated for deletion, the Wikipedia community may discuss its merits for a period usually no less than seven days, in order to come to a public rough consensus about whether the article is unsuited to Wikipedia. Following seven days of discussion, an experienced Wikipedian will determine if a consensus was reached and will " close " the discussion accordingly. Other kinds of pages[ edit ] A list of similar processes for other kinds of pages, including user pages, templates, categories, and redirects, is here . General advice[ edit ] Pages in user space[ edit ] If the page is in your own user space (i.e.

starts with "User:YourName/" or "User talk:YourName/"), then you can request immediate deletion of the page at any time. Simply edit the page and put the template {{db-u1}} at the top of the page. An administrator will see that the page is in your own user space and delete it. Please do not take it personally[ edit ] Please remember that the deletion process is about the appropriateness of the article for inclusion in Wikipedia. A deletion nomination is not a rejection of the author or an attack on his/her value as a member of the Wikipedia community. Therefore, please do not take it personally if an article you've contributed to is nominated for deletion. Over time, Wikipedians have invested a great deal of thought in the question of what may and may not be included in the encyclopedia. The cardinal article policies mentioned above form the core requirements for textual contributions to the mainspace. However, some Wikipedians have also written a number of standards and guidelines that are intended to provide guidance in specific areas; note that such guidelines cannot supersede the requirements of the above policies. Please take the time to review the standards Wikipedians abide by in evaluating content.

Wikipedia:Companies, corporations and economic information/Notability and inclusion guidelines Please be tolerant of others[ edit ] Please remember that AFD is a busy and repetitive place. The people who volunteer to work the AFD process may seem terse, gruff and abrupt. They are not (usually) being intentionally rude. We value civility and always try to assume good faith . However, oftentimes over a hundred articles are nominated for deletion each day. Experienced Wikipedians have been through thousands of deletion discussions and have read and thought through many of the same arguments many times before. For speed, some employ shorthands (described below) rather than typing out the same reasoning and arguments again and again. They are trying to be efficient, not rude. Deletion discussions follow the normal Wikipedia talk page etiquette. Please be familiar with the policies of not biting the newcomers , Wikiquette , no personal attacks , biographies of living persons and civility before contributing. Sockpuppeting is not tolerated[ edit ] WP:AFDSOCK A sockpuppet is a fake account created by a vandal or bad-faith contributor in an attempt to bias the deletion decision process.

A close variation is the " meatpuppet ", people recruited from outside Wikipedia to try to alter the result of a discussion (for example, if my article about a web forum is up for deletion and I post a call for other forum members to "help keep our website in Wikipedia"). Because these tactics are common, comments by new users in deletion discussions may sometimes be viewed with suspicion. These users are difficult to distinguish from legitimate new users who are interested in improving the project. If someone notes that you are a new user, please take it in the spirit it was intended—a fact to be weighed by the closing admin, not an attack on the person. The deletion decision is ultimately made at the discretion of the closing admin after considering the contribution history and pattern of comments. Civil comments and logical arguments are often given the benefit of the doubt while hostile comments are presumed to be bad-faith. Verifiable facts and evidence are welcome from anybody and will be considered during the closing process. You may edit the article during the discussion[ edit ] WP:EDITATAFD You and others are welcome to continue editing the article during the discussion period.

Indeed, if you can address the points raised during the discussion by improving the article, you are encouraged to edit a nominated article (noting in the discussion that you have done so if your edits are significant ones). There are, however, a few restrictions upon how you may edit an article: You must not blank the article (unless it is a copyright infringement). You must not modify or remove the Articles for deletion notice (AfD notice). You should not turn the article into a redirect. A functioning redirect will overwrite the AfD notice. It may also be interpreted as an attempt to "hide" the old content from scrutiny by the community. Moving the article while it is being discussed can produce confusion (both during the discussion and when closing using semi-automated closing scripts ). If you do this, please note it on the deletion discussion page, preferably both at the top of the discussion (for new participants) and as a new comment at the bottom (for the benefit of the closing administrator). Participants in deletion discussions should not circumvent consensus by merging or copying material to another article unilaterally before the debate closes. Such action may cause contention, extra process steps, and additional administrative work if undoing any copying is necessary.

If you wish to merge or copy material, it is preferable to offer a specific proposal in the deletion discussion, negotiate with the other participants, and wait for the discussion to be closed. Even if the article is ultimately deleted, you can ask the closing administrator for a copy of the material to reuse, and the administrator can also advise you on any further steps that you may need to perform in order to reuse the content. Main article: Wikipedia:Deletion policy Deletion of articles from Wikipedia occurs through one of four processes. So-called speedy deletion involves the scrutiny of only a few people before an article is deleted. The allowable criteria for speedy-deletion are deliberately very narrow. The list of candidates for speedy deletion can be viewed at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion . Another quick method is the use of proposed deletion : simply add {{subst: prod |reason goes here}} to the top of the article. This is meant for articles where the deletion is believed to be uncontroversial, yet does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. A proposed deletion can be contested by any user by removing the {{prod}} tag within seven days, and if anyone still wants the article deleted the full Articles for deletion process is required.

For unsourced articles about living persons created after 18 March 2010, adding {{subst: prod blp }} will propose the BLP for deletion . If sources are not added within 10 days, the article may be deleted. Articles which do not meet the narrow criteria for speedy deletion and whose deletion is (or might be) contested are discussed by the community through the Articles for deletion (AfD) process. Before nominating an article for Articles for deletion (AfD), please: Strongly consider if an alternative deletion process ( speedy deletion , or proposed deletion ) should be used. Check the deletion policy to see what things are not reasons for deletion. Consider whether you actually want the article to be merged , expanded , or cleaned up rather than deleted, and use the appropriate mechanism instead of AfD. Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case , consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template , instead of bringing the article to AfD.

The pages Wikipedia:Notability (people) , Wikipedia:Conflict of interest , Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) , Wikipedia:Notability (music) , Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources , Wikipedia:Notability (web) , and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not are frequently cited in deletion discussions. Familiarize yourself with the ones relevant to the article in question. Consider adding a tag such as {{ cleanup }}, {{ disputed }} or {{ expert-subject }} instead; this may be preferable if the article has some useful content. Consider making the page a useful redirect or proposing it be merged rather than deleted. Neither of these actions requires an AfD. If an article content happens to fit any of our sister wikis , consider copying it there before proceeding. You can replace an article with a soft redirect to a sister wiki in some cases. Investigate the possibility of rewriting the article yourself (or at least creating a stub on the topic and requesting expansion) instead of deleting it. First do the necessary homework and look for sources yourself, and invite discussion on the talk page by using the {{ notability }} template, if you are disputing the notability of an article's subject.

The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth. Check the "what links here" link to see how the article is being used within Wikipedia. Check interwiki links to pages "in other languages" which may provide additional material for translation. Read the article's talk page , which may provide reasons why the article should or should not be deleted. Check that what you wish to delete is an article. Templates , categories , images , redirects and pages not in the main article space (including user and Wikipedia namespace pages) have their own deletion processes separate from AfD. Note that if you are editing under an IP address because you have not yet created a user account , you will not be able to complete the AfD process, as anonymous contributors are currently unable to create new pages (as required by step 2 of "How to list pages for deletion," below). If this is the case, consider creating a user account before listing an article on AfD.

How to list pages for deletion[ edit ] WP:AFDLIST After reviewing the above section, if you still think the article should be deleted, you must nominate it and open the AfD discussion. Nomination is a three-stage process. Please carefully follow the instructions on the Articles for deletion page. You must perform all three stages of the process (they are listed under the single page instructions). Nominations follow a very specific format because we transclude the discussion page onto a consolidated list of deletion discussions. This makes it more efficient for other participants to find the discussion and to determine if they have anything relevant to add. Incomplete nominations may be discarded or ignored. If you need help, ask. It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion. Do not notify bot accounts or people who have made only insignificant 'minor' edits. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the article. For your convenience, you may use {{subst: Adw |Article title}}. To avoid confusing newcomers, the reasons given for deletion should avoid Wikipedia-specific acronyms.

Place a notification on significant pages that link to your nomination, to enable those with related knowledge to participate in the debate. If recommending that an article be speedily deleted, please give the criterion or criteria that it meets, such as "A7" or "biography not asserting importance". Anyone can make a nomination, though anonymous users can not complete the process without help from a logged-in user. The nomination, however, must be in good faith. Nominations that are clearly vandalism may be discarded. Anonymous users cannot complete the process, as they are technically prohibited from creating new pages. Nominations already imply a recommendation to delete the article, unless the nominator specifically says otherwise, and to avoid confusion nominators should refrain from explicitly indicating this recommendation again in the bulleted list of recommendations. (Some nominations are performed by experienced users on behalf of others, either because they are inexperienced with the AfD process or because the deletion recommendation was the result of a separate discussion.) WP:AFDDISCUSS Discussion occurs on a dedicated discussion page, a sub-page of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion named after the article. Unlike speedy deletion, which can potentially involve just a single editor, AfD involves multiple editors.

The purpose of this is in part to ensure that articles are not erroneously deleted or kept. Editors are not expected to know everything. AfD is designed to place "multiple layers of swiss cheese" (see the Swiss Cheese model ) in the process, to reduce the possibility of an erroneous conclusion being reached. Other editors can find things that one editor has overlooked or not been aware of. This process does not work when editors merely echo the rationales of others, and do not double-check things for themselves. The best way to help AfD to continue to work is always to check things out for yourself before presenting a rationale. (For example: If the assertion is that the subject is unverifiable, have a look yourself to see whether you can find sources that other editors may have missed.) Anyone acting in good faith can contribute to the discussion. The author of the article can make his/her case like everyone else. As discussed above , relevant facts and evidence are welcome from anyone but the opinions of anonymous and/or suspiciously new users may be discounted by the closing admin. Please bear in mind that administrators will discount any obviously bad faith contributions to the discussion when closing the discussion.

On the other hand, a user who makes a well-argued, fact-based case based upon Wikipedia policy and does so in a civil manner may well sway the discussion despite being anonymous. Formatting[ edit ] For consistency, the form for the discussion is a bulleted list below the nomination text. You may indent the discussion by using multiple bullets. Mixing of bullets and other forms of indentation is discouraged because it makes the discussion much harder for subsequent readers to follow. Sign any contribution that you make by adding ~~~~ to the comment. Unsigned contributions may be discounted at the discretion of the volunteer who closes the discussion. Please do not refactor the discussion into lists or tables of recommendations, however much you may think that this helps the process. Both the context and the order of the comments are essential to understanding the intents of contributors, both at the discussion closure and during the discussion. Refactoring actually makes the job of making the decision at the closure of discussion much harder, not easier. Behavior[ edit ] Always explain your reasoning. This allows others to challenge or support facts, suggest compromises or identify alternative courses of action that might not yet have been considered.

It also allows administrators to determine at the end of the discussion, whether your concerns have been addressed and whether your comments still apply if the article was significantly rewritten during the discussion period. "Votes" without rationales may be discounted at the discretion of the closing admin. The purpose of the discussion is to achieve consensus upon a course of action. Individuals will express strong opinions and may even "vote". To the extent that voting occurs (see meta:Polls are evil ), the votes are merely a means to gauge the degree of consensus reached so far. Wikipedia is not a democracy and majority voting is not the determining factor in whether a nomination succeeds or not. Please do not "spam" the discussion with the same comment multiple times. Make your case clearly and let other users decide for themselves. Experienced AfD participants re-visit discussions that they have already participated in. They are looking for new facts, evidence or changes to the article which might change their initial conclusion. In this situation, strike through your previous comment using 
...
 (if you are changing your mind) or to explicitly comment "no change" to confirm that you have considered the new evidence but remain unconvinced.

Do not remove or modify other people's comments even if you believe them to be in bad faith—unless the user has been banned from editing the relevant pages, or is making a blatantly offensive personal attack or a defamatory comment about a living person . [1] [2] It is acceptable to correct the formatting in order to retain consistency with the bulleted indentation. It is also acceptable to note the contribution history of a new user or suspected sockpuppet as an aid to the closing admin. If, in a deletion discussion, you refer to Wikipedia policies or guidelines , you are responsible for making a good faith effort to represent those policies or guidelines accurately. Policies and guidelines reflect widespread community consensus . If you disagree with a guideline, you should raise your concern on the guideline's talk page; contradicting or misrepresenting policies and guidelines in deletion discussions is disruptive of the discussion process. Main articles: Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators and Wikipedia:Deletion process After seven days, links to discussions are automatically moved from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Current discussions to the below section Old discussions . Depending on the backlog, a discussion may remain open for several more days, during which it is still acceptable to add comments to the discussion.

A volunteer (the "closing admin") will review the article, carefully read the discussion, weigh all the facts, evidence and arguments presented and determine if consensus was reached on the fate of the article. The desired standard is rough consensus , not perfect consensus . Please also note that closing admins are expected and required to exercise their judgment in order to make sure that the decision complies with the spirit of all Wikipedia policy and with the project goal. A good admin will transparently explain how the decision was reached. A decision is either to "keep" or "delete" the article. Discussions which fail to reach rough consensus default to "keep". The decision may also include a strong recommendation for an additional action such as a "merge" or "redirect". In many cases, the decision to "keep" or "delete" may be conditional on the community's acceptance of the additional action. These recommendations do represent the community consensus and also should not be overturned lightly. However, these are actions which can be taken by any editor and do not require "admin powers". If they are challenged, the decision should be discussed and decided on the respective article Talk pages. A second deletion discussion is unnecessary.

The discussion is preserved for future reference in accordance with the deletion process , both for consultation as non-binding precedent and for determining when a previously deleted article has been re-created. In some rare cases in the past, deletion discussions have been blanked as a courtesy, leaving the history available (example: the 2005 deletion discussion for Rational objectivism ); however, discussions are no longer indexed by web search engines .) The closing admin will also perform any necessary actions to carry out the decision. If the consensus is to merge the article and the merger would be non-trivial, it is acceptable for the admin to only begin the article merger process by tagging the article. Recommendations and outcomes[ edit ] Delete means simply that the user thinks the article should be deleted. He or she may state reasons or simply leave it at this statement. Because the deletion process is a discussion and not a vote, simply stating "delete" without any further comment is discouraged. Keep means simply that the user thinks the article should not be deleted. He or she may state reasons or simply leave it at this statement. Because the deletion process is a discussion and not a vote, simply stating "keep" without any further comment is discouraged.

Merge is a recommendation to keep the article's content but to move it into some more appropriate article. It is either inappropriate or insufficient for a stand-alone article. After the merger, the article will be replaced with a redirect to the target article (in order to preserve the attribution history). Redirect is a recommendation to keep the article's history but to blank the content and replace it with a redirect . Users who want to see the article's history destroyed should explicitly recommend Delete then Redirect. Transwiki is a recommendation to copy the article to a sister project in Wikimedia (such as Wiktionary , Wikisource , Wikibooks , or one of the foreign language projects) and remove it from Wikipedia, either by deleting it or redirecting it to another article. It has also been used to recommend a transfer to a wiki aimed at a more specific audience (for example, Wookieepedia for Star Wars topics, WikiFur for furry fandom topics). Userfy is a recommendation to move the article to the author's user page. Wikipedia allows greater leniency in the userspace than the main article space. The resultant redirect is always deleted. Delete 100% ^ If necessary, the resulting redirect may be removed per Wikipedia:Merge and delete .

While editors are encouraged to discuss the deletion, a bolded AfD recommendation ("Delete", "Keep", etc) should be left only once by an editor in a deletion discussion unless the previous one is struck . Editors may leave multiple recommendations as alternatives when unsure, for instance "Merge or redirect". If you disagree with the consensus[ edit ] The consensus opinion of the community about an article's disposition is generally respected, and should not be overturned or disregarded lightly. Sometimes, however, users disagree with the consensus opinion arrived at in the AFD quite strongly. If you disagree with the consensus opinion, it is a good idea to first try to understand why the community made its decision. You may find that its reasoning was sensible. However, if you remain unsatisfied with the consensus decision, there are a few options open to you. If you think that an article was wrongly kept after the AFD, you could wait to see if the article is improved to overcome your objections; if it isn't, you can renominate it for deletion. If and when you do renominate, be careful to say why you think the reasons proffered for keeping the article are poor, and why you think the article must be deleted.

If you think that an article was wrongly deleted, you can recreate the article. If you do decide to recreate it, pay careful attention to the reasons that were proffered for deletion. Overcome the objections, and show that your new, improved work meets Wikipedia article policies. It can help to write down the reasons you think the article belongs on Wikipedia on the article's discussion page. If you manage to improve on the earlier version of the article and overcome its (perceived) shortcomings, the new article cannot be speedily deleted , and any attempt to remove it again must be settled before the community, on AFD. Finally, if you are unsatisfied with the outcome of an AFD because you believe that a procedural issue interfered with the AFD or with the execution of its decision, you can appeal the decision at Wikipedia:Deletion review , where deletion decisions are reviewed by the community over a period of around seven days. The review has the authority to overturn AFD decisions. Note, however, that by long tradition and consensus, deletion review only addresses procedural problems that may have hampered an AFD.

For example, if the participants of an AFD arrived at one decision but the closing administrator wrongly executed another, Deletion Review can opt to overturn the administrator's action. It must be emphasized that the review exists to address procedural (or "process") problems in AFDs that either made it difficult for the community to achieve a consensus, or prevented a consensus that was achieved from being correctly applied. It does not exist to override community consensus. If an AFD decision was arrived at fairly and applied adequately, it is unlikely that the decision will be overturned at the Review. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion review . Can I recreate an article that was deleted in the past?[ edit ] Articles that have been deleted in the past generally should not be re-created unless the reason for deletion is specifically addressed (for information on determining the reason why the page was deleted, see Wikipedia:Why was the page I created deleted? ). If the article was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion , you should read the full deletion discussion before re-creating. Articles that are re-created without any substantial changes can be re-deleted immediately (see CSD G4 ). This applies regardless of whether you wrote the original article.

If you are uncertain whether your new article will adequately address the original reasons for deletion, you may wish to create a draft version of it in your sandbox and then request feedback at deletion review . Some example scenarios: If an article was deleted because it infringes copyright ( G12 ), it may be recreated if you rewrite the article entirely in your own words. See Wikipedia:Copy-paste . If an article was deleted because it was advertising or promotion ( G11 ), it may be recreated if it is rewritten from a neutral point of view , avoiding any promotional language. If an article was deleted because it included no assertion of significance ( A7 ), it may be recreated if you include an explanation of why the subject is important or significant. If an article was deleted because the subject was not notable , but since that time many more independent reliable sources discussing them have been found or published, you can re-create the article if you include these new additional sources. patent nonsense ( G1 ), vandalism ( G3 ), test page ( G2 ), author requested deletion ( G7 ), attack page ( G10 ), no context ( A1 ), no content ( A3 ) In some cases, articles may be deleted for erroneous reasons.

For example, the deletion summary may claim that the article included no assertion of significance, but in fact the article did explain why the subject is significant. In this case, contact the administrator who deleted it, or request undeletion at deletion review . Note that if you copy and paste text from a deleted article (that you did not write yourself) into a new article, you should visit Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen to request an administrator to repair the history and correctly give credit to all authors. Articles that are restored via deletion review will automatically include the original history. Articles that are deleted by the Wikimedia Foundation for legal reasons (see Wikipedia:Office actions ) should never be re-created without the Foundation's explicit approval. See also: Wikipedia:Glossary As discussed above, experienced Wikipedians use specialized jargon in an effort to communicate efficiently. Often, if a Wikipedian uses capitalized letter abbreviations, you can find what they are talking about by affixing WP: in front of their capitalized abbreviation and searching for an article of that name. "NPOV", for example, can be found at WP:NPOV . Be sure to match capitalization.

Other examples of shorthand in general include: Copyvio or CV means that the user thinks the article is a copyright violation . In general, the copyvio deletion process takes precedence over the AFD process. -cruft (for example, " fancruft ", "gamecruft" or "forumcruft") is shorthand for "This article is trivia of interest only to hardcore fans of a specific film, television series, book, game, pop singer, web forum, etc." Delete means simply that the user thinks the article should be deleted. He or she may state reasons or simply leave it at this statement. Because the deletion process is a discussion and not a vote, simply stating "delete" without any further comment is discouraged. Deprodded means the article was proposed for deletion (or "prodded", see below), but someone contested this by removing the {{ prod }} message from the article. Patent nonsense refers to Wikipedia:patent nonsense . Per nomination, per nominator, or simply per nom means the user agrees with and wishes to express the same viewpoint as the user who nominated the article for deletion.

per <user> means that the user agrees with the reasoning or comments of the other user named, who will have commented earlier in the discussion, and wishes to express the same opinion. POV means that the user considers the article's title and/or the article's mere existence to be inherently biased and to violate Wikipedia's neutral-point-of-view policy . POV fork is shorthand for "This article is on the same topic as an existing article and was created in an attempt to evade the spirit of WP:NPOV ." Prodded means the article was previously proposed for deletion , a half-way house between speedy deletion and Articles for deletion for uncontroversial proposals. The name comes from the {{ prod }} template the process uses. Protect, or salt the Earth ("salt") means that the user thinks that the article, if deleted, should be protected against recreation . This is for cases where the article may be persistently re-created. Redirect is a recommendation to keep the article's history but to blank the content and replace it with a redirect . Users who want to see the article's history destroyed should explicitly recommend Delete then Redirect.

Smerge is a "slight merge" or "selective merge", and is used when a user thinks the article's topic deserves mention in another article, but doesn't think that all of the information is needed (or wanted). This is a recommendation for merging the essentials of an article, but not the whole thing. Speedy delete, Speedy or CSD mean that the user thinks the article qualifies for one of the narrow speedy deletion criteria. If there are no objections, the deletion discussion may be closed early. If the decision is contested, the AFD discussion continues. See also: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion . Speedy keep is rarely but thoroughly used. It implies that the user thinks the nomination was in bad-faith (vandalism, disruption, edits by banned users, and so forth) and that the deletion discussion can be closed early. See also Wikipedia:Speedy keep . It is sometimes, even more rarely, used for cases where a discussion has led to all parties being in favour of keeping. However, that is usually not indicated by a third party coming along and using a shorthand. Snowball is a request for application of the Wikipedia:snowball clause (for either keeping or deletion).

However, an AfD should be closed early only by reference to Wikipedia:Speedy keep or Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion . Transwiki is a recommendation to copy the article to a sister project in Wikimedia (such as Wiktionary , Wikisource , Wikibooks , or one of the foreign language projects) and remove it from Wikipedia, either by deleting it or redirecting it to another article. It has also been used to recommend a transfer to a wiki aimed at a more specific audience (for example, Wookieepedia for Star Wars topics, WikiFur for furry fandom topics). Userfy is a recommendation to move the article to the author's user page. Wikipedia allows somewhat greater leniency in the userspace than the main article space. The resultant redirect is always deleted. Vanity suggests that an article was created to promote the author or some topic associated with the author. This term is discouraged because it is easy to interpret as an attack against the author, and has led to negative press. [3] WP:POINT refers to the rule that one should not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Without prejudice .

When used in Wikipedia AfD debates, it suggests that the result of this particular debate does not preclude a particular option (for example, without prejudice of re-creation) and should NOT be used as an example in other and future AfD debates due to its unique situation or issues. As a courtesy, when dealing with articles written by new contributors, one should avoid shorthand to facilitate their learning Wikipedia policy and improve their future contributions. Miscellaneous advice[ edit ] If you are the nominator of an article for deletion, your desire to delete it is assumed (unless you specify that you are neutral, and nominating for other reasons). Because of this, you do not get to !vote (that is, for the second time) in your own AfD. If you expect the AfD page will be edited by newcomers to Wikipedia (perhaps because the article is linked from some visible place outside Wikipedia), or if you notice this happening, you might want to insert the {{ Not a ballot }} template into it. If you are not logged in, you will not be able to create the AfD discussion page. You could either log in, sign up , or request an account first, or request that a logged in user complete the nomination on the article talk page.

It is recommended that you describe the steps you have taken to check that your nomination is appropriate, including any search for reliable sources you have done. This may avoid duplication of effort and prevent your nomination from being labelled as spurious or thoughtless.

Question: Wikipedia is a familiar internet website, but specifically which film is the subject of the website Wookieepedia?
Answer: STAR WARS