Talk:Star Wars

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Star Wars article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Good article Star Wars has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Featured topic star Star Wars is the main article in the "Star Wars episodes" series (project page), a featured topic identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Star Wars is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Star Wars as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Astur-Leonese language Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] Why don't we talk about Star Wars' prodigious impact on pop culture in the opening paragraph?

I mean seriously. Badboysbadoyswhatugonnado (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The line "and became a worldwide pop culture phenomenon" alludes to it. Obviously it only summarises it, but that's the purpose of the lead. Were the lead to use the word "prodigious" or some such word, the article's neutrality would be compromised. I agree that it'd be better worded to indicate just how massive an immpact on pp culture it's had, rather than simply beig a phenomenon, as there have been many phenomena that would fit the description used here. --rm 'w avu 20:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

okay but how would "having a prodigious impact on pop culture" infringe on neutrality? Hell, "prodigious" actually belittles Star Wars' impact. I mean really, it's an unarguably, undisputable fact that Star Wars has had an immense, tremendous impact on popular culture. Some catch phrases have entered everyday language. Badboysbadoyswhatugonnado (talk) 04:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good Artical

I think this artical should be re-nominated for good artical Poohman0 (talk) 01:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FA Status Project

Talk:Star Wars/FA has more information, please post comments there. Stealth (talk) 01:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Why do we need a separate page? Why not keep it here, in one place, and keep it simple? --Merbabu (talk) 01:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Games (number of them)

I was thinking that 120 gaems was an awful lot..... I then checked the Wikipedia Page List of Star Wars video games and I counted 91.... Can someone verify this from an outside source? If not lets remove this comment... Stealth (talk) 11:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I changed it to 'dozens' to be less approximate since it's not worth it to research the exact number. Gary King (talk) 15:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Jedi Order

This sentence, from the Literature section is incorrect:

LucasBooks radically changed the face of the Star Wars universe with the introduction of the New Jedi Order series written by written by Jude Watson, which takes place some 20 years after Return of the Jedi and stars a host of new characters alongside series originals.

Jude Watson did not write any books in the NJO series. It was written by a group of authors: R.A. Salvatore, Michael A. Stackpole, James Luceno, Kathy Tyers, Troy Denning, Greg Keyes, Elaine Cunningham, Aaron Allston, Matthew Stover, Walter Jon Williams, Shane Dix, and Sean Williams. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.76.22.118 (talk) 15:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It merely states that the INTRODUCTION of the NJO was writted by Jude Watson. It does not claim that the said author wrote every NJO book. Bassplaya (talk) 12:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

I'm doing this in bits: I'll check the images first, then look at the prose.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    See below.
    B. MoS compliance:
    See below. Just a few changes.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
    Is Dick Cheney's Halloween 2007 costume really relevant?
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    You could talk more about the binary sunset, but I won't stop you.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:


[edit] Suggestions

Red is needed for me to pass the GA, green is suggested, but not vitally required.

  • "American Graffiti completed in 1973, and afterwards, Lucas set to work on making his space adventure movie." - fragmented. Merge into next sentence.
  • "on a farm, with his name now Luke rather than Annikin. Annikin, Luke's father became an active character in the story who was a wise Jedi knight." -> sentence runs for quite a bit. Try "on a farm as Luke. Annikin became Luke's father, a wise Jedi knight."
  • "though this was not designed or intended for filming; it was merely backstory. "The backstory wasn't meant to be a movie," Lucas has said." - chop the second line
  • Consider changing full names to last names after first mention
  • late November of 1977 -> "late November 1977".
  • April of 1978 -> same thing
  • fix altering spellings of "dark side", "darkside", "dark-side", and "Dark Side"
  • as he makes explicit -> past tense
  • "After getting a divorce in 1983 and losing much of his fortune" -> "After losing much of his fortune as a divorce settlement in 1983"}} - unless the two aren't linked.
  • Last paragraph of "prequel trilogy" - remove a bit of the blame from Lucas, like saying (beef this up) "Lucas often exaggerated claims about his work. Kaminski theorised that this was both a publicity and security measure."
  • "Space travel is also common, with many of the planets in the galaxy members of a Galactic Republic. The Galactic Republic later became the Galactic Empire." -> Space travel is common, with many planets in the galaxy members of a Galactic Republic, later the Galactic Empire.
  • "The attack is, in fact, merely a ploy by Naboo senator Palpatine, to overthrow and replace the Supreme Chancellor of the senate. Palpatine is actually the Sith Lord Darth Sidious, and is attempting to take over the galaxy." -> "The attack is a ploy by the Sith Lord Darth Sidious under the guise of Palpatine, a senator from Naboo, planned to overthrow the Supreme Chancellor of the Galactic Senate in his quest for galactic domination". (you could cut that further, to be honest)
  • "However, Skywalker soon succumbs to his anger" - remove "However".
  • "Also, Star Wars has had numerous radio adaptations." - remove "Also".
  • Italicise series names and book names in the "Literature" section
  • "The most notable of these are "Weird Al" Yankovic's" - ""Weird Al" Yankovic recorded two parodies:" (Yoda); and (Saga Begins).
  • As a matter of interest, there's a source somewhere were Yankovic says how accurate he was (even pronouncing 'Coruscant' correctly) with the latter recording despite not seeing a preview). You might want to include that. This is also good reading; I have an article at FAC and I've had to read over this to help with the prose. Might do well to read it and transfer the skills, because it looks like it could be FA with some more work. Sceptre (talk) 03:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
All of the above are done. Gary King (talk) 04:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Looks good. Passing, though still not sure about the Dick Cheney costume ref. Sceptre (talk) 04:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Item removed as suggested, it is irrelevant and not needed, however a comment somewhere about the fact that many people (including Dick Cheyney) have dressed up as various characters could be good.... Stealth (talk) 22:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Picture of Tatooine

I don't think there should be a picture of Tatooine because Tatooine, as important as it is, isn't the MAIN plot. Gregory E. Miller (talk) 22:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC))

it is in a way..... Vader I believe essentially starts turning evil after he kills the animals/things guarding his mother. Stealth (talk) 20:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, Alright. But did you put a pic of Tatooine animals on the list of minor starwars characters? Gregory E. Miller (talk) 16:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC))

There should NOT be a picture of Tatooine unless it is Free Use. Fair Use images are only allowed to be used when the understanding of the article would suffer without it. (So long as Tatooine is described a a "desert planet", I see no major added understanding a reader would get by seeing a picture. TheHYPO (talk) 19:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I know. But someone put an image of Tatooine on list of minor Star Wars characters page, and we all know that it doesn't belong there. Gregory E. Miller (talk) 23:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Merge proposal - Star Wars (film series)

I would like to suggest the star wars film series article be... basically deleted. Everything it contains is available elsewhere: the films are synopsized equally thoroughly in this article, and the reception/criticism of the films are better left for each film's article, and not one big article.

The list of planets and characters already have their own pages, and are fairly trivial lists that don't belong in the body of that kind of article. I'd also be open to suggestions on how the film article could be improved to actually contain different information from this article, and not just lists that don't belong in the body of an article. TheHYPO (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Alternatively, I think what has been built here under the "feature films" could be moved to replace the "Film Series" article, and what is here could be reduced significantly. Thoughts? TheHYPO (talk) 23:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
While I think your latest suggestion has merit, I prefer the original idea of merging the Film Series article into this one. This seems to flow quite well as an overview of the entire universe, of which the films are the main element, so why not keep it intact and blow the other one away after salvaging whatever's useful from it (not a great deal)? However, I think best get a couple more opinions first. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I second a merge-- Sonarpulse | Talk 20:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Section order?

I know it was semi-recently reordered, but I'd like to suggest that the article would be better ordered if the "setting" and then "feature films" section were moved up above the History; The FF section provides and overview to what the films actually ARE (both plot wise, and things like how many films there were, when they came out, the relationship between the OT and the prequel trilogy, etc.) Putting the History section first explains to the reader the history of a film series they don't know anything about. The history section describes in depth how some of the characters and plot element changed between script drafts, but the reader hasn't read the overview of film series which would explain to the reader the characers and plot BEFORE they read the history of how that plot came to be final. TheHYPO (talk) 19:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree, the story should come first to set the scene. Having History first presumes familiarity with the subject; after all, we put Plot before Production in individual film articles. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Annoying task

It's annoying, but does anyone want to give a hand converting the "Secret History" citations from the old (either v1 or v2, I'm not sure) page numbers to the proper page numbers in the current version 3? Most of the citations are no longer accurate. The ones I came across in my edits, I corrected and changed the reference to v3.0

You don't have to do them all, but if anyone has time to do a couple, it could probably get cleaned up fairly quickly. TheHYPO (talk) 20:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge aid

The only thing I haven't merged in the agree upon merge is the "critisism/reception" section. The section exists in history here

I believe that there is no real cohesion in this section that makes it about the series as a whole: it merely says "the first film was received [blah]. Empire was received [blah]. Critics hailed Jedi as [blah]." etc. Each movie is separately discussed. As such, anything there that is not already in each film's own article should be added to the films' article. Aid in checking that and carrying it out would be appreciated. TheHYPO (talk) 06:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Missing Film

There's a film that seems to be missing from the article, though I'm not sure where it would fall into the list. The Star Wars Holiday Special (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0193524/) should be included, though a lot of folks, including George Lucas apparently, would rather it was ignored/forgotten. I'll see what I can dig up on it later and try to figure out where it should go.    ¥    Jacky Tar  11:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)