Talk:Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith/Archive 2

Trying this again
The Citations section needs work and the errors in the sixth and tenth items should be removed. Bleucheeses (talk) 08:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

References to use

 * Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.



Spielberg was "allowed" to help on the movie?
Might want to reconsider the wording. "Invited" could be better? Johnny &quot;ThunderPeel2001&quot; Walker (talk) 19:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Followed by.. The Clone Wars?
I mean, however bad it may be.. it is technically G-Canon. So, in that case, wouldn't this one be followed by The Clone Wars? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.28.105.1 (talk) 19:46, 6 No, the Clone Wars was before this, then 19 years after, came a new hope.

Inappropriate Language
I removed an instance of inappropriate language from the Releases section. Main reason being it's not the type of work you would expect to find when reading an article about star wars. It doesn't really add anything to the article and the paragraph in question certainly doesn't lose any meaning by taking the word out. Spacemonkeynz (talk) 23:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please review the policy regarding Wikipedia being uncensored. DP 76764  (Talk) 00:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Reception
The reception seems to be strongly focused on near-release reception, and could probably be expanded pretty significantly. Is anyone up for the challenge? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

About the Chinese mis-translation
The ones you listed are actually your mis-translation. 'Good elephant', 'do not want', that's what you get when you translate Chinese word from word,but Chinese doesn't work that way. The two Chinese words are binded together to mean something completely different than seperated. In these cases, they mean "It seems" and "NOOOOO" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinchengxin (talk • contribs) 14:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Funny thing is, Google's translator only translates those characters (好象, Hǎo xiàng in Pinyin) as "Good Elephant" from Japanese (Kō zō in Japanese romaji) whereas from Chinese, the phrase "Seems to" comes up.


 * 71.173.9.25 (talk) 22:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Citation needed for [50]
The link for reference [50] is dead, and I can't find any other source to replace it. Suggest it is replaced with a good old {citation needed} 77.213.95.67 (talk) 19:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification! We do not have to remove a reference if the link is dead. Per WP:LINKROT, we should try to relocate the URL or find an archived version of it. I've done the latter, and Internet Archive had archived versions here. I've updated the reference to contain the archived URL. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 21:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool! Thanks :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.213.95.67 (talk) 14:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

About Filming
At first，please forgive me for my poor English.

Not only Phuket in Thailand,but also Guilin in China,was the locations scouted for EP3, to capture plate photography for backdrops on the planet Kashyyyk.

Here are some links of Databank and Wookiepedia：

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Guilin

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Kashyyyk ： Behind the scenes

http://www.starwars.com/databank/location/kashyyyk : Behind the scenes

Aragorn3333 (talk) 09:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Mistranslation sources
Just out of curiosity, why are we letting an apparent blog qualify as a WP:RS in the mistranslation section? DP 76764 (Talk) 19:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

'Protocol 66'?
The plot section describes Order 66 as 'Protocol' 66 - nowhere else have I heard it being called that before. The films call it Order 66; the books call it Order; Lucas calls it Order 66; Wookieepaedia calls it Order 66. Please can someone change this major discrepancy!?

-Tra-

Um Im pretty sure that to the clones It was known as protocol 66 or order 66 because of it is more militaristic that wayJdkoqdnwi (talk) 12:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

'Protocol 66'?
The plot section describes Order 66 as 'Protocol' 66 - nowhere else have I heard it being called that before. The films call it Order 66; the books call it Order; Lucas calls it Order 66; Wookieepaedia calls it Order 66. Please can someone change this major discrepancy!?

-Tra- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.108.51 (talk) 21:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Wording issues in the plot section
I have a bit of a concern here regarding the wording on Anakin's immolation scene (specifically "severely burned"). Since immolation means that an object is killed or destroyed by fire and is listed as such in the soundtrack, I think the word nearly immolated makes more sense since Anakin is nearly dying from the flames before he is turned into Vader. I don't want to make it sound ambiguous or get involved in an edit war over it, but I am discussing this matter here so we can come up with a compromise. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Immolation does mean killed or destroyed, often via self sacrifice. That's not what happens in the scene, he's severely burned yes, but not immolated as he's still alive. Canterbury Tail   talk  19:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Right, so should we consider "significantly burned", "burned to a significant degree" or "critically burned" an alternative? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I just checked the script to see what terminology they used, but unfortunately Anakin bursting into flames is the closest they get to mentioning the burn damage in it. Maybe significantly burned. Critically I prefer as an expression but I'm concerned we'd be putting too much OR into phrasing it that way. Canterbury Tail   talk  01:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Premiere information should be edited
This article cites the Premiere as taking place on May 16 in Cannes, when in fact there were charity benefit screenings in 10 cities on May 12, 2005. Also, on May 13, there were two screenings in George Lucas' hometown of Modesto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.74.235 (talk) 20:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Deleted Scenes
George Lucas no longer owns Star Wars, so he will never be the one to release a six DVD collection. Should this be edited out?96.247.7.59 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 19:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060930190653/http://www.mpaa.org/press_releases/2005_09_27b.pdf to http://www.mpaa.org/press_releases/2005_09_27b.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110109001917/http://www.starwars.com:80/themovies/saga/preorder_bluray/index.html to http://www.starwars.com/themovies/saga/preorder_bluray/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Genre classification
There is a discussion in progress concerning the "epic space opera" label being used throughout the Star Wars film articles. Both epic and space opera are being questioned in the lead. Please voice your opinion on the matter at: Talk:Star Wars (film). --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 17 February 2016
FYI: This article has been included in a related move request - please see Talk:Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace. --Fru1tbat (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 April 2016
To remove a protected redirect, Do not want from the category, it needs redirect category (rcat) templates added. Please modify it as follows:


 * from this:


 * 1) REDIRECT Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith


 * to this:


 * 1) REDIRECT Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith

The This is a redirect template is used to sort redirects into one or more categories. When pp-protected and/or pp-move suffice, the This is a redirect template will detect the protection level(s) and categorize the redirect automatically. (Also, the categories will be automatically removed or changed when and if protection is lifted, raised or lowered.) Thank you in advance! Embrace neutralisms!  Paine  04:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * WHEN YOU COPY & PASTE, PLEASE LEAVE THE SKIPPED LINES BLANK FOR READABILITY.
 * ✅ — xaosflux  Talk 13:55, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, xaosflux !  Embrace neutralisms!  Paine   16:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC) (and I just found the following fully protected double redirect:)

Related 2nd edit request on 8 April 2016
A protected redirect, DO NOT WANT is a double redirect that needs to be fixed, and it also needs redirect category (rcat) templates added. Please modify it as follows:


 * from this:


 * 1) REDIRECT Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith


 * to this:


 * 1) REDIRECT Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith

The n1 parameter clarifies the "other capitalization", which is different from the target. The This is a redirect template is used to sort redirects into one or more categories. When pp-protected and/or pp-move suffice, the This is a redirect template will detect the protection level(s) and categorize the redirect automatically. (Also, the categories will be automatically removed or changed when and if protection is lifted, raised or lowered.) Thank you in advance!  Paine  16:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * WHEN YOU COPY & PASTE, PLEASE LEAVE THE SKIPPED LINE BLANK FOR READABILITY.
 * ✅ — xaosflux  Talk 01:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * In gratitude, xaosflux, and Best of Everything to You and Yours!  Paine   01:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Mention the Clone Wars in the plot summary?
Recently, there was an issue in the plot summary with regard to mentioning the Clone Wars in the film. has mentioned the Clone Wars in the plot summary, but it was reverted a few times. Rather than edit warring, I'm starting a discussion here per WP:BRD. That said, should we mention the Clone Wars itself in the plot summary or not? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm personally have no problem with it not being mentioned at all, but perhaps a medium would be something like "During a space battle of the Clone Wars over the planet Coruscant", except much more elegantly than that. (My ability to write a good sentence has been very questionable lately.) I personally don't think the Clone Wars mention is sorely needed, but I strongly agree that the phrase "space battle" is necessary because it's most clear and most accessible to a reader not familiar with Star Wars. But, if it's decided that the Clone Wars be mentioned, something along those lines is what I suggest in that case. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  02:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I would rather include the backdrop to the film in the plot, but I'll let you guys decide this. Nevertheless, I vote yes for it to be mentioned. Evancahill (talk) 03:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree the Clone Wars are important to the film, but not to the first line of the plot summary. The problem with putting it in the first line is that to a reader not familiar with the film or series it means nothing and it then takes the user out of the summary to figure out what the Clone Wars is before they can continue. I don't think it's necessary to understand the plot, just that there's a space battle going on. It's good for completeness but not necessary for a plot summary and understanding. Canterbury Tail   talk  11:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Misleading?
"However, the film is now seen as Lucas' masterpiece and has since received critical acclaim, with the imagery and visual poetry being universally praised." This strikes me as being both biased and not true. No citations, what's protocol for this kind of statement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.10.196.57 (talk) 02:35, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Because it's unsourced, I've removed it. If it's meant to be a summary of later sourced positive statements, there's no need for such in the section. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  03:18, 18 December 2016 (UTC)