Talk:Star Wars/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Eliminating Redundancy and Article Clean-Up

I did look at the history before I reverted, and I completely diagree with the formatting. I have been working to get the article featured, and, no offense, but I don't think your version is in the right direction. The Wookieepedian 19:36, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

This is more appropriately discussed at the article's talk page, and I am transferring the discussion there. I would like you to explain why you feel that:

The length of the article (which is too long by Wikipedia standards) should not be trimmed by removing redundant information.
The grammar and writing style of the article should not be improved wherever possible.
There is a need to illogically separate similar information into multiple categories. For example, why do we need two different sections for television shows? Why are games given two separate sections, one of which is lumped in unnaturally with toys? Why do we need two different sections, each discussing Joseph Campbell's influence on the trilogy?
Fan works should included as a sub-section of the Extended Universe, a term which explicitly only applies to licensed material?

I am undoing your revert of the article (incorporating the substantive material subsequently added Philwelch. Please do not revert the article again without addressing your rationale for the redundant and clumsy lay-out you prefer for this article. Justin Bacon 21:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it should be trimmed, but the way you have organized the article doesn't quite flow the way it should. Fan works, BTW, are sanctioned by Lucasfilm, and though not specifically part of the EU, fits into that overall category. Of course the grammar and writing style should be improved as well. The main problem I have with your revert is your style of formatting. You can change that part, but please just leave the format as it was, as it was quite organized as it was. The Wookieepedian 22:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, then let's discuss the organization specifically. As I asked before: Why do we need two different sections for television shows? Why are games given two different sections, one of which is lumped unnaturally with toys? And additional questions: Why do you prefer to inconsistently lead section titles with the word "The" (in a manner inconsistent with both Wikipedia practice and every style guide I've ever seen)? Why does the "Setting" section, containing only two paragraphs of material, require sub-sections (bloating the table of contents)? Justin Bacon 23:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, to answer your questions: Two sections mention the show becuase of the simple reason that a section on "live-action" and "TV" wouldn't be complete without mentioning the series. The live-action section is meant to focus on live-action only. TV is for more general things like animation. Games aren't given two separate sections. It just so happens that Jedi Knight: Dark Forces II contains segments of live-action, which makes it suitable for the live-action section. That's its only purpose there, not as a game, but only the live-action segments of it. The Games and toys are lumped together becuase they generally are elsewhere (amazon.com). I use the word "the" simply because it sounds better. The "Setting" section is divided into two sections just to give a clear distincion between time and place. The Wookieepedian 15:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

From an obsessive-categorization standpoint, your preference make some sense, but a Wikipedia article need not consist of mere categorization of items. We should be capable of actually using sentences to explain the subject. Therefore I see nothing wrong with condensing these sections. One "Television" heading could, for example, include a discussion of all TV appearances, including the Muppet Show, televised immunization PSA's, Burger-King ads, television trailers, cartoon series, the Holiday Special, etc. The text would make clear which were live action and which were animated (or a combination of both). Similarly, one "Video Games" heading should cover a discussion of everything from the vector-graphics arcade games to "Jedi Knight: Dark Forces II", in which it could be mentioned that live-action sequences are included. Dystopos 15:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Wookieepedian, you're admitting that you're defending a structure which deliberately leads to redundancy in an article which is already too long by Wikipedia's community standards. Even if there was a useful purpose in distinguishing "live-action" from "everything else" in the EU material -- and I'm not particulary convinced that there is -- I think it's more than outweighed by the advantages of a clear and non-redundant presentation. A couple of other points: (a) There are two sections for games -- one under live-action and another grouped together with toys; claiming otherwise is simply disingenuous. (b) The word "the" may sound better to you, but -- again -- its not accepted practice or style. Finally, Wikipedia is a community. Rather than continuing your practice of simply annihilating everyone else's contributions to this article, please finish this discussion and the process it represents. Justin Bacon 15:59, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Very well. Dystopos hit the nail on the head in his comments on me having an obsessive-categorization ponit of view. Look, I'll keep the article in the format you have, but make a few changes. It's fine, just not as organized as I had hoped for it. The Wookieepedian 16:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

General Plan of Action

I think Bacon's version reads better, personally. — Phil Welch 22:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I suggest that instead of installing whole-sale alternate versions, that editors make more incremental changes. That way the ones that don't have support can more easily be reverted and the ones that are truly improvements can be kept in place. Dystopos 22:14, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
- I agree on the need for incremental changes, which is why I did it that way when the article's poor structure and redundancy caught my eye last night. I think the best solution at this point is to revert the article to the condition we're agreed is superior, and then continue revising from that point. If Wookieepedian can support his preference for his lay-out of the article, we can always go back then. However, having watched Wookieepedia violate the 3RR policy again for the second time in three days on this page, I'm going to let someone else take the initiative on reverting the article back to its proper state. Justin Bacon 23:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Nits to Pick

Do we need a separate "Scripts" section? Most the material previously in that section was already duped in the "Original Plan" section of the article (so I removed it). I think it's quite possible to rename the "Original Plan" section "Original Plan and Early Drafts", incorporating the material currently found in the "Scripts" section. This title would also be more representative of the discussion actually found in that section of the article, since it doesn't stop with Lucas' original plan (instead showing how that original plan evolved over the course of three decades). Thoughts? Comments? Justin Bacon 05:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Couple of quick questions and comments for you Wookieepedian:

You seem to prefer the phrase "one of the most successful" rather than "the most successful"? My understanding is that the latter is, strictly speaking, the more accurate one. Do you have different info?
Technically speaking, the "rise of the New Republic" is not shown in the films. The New Republic belongs wholly and completely to the Expanded Universe. I'm going to remove this section again.
You also seem to prefer putting the "see also" links at the top of the relevant sections. It's not a big deal to me either way, but I prefer to read about the subject and then have a "see also" link if I want to read more. Thoughts?
Nice addition commenting on the way that the Clone Wars material followed in the footsteps of Shadows of the Empire. Justin Bacon 00:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

1. Using the phrase "One of the most successful" seems to be more honest, accurate, and fair to other franchises, such as Star Trek, which have had near equal success. After all, that article says the same thing about Star Trek.

2. I put the rise of the New Republic bit in to explain the ultimate results of the fall of the empire. That's why I originally phrased it "the rise of the Rebel Alliance, and ultimately, the rise of the New Republic. The line is there also to acknowledge the EU as part of the complete story.

3. I put the "see also" where I did because of first off, my personal preference, and second, it is the way sections are typically formatted on articles that I have seen on here.

4. Thanks. The Wookieepedian 00:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Saga Influenced Universe? Saga is Universe? Universe influenced Saga?

This doesn't make any sense to me: Star Wars is a science fantasy saga inspired from a fictional universe created by writer/producer/director George Lucas in the early 1970s." This would suggest that George Lucas created the Star Wars universe first and then, inspired by his own creation, decided to create a saga set in that universe. But that doesn't match the apparent reality of Lucas' creation process. I'm changing it back for now. Justin Bacon 01:45, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

If I twist my mind around it, I can force it to make some sense, in that Lucas did create a broader story arc before he winnowed it down to the single film released in 1977. But I think it's a bit apocryphal to say that he created a "universe" (many contributors have made it possible to use that term now), and flat wrong to think that it was this universe that inspired the film. His inspiration was plainly to create an adventure film set in space with hero/quest themes. My version would go something like: Star Wars is a science fantasy saga launched by George Lucas' 1977 blockbuster film Star Wars. (And then use the rest of the introduction to discuss how it grew from a hit film into a "universe" of tie-ins and fan participation.) In fact, if no one seriously objects, I'll go ahead and do that next week. Dystopos 03:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that George Lucas ended up creating a fictional universe, commonly referred to as "Star Wars" or "the Star Wars universe", which has become important in its own right. I simply object to the claim that the universe inspired the creation of the films; rather than the reality, which is that the creation of the universe arose from the films. Justin Bacon 03:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

In my view, Lucas' contribution comes far short of "creating" the "universe" in the sense that it is described here. He did create the "saga" in the sense of the 6 films, and he is active and inescapable in the development of the bigger phenomenon, but it is only by the unlikeliest stretch "his creation" (and, as you note, NOT the inspiration for the 1977 film by ANY stretch) Dystopos 04:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I meant that he came up with the general and basic ideas, the universe, the characters, the locations, etc. He, along with all the other authors created stories (the saga) based on his characters. The Wookieepedian 04:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

(The following two comments were moved from my talk page. I would stress that a discussion pertaining entirely to the content of a page needs to be held, the most apprropriate place for that discussion is on the article's talk page. Sticking it off on a user page simply fragments discussions and make it difficult to build and understand community consensus.)

The opening as I have it reads: "Star Wars is a science fantasy saga inspired from a fictional universe created by writer/producer/director George Lucas in the early 1970s." I have it this way for a reason. The sentence states that Lucas created the overall universe, as in the ideas, the characters, the locations, etc. However, all stories about this universe were created based on the fictional universe Lucas created. As you know, many authors and artists were involved in these stories, so they weren't directly created by Lucas, they were created using his basic ideas. Together, the stories make up the complete saga. I can see what you mean the wayyou have it, but this type of wording relates the two. The Wookieepedian 03:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I think it would stretch things to credit Lucas with the creation of all the ideas, characters, and locations. The basic premise of the universe is not Lucas's sole creation just like the stories weren't his sole creation. — Phil Welch 03:28, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm more than willing to credit Lucas with the initial impetus of the Star Wars films and the Star Wars universe, though, and to describe him as the "creator" of both. Clearly other creators have contributed, but if someone asked you, "Who created Star Wars?" The answer would still be, "George Lucas." Justin Bacon 03:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

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

I think your wording of the phrase "Star Wars saga" is notably not a standard one. For example, Revenge of the Sith was promoted as "the saga comes to an end". In other words, IME, when someone refers to the "Star Wars saga" they're talking narrowly about the story of the six films. If they want to refer to the wider body of Star Wars material, they'll use a differnt term (such as "Expanded Universe" or "Star Wars tie-ins" or whatever). IOW, I find your version to be factually questionable and very misleading. Justin Bacon 03:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

It depends on how you look at it. Some refer to the films as the "saga," others, the entire story as the "saga." What I mean by the choice of words I had is that he created the general ideas, and he, and other authors and artists created stories based on his ideas. I didn't reallize at first that this would seem confusing. The Wookieepedian 03:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

You will find that many of the truths you cling to depend greatly on your own POV. Dystopos 04:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Humans in Star Wars

In a galaxy far far away, are these human beings supposed to be cousins of we Earthlings? Or are they supposed to be Earthlings' future descendents? In the Episode I, Anikan is referred to as a "Human boy". Is Earth part of the republic? Since the story is set in a galaxy far far away, all the humans in the story are colonists? Kowloonese 00:57, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

I know that several different works in the Expanded Universe use the term human, but I'm not aware of Lucas ever offering an explanation. Perhaps Lucas wanted us to wonder about it and draw our own conclusions - more likely he didn't give it too much thought. We may as well ask why Galactic Basic sounds so much like English, or why these creatures from "a galaxy far far away" look so much like humans, whatever they are called. In all 3 cases, to have made the movies otherwise would probably have been more tedious on the production team, the audience, or both. As far as I know, Earth has never been mentioned in any canonical work. Johntex 22:32, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Since on every episode, the beginning line says "A long time ago in a ....". That means these humans in the movie are the ancesters of Earthings if the term "human" means the same thing in the movie and in the English language. This also implies that George Lucus is not a creationist nor an evolutionist. The star wars movies implied humanity on Earth was planted by alien civilization. Kowloonese 23:30, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Its just science fiction,made up.It has nothing to do with our univers, well i sappose you could call it an alternet universe.Warcraft also has humans and yet has no reference to earth.

No, in the Star Wars Universe, humans are said to have originated from coruscant, and in Knights of the Old Republic, the inner galactic core worlds including coruscant and corellia are refered to as "human-hive" worlds. They have no relation to Earth humans. Although hyperdrive technology was said to have been given to the inhabitants of the SW galaxy by travellers from another galaxy. These could possibly have been humans from our galaxy. However this comes into conflict with the Rakate/Infinite Empire story, that ended with the contruction of the Star Forge and there subsequent loss of their innate force powers, at around 36000 BLSKW.

Star Wars Chronology Project

Maybe some of you are familliar with the Marvel Chronology Project. It's an effort to catalogue every canon appearance of every Marvel character and arrange them in chronological order. Has anyone started such an effort for Star Wars? There are so many SW characters spread across various media. It'd be great if there was a way to track character arcs this way.--StAkAr Karnak 21:36, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

This information exists in other places. For example, see www.theforece.net/timeline. Wikipedia does currently have some Timeline articles to aid in navigation. For example, see Timeline of the Texas Revolution. I think a Star Wars character based chronology would be appropriate for inclusion conceptually. It would be difficult in practice because of the sheer amount of information. Why not Be Bold and start the article? Johntex 21:51, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

We already have the article: Dates in Star Wars. Star Wars timelines have been around for a long time. Lucas's publishing wing even includes timelines in most of its books. Palpatine 01:32, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Way too long

This article is 72KB long, far over the recommended limit of 32KB. In particular, the episode summaries are far too detailed. We need to work on shortening them to the bare essentials, while making sure that the individual episode articles have all the detail which is removed from this article. - Brian Kendig 15:21, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree --Kyle Dantarin 16:25, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. We have separate articles on each movie so we can pare their descriptions here down to just a good introductory paragraph. Johntex 16:30, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm removing the plot summaries of all six movies from this article in an attempt to cut it down to a manageable size. The article still contains a brief summary of each trilogy's overall plot, and the individual movie articles go into as much detail as necessary, so I don't see any point to trying to present abridged movie plots in this article. - Brian Kendig 06:13, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

just cut the 3rd reich rubbish to bring it down to size.

I don't think we should. If there is excess waste not needed, we can throw it out. But valuable information is good. Who wants to learn less? Freddy Tsao

Since there are separate articles for all of the major "Expanded Universe" topics, I'm planning to drastically reduce these sections, as well, to little more than an annotated guide to related articles. Redundancy makes it difficult to resolve divergent editing. Dystopos 18:55, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Cutting the Expanded Universe section

Any support for branching the entire "Expanded Universe" section to a separate article? Dystopos 19:59, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to disagree. The Expanded Universe is a big chunk of what Star Wars is, for better or worse. The bulk of EU material should be in daughter articles, but we need a thorough summary in the main article -- and I think that's what we have. I think that whole section could use some tightening, though. We've made a lot of progress on that recently and hopefully we'll be able to make some more.

Before cutting the EU stuff, I think we should first take a look at the "Major influences and themes" section of the article. I think a little bit of that material can be moved to the earlier "Influences" section of the article; the motif section needs to be tightened and moved up into the "Films" section; and the rest of the material should be split off into a Philsophy and Religion in Star Wars article. I'm planning to make this my next major project once the rest of the article has stabilized, which it seems to be doing. So I'll probably tackle this in the next couple of days. Justin Bacon 01:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

- - I agree that the Expanded Universe is a big chunk of what Star Wars is. That's why I think it deserves a separate article. (Just like Brazil is a big chunk of what South America is). I also agree that some of the other sections are more problematic from a "bloat" standpoint, but the solutions there are not so clear-cut. Having a Philosophy and Religion in Star Wars article seems like a good idea to me. Dystopos 04:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

The EU already has an article at Expanded Universe (Star Wars). This page needs to merely give an overview of it, with all of the major points. For the most part, it already has those, but they need to ne shortened and tightened up, like someone above said. The Wookieepedian 04:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, so it does. I think this article and that one should play more nicely. The format of the EU material covered here is a reasonable (if still too-long) summary of what constitutes the EU - something strikingly absent from the other article. It should probably be moved wholesale and the intro to that article adapted into a short explanation leading to a link from this article. I could plan to do that next week but I have a feeling I'd be stirring something up so I'll let the idea gel. The EU article is badly in need of clean-up and might be better renamed "Star Wars expanded universe" since the phrase "extended universe" is used in other fandoms. (e.g. Easter Island is a better title than Island (Easter).) Dystopos 05:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I fully support your idea. Although, I don't think it should be called "extended" becuase "Expanded" is the official title for it in the Star Wars licensing. This article's EU section should definately be shortened somewhat, and the actual EU article should contain all the information contained in this one, and more. I think others will support your idea as well. The Wookieepedian 05:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I second Wookieepedian's support. I think the actual merging of the material here and the Expanded Universe article will be a non-trivial task. But if you don't get to it first, I'll try to tackle it in the coming week, as well. Justin Bacon 23:28, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I've done a first-pass at integrating the material here with the Expanded Universe (Star Wars) article. I've included it as a draft on my User page to get comments for a couple of days before taking the plunge. Justin Bacon 15:45, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

This has now been done, per discussion and consensus on the talk page for the Expanded Universe article. The section here has been truncated down to a brief summary of what the Expanded Universe is and how it developed. And, hey, the article is down to 38 kilobytes! Trim another half dozen kilobytes and this article is going to look fit and fine! Justin Bacon 04:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- I do wish to add back the "major EU characters and locations" sections I had. Also, I think the TV productions need mentioning. The Wookieepedian 04:56, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  - I disagree with having the "major EU characters and locations" list here. Whatever needs to be said about those should be said in summary form in the text. I don't know much about the EU, but I'd say any characters that were central to a series of EU products would be worth such a mention. The more inclusive list should reside solely in the main EU article. (with further details in the individual articles on EU topics). Similarly, the most important TV productions can be discussed briefly in this summary section, linking to the EU article for more context on how they fit into the Expanded Universe, and leaving the details in their individual articles. Dystopos 05:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  - I'm going to second Dystopos' comment here. The fact that the lists are actually longer than the EU section of the article should be a big warning sign that something is amiss. If people want more information about the EU, I think it's clear that they would click the link to the main article on the EU, where those links will be available. Justin Bacon 03:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
    - If we remove the EU characters section, then should we remove in the main article the list of film characters? We could instead say "see list of characters" or something. The Wookieepedian 04:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
      - Only having the MAJOR characters linked from this article (say, Anakin, Padme, Palpatine, Kenobi, Han, Luke, Leia, Yoda, R2D2, C3PO) and putting the others in an extra list would indeed improve this article (which should be shorter and more to the point). The list of (for non-fans rather obscure) Expanded Universe characters is bad for this article. Kusma 04:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to remove both the "major EU" and "major film" characters/locations from the article, as it will shorten it, and I see that the major ones are already mostly found in the article in the text. If they want to see all the major, minor, EU, whatever characters, they can click on the "list" link at the bottom. The Wookieepedian 04:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm putting the major film characters/locations back in the article. Although some of these names are mentioned in the main text, most them aren't. I think the lists are needed to provide basic context for some of the content in the article. Justin Bacon 23:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- The appropriate lists are already at the bottom under "further reading." The Wookieepedian 23:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  - You have to look at it from the standpoint of someone who hasn't seen the films. The article mentions Leia. Who the heck is Leia? Oh, she's a character in the film. Sure, we've got a link to List of Star Wars characters at the bottom of the article, but that's not quite the same thing. The other option would be to expand the film synopses to provide more context, but I think the decision to split the detailed synopses into the individual movie articles was the right one and the list is a good way of providing necessary context without taking up much in the way of real estate. Justin Bacon 15:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Problem

"Some purists reject the Expanded Universe, believing that only the events in the Film Series are part of the "real" Star Wars universe."

This is true, so is it POV for wikipedia articles to indiscriminately mix EU and movie source material when describing a particular character?

I don't think it matters if it's in the movies or not as long as it's authorized by George Lucas.

In my mind, a good article about the Millenium Falcon (for example) would have more information about which model-builders contributed to its design and what model-kits were scavenged for parts and how its flight was storyboarded and composited into the final print than about which fictional shipbuilder built it in what speculative timeframe and how the fragmentary dialogue from Ep. V may or may not conflict with the backstory presented in Comic Book X or Novelization Y, or what the actual nature of its weaponry might be based on how a TIE fighter explodes when hit... But that's just me and my POV. Dystopos 04:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the only correct answer here is all three: A good article about the Millenium Falcon should detail the ship in the real world (model-builders and conceptual art); the core canon of the films; and the Expanded Universe. And clearly distinguish between all three. Justin Bacon 23:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Plus, the EU is official canon, so it really doesn't matter the POV of the editors. The Wookieepedian 00:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

But there's acknowledged dispute over whether EU material should be accepted as canon or not. Even if you don't want to consider this a POV issue, the distinction exists (even in Lucasfilm's acknowledge of EU material as canon, they draw the distinction), so it not only makes sense to acknowledge that distinction; it makes the article genuinely more useful. Justin Bacon 13:56, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

These are good points. I wholeheartedly support clear distinctions between three contexts, the film production, the 6-film storyline, and the fictional universe as it has been fleshed out beyond the films. Dystopos 05:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, so do we have a consensus that articles should discuss both the movies and expanded universe, but distinguish them completely? If so, we should have a template that can be placed on the top of articles which instructs editors to make the distinction. Much like we have a template to distinguish between fact and fiction.

Featured Article

I personally think the article should be expanded a bit and cleaned up a bit before it could become a Featured Article. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:22, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Do you think that any of the Star Wars-related articles(since the main Star Wars needs a cleanup) can become a FA? Igordebraga 23:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Right now this article isn't nearly up to Featured Article quality. But I would like it to be. Anyone interested in improving the quality of this article should take a look at The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, a featured article that Star Wars should try to emulate. TheCoffee 08:24, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Image

Can we get some form of consensus on whether to use the VHS or DVD box set art? Is there REALLY all that much difference? Devilbat

I'm in support of the DVD release box. It represents the latest version of the series and also has a more epic look to it than the VHS look. I think, though, that eventually this page will need an image, hopefully from the boxed set, that stands for the entire saga, rather than just the classic trilogy. Adamwankenobi 23:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I prefer the VHS box, since it is from the theatrical release. Nevertheless, like Adamwankenobi I would prefer a box that stands for the entire Saga. Copperchair 01:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

We'll get one this November when the six DVD set is released. Until then, the 2004 release DVD box is better looking, even if it's not as ideologically correct with the Han-shoots-first crowd. — Phil Welch 02:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it has been confirmed that a boxed set will be released this November, that was more of a TFN rumor. Anyway, if anyone can find a fan-made image, but professionally made, I think that that would be welcomed on here by all types of fans. I agree that the DVD box is the best right now, but this edit war will continue that way. I suggest an administrator protect this page until a compromise can be made. Adamwankenobi 02:22, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

All right, I will remove the VHS image... Copperchair 04:21, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

TV series

Is there an article on any of the tv series yet? Not the cartoon. Some information can be found here. Jacoplane 02:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I created it. The one for the live action series is called: the "Star Wars: Live Action TV Series" page that is on the template. The animated series, since it is a continuation of the Clone Wars micro-series, I combined it with that article. The micro-series is listed under "2-D Run" in the article, and the new series is under "3-D Run" Feel free to contribute. Adamwankenobi 02:10, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion for changes

Today I had a good read of the article, and looking at it more thouroughly I noticed many flaws. I already prepared a possible new version of the text, and am working on extensions for the parts I would like have edited out. Then those elongated paragraphs could be used for a new article or employed in the articles of each seperate episode. What do you guys reckon?

Here is my idea for a possible reconception of the article: [1] Any information on the writing process I think should be added to the Episode IV article.

--E.P.I.C. 22:44, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Hairyness

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

Jabba's hairless-LtNOWIS 06:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
For the most part, Darth Vader is too.
Jar Jar didn't seem to be all that hairy. Adamwankenobi 16:10, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Well who has your vote for most hairiest besides the normal suspects? Croat Canuck 03:20, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
I would have to say that my vote for the most hairy is a tie between: Tarfful, Malla, Itchy, and Lumpy. You never specified any wookiees except Chewbacca! Adamwankenobi 14:50, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Well I meant characters of significant significance in the two trilogies, I guess I should have clarified that. Oh well. Croat Canuck 14:57, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

protected

I have protected this page temporarily to let all the editors involved in this article, especially User:A Link to the Past and user:Adamwankenobi. Hopefully for the good of the wiki these disputes can be quickly and easily resolved so that this article can get back to normal editing, I for one am starting to get tired of the constant warring between you two on articles. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 03:37, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

(pointless bickering moved to User_talk:Adamwankenobi)

I've unprotected the page, since things seem to have cooled down. Guys, remember to assume good faith, act with civility toward one another, and don't be a WP:DICK. Coffee 23:30, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

And I went ahead and moved the above "discussion" to Adam's talk page. Coffee 23:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Name on the crawl

According to my (8 year old, at the time) memory, the title on the crawl in a drive-in in 1977 was "Episode IV: A New Hope", however, many people I have talked to are equally sure that they saw no such heading on the crawl. I recently found an explanation:

George Lucas, who conceived, wrote, and directed Star Wars, always envisioned it as part of a larger whole, and as soon as it became apparent that the series was successful enough for the sequels Lucas intended, a new batch of prints was ordered, and audiences began to see “Episode IV – A New Hope” added to the opening crawl (the words that float up the screen at the beginning of the movie).

I remember the first time, back in ’77, that I saw the new lines in the opening crawl, and I heard people around me in the theater saying, “Huh? What? Episode IV?” as soon as they saw it. They had already seen the movie from its original set of prints, and (not being as in touch with the fan magazines as I was at the time) they weren’t expecting the new line.

-http://www.decentfilms.com/reviews/starwars4.html

I think that making note of the second printing and the fact that many of us saw this film with the Ep4 title in '77 would be called for. -Harmil 15:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Effect of Inflation on Box Office Take

The box office numbers listed for the movies are misleading since they haven't been adjusted for inflation. They do seem to be unadjusted since they match up with the numbers from the site below.

http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/records/worldwide.html

Prator 22:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

The adjustment seems to have been done inexpertly (assuming that all the money was made in the first year). A lot of the box office earnings for the original trilogy came in with the re-releases and should not be counted with inflation since 1977. Also, the creation of the re-releases cost extra money that might be mentioned. Maybe a better comparison would be box office numbers of first release, adjusted for inflation, if that data exists somewhere. Kusma 03:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Featured Status

This needs to be a featured article. Have any Star Wars articles been featured? The Wookieepedian 22:32, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Guys, I have greatly reorganized the article for it to flow better for the reader. In its previous state, it seemed very unorganized as I read it, and was somewhat difficult to follow easily. If this article is ever to be featured, it must work in a way that it can be easily read, while being greatly informative at the same time. I've reorganized it to meet the first of these conditions. Please don't revert the page until we discuss this. The Wookieepedian 05:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Great job! I agree, this article needs to be featured. ~~It should be shorter though... perhaps about 2/3 or 3/4 of its current size, if that's possible. Some suggestions:~~

~~Merge this "Wiki guide" section into the external links section.~~
~~Clean up that external links section, while we're at it.~~
~~Remove this "Totals" section. It seems kinda silly.. an overall summary like that is what the lead section is for.~~

Coffee 17:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Template

I noticed there is yet another distracting edit war going on re: the "proper" Star Wars template to append to the bottom of the page; however, I cannot find any discussion about the appropriate template to use. Could someone point me in the direction of such discussion? – Mipadi 22:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I have tracked down the conversation to here, for anyone interested. – Mipadi 22:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Mediation

This doesn't pertain specifically to this article, but to the entire series of Star Wars articles as a whole.

As far as I can ascertain, there are at least two (and possibly as many as four) disputes over style in the various Star Wars articles. For example, the last 50 edits in Star Wars are only reverts back and forth over templates or links, and Empire Strikes Back didn't go two days after being protected before the revert wars over the cast listing and use of templates began again.

I honestly don't know who holds what opinion and why, but I do know all this reversion even over points of style needs to stop. Would there be any significant objections to calling reversion ceasefire and taking this to the mediation committee? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 10:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: cast listing

The consensus was to keep only the main characters from the end credits. I do not believe the entire cast should be listed, as evidenced in all my reverts. I have only kept the characters suggested by Coffee in [2]. Furthermore, I have not violated consensus, as I never received an answer as to what it was ([3]). In my edits, I have been using an objective parameter (the movies' end credits, but limited to those that Coffee suggested), while others have used a subjective one (they include the ones they think are important). It is obvious that the filmmakers are the ones who decide who’s important and who’s not in the end credits, and I feel that if Wikipedia is to be accurate, as it should be being it an encyclopedia, we should follow the filmmakers’ decision. No matter how much discussion there is on the subject, the answer is right there in the end credits. Consensus on this matter is irrelevant. So the issue comes down to this: do you prefer the articles to be accurate or to be determined by consensus? I am all for madiation, as this matter has gone too far already. I already responded to an Rfc at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Copperchair, but there is no decision yet. Copperchair 20:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

May I recommend you list a comment at WP:RFM? R e dwolf24 (talk) 20:30, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

The star wars articles are being reverted by about four or five people at this point. These people need to all discuss this at an rfc page, along with comments from outsiders. The Wookieepedian 22:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

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

I've made a request for mediation on this topic. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 23:18, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Quibble with wording

"The film series is widely considered to have launched the new era of high-budget, special-effects blockbuster movies that continues to this day."

I find it hard to give Star Wars this much credit...2001: A Space Odyssey came out nine years before A New Hope, and definitely has comparable effects.

If you want to say that it's more for Empire Strikes Back, since A New Hope didn't even have that many effects, I would say that Star Trek: The Motion Picture, which came out 2 years after A New Hope, has far more impressive effects for V'ger.

Well, it's just that the star wars films are generally considered to be the movies that started the big-budget special effects movies. I agree that 2001 did go far in establishing that right, and both brought effects to the attention of the movie industry. Maybe it can be reworded to say "the film series is widely considered to be one of the major players in launching the new era of high-budget..." The Wookieepedian 08:04, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

There, I went in and slightly reworded that part. The Wookieepedian 08:12, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Copperchair: Fan Works and A New Hope

Copperchair, could you explain your reasons for continually removing the "Fan Works" section of the article? These fan works, while not canon, are officially supported by Lucasfilm. And, even if they weren't, the phenomenon would merit mention. IMO. Justin Bacon 05:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, the Atari arcade game was never called A New Hope. It was always called Star Wars and nothing else. It doesn't matter whether you prefer the '97 Special Editions or not; while Lucas may have retitled his film, no one ever retitled the arcade game. Please stop introducing this inaccurate information into the article. Justin Bacon 05:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Lucas retitled his film in the 1981 thatrical release. Though I wouldn't exactly call it retitling, more like restoring the correct name. The Wookieepedian 05:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Right. But I suspect Copperchair's obsessive compulsion with changing every reference to the original film from Star Wars to A New Hope lies in the same preference for the Special Editions (which were the first time the film was commercially released with A New Hope on the slipcase, IIRC) which has led to his edit wars throughout the Star Wars pages (like the ESB credits, for example). I just wish he could be convinced to actually discuss these issues rather than simply making a nuisance of himself. I was actually planning to do some substantive work on the article (we need a short section on the John Williams' soundtrack, IMO, for example); but instead I spent most of my time working with you to untangle Copperchair making a mess of things. Justin Bacon 05:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

These edits you speak of are welcomed. It looks like someone's actually interested finally in helping to get the article featured. Copperchair's not helping anything. All of his edits are special edition-purist edits. He constantly removed references to Temuera Morrison playing Fett in the ESB DVD, calling it non-notable, or removing the fact that Clive Reville played the original version of the emperor in ESB. He seems to insist that any type of fan works are not notable as well. As many times as I have tried to discuss things or reason with him on his talk page, he either removes the comment, ignores it, or gives some lame excuse for what he is doing. I see someone has added some of his edits from tonight into his rfc page. Hmmm... The Wookieepedian 05:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Restoring the correct name? Seems dubious. Lucas keeps changing his story—I think "Star Wars" was the originally intended title of the movie because I think Lucas originally intended only to make one movie, it's just that later on he made more movies integrating plot elements he couldn't do in the first one. Reading the early draft scripts you see a lot of things (like a Luke/Vader duel, except the characters were named differently) that showed up later on. — Phil Welch 08:06, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

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

By the way, I distinctly remember the trilogy being billed as Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi for both the THX remasters on VHS and the Special Edition. The entire "Star Wars Episode -: ---- -- -----" didn't start until The Phantom Menace in terms of how the films were billed in release. If you don't believe me look at the VHS covers for the special edition and compare them to the DVD's. The prequels were b illed like:

Star Wars
---------------------
E P I S O D E    I
---------------------
      The Phantom Menace

while the original trilogy were just billed with a stylized "The Empire Strikes Back", written in the same font used for the famous Star Wars logo. The prequel reasoning was later applied backwards to the original trilogy.

As for the episode numbers, Lucas noted in the DVD commentaries for the original trilogy that he wanted Star Wars to be like an old movie serial where you walked in halfway through without seeing the beginning, so there were vague references to things like "the Clone Wars" and vague implications that Ben Kenobi was an important man without really establishing the how or why—it wasn't until later that Lucas decided to expand the notes he had written up on the backstory and expand them into films in their own right, mainly because he wanted to take advantage of modern special effects technology to revisit the Star Wars universe. — Phil Welch 20:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

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

I think the Fan Works section should not be here because what they portray is not considered canon. There used to be an article about "Star Wars fandom"; I think it should be in somehting like that one. Copperchair 02:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

References

Would anyone be interested in going through the article and determining which references are needed and properly listing them at the bottom? The Wookieepedian 03:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I would love to use a lot of this information for a paper im writing on star wars, but it isnt refrenced specifically. One example is, "In an interview, George Lucas said..." Slugworth 06 November, 2005.

That's the problem, no references. Someone seriously needs to come in and work on them. The Wookieepedian 04:59, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

The debate over the correct templates

Situation

(This is for facts that are not in dispute. Any argument here will be moved below.)

NOTE: Empire Strikes Back is currently protected, related to this dispute. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 05:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, there is an ongoing debate between A Link to the Past and myself over the correct template(s) to use at the bottom of the Star Wars articles. You can read our previous comments on each of our talk pages, but we will continue the discussion here. The Wookieepedian 01:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Moderating this is way beyond my means, but could someone please mention what templates are being argued over and for what articles, at least? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 01:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

{{Star Wars episodes}} and {{Starwars}}. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:05, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

And who is arguing for what? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 01:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Myself and Link to the Past for the Starwars template and Wookiee for the Star Wars episodes template. By the way, I think this is well within the means of easy moderation, since all three of us who are here now seem to be, in the here and now, reasonable good-faith contributors. — Phil Welch 01:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

BTW, it's actually: I'm for the "Starwars" template and Phil and Link are for the "Star Wars episodes" template. The naming is just messed up. The Wookieepedian 01:45, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I rearranged this discussion so that the simple commentary on what's going on is above, and the debate is below. I've duped Wookieepedian's comment about what's going on; hope he doesn't mind. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 01:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I've duped another not-in-dispute Wookieepedian comment up here, and split this into headers. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 01:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Summary: Myself, Link to the Past, and now Bacon are for the Star Wars episodes template, Wookieepedian is for the Starwars template. I think we can declare provisional consensus. The matter isn't closed, but until Wookieepedian can enlist more people who agree with him, or turn one of us, I think we can settle on our version. — Phil Welch 05:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

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

That's your intended goal for the template. That's not the intended goal of myself and the others. — Phil Welch 05:23, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

(Argue here.)

Well, how about this - give me one good reason why less information + being larger is better. Giving less information and making it larger is not good for Wikipedia. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:05, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Link, I have already given you my reasons on your talk page for why exactly I feel less content and a larger template is preferable in this case. The Wookieepedian 01:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

My two cents:

Template:Star Wars episodes has the more useful set of links and is smaller.
The only advantage of Template:Starwars is that it includes links to the Prequel trilogy (Star Wars) and Original trilogy (Star Wars) articles. (More generally, the template distinguishes between the Prequel Trilogy and the Original Trilogy.)
Isn't a compromise pretty simple here? Include the Prequel Trilogy and Original Trilogy links in the "Star Wars episodes" template.

Although, in a more general sense, I've got to question the need for Prequel trilogy (Star Wars) and Original trilogy (Star Wars). Those articles contain nothing but redundant plot summaries. Can someone explain the logic here to me? And by that, I mean give me one good reason not to make both those articles redirects to Star Wars? Justin Bacon 01:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

BTW, it's actually: I'm for the "Starwars" template and Phil and Link are for the "Star Wars episodes" template. The naming is just messed up. OK, and on to Justin's question. Both the EU and Episodes templates redirect to Star Wars becuase they are designed to be on their respective pages: the episodes template on the episodes, and the EU template on EU materials. The PT and OT headers are there to distinguish between the two, and explain to newcomers exactly what they are specifically, which is why they link to those articles. The Wookieepedian 01:45, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, I didn't create the pages for "prequel trilogy" or "original trilogy." I'm not sure why whoever created them did what they did, other than to distinguish the two, since the summaries are already described well in the main article. I did, however, create the page for "sequel trilogy," but that's another debate. Also, Justin, and anyone else unsure of why exactly we are arguing over this, read the discussions on our talk pages, where we explain why we want the templates we want. The Wookieepedian 01:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I see. You want to use Template:Starwars in conjunction with Template:Expanded Universe. Link, I'm not following how you can claim that Wookieepedian's solution offers "less information"? I've read your talk pages and I still don't get it. Wookieepedian's solution clearly offers more links to a wider ranger of Star Wars topics. So the dichotomy I see here is depth (Wookieepedian) vs. size (Link). Can you explain what you mean? Also, Wookieepedian: I agree. It makes sense to link to those articles, since they exist; questioning their existence is really a separate argument. And I would prefer to see the prequel and original trilogies distinguished in the template, even if those articles no longer exist. Justin Bacon 02:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

How? If you'll notice, MY solution gives links to categories, which all contain every single link on the EU template. The EU and P/OT templates combined just make the main Star Wars articles too bulky. This gives all of the information that those two giant templates do combined, more effectively. He does not plan on putting the EU template on the P/OT pages. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

There is no need for the main star wars articles to be too bulky. Neither of our template solutions are bulky. The only article which would be like that would be the main article. The "Starwars" template, however, is episode-specific, rather than including anything else. As I said, it organizes content better than having EU and episodes together. Yours may provide both on one template, but there is really no need to link to the EU from the episodes. If one is interested in the EU, they can go there from the main star wars oage. I'm not arguing the fact that your template provides more content, I'm arguing whether or not it should be used where it is. The Wookieepedian 03:19, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay. I'm going to voice the opinion that A Link to the Past has the right solution here. I'd rather see a template that can be universally applied to all the Star Wars articles in less than a half-dozen lines, while allowing quick and succinct access to any other Star Wars article in two clicks. This seems genuinely more useful to me than a set of two bulky templates which are applied inconsistently across the various articles. Plus, Template:Star Wars episodes has the advantage that -- as the relevant categories are updated -- the template maintains itself rather than having to be maintained. I would argue, however, that Template:Star Wars is the more intuitive name. Justin Bacon 03:28, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean by "inconsistent?" That is exactly the point of my template. The Wookieepedian 04:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I would argue, however, that Template:Star Wars is the more intuitive name. Done. — Phil Welch 05:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

For the record, I prefer Template:Star Wars. It looks better, it contains all the EU information, and most importantly, it does the aforementioned without taking up half a page in the article. These articles are already too big as it is.--chris.lawson 19:08, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

My original plan for the templates was based on organization, rather than what is smallest, or what may look the best. Just adding another comment. The Wookieepedian 19:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Who's for what?

For Template:Star Wars, formerly known as Template:Star Wars episodes:

v • d • e Star Wars

Episodes	I: The Phantom Menace • II: Attack of the Clones • III: Revenge of the Sith • IV: A New Hope • V: The Empire Strikes Back • VI: Return of the Jedi

Spin-off films	The Star Wars Holiday Special • Caravan of Courage • The Battle for Endor • The Great Heep • Star Wars: The Clone Wars

Television series	Droids • Ewoks • Clone Wars • The Clone Wars • Live-action TV series

Other media	Books • Comics • Radio • Video games • Music • Expanded Universe

Universe	Characters • Locations • Creatures • Vehicles • Items • Conflicts • Dates

which includes the six episodes, plus links to EU, FanFilms, and so forth:

For Template:Starwars, which includes the six episodes only:

v • d • e Star Wars

Episodes	I: The Phantom Menace • II: Attack of the Clones • III: Revenge of the Sith • IV: A New Hope • V: The Empire Strikes Back • VI: Return of the Jedi

Spin-off films	The Star Wars Holiday Special • Caravan of Courage • The Battle for Endor • The Great Heep • Star Wars: The Clone Wars

Television series	Droids • Ewoks • Clone Wars • The Clone Wars • Live-action TV series

Other media	Books • Comics • Radio • Video games • Music • Expanded Universe

Universe	Characters • Locations • Creatures • Vehicles • Items • Conflicts • Dates

as well as, on this page, an additional template including all non-episode content (including, but not limited to the EU, FanFilms, "Beneath the Dome", etc.)—a role previously filled by Template:Expanded Universe:

v • d • e Star Wars

Episodes	I: The Phantom Menace • II: Attack of the Clones • III: Revenge of the Sith • IV: A New Hope • V: The Empire Strikes Back • VI: Return of the Jedi

Spin-off films	The Star Wars Holiday Special • Caravan of Courage • The Battle for Endor • The Great Heep • Star Wars: The Clone Wars

Television series	Droids • Ewoks • Clone Wars • The Clone Wars • Live-action TV series

Other media	Books • Comics • Radio • Video games • Music • Expanded Universe

Universe	Characters • Locations • Creatures • Vehicles • Items • Conflicts • Dates

but which I've asked Wookieepedian to fork the EU template for, as the non-episode template would include things even outside the Expanded Universe.

User:The Wookieepedian

Dates in Star Wars

The article currently reads: "Although the film series itself spans the events of only two generations, other stories set in the Star Wars universe cover events over more than 4,000 years." There are a couple of different versions floating around recent revisions:

Wookieepedian prefers 7,500,000,000 years, which is the date of the Big Bang in official Star Wars continuity.
I had originally changed this to 25,000 years, based on the material in the article being linked to.
However, while working on the Expanded Universe article, I came across some references that made me double-check. It turns out that I had misread the article. The earliest story in the Star Wars universe, according to that page, actually took place 4,000 years before the films (hence the current version of the page).
Copperchair likes to cut the wiki-link. This appears to be simple vandalism. I doubt he'll show up to explain his rationale.

Wookieepedian has now referenced the Star Wars Timeline Gold, claiming that there actually is a story set during the Big Bang. However, this is not what the Star Wars Timeline Gold actually says. What it actually says is:

According to Yuuzhan Vong legend, on a plane of physical realty that beings in this reality cannot accurately conceive, the Creator, Yun-Yuuzhan, sacrifices pieces of himself to create all that exists, including a pantheon of lesser gods. Those gods include the Twin Gods--Yun-Yammka (the Slayer) and Yun-Harla (the Cloaked Goddess), Yun-Ne’Shel (the Modeler), Yun-Shuno (the Pardoner), and the Lovers, Yun-Txiin and Yun-Qaah. Yun-Yuuzhan promises the Lesser Gods that they will one day ascend to his level, but only after they prepare a chosen people to ascend to their place as new Lesser Gods. (conjecture based on Star Wars: The Roleplaying Game—“The New Jedi Order Sourcebook”)

Note that this is not only not a story, but is merely conjecture by the creator of the timeline. Looking through the timeline, the earliest reference I can find to an actual story is The Golden Age of the Sith, a comic series by Kevin J. Anderson. This is dated at approximately 5,000 years before the films. So I propose that the passage be changed to read 5,000 years. Justin Bacon 21:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Any chronicled event in the Star Wars project techniacally begins the story. That is the reason for my choice of years. The Wookieepedian 22:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

And, BTW, his "conjectures" are more like logical conclusions. The Wookieepedian 22:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Why not just use "other stories (etc. etc.) span millenia"? This removes the dispute nicely, and prevents future problems of precise maintenence. It's not really important to specify exactly how many years, just that there's a whole fictional history set up. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 22:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Sounds OK. It's just that it's more effective to read when it gives the precise years. For instance, the star wars timeline gold calaculates that the events span a total of 7,999,999,480 years. The Wookieepedian 23:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I've inserted the "span millenia" wording. If nobody else has any objections, I think this point of contention is resolved. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 23:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I concur. Dystopos 05:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

As do I! (as stated above) The Wookieepedian 06:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Ditto. Justin Bacon 06:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia Link Lists

First off: Sorry about my last edit, Wookieepedian. I removed the lists at the end of the EU section because I thought I had just forgotten too. Then I noticed you had actually put them back in. I still think they should be removed, but I wouldn't have done it without discussion if I'd been paying attention. Specifically, I'm uncomfortable with the lists being longer than the remaining section. Plus, I think it's redundant: If people want to know more about the EU, they'll go to the EU article now. And once they're there, those links will already be on the EU page.

More generally, I think this article is suffering from some link list bloat. Right now we seem to have some excruciatingly long lists which are far from complete, but seem to go pretty far into trivia, as well. Do we really need a direct link from this article to List of Yuuzhan Vong, for example?

For a first pass, I'm going to go through and eliminate any links which are already replicated elsewhere in the article. I'll wait to do any more trimming until we've had some discussion here. Justin Bacon 06:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Is there any order to the links at the bottom of this article, or any sort of organization? I don't see any sort of logical order, and they're not in alphabetical order as far as I can tell. Likewise, if this isn't a list of all the Star Wars articles, I can't make out any sort of criteria for inclusion. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 06:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

No, there isn't any order at the moment. Basically, all lists at the bottom at the moment are all the lists on wikipedia. I'm going to add the Yuuzhan Vong list link back, as they are major players in the new jedi order. I do think they should be in an alphabetical order, as at the moment they were just randomly added by anaons. The Wookieepedian 06:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Why is there a list of all the Star Wars articles at the bottom of this list, instead of relying on Category:Star Wars? Generally, see also links are used for significant related subjects or spinoffs from the main article that aren't linked with a {{main}} link. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 07:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I'd like to see: I don't think we need more than, say, a dozen links at the bottom of the article (none of which should be duped from significant links earlier in the article). These links should be to major sub-categories. Readers can follow the links in the general direction of any narrowly specific topic they're interested in without bloating the article. Justin Bacon 07:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Very well, very well. It's so hard for me to see it from a non-fanboy (I admit it), non-geek POV. The Wookieepedian 07:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I've done a first pass at pruning the list down to size. Here's something you could do, Wookieepedian: I notice that a lot of the articles we had listed here were not, in fact, properly categorized. You could go back to the previous revision of the article and look through the lists, adding categories wherever appropriate. Justin Bacon 08:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Fan Works

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

Template choice.

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

Recurring themes section

This section is full of rather shallow trivialities (The final episode of each trilogy features an elaborate battle involving bearlike creatures is one example). I think it should be trimmed, and only some good examples that are true motifs remain. A complete list could be in an extra article, not here. (At least it should not be called "recurring themes", but "things that happen in several Star Wars movies".

Also, the list features many characters not introduced before, and wikilinked only in the list that comes later. It assumes people know who Qui-Gon and Dooku are, for example. So can this be turned into a short section about themes instead of the current list? Kusma 01:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. That section should act as more of a summary, like the other sections do. A page needs to be created called "Recurring themes in Star Wars," or something. That's what we did with the EU, so it shouldn't be too hard with the recurring themes. The Wookieepedian 01:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Just an observation, but a lot of the material in the "recurring themes" section might better be described as "parallel narrative structures" or even "running gags." (see this definition as WP's Theme (literature) is a bit underdeveloped, too). Dystopos 14:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, then we should create a page: "List of parallel narrative structures in Star Wars" and "List of running gags in Star Wars," in addition to the page of revurring themes, which are underdeveloped. The Wookieepedian 14:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not sure how much of any of this is "encyclopedic". If I were the sole editor I could probably summarize the themes in one paragraph in the Star Wars article and then start a list of all the recurrences and gags in the Star Wars Wiki. Dystopos 14:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I welcome you to do just that. Except, don't just move the parallels and stuff to the star wars wiki, make them into "lists" as I suggested above. The Wookieepedian 15:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Top 50

Hmmm, it appears that this article is #41 on the list of the articles with the most edits. [4]

Just letting everyone know. The Wookieepedian 07:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Needs work

After looking at the page, I think what it needs work most in is the "conception" and the "references" sections. Anyone up to the challenge? The Wookieepedian 00:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Wooki may you need to step back and let edits "work itself out" and maybe try consrcutive edit and let someone else do the reverts. then maybe the article would be of a better standard. Your on what, revert #4 in the 24 hours? [5] [6] [7] [8]. Seriously, let someone else do the reverts for a while. Try a zero revert rule for a few days or maybe even a week and see how it works out. There are pleanty of people watching the articles that you dont have to be to one to jump on the revert clicky. It makes the wiki experience less fun for me at least (maybe others too). --Supercoop 00:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it would would be more fun for me as well if I didn't take every opportunity to revert. I suppose it is a result of my OCD. I'll try to hold off on the reverts. At least it's not like when Copperchair was around! The Wookieepedian 02:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Where is Earth?

What happened to Earth in Star Wars? gwat (Gwat asked this)(He's cool)

Earth? Earth?!? This isn't Star Trek! Earth is in a galaxy far away from that of the events of Star Wars. And since Star Wars takes place far in the future from our present, who even knows if earth would have still been in existence in the first place. So, that's your answer. The Wookieepedian 11:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Isnt it supposed to be in the past since its a long long time ago? gwat

Yes. It was a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. From another perspective, it was the planet on which every element giving rise to the creation of Star Wars developed, including its primary author, George Lucas. So if one insists on the suspension of disbelief, a paradox exists. You will find that many of the truths you cling to depend greatly on your own point of view. Dystopos 00:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Lucas wanted to operate out of the stereo typecasts found in earth, I believe. --Jondel 00:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives