Talk:Endor (Star Wars)

Endor Holocaust

Why is most of this article about fandom speculation? john k 15:19, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There was originally a separate article on the Endorian Holocaust. It was put on Votes for Deletion (here) but there was no consensus to delete, so the default was "keep". However, User:Carnildo insisted on merging it into this article, and I insisted that if it was to be merged it must be merged in its entirety (he tried trimming it down to a single paragraph). If you think this is inappropriate, I can try splitting it back out into its own article again and see whether he still objects. Bryan 16:45, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that it should be a single paragraph. Fandom speculation doesn't seem particularly encyclopedic, and should be covered briefly, if at all. I'd prefer for it to be in its own article than to be cluttering up this article, though. john k 17:09, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, I also preferred it that way, so I'll try splitting it back out again and see whether Carnildo still objects. Bryan 17:22, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't much care where it is, but it strikes me as quite silly to devote more than a paragraph or two to the subject. At that length, it would make sense to be a section of this article. --Carnildo 02:56, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It survived VfD so it's not to be deleted. Reducing a large article to a one-paragraph section of another article is tantamount to deleting it, IMO, so I don't consider that a reasonable option. Bryan 06:49, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Devestation of Endor

I have read that the wreckage hitting Endor is not the main factor in the devestation. Wouldn't the effects of one moon blowing up right next to another seriously affec the orbit of the other? -Josquius

Not for things with the relative sizes involved. The "moon" is about the size of the Earth, while the second Death Star is much smaller than Earth's moon, and mostly-hollow as well. --Carnildo 21:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

The mother planet

I have read the novelization of Return of the Jedi, and it says that the moon's mother planet was destroyed years prior to the story. But I also noted that in the novelization, the moon was referred to as Endor. I think there's a problem there. Scorpionman 03:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Endor IS the moon.

This is a huge misconception among Star Wars folks, and I'm going to move the pages around to reflect it unless someone rebuts me here.

"The forest moon of Endor" does NOT meen "Endor's forest moon." Rather, it means "Endor, which is a forest moon." This is borne out by the Ewoks movie, which is subtitled "The Battle for Endor."

Text of this article should go under something like "Endor (Star Wars)", the link on the Endor disambiguation page should be changed, and a section should be added about this confusion.

Exactly. A good way to understand it is like, "The windy city of Chicago".--Daniel (talk) 20:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Endor Holocaust deleted

the Endor Holocaust page did not survive its latest VfD and has been deleted. The result was not merge, so attempts to merge its content into this article was not really appropriate. Plus now the Endor Holocaust section is longer than the rest of the page which is also not kosher. So, I am going to revert it back to the stub version that was here a week ago.--Geedubber 17:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

This material should be considered on its own merits, information doesn't become radioactive on the basis of a VfD vote. Consider that one reason why the section was so small previously was because there was a whole separate article on the subject, and now that the whole separate article is gone the material left here might be too sparse. I've put in a compromise version that retains some of the most significant references (IMO) from the deleted article but which is only about two times more voluminous than the previous section. Bryan 20:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, i'm cool with your current revision. good compromise. I personally would remove the reference about the two ewok telefilms in relation to the endor holocaust though since they have nothing to do with it--Geedubber 21:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Odd, they're one of the first things to come to my mind when I think of "but what about [source]?" arguments that could be raised regarding this theory. They're the only other on-screen appearances of Ewoks and Endor (aside from the cartoon series, I guess. :) Bryan 00:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but that stuff happened before the EH supposedly happened. soooooo, wheres the connection? there is none. it sound like the article is agruing a point no one has brought up, ie "But what about the Ewok telefilms? the Ewoks were alive in those movies." Who are we agruing? --Geedubber 01:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The "Endor Holocaust" seems to only be fandom speculation, and, as such, that needs to be the very first thing mentioned about it. It should also be much shorter than it is now. john k 01:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Origin of name

The article states, quite confidently, that the name Endor originates from J.R.R. Tolkien's work. But the name predates the Lord of the Rings due to its inclusion in the Bible. It's not far-fetched to think that Lucas used a Biblical reference, so I'm curious to know if what the article claims is a confirmed fact. --Bacteria 13:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious about that myself, especially given other names that may have Biblical sources (Anakin, for one). Any citations to prove it's absolutely LoTR-sourced? Shouriki 02:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I wish writers would stop using the Bible for stuff, because it's old and over done now! Move on!!! Christabelle541 (talk) 16:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Endor holocaust again

Looks like we've got another disagreement over whether it's appropriate to mention the Endor Holocaust thing again. Scott 110, Wikipedia does contain information about "fanon" things, and other "non-official" subjects, provided there's sufficient external source to work from. See Jar Jar Binks#Fate for another example, which doesn't even have citations like this one does. This particular subject has also been obliquely addressed in "official" sources, if that's your only complaint with its inclusion. Bryan 02:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Endor holocaust is a very good examples of what Wikipedia should include: out-of-universe perspective. It is more important to discuss a fictional event as to how it relates to the real world (which the Holocaust section does). Bryan is correct. — Deckiller 03:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The fan proponents of the Endor Holocaust mostly cite the canon visual evidence from the movies and from current scientific understanding to make their points. Their manner is reasoned, their arguments logical given their premises. Regardless of how accurate they are, or how driven by a desire to see Ewoks obliterated, (1) it is not Wikipedian original research, and (2) it is an Internet meme. It's as noncanon as Star Trek's Kirk/Spock homosexual relationship-focused fanfiction, but Google still finds about 3,780 search results for "Endor Holocaust," including fan theories on both sides. Advocating noncanon as canon is POV, but describing the controversy, is NPOV. The number of hours put into the argument on both sides and its notoriety on the Internet is what makes it notable. --205.201.141.146 23:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It's been removed again, this time due to the references not being "reliable." Ironic, considering that the Endor Holocaust section was the only one that actually had citations. Anyway, I dispute the notion that those aren't reliable sources. They have been extensively referenced all over the Internet for many years, being printed on paper is not the be-all and end-all of reliability. In this case all they were really being used as a reference for is the statement that there was significant fan speculation on the subject, which they amply demonstrate merely with their existence. Bryan Derksen 00:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The existence of a couple of fan documents about the "Holocaust" doesn't "amply demonstrate" anything other than some fans with lots of spare time. If you want to assert that there is lots of fan speculation about Ewoks being toasted by falling debris, please cite the survey or study that asked fans about what they think -- all I can tell right now is that the authors have been doing some speculating. While being printed isn't an end-all for reliability, I don't see anything in these essays that sets them apart from any other self-published material, i.e. I don't see any sort of editorial oversight -- and being self-published makes their status as reliable sources highly dubious. --EEMeltonIV 00:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Citations for other various facts

Since the infobox just got updated with a bunch of detailed numbers, I guess this is an opportune time to ask where these facts are actually coming from. The holocaust section is currently the only one that has any sources listed for it. Bryan 16:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I note there's still not any citations for the infobox, or for some of the other assertions in the article such as the origin of the name or the Endor/Moon-of-Endor distinction. Anyone got anything yet? Bryan Derksen 00:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Article is not consistent with known information on Endor

To reaffirm and buttress an earlier comment, the entire concept of "the forest moon of Endor" as put forth in the article is incorrect. The Star Wars databank clearly states that Endor is one moon of nine, all of which orbit a lifeless gas giant. This clearly ends any speculation within the fictional Star Wars universe regarding the topic. In addition, references are made to the Alliance using the moon as a post-Battle of Endor sortie base and most Ewoks returning to a "simpler life" - something which appears inconsistent with an Endor Holocaust. Jon SirH 03:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

That's one source among many. Wikipedia isn't bound by the conventions of Star Wars fandom with regards to canonicity, so if there's various different sources out there that provide differing information it's all fair game to be described here. For example, the article currently says that the novelization of the movie stated that the planet this moon used to orbit was destroyed long ago. No amount of canonical amendments in subsequent works can change the fact that that's what the novelization said, so we shouldn't remove that fact from the article. By all means add information from the Star Wars databank as well, though. The important thing is to ensure everything's properly cited so readers can see the inconsistencies between sources for themselves. Bryan 10:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Requested Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

---

The moon itself is referred to as Endor in the primary source material. Vader: "A small rebel force has landed on Endor". I have fixed the contrary assertion in the article and created a request to move the article to Endor (Star Wars) (which exists as a redirect to here) where it belongs. Ruyn (talk) 19:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Unsure about this one. It's known in several places as a moon, although it's explained that it's really now a planet (loosely at least although it probably doesn't meet the IAU definition), and that Endor is really the now-destroyed planet of which it was once a moon. So Endor is just a shortening; Everyone knows that the (former) moon is meant, because the planet no longer exists. I've refactored the intro to try to make this a bit clearer. Andrewa (talk) 04:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I support the move. Even if 'Endor' is actually the name of the planet, and the moon should properly be called 'the moon of Endor' (which seems to be disputed), it's unarguable that in both in-universe and out-of-universe sources, 'Endor' is the name most commonly used to refer to it. Hence, under Wikipedia's Manual of Style, that's what this page should be called. Terraxos (talk) 17:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with the move. --EEMIV (talk) 18:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Fair use rationale for Image:PlanetEndor.jpg

Image:PlanetEndor.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Sanctuary moon?

Also known as the sanctuary moon? Who had this great idea to include this denomination in the introduction of the article? sanctuary moon was only used by Palpatine in the sixth movie of the Star Wars saga... Endor was only called sanctuary moon by this single and unique character of the saga, it is not at all also known by that name, not at all. I'll change this immediately, but I'll mention the term sanctuary moon as a term used by Palpatine to designate this moon of Endor. 343KKT Kintaro (talk) 03:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Impact damage

I removed this section due to it being non-canon. The jack-assery ends here. PS. I'm back. Scott 110 (talk) 05:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I saw the Death Star II blow up above Endor at the end of ROTJ... how is it not canon? --Surturz (talk) 06:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI, objects in orbit do not fall out of orbit when blown up. The debris stays in orbit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.178.35.191 (talk) 21:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Location of filming

According to the article today, May 28, 2010, the filming location provided is Jedediah Smith Redwoods State Park. According to the following webpage, which provides reasonable references, the article is incorrect:

M. D. Vaden redwood information page for Return of Jedi Endor scene filming locations

Providing that resource and references are accurate, the article needs to be changed, to a location to the north for the main set. ThreeWikiteers (talk) 02:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I deleted a Redwood National Park photo from the article today because there is plenty of references that Endor was filmed on private forest land. Its also worth noting that the article's external link for the Triplicate is accurate and the Redwood National Park photo and caption conflicted with it. The Real Luke Skywalker (talk) 01:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Wrong link

The hyperlink for Cerea doesn't link to the fictional planet, instead it leads to the real life town in Italy named Cerea. As far as I know there is no page about the planet Cerea. 213.55.224.78 (talk) 23:47, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Wrong object

this page says that endor is the moon which is wrong. Although the moon is commonly called endor, the name actually applies to the planet.

I think this should be redirected to the forest moon of endor. Crylophosaurus (talk) 01:36, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

does any one know how to delete this topic? When I added this I didn't know that the name officially applied to both the planet and the moon. Crylophosaurus (talk) 01:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)