Talk:Star Wars/Archive 1

good vs. evil
Hello Lir,

I'm not sure how NPOV applies to fiction but Good and Evil in Star Wars are a (somewhat heavy handed) plot device and I don't think that an article about this topic would be complete without referring to them somehow.

-- v

I haven't read a piece of fiction in my life that doesn't seem to touch upon good vs. evil. I think it would be fair to say that good vs. evil is pretty prevalent no matter where you look. It would probably be fine to say that the movie uses the Empire as the stereotypical bad guys and the rebels as the stereotypical good guys-i just thought it was cluttering up the opening paragraph a bit too much. Lir 06:56 Nov 18, 2002 (UTC)

Star Wars is notable in being very simplistic and heavy handed in it's approach to the topic. There's plenty of fiction that avoids good and evil, for example Existentialist novels, Thus Spake Zarasthustra by Nietzsche, most poetry. But anyway I'll try to work it back in making it clear that it's a plot device, stereotypical depictions etc, when I have a bit more time to word it properly. -- v

Extended Universe and Fan Fiction
There are WAY too many wikipedia articles about Star Wars topics which include Expanded Universe and Fan Fiction information intermingled with film information. This needs to be CLEARLY separated out and labeled. Examples are the articles on Jango Fett and Count Dooku.

links and edits
"changed it so Leia wasn't listed as Luke's BROTHER"

Jeez. Picky, picky, picky ... :-)

- Shouldn't we change all the ugly subpage edit links listed here into regular links to articles? The subpage functionality no longer works with wikipedia so there is no real reason why they should still exist. How many other instances of the term X-wing or Boba Fett are likely to crop up in any context other than Star Wars? If this does occur we can create disambiguation pages on a case by case basis and turn Star Wars term X into X (Star Wars) if another term is at least equally used in English. However, if the non-Star Wars term is not nearly as widely known in English than the Star Wars one, then the text of the article should be about the Star Wars term with a link at the bottom to the non-Star Wars term. See Paris for an example. Either way, we should try to make linking to Star Wars terms easy and natural within edit windows -- I for one would not enjoy having to write Boba Fett each time I wanted to link to that article and not expose the ugliness of the subpage link. --maveric149


 * Done. I did preemptively disambiguate some of the edit links and will take a look at some of the minor characters and potentially ambiguous terms later to see if they also need preemptive

disambiguation. --maveric149, Sunday, April 28, 2002

Disambiguation
Shouldn't the movie-series be listed first? I mean, the project's nickname was (presumably) given after the first movie was released. jheijmans


 * Yes it should, but not because one usage is derived from another, but because one usage is far and away the one most widely used in the English language (you first have to establish context for the minor usage to be understood). Because there is an ambiguity issue here and one usage is far more widely understood, I would even suggest moving the space defense content to Strategic Defense Initiative, simply placing a link at the bottom of the Star Wars page to SDI and fixing any links in other articles that are trying to link to Star Wars as th space defense term. Star Wars was a nickname that was applied by the popular media for the SDI anyway so it doesn't make sense to have the content separate. The only reason why I suggest this is because of the ambiguity issue -- I am not advocating always using the most proper and correct name for things (which violates the wikipedia naming convention on use of common names that are easy to remember or link). Exceptions to this rule arise when there is an ambiguity - such as exists here (this is also why the asteroid articles are given their more technical names rather than their most common names -- 433 Eros for example -- so as to naturally disambiguate the term from the god Eros and avoid the use of parenthesis). I will do this myself in a day or two if nobody beats me to it. --maveric149, Monday, May 27, 2002

Epic
epic adj 1: surpassing the ordinary especially in size or scale; "an           epic voyage"; "of heroic proportions"; "heroic            sculpture" [syn: heroic, larger-than-life] 2: constituting or having to do with or suggestive of a       literary epic; "epic tradition" [syn: epical] n : a long narrative poem telling of a hero's deeds [syn: epic poem, epos] I used it as an adjective so linking to the article was incorrect but the usage is correct. --mav

Vaders
I saw an edit war going on with links to people like Good Vader and Bad Vader and a some other people I had never heard of. The links were added and then deleted (both by non-logged in editors). Are these real characters (perhaps from the Marvel Star Wars universe)? If they are, I think the links should be left in and it should be noted in their entries that they are characters are from Marvel's Star Wars comics. -Frecklefoot


 * The "Google Test" refers to looking something up on Google: even minor comic book characters tend to be listed on multiple webpages. These characters apparently do not. I vote for their deletion until evidence is supplied that these are "real" characters in the Star Wars fictional universe, rather than an attempt at a rather lame practical joke. The Anome


 * Sounds good to me! -Frecklefoot

Lucas and Campbell
Is there actually any record of Lucas talking to Campbell at all before third-parties began to link Star Wars to Campbell's "Hero With a Thousand Faces"? I'm old enough to actually remember all the press and hype that surrounded Star Wars' initial release and post-release mania. I don't remember Lucas ever mentioning Campbell's name at the time. In fact I don't recall him mentioning Campbell's name until well after a decade had passed -- long after many pundits started to make the link.


 * Lucas talks about Campbell on the DVD, but that's all I know.

Open SW wikipedia tasks
Do you think that I should put this in the article? It seems logical to do so, but I am not sure about it. Maybe I should put it in one of the other minor articles like Yuuzhan Vong? BTW, I made it myself.

Also, if anyone needs some good boilerplate or article text effects (i.e. background color, borders, etc.) all you have to do is point me to the article. ;)


 * JediMaster16 02:27, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * No. That boiler plate isn't encyclopediatic (sp?).  If anything, it should go here in discussion where things are significantly more informal.  Oberiko 02:48, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll put it in here. :JediMaster16 12:56, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Super Shadow
Supershadow (aka Mickey Suttle) is a known fraud and joke in the Star Wars community, and it's unfortunate that there are still people who fall for his act. Practically everything of actual worth on the site has been taken from other sites and posted with no attribution to the originating sites, and the rest is made up by Supershadow, including the majority of the reader mail he posts. Supershadow apparently places great pride in how accurate his "predictions" about the prequels have been, but longtime watchers of the site should note that all the claims he's made over the years that turn out later to be "true" are merely creative editing on his account - he simply goes back and changes the pages to the correct information after the fact, and deletes the original erroneous information.

All during the production of Episode I, Suttle claimed to be an employee of Industrial Light & Magic assigned to a key position on the Episode I VFX crew - that's one heck of a commute for someone who also claimed to be living in North Carolina! He also claimed to have visited Skywalker Ranch many times and to have met and worked with George Lucas. Then suddenly one day a disclaimer appears on his website (although not there now) stating that he has absolutely no connection to Lucasfilm, ILM or any of the Lucas companies. No doubt Suttle was contacted by someone within the Lucas organization and told to knock it off.

Close to this time, there were also many allegations about him involving credit card fraud, stemming from a pay section of his site that no longer exists, thanks to legal intervention from Lucasfilm which shut that down, as he was not licensed by Lucasfilm to do so. I would also hazard a guess that the apologists for Supershadow on this site are probably aliases for Suttle.

In short, the site is a fraud, the character of Supershadow is a fraud, and nothing relating to this person deserves recognition of any kind from any respectable site. Fenn 18:30, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My friends and I go there a lot, and as far as we can see, it is a legitimate website. I mean, the guy knows George Lucas, he's going to star in Episode 3, and all his predictions about Episode 1 and 2 turned out to be accurate. I fail to see how this constitutes a "known fraud".

Ok, now I'm really mad. You guys had to delete it too. It's a perfectly legitimate site as far as I can see. If it really is a bad site, perhaps you could enlighten me on some of its faults.

I removed the SuperShadow link. Anybody taking a look around the site for 10 minutes could see that it is obviously bogus. Notably: SS has 'plot scripts' for Episodes 7, 8 and 9 when Lucas has time and again stated he's not going to make them, let alone has scripted them; SS's so called 'filmography' is laughable and consists of film's which don't exist (check IMDB); the picture of SS's 'girlfriend' is a hoot. We're not here to link to every single Star Wars site in existence. The links are to notable sites. SuperShadow's is notable only for its dishonesty. In fact, the Natalie Portman Empire link isn't appropriate either. HWelles 05:05, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Actually the plot scripts just give the general storyline. Even if Lucas decided not to make them, he could still have an idea for a storyline in his head. Also, look at all the information it provides such as a detailed map of the star wars galaxy, a list of the midichlorian counts of various Jedi and Sith, a detailed history of the dealings of the Jedi and the Sith. This site has so many resources that other sites don't have. My friend and I went there over a year before episode 2 and read the predictions and printed them out. We went to the movie, and they were legitimate (we did it a year early so he couldn't change them after seeing the movie). With this many Star War-based resources, I still fail to see how you can see it as fraudulent. Maybe it isn't official, but it DID accurately predict what would happen in the movies and the guy DOES know George Lucas. (forgot to sign)


 * I don't know if the site is accurate or bogus (fraudulent is a bit strong), because the fonts were too ugly and style to cramped for me to stay long enough to judge. It did seem to have a lot of stuff.  Why not leave the link?  There really aren't that many there now. --ssd 05:16, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to the link. People can make up their own minds.  I just don't agree to editorializing the link summary. -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  05:18, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The site has 'resources' that other sites don't have because he makes them up. There's a lot of material on the site because a lot of it made up. Everything not made up is available on other sites. It's not difficult to 'predict' what's going to happen if you follow leaks. Visit his site all you want, but a link to it doesn't belong in the main article here due to there being so much unsourced and objectionable content at his site. The only proof that he knows George Lucas is this message on his site: "As you would expect, all information regarding SuperShadow is above top secret (classified at the highest level). Currently, nothing is known about SuperShadow except that SS is very close, personal friends with George Lucas, the creator of Star Wars." Clearly, the creator of the site has delusions of grandeur. Information about him is classified? It's an obvious lie, to go along with the other lies on his site. Again, I don't care if you go to the site. A link to it doesn't belong on Wikipedia because the information on SuperShadow's site is not sourced, and any reasonable knowledgable Star Wars fan would have grave doubts about its veracity. Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia. Linking to sites with material that is widely regarded to be untrue is thus inappropriate. HWelles 05:30, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * This is not a good enough reason to remove the link. I've put a comment on there that is less biased and hopefully agreeable to all.  We aren't including information from his site in wikipedia, just linking to it.  If people are too stupid to make their own judgements, they shouldn't be on the web, I'm not going to judge for them.  Actually, it was pretty obvious to me that his site is pure speculative stuff without reading much.  I don't think it tries to hide it.  I don't see anything wrong with linking to a speculation site as long as it is labeled as such. --ssd 05:35, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Why would we link to a site if we generally agree it's not a good information resource? Wikipedia is not a link repository or a web directory.  Links should be to the sources used to write the Wikipedia article, and to sites elsewhere that provide further information.  This article fits neither category.  Isomorphic 05:41, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't think we're in general agreement. RickK 05:43, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with Isomorphic. Further, I'm reluctant to have a link to SuperShadow's site when there are dozens of sites out there with far more useful and well thought out information and even speculation that should be linked before his.  Again, I'd say remove the link, or perhaps replace it with something better.  I won't remove it again, to avoid endless edits, but let's try to reach a consensus. HWelles 05:46, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Link looks informative to me. Or, at least, entertaining.  Well, at least, it's got a lot of info there, true or not.  I've not looked at other speculation sites, so I can't compare this one  to them.  Either way, I don't see reason to remove the link.  If there's really that many sites out there, can you find a site that links to nearly all of them, then we could list that instead; otherwise, if there really are that many, perhaps it is time for an article on Star Wars speculation where all such links could be included along with commentary about Lucas's feelings on this, and his changing opinion over the years on 6 vs. 9, etc... --ssd 05:54, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Adding "speculation" was a good choice. It allows that the site may not be 100% credible without making any claim either way. -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  06:10, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I've created a very rough Star Wars speculation page off the top of my head. There's a link to SuperShadow's site there. We ok to remove the link from this article then? HWelles 06:47, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I see no reason why the link should be deleted. Label it speculation and leave it here. RickK 19:13, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)


 * I thought Isomorphic was convincing as to why the link shouldn't be there. We're not here to link to every Star Wars site on the web, just to the very notable ones. HWelles 12:26, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't see any reason to remove it. It is labelled as speculative now. -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  14:10, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I thought you said there were hundreds of speculation sites? If there's only three, then leaving the supershadow site on the star wars page doesn't hurt much.  Wiki isn't paper. --ssd 00:36, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * What I said (or meant) was there were dozens of sites with better information and some sites with better speculation (and like I put in the Star Wars speculation article, most speculation goes on in message boards, rather than being posted up onto sites). Since the only possible value of SuperShadow's site is in its speculation, it belongs with Star Wars speculation rather than on the Star Wars article which should link to valuable information about Star Wars.  Actually, I may add some more links here and there among the various Star Wars articles, of sites that I think are fairly good. HWelles 05:15, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Suit against Battlestar Galactica
What was the result of the lawsuit? The commentators on the DVD said one of the terms of the settlement was that the laser guns could not shoot "beams" of light. Can anyone document this and other terms of any settlement or judgment? Ellsworth 15:25, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Grand Moff Tarkin
At Talk:Grand Moff Tarkin, User:Husnock says that his understanding was that the Star Wars Homepage (i.e. Lucasfilm's starwars.com) had given permission for text from their article on Tarkin to be copied to Wikipedia (this edit). Can anybody here confirm that? It seems unlikely to me, but I'm not a Star Wars specialist. --rbrwr&circ; 13:49, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Pictures
are paramount! We need pictures from at least each movie of the series, not to mention games like KotOR. Unacceptable. Lockeownzj00 19:33, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I know it's late, but I'm going to have to agree. We should at least have a picture of the main "STAR WARS" yellow writing on blackground. Oberiko 13:08, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Also, how about those science fiction paintings which first inspired George Lucas? The ones with the C3PO and R2D2-like robots on a Tatooine-like planet.

Lucas' original plans
Does anyone know much about Lucas' original plans for the movie(s) back in the 1970s? Various articles give snippets (e.g. a lot of action in A New Hope was shifted from Coruscant [then named Alderaan] to the Death Star; Mace Windu was originally intended to be one of the key characters) - anyone bold enough to do an article on the full development? Timrollpickering 15:50, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

what about this picture?
Look at it - see if the artist minds--Txredcoat 06:58, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Concerning the last edit
I'd like us to take a look at the last edit (dated 16 Dec 2004 by user Jon Hart - I don't want to start a war on this page.

Much talk is made of Canon and it's application. However, we've got to come to an agreement. Please see the following comparison:

Opposing Viewpoints

Your thoughts regarding this please.

Also, to the posters - if you wish to defend your statements, please submit evidence.--Txredcoat 21:43, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

WHAT HAPPENED HERE?
It's been destroyed

May the Force be with those who do not mess with the great galactic wikipedia, and do not do this thing- What happened here it's been destroyed. I am very angry with those doing these things and messing up my views of this STAR WARS part of Wikipedia- all who see this page, also research the name Zackary Richardson, yall might find it quite interesting. Anyway, please stop messing and put real stuff on Wikipedia. Z, I sure am happy that I put that on the web.

Darth Vader : Was he an Evil, or an unfortunate tool of Evil?
How does Darth Vader size up to the ultimate effect of evil? He seems to me not the real bad guy in this film, but as just a tool picked up by the emperor (dark side, lone power, devil, satan, or whatever you want to call him) and used in ways he didn't need to be. Annakin could have been the ultimate jedi, as was Yoda, but had not the power to resist. I find that Lucas was very good at personifying the devil in the form of the emperor, and Darth as just a tool, just as well as his son could have been. He showed us that We all have some bad in us, and we cannot resist the power of those higher up unless we are strong in our spirit as Luke was. We are weak, unfortunately, compared to the greater powers of this universe and galaxy.

Location of the Star Wars galaxy
The article says Star Wars takes place in the Vordarian Beltway Galaxy. Do a Google search for "vordarian beltway galaxy". Every site that mentions it says the same thing about it, and at least one admits to getting this information from supershadow.com. I say we remove the information right away. User:SpaceCaptain
 * If every site reads the same, then maybe its generally accepted as being canon. It also says the same on the Star Wars galaxy article. Riffsyphon1024 01:12, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What I'm saying is this isn't canon or even generally accepted. It is fan-created information from a notoriously unreliable source. Read this article. If it's also in the Star Wars galaxy article, maybe the same person who put it here put it there. SpaceCaptain 23:18, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the general policy is to leave fanon out of articles. Only information with a legitimate source should be written in here. Oberiko 16:09, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * My mistake. I realize the fathom of the situation now. Shall I also remove it from the galaxy article? Riffsyphon1024 23:11, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, please remove it from both articles. I mean, it says a little further down on the page that the galaxy is unnamed. SpaceCaptain 17:06, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Need some Star Wars experts
We need to work out how much of Star Wars III is speculation and how much is actually known. Help. DJ Clayworth 22:42, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Character Chart
My husband and I were amusing ourselves after watching the original movies on DVD. We came up with the following chart. Maybe someone can edit it after Revenge of the Sith and place it appropriately:

Characters seen in Five movies (assume all six):

C3PO, R2D2, Obi-Wan (Ben), Anakin/Darth Vader

Characters seen in Four movies (assume Five of six)

Palpatine/Emperor (not in ANH), Yoda (not in ANH)

Characters seen in Three movies (across two "series")

Boba Fett (not in ESB or CW (or original ANH)), Jabba (not in CW or ESB (or original ANH))

Characters seen in Two movies (across two "series")

Beru Lars (CW and ANH), Owen Lars (CW and ANH)

--Entrprs6 21:35, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * May I ask what CW means? -- Riffsyphon1024 21:42, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * "Clone Wars" --Entrprs6 21:50, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh. That was dumb of me. Well maybe to avert further confusion, you could use the more-familiar AOTC (Attack of the Clones). -- Riffsyphon1024 22:14, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Translation request
The article contains this sentence:

'' The movies revolve around the transition between the Galactic Republic and the Galactic Empire during the Battle of Naboo and the Clone Wars against the Trade Federation and its allies in the Confederacy of Independent Systems led by the Sith (wrongly thought to be long dead after the Great Jedi-Sith Hyperspace Civil Wars that ended in the Battle of Ruusan, but in reality, operated in secret) who also secretly control the Old Galactic Republic, as well as the Galactic Civil War that erupts between the Rebel Alliance and the Galactic Empire in an epic struggle between good and evil. ''

Can someone translate it to English?


 * I threw it out entirely; it didn't make any sense at all to me, and made the movies seem more like a ancient Greek history lesson. I rewrote it. Feel free to rewrite my rewrite. - Brian Kendig 23:18, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Expanded Universe
I just rewrote this section, and I now believe it's more accurate. I also cut out some information that I felt wasn't important enough to be in the main Star Wars article. The old version will be at my user page for the time being. Thoughts?-LtNOWIS 04:23, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Themes-text removal
"The prequel trilogy seems to pose a mistrust for neo-capitalism, displayed by the greedy Trade Federation. The Federation's own profit agenda is their downfall. Perhaps this entails Lucas as a democratic socialist."-I removed this from the the Themes section, shortly after an anon. user put it in. I have several reasons. First, I couldn't find "neo-capitalism" on Wikipedia, not even under another article. Second, based on what I found looking up "neo-capitalism" it doesn't seem to match the trade federation's practices. Third, the main reason they fail is that they break the law and are mean to people, who proceed to fight them. Sure, they wanted profits, but it didn't really have anything to do with any neo-capitalist sentiments-LtNOWIS 04:32, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

SUPERSHADOW /MICKEY SUTTLE
Ok check this out.........

I grew up on the whole Star Wars mythology and find myself to be a fountain of knowledge in regards to details and plots in the SW Universe. I however never got caught up in the whole roleplay/cosplay thing because I thought it added negative attention from fans who took the stories too far. And I never got caught up in the Expanded Universe either because both Lucas and McCallum said that EU is not absolute. point is this, I am the biggest cynic and skeptic when it comes to what SW fans have to say. More often than not they are spewing facts they think are absolute because they got it from a fansite or rumor mill. Never do they sit back and research what they find out.

One day, while trying to locate original scripts, I come upon Super Shadow's website. IMMEDIATELY I thought it was bogus !! BUT after seeing episode III, one thing stood out. The mention of Darth Plagies (or however its spelled). I have to say the first time I saw that name was on Mickey SuperShadow Suttle's site about 2 months ago. Now on I hear the name in the movie? And I also saw that Plagies may have been Palpatine's master. Also mentioned in Mickey's article 2 months prior.

Maybe SuperShadow has some legitimacy after all OR Darth Plagies was mentioned somewhere somehow before and I missed it and Mickey found it and used it in his article. PLEASE someone clear this up for me and email me at HeroicIconEric@aol.com

Some bastard made the Holocaust part uneditable
I just don't understand how some jewish extremists think.

The Holocaust part is totally uncalled for and unnecessary. and George Lucas didn't make these two trilogies just so that holocaust fanatics use the Wikipedia entry to remind people of the holocaust. Furthermore the bastard who worked in that bogus comparison between the emperor and hitler, made it so that the holocaust section does NOT appear in ANY of the page editing textboxes. The subsection simply cannot be edited. This is beyond outrageous. Those bastards are the enemies of speech and free speech. And their fanaticism will come back to haunt them ; AGAIN !

WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT IDIOT, THE HOLOCAUST BIT IS EASILY EDITABLE.

Themes
Any idea how the Dark Side and Galactic Empire equates to Communism and Soviet Union? After all, this was in the Cold War. Boohoo to those who claim this was a Nazi thing; so Godwinesque.

This sounds like crap, I don't see any way in which the two are linked.

Does anyone know what the line "Star Wars makes brownies" means in the article? Am I just missing a very simple joke?
 * It was probably vandalism. It does not seem to be there now.  Johntex 21:34, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Six movies or three?
According to the Interview on the 1995 Video release of Star Wars Episode IV Lucas states that Ep4 is the first act of the original Star Wars movie script. He clearly states in that interview that there were only two other parts, thus he wrote the episode 4 5 and 6 as one movie and splintered into 3. the second Interview on the Episode V tape goes into this even more, Down to calling it the middle act of a three act play. On the interview on Episode 6 he clearly says he is currently writing the script for the episode III.

He also states that in order to write the first script he had to write a back story, where Vader came from and his wife and Luke and Leia. He said that is the basses for the story he was working on "now" being 1995. That says to me he had yet to write episodes 1 2 and 3, he only had a general story that helped him write the scripts.

Because of this I am changing what it says on the page about being 6 movies as one. --68.4.250.200 23:02, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The story
Allright, I just came back from ep III, and I've also seen cw. But when I read the article, I still don't 'get it'. Too many names and political jargon are mixed up. Can someone please explain without skipping over what's what and who's who? I find the Matrix trilogy somewhat easier to follow, but that's a tough one too, especially in the 2nd part.

But really, the names of the first 3 episodes (besides the main character Anakin ofcourse) are easily mixed up imho (I also used to mix up names of the original trilogy, but 123 explained some things I missed in 456). Count Dooku, Palpatin, Padme, are quite unusual names. Even worse, Padme used to be called Queen Amidala. Queen Amidala was familiar to me from the 1st episode, but when I heard about Padme, it sounded like an evil name to me, instead of the much nicer queen Amidala. But I found out Padme was actually the same person.

Then there's clone wars in which I saw storm troopers helping the Jedi knights, which confused me. But now I understand those storm troopers are from 'the republic', and the jedi knights were friends of the rebublic or something or whatever, and when this Palpatine guy gave 'order 66' those stormtroopers killed the Jedis.

So, this is about as far as I understand it. Ofcourse I know what a 'sith' is. Basically a Jedi, only a sith is for the dark side. Come to think of it, wasn't that explained in the origional trilogy? But that was already a long time ago ;)

Also the whole war thing still puzzles me. Why was there a war started in the first place? Who benefits from it, and who does/has what? Sorry if that question basically reads 'what happened on Star Wars?'.

Also, in the Clone Wars, there was this white robot, which was trained by... the guy who flew out the window. Mace Windu iirc (hey thats conveniant to remember, mace windu flew /out/ the winu). He says so in the movie, which made me recall some scenes from cw. But he is obviously with the evil empire of palpatin. Or darth sidious, whatever. So why would mace do that? He's a Jedi! It's all some kind of wicked conspiracy, isn't it? :D (kidding).

But I hated to see Anakin obey darth sidious and become darth vader for nothing (padme died anyway). And he didn't stop being vader either and smack sidious in his face for betrayal. I don't quite get that either.

So please, keep it simple, maybe an overview of characters and planets would be very useful. Also something about the, how you call it, those intergalactic countries, the republic and what else. How their system works and who their allies and their enemies are.

Well, sorry about the long comment, but I hope it makes clear where the vague areas are in the story and the article. I bet I'm not the only one having trouble following star wars, and indeed I've spoken to people who didn't want to see it because of that. Men too.

Palpatine and Dooku looked as if they were on opposing sides, but in fact were confederates. They carefully ensured that both sides could not outdo each other, drawing out the war as long as they wanted to suit their needs. Palpatine used the wars to give himself emergency powers, which he promised to relinquish. This however never materialised. In Episode III, he has even MORE power than before. Senators are too frightened to speak out against him and therefore it is easy for him to become Emperor.

The clones were in the employ of Palpatine. The Empire did not overthrow the Republic - the Republic became the Empire. Palpatine was their boss, therefore, in the changeover from Republic to Empire, and from Palpatine's change from Chancellor to Emperor, they did not change loyalties at all.

Palpatine and Dooku had the war spread across many planetary systems, so that when Palpatine issued Order 66 (the order to kill the Jedi) the clone troopers easily outnumbered them. Then Anakin, who by now had fallen to the dark side, was sent to mop up the weak garrison at the Jedi Temple.

Main characters Palpatine - chancellor who promises peace and democracy. He does not eventually give up his power, revealing himself to be a Sith Lord. He apprentices Anakin and makes himself Emperor Anakin Skywalker - hero of the Republic and Jedi Knight. He rescues Palpatine from General Grievous, kills Dooku, but succumbs to the Dark Side, killing the Jedi in the temple and the Separatist Council. Padmé Amidala - senator for Naboo, mother of Anakin's unborn twins. Padmé is a fervent believer in democracy, but Anakin's fall to the dark side, and Palpatine's betrayal, is too much for her. Gravely wounded by force choke, she dies after giving birth. Obi-Wan Kenobi - Anakin's mentor, he escapes Order 66. He takes Luke and Leia into hiding, hiding hmself away on Tatooine. Yoda - short green Jedi who escapes Order 66, tries to kill Palpatine but failes, witnesses the birth of the twins and then goes into hiding on Dagobah. Mace Windu - when he learns of the true identity of Palpatine, he tries to kill him, but is overpowered by Anakin and is thrown out a window by Force-lightning. Bail Organa - senator for Alderaan who takes Leia as his adoptive daughter.

Sorry run out of time will finish later

Six movies or Nine?
I remember reading an old issue of TIME Magazine from 1980 which featured an article on Star Wars and Lucas' work on The Empire Strikes Back. The article said that Lucas had started telling his story in the middle, where the first movie was to be part four in a series that would feature a grand total of nine films. It explained that parts 4-6 would tell the story of the rebellion against the empire, parts 1-3, designated as "Clone Wars" would outline the fall of the republic, and the finale, parts 7-9, would be about the rebuilding of the republic. Does this ring a bell with anyone?

Taken that it took a few years before Lucas eventually got around to making The Phantom Menace after The Return of the Jedi, it might only be natural to perceive the series concluded with the six films less than hoping, possibly in vain, for the final three. Are there any recent sources that disclose more information on this, whether it should be regarded as a six part or as it at least once was stated a nine part series?

I can't recall which issue of TIME it was, but it featured the burial of Marshal Tito on the cover. -- Mic 23:05, Jan 14, 2004 (UTC)


 * Lucas did a talk with journalists before the release of Episode II, and he said: "The challenge for me is telling a six-part story: so in Episode I there are things that I have to get in that refer to Episode VII... no, hang on, we're not there yet. I mean Episode IV." He then hastily added, "The next film completes the saga as originally written." This either means that there will not be any extra movies, or that there will. No one from LucasFilm is willing to speak on this subject very much, but the rumors are getting more believable.


 * I believe Lucas originally envisioned nine episodes, but only actually wrote six. After the first three movies, they started writing novels in the Star Wars universe, and I suspect those novels have more than covered what would have been in the last three movies.  I don't think Lucas in his wildest imagination could have predicted the Star Wars literature explosion when he wrote the first six!  Of course, this is not to say that Lucas couldn't come up with another three movies' worth of original material, or that he couldn't pick any three of the third party novels already extant and turn them into movies.  I'm sure this is why the studio won't give a non-squishy answer.  The real question is if Lucas will feel like making three more movies after he finishes Episode III or if he will finally retire from authoring movies rather than just doing the effects. --ssd


 * Solution: Lucas could do the effects that he loves, and leave the storyline and dialogue to the writers. Riffsyphon1024 05:30, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The current text ("... Lucas has stated that he does not intend to make any more Star Wars films after Episode III. In other words, there will be no Episodes VII, VIII, or IX.") seems to completely exclude the possibility that there will be further SW movies, made without GL. Personally I think it would be odd if such an amazingly powerful brand would be left untouched after Episode III, even if GL doesn't want any part in it. Especially now that there are rumours about a SW tv series... In short, I'd remove that last sentence. It's superflous at best, and at worst completely wrong. --MMad (WP noob)


 * The first sentence of the current text is still there. The planned television program may or may not happen, or it may be based on The New Jedi Order series.  Some elements in The Expanded Universe may constitute or lead to Episode VII.  George Lucas once said after Episode VI that he only intended Episodes IV-VI.  Lucas should enjoy doing the special effects that he does.  It should be the Expanded Universe to decide.  It is unclear whether Episode VII can be done without Lucas's direct involvement. --Tedius Zanarukando 19:27, 12 March 2005 (EST).


 * Here's a link to a recent 60 minutes transcript where Lucas says there is no episode VII. Quoting: "What if someone else beside you came to you and said, 'I want to make episode seven.' Could you see this happening," asks Stahl. "No," says Lucas. "There is no episode seven." -- Connor Hill ( talk | site )


 * At the time of Episodes IV-VI, Episode I was not written. There was no Episode I until the late 1990's.  Tedius Zanarukando 14 May 2005 15:31 (EST).


 * While there may be plenty of content out there to go along with Star Wars, are there any loose ends left now that Episode III has come out? I can't see how the epic would continue after Luke brought balance to the force, since that seems to be the focus of the Star Wars epic. Citizen Premier 02:58, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * For a long time, George Lucas stated that he does not intend to make Episode VII. According to the Expanded Universe division, The New Jedi Order series, Luke Skywalker turns to the dark side. That may hint for Episode VII.  George Lucas once abandoned the prequel trilogy right after Return of the Jedi.  He just plays with his film plans.  Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 00:48, 29 May 2005 (UTC)


 * According to Appendix L of the timeline on the Star Wars Timeline Gold website Lucas made statements in February 1978 to the effect that there would be a total of twelve movies, with a A New Hope (then known only as Star Wars) as the first one. The source for this is given as issue #2 of The Official Star Wars Fan Club Newsletter. In 1980 Lucas told the The Official Star Wars Fan Club Newsletter (renamed Bantha Tracks by then) that he had reduced the number of episodes from 12 to 9 and that A New Hope was to be number four in the series. According to the Appendix, Lucas told Time (in the issue of May 19, 1980) that the last trilogy (episodes seven to nine) would deal with the rebuilding of the Republic. He is to have made similiar statements to Time in the issue of May 23, 1983. It is not until 1995 Lucas puts in writing that there will only be six movies in the series. Mark Hamill is also to have stated that Lucas at one time queried him about playing an "Obi-Wan-type character" in the last trilogy in a 1996 Starlog interview. There is also to have been an official ban on major character changes in the Expanded Universe material in the era after Return of the Jedi (until 1999). --Sus scrofa 14:20, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

VII, VIII and IX

 * Is there any concrete knowledge on the three theoretical sequels? -Litefantastic 19:30, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * That depends on what you mean by "concrete". Lucas has recently claimed he never intended to make nine films and that he is done with the main movies.  However, it has been speculated that his successors-in-interest (his heirs and the corporations involved) will end up making them, even if it is over Lucas' dead body after Lucas' death. For example, see: This Houston Chronicle article off a recent newswire. The trouble is, any denial by Lucas that any more will ever get made can't be considered the final word.  There is no way to know for sure that he (or his heirs) won't change his mind later.  Therefore, the only thing concrete would be an announcement they will be made, or their actual making, depending on how strict you want to be. Johntex 22:01, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Time and Tide

 * Does anyone know if Lucas planned on episodes I - IX to be made, and then ended up making only IV - VI due to technical restrictions, or was that simply an afterthought? -Litefantastic 19:30, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I heard somewhere it was because of Lucas's marriage problems, where if he were to make any more movies (which he really wanted to do), then the income would also have to go to her, or something along those lines. Not quite sure what the whole story was/is. - Fervidfrogger
 * I doubt technical restrictions play a part. What technical limitations could stand in the way?  Why would he need any better technology than he has today?  As to the income going to his wife, I suppose it is possible.  If we assume he has to pay alimony until the day he dies (I've not looked into that assumption at all), and that his wife does not inherit any of his empire when he dies, then one could theorize he would prefer to delay their production until after his death so that his chosen heirs get the full benefit, instead of his wife.  However, it seems like a strange thing to do since under this scenario it seems like she would already be getting so much money along the way from all the merchandising, etc.  Would he really alter his "artistic vision" just to decrease her income?  Johntex 22:17, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Star Wars Wiki (was Wikipedia Portal: StarWars ?)
There are hundreds of articles about StarWars on Wikipedia. Shouldn´t we start a wiki-portal for everything StarWars-related? (like games, movies, books, philosophy, history.....)
 * Probably a good idea. Wikipedia can't be the definitive wiki repository for SW info. Too many articles are getting generated about SW subjects that many editors feel are waaaaay to esoteric for inclusion, and when articles about various SW races, characters or planets end up on Votes for Deletion, editors want to delete them. That's why I created combined articles like Minor characters in Star Wars and Minor races in Star Wars, as a repository for these items, when their individual articles were likely to end up on the cutting room floor. Creating a Star Wars wiki-portal would be a great idea for SW enthusiasts. Kevyn 18:20, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I just saw a Halo-wiki (the definitive source for Halo), but since Star Wars is even more huge and complex, I believe it deserves its own Wiki. It could be the rival to the CUSWE at force.net. Also, the planets list has gotten rather large, to 60 planets at least. Another Wiki could store them all as separate entities. Riffsyphon1024 04:40, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * So we'd call it Wookieepedia? :D  Cbarbry 07:48, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Hahahaha, that's great! Wookieepedia! And what about Wicketpedia? (i.e. Wicket the Ewok) Riffsyphon1024 08:28, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * The List of Star Wars races has now grown to 95 races with my merging the Minor races in Star Wars with the List. Seems like this is only going to get bigger. Riffsyphon1024 01:54, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * So does anyone know how we go about doing this? Who do we "talk to" with Wikipedia?  Seems to me that it would be a good thing to be associated with either this site (preferably) or possibly hosted on theforce.net rather than me just try to start up my own site.  Not that I'm totally opposed to doing that.  Cbarbry 08:27, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Check out http://www.starwarswiki.org. I ran across this doing some domain searches for this idea.  It looks like it has already been done by someone else, we just need to populate it.  Of course this is not an official portal.  Thoughts?  Cbarbry 21:07, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It looks very amateurish. Some titles like 'The Phantom Menace' aren't even spelled right. -- Riffsyphon1024 00:57, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it would definitely need some work, but that can be done by the users in the same way Wikipedia works. It's obviously just been put up.  If you look at the history, it's been up less than a month.  I guess my main thoughts:
 * Pros
 * it's a good domain name
 * it's based on MediaWiki, so it'll be familiar to Wikipedians
 * Cons
 * it's not run by Wikipedia or me or someone who will ensure that it is run like Wikipedia (dunno this for sure, but could be a pretty big problem)
 * Do you know how to get in touch with the people who run Wikipedia to see about the possibilities of doing something like this? Cbarbry 06:17, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I've only been here a little more than a month. I could message a sysop, but would I really want to do that? We'd have to find someone who has those connections, yet is dedicated enough to the Star Wars cause. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:37, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty new to Wikipedia, too. But I did run across an interesting section tonight - Wikiportal and WikiProject. It's late, so I'm going to investigate some other time. Cbarbry 10:29, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * There is also a Star Wars wiki at Wikicities. Angela. 21:21, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * I think this would be a better answer than the other starwarswiki.org site. The main reason is because of who is managing it.  I don't know who is doing the starwarswiki.org site, but Angela is a known Wikipedian and a member of the board.  So I'm sure it would be run in a similar fashion.
 * I wonder if/hope there's a way to link the sites together like an interwiki link. It would be best if there weren't duplicate information.
 * I think the way we should handle it would be general Star Wars info remain in Wikipedia, but detailed info be moved to the Star Wars WikiCity. Wikipedia become the general encyclopedia and the SWWC be the detailed "trade mag."  :)
 * Thoughts? Cbarbry 05:22, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll still able to work on my articles here, the lists of races, planets, systems, sectors, cities, and creatures? -- Riffsyphon1024 22:33, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OK, good news! Angela is on the board and she and I have exchanged a few emails. She has already setup the Star Wars Wiki she mentioned above. But even better, she has now arranged to get interwiki links setup - Wikicities:c:StarWars:Article. Now, we need to start working on building up the Star Wars Wiki, and I think a great way to do that is to migrate some of the more trivial articles to the Star Wars Wiki. Remember to leave a redirect until all links are pointing to the SWW site. Like I mention above, I think the way we should handle it would be general Star Wars info remain in Wikipedia, but detailed info be moved to the Star Wars Wiki. Wikipedia being the general encyclopedia and the SWW being the detailed fan site.

To answer your question, certainly keep working on your articles. We're just trying to move them to a separate wiki. Cbarbry 06:46, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * If you would like to see what I have created and edited, and what may be suitable for transwikification, refer to my user page --> Riffsyphon1024 06:52, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

One point to remember is that Wikicities isn't aiming on removing encyclopedic content from Wikipedia, so if content is acceptable here, don't go deleting it just because there's a new Star Wars wiki. Angela. 13:13, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Two options I see: (1) on major articles (e.g. Phantom Menace) we have an (trimmed down) overview article here then a detailed article on SWW. Or (2) SWW just links back to Wikipedia's article (major articles only like the films and Star Wars).  In either case I think we need to move all but the most major articles to SWW.  Thoughts?  Cbarbry 18:26, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comparison to other themes
I deleted the section "Comparison to Other Themes". The section was nothing but barely concealed propaganda. It was purely speculative, and contained no useful information. George Lucas did surely not intend Star Wars as a parable on protestant christianity. -- Dedalus

I disagree. The mere fact of his association with Campbell, and the virgin birth part with Anakin, point to quite the opposite. -- MaxiPad

Then go ahead and produce some evidence! As far as I remember from an interview, George Lucas is not even a christian, save a christian propagandist. If you have better evidence, go ahead and prove me wrong. And then adapt the section to contain some facts. Until then, leave it as it is. Dedalus 09:29, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

It makes as much sense as Lucas' theming it after the Nazi Holocaust. From what I know- Lucas is neither Jewish nor German! It does however have 1) A virgin birth, 2) a religion at centerpoint (As Han Solo described Jediism on board the Falcon), 3) Romanesque names (Palpatine, similar linguistically to Constantine, elector of Trinitarianism). Further- Jediism/Judaism (pre Pauline Christianity), not much difference there!  The content should be in there if the Nazi stuff is there. It is no less plausible.

-- MaxiPad

I've meanwhile reread some interviews with Lucas. Lucas states that for him all religions are equal. So I guess he wouldn't deem one of the world's largest religions the "evil" side, would he? Secondly, you're quite right about the nazi stuff: I don't think that belongs in here, either. But we can take care of that at some other time and at least the nazi stuff is not offensive to one sixth of the world's population. Dedalus 13:00, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Whatever the facts, someone make it make sense. I have no idea what it's saying after the first two or three lines. S. Way

I agree with Daedelus. I was about to put a disputed fact or NPOV dispute message on the article. I have researched the contributions of anonymous user 24.176.6.165, and they seem to be bewildering and contradictory, but on the whole, take an anti-trinitarian, and in particular, anti-Catholic slant. He has contributed to a number of different articles, and I am beginning to suspect he is a vandal. I am a fairly new contributor, so could someone tell me where I should report suspicious activity from anonymous users? Thanks InFairness 09:58, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

On the Films' Focus.
The meta-narrative of "good vs evil" as an abstraction, has unnecessarily burdened the Original Saga via its simplistic reductionism. This is not to say that there are not any profound and diametrically opposed modes of human reality in them. And clear no less.

Contrast this with the tendency in the leading films of the 1970's, which sought out the ineffable and ambiguous for contention of the Oscar.

I choose to term the two modes, as forcibly in tension as any, short of the "Ten Commandments", as any American film: Domination and Freedom. And it is these very "horizon motivating" impeti, so permeating both character, dialogue, (however "wooden" these are to have been criticized as) and scenic management and driving them along "necessarily" towards realization and fulfillment, and informing all of their developments, that the later Prequels lack. Indeed, a great deal of waste is to be observed. Note this especially in scenic management, where the effects seam to be their own raison d'etre, being arbitrary and superfluous, instead of being of value only in service to the drama: Domination/Freedom.

Little wonder of the fans' rage - as in baseball, it is the fans who are the reason for the thing, or at very least, are its best gauge. Domination and Freedom pursue their "inner logic". It's really a relational logic that garners its being from its role in the drama of "human reality"(non-human aliens or other species could potentially share in our being - self and cosmically aware). Though the actual cosmos, by all signs, is cold, dark, empty, and radically uninterested in the struggle.

Freedom wants an openness towards the cosmos; it places a premium on experience. It is singular and unique. If this doesn't work and does not express itself, that aspect of "human reality"(I know not its name) which gives rise to it will fold in upon itself as a cancer, or at the very least, if "freedom" wasn't an overriding motivating issue to begin with, a sort of "spiritual diabetes".

Domination is easy... to understand! Yet this impetus has its place. If your body did not try to "lock down" on the situation, keeping everything in order as much as it could, hunting down parasites, obsessing over equilibriums, etc. you would cease very shortly.

Clearly freedom, since its essence is desire, earns our sympathy over the base and rote, however valid on its own level, domination.

It is this tension that is the essence of the drama in question here. Other modes of tension include: Love and the experience of its limitations and disappearance(Sophicles, Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliette, Wagner's Tristan und Isolde, and virtually all 19th Century(non-Russian) literature).

Meaning in life and the experience of its limitations and disappearance(Hamlet, Macbeth, Lear, Wagner's Woton, the Russians! ...or nearly all of 20th Century lit.).

And also, starting out unawares, and reaching fufillment(Goethe's Wilhelm Meister, Wagner's Parsifal).

Though the Prequels leave us gasping for air in regards to drama, they do, to be sure, display an impressive command of the intricacies of the political world that gives us much to "chew on" in regards to backstory. But, even nonwithstanding the wasted scenes, characters, and dialogue, is it necessary to use up precious film time and space for this?

P.S. This writing on the Prequels does not take into account the yet-to-be released Revenge of the Sith. However, from many reports, it leaves us with a "New Hope".

Indeed, it's looking like it's going to be the "smorgasbord" of the series. --Scroll1 04:16, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Themes: The nazi stuff
In my opinion, the whole second part of section "Themes" is useless and does not belong here. That is for several reasons:

1. True, one can compare Palpatine to Adolf Hitler in certain respects. Both turned a decaying democracy into an evil dictatorship, limited freedoms of the people, used fear as their primary tools, they turned the focus of public antipathy to some ethnic or political or whatever group to distract from internal problems, etc. But then again, most of that can be said about most despots in world history: Nero, Oliver Cromwell, Robespierre, Mussolini, ...

2. There are a lot of crucial aspects in which the two differ. First of all, even Palpatine did not pursue the complete extinction of a whole ethnic group. It that respect, a comparison to Hitler would even do Palpatine unjustice. And, what is worse: it relativizes the crimes of Hitler. A comparison to Moussolini e.g. would be much more fitting, especially since Moussolini was indeed overthrown by an internal rebellion.

3. Most of the shown similarites are quite obvious and to my opinion they do not qualify as the sort of information you would expect in an encyclopedia.

--Dedalus 16:55, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

"Palpatine did not pursue the complete extinction of a whole ethnic group"

But Palpatine attempts the entire destruction of the Jedi race. Here are the main simularities I see between the two -

You have the Weimar Reepublic

You have the Galactic Republic

Hitler gets appointed Chancellor of the Republic and issues emergency decrees and pronounces himself Fuhrer

Palpatine gets appointed Chacellor of the Republic and issues emergency decrees and pronounces himself Emperor for ever

The Third Reich is formed

The Galactic Empire is formed

Hitler has stormtroopers

The Emperor has stormtroopers

Hitler purges all his enemies and "inferiors"

The Emperor launches the Jedi purge

Hitler puts Jews and others in ghettos

The Emperor puts non-human species in segregated parts of Coruscant

Eventually both lose in wars and eventually both become Republics again

--

Dear anonymous,

excuse me if I'm wrong, but it appears that you just wrote a summary of the section I'm criticizing. I guess it would be more helpful if you tried to reply more directly to my arguments. Anyway, I'll take the opportunity to illustrate again what I mean: Regards, Dedalus 15:05, May 20, 2005 (UTC).
 * You talk about the "destruction of the Jedi race". - Hm, the Jedi don't seem like a race to me. They are a religious order, an occupation group, and for palpatine they are first of all political opposition which -- like any good tyrant -- he has to get rid of. This is nothing like Hitlers antisemitism, which targeted anyone of jewish descent, regardless of political affiliation, profession or practised religion.
 * "Hitler did not have "stormtroopers. "Sturmtruppe" is nothing but the German word for "assault team". Assault teams in the German army were no special feature of the Third Reich nor had they any special role in the holocaust whatsoever.
 * All the other similarities -- while true -- do not exclusively apply to Hilter. Palpatine is more the archetype of the dictator who rises to power by quasi-legal means. E.g. if you make yourself acquainted with the biography of Benito Mussolini you will find that he fits the comparison to Palpatine even better than Hitler, as Mussolini -- unlike Hitler -- was toppled by an internal rebellion and not by an outside force.
 * Even if we assume that Palpatine actually represented Hitler, there would be no need to have such an extensive section on that matter. A small statement of one or two sentences would be enough. All that delving into the details of actual and supposed similarities is quite obvious and trivial. It is not information. Therefore, it does not belong into an encyclopedia.

"Palpatine is more the archetype of the dictator who rises to power by quasi-legal means"

Umm, and Hitler didn't. He was appointed chancellor (the same position that Palpatine obtains) of the Weimar Republic by President Hindenburg in 1933 which was a legal move and completely how the Weimar constitution said that things should be done. He then used his power to turn himself into a dictator.

"Hitler did not have "stormtroopers"

Ummm, yes he did he just got rid of them in the Night Of The Long Knives, learn your history.

"Mussolini -- unlike Hitler -- was toppled by an internal rebellion and not by an outside force."

Int the context of Star Wars an outside force in your words would have to be another galaxy and I can't see that happening. If you are reffering to the inside force being Darth Vader when he kills the Emperor then I can actually see where you are coming from.

--

"Umm, and Hitler didn't. [...]"

Um, hello? "quasi-" is defined by Merriam-Webster as "in some sense or degree". "In some sense legal" seems to me a pretty good summary of Hitler's way to power. What's your problem with that? (Consider the crucial role of the Enabling Act and the circumstances under which it was passed.)

"Ummm, yes he did [...]".

You mean the Sturmabteilung (SA). Concededly, this term has been (mis)translated as "stormtroopers". Nevertheless, the SA was a band of thugs in party uniforms and not an army like the Palpatines stormtroopers.

"[An] outside force in your words would have to be another galaxy and I can't see that happening"

True. That's my point. (Unless you suggest that Lucas accidentially made the Empire to emcompass the whole galaxy, so he couldn't ("oops!") bring an outside force into play. That's not your point, is it?) The "internal force" I am talking about is, of course, the rebellion. (Regardless of whether Palpatine was finally killed by Vader or not.)

Besides, it would be nice if you got yourself an account an signed your contributions. Regards, Dedalus 17:42, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

--

Errr, the Jedi ARE NOT A RACE. The Jedi are made of many races. Sheesh. Same thing with the jewish fanatics who seem to insist that jews comprise a "race" which they don't. There are indian and african jews as well as slavs arabs and germanic jews. Sheesh.

If the Jedi are not a race and Jews are not a race then it cannot be said that Palpatine and Hitler are different because one tried to wipe out a race but another didn't. If, like the Jews, the Jedi are made up of lots of races then they, like the Jews, constitute an ethnic group and so simularities can be seen.

Dear anonymous, Hitler saw jews not as a religious but as an ethnic group. That's why practitionors of other religions of jewish descent suffered just like practicing jews under Hitler (see e.g. Edith Stein). That's why Hitler called his ideology anti-semitism and not anti-judaism (see Anti-Semitism for details). Regards, Dedalus 15:05, May 20, 2005 (UTC).

"That's why practitionors of other religions of jewish descent suffered just like practicing jews under Hitler"

I think you'll find that Christians didn't get sent to the camps and many Christian churches collaberated with Hitler, there was even a Reich church. And the Catholic Zentrum party supported Hitler on his enabling laws. Also many Arab and Islamic countries cooperated with the Nazis in attempt to wipe out "the greater evil" of the Jews.

Dear anonymous, it would really help if you read my contributions carefully. I said "of jewish descent". You even quoted it! (That's "practitioners of jewish descent" of course.) Regards, Dedalus 07:16, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

-- Question: If Palpatine was a pro-human 'racist,' why did he have Darth Maul as a Sith Padawan? He didn't know about Anakin by then, did he? Citizen Premier 03:09, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Star Wars Exhibit
A few years ago, there was an exhibit here in San Diego of 'The Art of Star Wars.' It had real models and such. Does anyone know if it's still touring? If so, it should be mentioned in the article. Citizen Premier 03:15, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

The Third Reich
I'm removing the entire "Third Reich" section because I believe it draws parallels which either aren't there at all, or are weak. In specific:


 * Both men begin their careers as outspoken political activists who gain control of their respective governments after the Chancellors of each are removed from office. But Palpatine was elected fairly and peacefully before he began his dirty work, whereas Hitler was an outspoken force before he was part of the government.
 * The first measure both enact in office is one limiting the freedoms of the people. No specifics are given about Palpatine's "emergency powers" in the movies, are there? I see no reason to believe he's imposing hardships on citizens or restricting business; I get the idea his "emergency powers" are more along the lines of being able to act without Senate debate or approval.
 * Both use the disenfranchised and down-trodden to perform their dirty work. Palpatine isn't shown recruiting the unwashed masses or organizing any grass-roots movements to overthrow the government.
 * The governments both men create are openly racist and xenophobic. There's no evidence that Palpatine is racist, and the xenophobia is an Expanded Universe concept.
 * Both enact mass exterminations of certain groups of people. I don't think the Jedi are numerous enough to be a "mass extinction". Also, they are killed after they are declared enemies of the Republic; their deaths are more like the deaths of enemy soldiers.
 * Both men's troops are called Stormtroopers. Also, the uniforms of officers in the Empire are extremely similar to the uniforms worn by members of the Nazi party. The Nazis did not have "stormtroopers", and I don't think the officer uniforms are particularly similar.

From the wikipedia page on the SA - "The Sturmabteilung (SA, German for "Storm Division" and is usually translated as stormtroops or stormtroopers)" So the Nazis did have storm troopers.

And also a mass extinction does not relate to the amount of people killed it refers to a extremely high percentage of a group of people. Seeing as nearly all the Jedi got killed I think it can be counted as a mass extinction. The fact that they are declared enemies actually links them more to the Communists in Germany after the Reichstag fire much more than enemy soldiers.

"I get the idea his "emergency powers" are more along the lines of being able to act without Senate debate or approval" Isn't that exactly what Hitler did so that he didn't have to rely on Reichstag support?

There are parallels between Palpatine and many other controversial leaders throughout history, but the connections to Hitler in specific aren't very strong ones. - Brian Kendig 12:08, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have decided to also delete this bit - " Anakin Skywalker's declaration to Obi-Wan Kenobi in "Revenge of the Sith" that "If you're not with me, you are my enemy" is an obvious parallel to George W. Bush's declaration, "If you're not with us, you are with the terrorists," which was successfully used to limit political dissent for several years following 9/11."

One quote does not constitute a parallel and this has just been put in by people who want to think they are clever and can relate anything in the world to George Bush.


 * If one wanted to strain the comparison, one could very well believe that the systems belonging to the "Trade Federation" were recruited because of their relative disgruntlement and downtroddeness. But anyway, the comparison is unduly strained and merits no more than the barest mention here. Dystopos 19:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Parallelism between the two trilogies
The section titled "Similarities" gave many examples on how the two Trilogies runs in parallel. Did George Lucus ever mentioned that he did that on purpose to show similar destiny of the father and son. If that is the case, perhaps the intention should be mentioned here in this article. There are more similarities that are not listed in the sections yet. For example, the ending of Episode I and Episode IV is almost the same with a victory parade. The Wookie and Ewok's battle in Episode III and VI. The two trilogies are just variations of the same story line. Kowloonese 23:36, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

The thing about Bush
Someone probablly mentioned this already.

But here: "If you're not with me, you are my enemy" is an obvious parallel to George W. Bush's declaration, "If you're not with us, you are with the terrorists,"

Do we agree that it's really a parallel? It sounds like an opinion to me. I don't even think that's Bush's real quote. I googled it.

I think it's more to the lines of "If you're not with us, then you're against us." But I'm not sure. kelvinhole

Re-release stuff
Does anybody else find that last bit, especially the last paragraph to be very POV? I mean it seems clear the people who wrote it are siding with the fans who hate George Lucas's revisions, especially when you end that section like that. At the end of the day, it's still his works, and talking about the artists involve and whether they're okay with it doesn't totally jibe with me. Just my two cents. --67.70.22.78 19:12, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Emblems of the Empire/Republic
What happened to the images of the emblems of the Galactic Republic/Empire? Where are they now? --John-1107 28 June 2005 18:38 (UTC)

List of fictional revolutions and coups
I've just created the article List of fictional revolutions and coups, a desmembration of Coup d'État article. I want to someone to write the sequence of coups and revolutions described in Star Wars film series. Can you do it?

Star Wars Portal & Star Wars Wiki
Why must there be both a Star Wars wiki and a Star Wars portal (non-wiki)? Now, there are two different articles on Star Wars. Why can't it all just be one?

saga or series?
I think this article needs another name change. First of all, it should be Star Wars saga, not Star Wars Saga. Second, it should be in parentheses (I think). Third, should it be Star Wars (series) or Star Wars (saga)? KramarDanIkabu 19:44, 7 August 2005 (UTC) Or of course you could name the page back to Star Wars ><.

Nah, its fine the way it is. As long as people can find it, its ok Freddy Tsao

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) 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)
 * 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:
 * 1) The length of the article (which is too long by Wikipedia standards) should not be trimmed by removing redundant information.
 * 2) The grammar and writing style of the article should not be improved wherever possible.
 * 3) 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?
 * 4) Fan works should included as a sub-section of the Extended Universe, a term which explicitly only applies to licensed material?
 * 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) 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. &mdash; 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: 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 - 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. Furthermore, I have not violated consensus, as I never received an answer as to what it was. 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 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)

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.)

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)
 * 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:

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


 * 1) User:Philwelch
 * 2) User:A Link to the Past
 * 3) User:Justin Bacon
 * 4) User:Clawson

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

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:

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.


 * 1) 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 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:
 * 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.
 * 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. 

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?   . 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)