Talk:Stormtrooper (Star Wars)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Trivia?[edit]

I would like to see more trivia on the imperial stormtrooper. For example, what did they eat? Were there any height requirements? What was the sign up or drafting process to become one? Also, were the storm troopers named after the german storm troopers? Does anybody know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.59.249 (talk) 22:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archived Material[edit]

Talk page archived. Stealth (talk) 21:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for More Info[edit]

If anyone is looking for more information to update this article, there's a very comprehensive specialized wiki here. --198.151.13.8 (talk) 19:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistency with Expanded Universe[edit]

I do not have the needed permissions to edit the page directly and point this out, but it should be noted that: In Timothy Zahn's Thrawn trilogy (which was written before the release of Episode II, and before the revelation that Storm Troopers were clones), Luke Skywalker senses the life-force of clones for the first time and immediately notes a difference from the life-force of non-cloned beings. Having encountered numerous Storm Troopers throughout his adventures before this point, this seems to suggest that the Expanded Universe initially worked on the assumption that Storm Troopers consisted solely of conscripted members, and not of clones. Btowntkd (talk) 18:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but this is not a Star Wars trivia wiki. We must focus on how they are presented in the movies first. --Apoc2400 (talk) 08:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the source predates the revelation that they're clones than that doesn't create and inconsistencty, it just makes the Thrawn Trilogy inaccurate and obsolete. 68.166.173.232 (talk) 11:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retcon?[edit]

Isn't them being clones more of a "revelation" than a "retcon"? 68.166.173.232 (talk) 11:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's the purpose of this page?[edit]

Is this an encyclopedic entry, or a catch all for trivia? The article treats background fiction with the same weight as the encyclopedic information. There are fan wiki's for this trivia information, and Wikipedia articles should be factual with links to the fiction sources... this is NOT a place to put "What stormtroopers eat"... that's fictional trivia, not facts... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.244.183.6 (talk) 02:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is no different than (for example) the mention of Thor slaughtering his rams. Only antiquity seems to lend the one more relevance than the other. Myth is myth. Ernest Ruger (talk) 11:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move (2010 October I)[edit]

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.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial stormtrooperStormtrooper — Thus Stormtrooper is now more commonly referred to as an imperial rather than as simply Germany. The move is also supported by the disambiguation section of the naming conventions for the imperial. Hence Germany should be moved to Stormtrooper (Germany) and the imperial page should be moved to Stormtrooper. 75.142.152.104 (talk) 21:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - Stormtrooper is just fine where it is. This article, however, should probably be moved to Stormtrooper (Star Wars). --EEMIV (talk) 21:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you explain further? We don't add (disambuations) unless there is something more relevant taking up the non-disambiguated title. –xenotalk 13:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The "more relevant" article at Stormtrooper is stormtrooper. "Imperial" is an unnecessary (and, in the EU lit, a seldom-used) modifier for the subject. Neither the freakishly in-universe Wookieepedia entry nor Databank entry from Lucasfilm has such a modifier. Furthermore, there's another Imperial-ish stormtrooper entry at the dab page (granted, weakly pointing toward a sliver of content in Imperial_Guard_(Warhammer_40,000)). Moving to Stormtrooper (Star Wars) I think will offer greater immediate clarity as a search term and dab page entry. Also, I like parentheses; ideally, we'd move the article to (Storm)trooper ((Star) Wars) for a double dose. --EEMIV (talk) 18:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • (Pull) the other (one)! Lol. I think this one should be snow-closed so there can be a net-new discussion on Imperial stormtrooper->Stormtrooper (Star Wars), rather than trying to discuss the alternatives in the midst of this discussion. –xenotalk 17:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose the Star Wars characters are Imperial Stormtroopers. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 02:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I think the current method of disambiguation works great. Don't want to make the folley of attempting to make a better mouse trap.--Labattblueboy (talk) 03:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose We are in danger of giving a fictional derivative greater credence than the original word. --Bermicourt (talk) 06:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Bermicourt. However, I like EEMIV's idea of moving this article to Stormtrooper (Star Wars). Erik (talk | contribs) 16:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose per Bermicourt, but like EEMIv's proposal. Buggie111 (talk) 22:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose Stormtrooper means what it means (by the way most people I suspect when you say storm trooper see the SS, but thats besides the point) But I agree this shuould be renamed Stormtrooper (Star Wars).Slatersteven (talk) 12:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose, per above comments. ⇔ ChristTrekker 14:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: German stormtroopers were real soldiers, whilst Imperial stormtroopers in Star Wars are obviously fictional. I think the real life thing should be above the fictional thing when it comes to naming. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 17:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stong Oppose: Per all the above and many hundreds of other reasons too lengthy to mention, but best summarised by good ol' common sense. Ranger Steve Talk 18:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose per above. The Imperial stormtrooper is a common name for Star Wars. JJ98 (Talk) 19:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • An obvious Oppose. Either change the name to Stormtrooper (Star Wars) or it should be left the way it is. Preferably I like it the way it is. − Jhenderson 777 23:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per almost everyone else above, especially per Ranger Steve. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 12:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Yet another proposed move/rename (2010 October II)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 02:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Imperial stormtrooperStormtrooper (Star Wars) — The "more relevant" article at Stormtrooper is stormtrooper. "Imperial" is an unnecessary (and, in the EU lit, a seldom-used) modifier for the subject. Neither the freakishly in-universe Wookieepedia entry nor Databank entry from Lucasfilm has such a modifier. Furthermore, there's another Imperial-ish stormtrooper entry at the dab page (granted, weakly pointing toward a sliver of content in Imperial_Guard_(Warhammer_40,000)). Moving to Stormtrooper (Star Wars) I think will offer greater immediate clarity as a search term and dab page entry. --EEMIV (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per discussion above. "Stormtrooper" is the common name of the fictional entity, where "imperial stormtrooper" is rarely seen. I'm surprised this move was not done already. I count at least four editors in the previous discussion supporting the move to Stormtrooper (Star Wars). Erik (talk | contribs) 21:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Popular Culture[edit]

I have included a new popular culture entry which include info and appropriate reference to a video called Stormtroopers' 9/11. If this is not appropriate please explain why and cite Wikipedia rules why it needs to be excluded. Thank you. 71.101.84.191 (talk) 03:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


UK Court case[edit]

Recent addition about UK court case calling Andrew Ainsworth the 'designer' seems to contradict earlier parts of article. This is also an important point in regard to the court case. Could someone investigate and clarify? --Accurate Nuanced Clear (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's some news at the BBC (Lucas loses Star Wars copyright case at Supreme Court), the same date as Accurate Nuanced Clear's post here. The helmets were sculted by Andrew Ainsworth, who has the rights to sell them as originals from Shepperton Design Studios. Others can sell them too, as the ruling was that the rights only lasted 15 years from when they were first marketed. -- Trevj (talk) 16:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Stormtroopers"[edit]

The usage and primary topic of stormtroopers is under discussion, see Talk:Sturmabteilung -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 05:05, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stormtrooper designated JB-007[edit]

Where is it designated? In the script? Certainly not in the credits. I don't think fan sites count. Arbalest Mike (talk) 01:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this up, because apparently I was seeing it where it wasn't. Only one of the sources mentions JB-007 (the Daily Mail) and that article is actually quoting a story in The Sun, which I will substitute. This is the largest selling paper in the UK, and it's not saying "the fan-invented name", but somehow I do think it's sloppy journalism. I will remove it for now and reincorporate it in some way if there is some kind of source that attributes the name to fans or whatever in particular.— TAnthonyTalk 03:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Performers[edit]

On the topic of performers, have there been credited portrayals in any of the canon TV series?— TAnthonyTalk 17:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Equipment: Armor[edit]

I noticed that under the "Armor" sub-heading, it states "The prequel films establish the clone troopers as predecessors to the stormtroopers, and clone trooper armor typically is shown to have various colorings to denote rank or unit." I believe that this is not completely clear and could written more specifically. On the official Star Wars website, it states, "After the declaration of the Galactic Empire, the clone troopers who'd served the Republic became stormtroopers obeying the will of the Emperor, defeating the Empire's enemies and enforcing its increasingly oppressive laws. Over time, the stormtrooper ranks were filled not by clones but by recruits, trained for blind obedience and fanatical loyalty." Based on this quote from the official website, it is clear that the clone troopers were not only the predecessors of the stormtroopers, but also became the first stormtroopers. For the sake of clarity, I am going to make a change to the original statement by including the fact that these clone troopers also became the first stormtroopers. What do you all think?

Equipment: Armor[edit]

I noticed that under the "Armor" sub-heading, it states "The prequel films establish the clone troopers as predecessors to the stormtroopers, and clone trooper armor typically is shown to have various colorings to denote rank or unit." I believe that this is not completely clear and could written more specifically. On the official Star Wars website, it states, "After the declaration of the Galactic Empire, the clone troopers who'd served the Republic became stormtroopers obeying the will of the Emperor, defeating the Empire's enemies and enforcing its increasingly oppressive laws. Over time, the stormtrooper ranks were filled not by clones but by recruits, trained for blind obedience and fanatical loyalty." Based on this quote from the official website, it is clear that the clone troopers were not only the predecessors of the stormtroopers, but also became the first stormtroopers. For the sake of clarity, I am going to make a change to the original statement by including the fact that these clone troopers also became the first stormtroopers. What do you all think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jemboy177 (talkcontribs) 20:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Stormtrooper (Star Wars)[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Stormtrooper (Star Wars)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Visual Dictionary":

  • From First Order (Star Wars): Hidalgo, Pablo (2015). Star Wars: The Force Awakens: The Visual Dictionary. New York, N.Y.: DK. ISBN 978-1-4654-3816-4.
  • From Captain Phasma: Hidalgo, Pablo (December 18, 2015). Star Wars: The Force Awakens: The Visual Dictionary. Dorling Kindersley. ISBN 1465438165.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 02:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox portrayals[edit]

For an article about a generic military class, rather than a specific character, I find the use of the "portrayed by" parameter in the infobox misleading. Huge numbers of Stormtroopers have appeared on screen, not identified individually, almost entirely played by uncredited actors in minor roles. Is it helpful to list two distinctive characters from The Force Awakens, and – even worse – two famous individuals turning up in cameo roles? These are worthy of mention in the body of the article, of course, but putting these actors' names in the infobox tends to imply wrongly that they play the only, or most significant, Stormtrooper roles. We manage to have articles on Wookiees and Ewoks without namechecking Peter Mayhew or Warwick Davis in the infoboxes... Jellyman (talk) 22:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Yup, never noticed that. I agree that it's a bit odd to include portrayed-by actors. --EEMIV (talk) 17:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and removed it. Jellyman (talk) 20:19, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:23, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:52, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:53, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

origin of name[edit]

i think it worth noting that in the early days of their existence, the nazi's formed a secret militia called the storm troopers (also known as the brown shirts). my source of this tidbit is the WORLD HISTORY PATTERNS OF INTERACTION textbook. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.209.158.179 (talk) 22:34, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]