Talk:Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace/Archive 2

Maul: once and for all?
"The Jedi, meanwhile, encounter Darth Maul once more and engage him in a two-on-one lightsaber duel. Qui-Gon is mortally wounded in the battle, but Obi-Wan manages to kill the Sith once and for all."I'm given to understand that many Star Wars materials resurrect or otherwise bring back Maul in further stories. Should the latter sentence be adjusted somehow to reflect this? —  pd_THOR  undefined | 19:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What other 'material' is this? I would suspect that if it is not considered 'canon', then it shouldn't be accommodated.  But the sentence could be changed to something more neutral, as in: remove the 'once and for all'.  That would indicate neither the death being final, nor any possible resurrection.  DP 76764  (Talk) 21:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Do the ETs exist in the DVD version? (129.96.114.160 (talk) 06:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC))

How should we get this arrticle back to FA
I really would like to help out here but where do we need more work on the article. Should I get another peer review here soon. I have looked at Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope which is fa already and it looks like this article a lot already. Any help is appreciated.--team6and7 (talk) 01:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion pertaining to non-free image(s) used in article
A cleanup page has been created for WP:FILMS' spotlight articles. One element that is being checked in ensuring the quality of the articles is the non-free images. Currently, one or more non-free images being used in this article are under discussion to determine if they should be removed from the article for not complying with non-free and fair use requirements. Please comment at the corresponding section within the image cleanup listing. Before contributing the discussion, please first read WP:FILMNFI concerning non-free images. Ideally the discussions pertaining to the spotlight articles will be concluded by the end of June, so please comment soon to ensure there is clear consensus. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Huttese
This movie uses a great deal of the Huttese language. While a constructed language, Huttese is in many ways a real language. I feel that if Italian is listed as a language of the movie The Godfather, then Huttese should be listed as a language in this movie.71.203.125.157 (talk) 16:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As I recall, the amount of Huttese in the movie is about on par with the amount of German in Saving Private Ryan, and that is not listed on the infobox on that page. Since nobody (at least that I know of) speaks Huttese regularly, it doesn't seem like it is a very helpful additional for readers. –CWenger (talk) 19:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

more information should be added about changes in the blu-ray release
i dont have the details myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.59.120 (talk) 22:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Box Office Mojo has made an error in calculating the 3D re-release amount of the film
It seems that Box Office Mojo has made an error in calculating the 3D re-release earnings of the film. The 3D version's data, shows the earnings as $100.5 million, but now if we subtract the original old amount ($924,317,558), from the new amount, the earnings show as $101.8 million. We are keeping the subtracted amount because, according to the "Box Office" section of this article, it is correct. To calculate the amount, we are using the system, and not determining it on our own. This is for people to be able to understand the error. Darkdefenderyuki (talk) 10:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Whatever discrepancy there may have been has now been rectified by Box Office Mojo and the original amount the film made along with the 3D release now tally correctly. 88.104.30.122 (talk) 23:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Mixed Reviews
I'm not sure if mixed is the right word, especially considering immediately after it says that they criticized everything except for the special effects, which is really inconsequential compared to things like story and characterization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.96.16 (talk) 00:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * They are mixed because of the scores given, not the things they said. A 63% on RT and a 52% on Metacritic are considered mixed.129.186.253.76 (talk) 18:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I have never seen a positive film response from any other professionell film critic than Roger Ebert (the very same man who praised Gigli and The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle). I have read so many reviews from critics (even from different countries outside the US, like England, France and Germany), and not ONE critic gave this movie a good or okay rating. How can this movie be called "mixed" if there are nearly no positive reactions? From what I can tell, the only positive reviews this movie received were from like hardcore fans. What comes next, do we have to talk about the cultural influence of Superbabies: Baby Geniuses 2?--85.5.109.239 (talk) 00:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the "mixed rating" sounds like a joke to me. I have tried to find a good review of the movie online. I failed. Most were written by star wars fans, not professionell critics.--188.61.215.76 (talk) 15:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Critical reception upon initial release
I have added a "clarification needed" tag to the statement that it received initially mixed reviews. I think we should probably give the RT score for the film before 2012 as well, as it seems likely given the abysmal reputation the film received over the intervening 13 years that it may have got much more negative reviews from mainstream critics the second time it was released to theaters. I have no evidence of this -- I'm not a regular RT user, so I don't know if there's a way to check what a film's score used to be, but if I as a reader noticed this others probably will too. elvenscout742 (talk) 06:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I actually kind of like what Never Say Never Again has, with "contemporary" and "reflective" reviews giver separate sub-sections. Since the film is technically still "new" compared to that film, it's not quite the same case, but I imagine opinions have still soured toward this film over the years where initial reviews were more positive. elvenscout742 (talk) 07:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with Elvenscout742 - with films such as this where reviewers' opinions change significantly over time, I feel the separate sections would be appropriate. Crashdown13 (talk) 08:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Star Wars: Balance of the Force
I just found a magazine article from August 1997 which says that as of press time, the rumored title for the then-upcoming movie was "Star Wars: Balance of the Force". I'm not sure where the best place to put this info into the article would be, so I'll leave it to this article's regular editors to add it in. Here's the citation, minus the "ref" code:

--NukeofEarl (talk) 16:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Age?
Is Darth Maul given a specific age in Episode I? Just curious, because an earlier revision of the film's article called him 'young'. 24.4.166.127 (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

In the movie itself, no. Additional media gives the age of 21. igordebraga ≠ 16:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 20 February 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus. I don't see overwhelming support for either the originally proposed form "Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace" or the alternative double colon "Star Wars: Episode I: The Phantom Menace" form. Regarding the new proposal introduced yesterday, I think you should add that as a new RM if you wish to do so. This one needs to be closed to avoid confusion. Thanks. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

– The common name is using Star Wars Episode X Subtitle form and further more but the movies are officially sold as Star Wars: Episode X – Subtitle. If this fails, at least adding the alternate way to spell the full title would be beneficial as it does not harm the article. --Relisted. Cúchullain t/ c 14:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC) Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 19:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace → Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace
 * Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones → Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones
 * Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith → Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith


 * Nomination and support.  Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 19:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Update: Support new proposal below.

Hi Eric. I would hold these proposals off for now. This looks like a plan B if the originals don't have their proper titles restored. I think we should worry about getting the originals to their proper titles, and if that doesn't work, we should look at this as an alternate, even if temporary.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 21:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose as proposed Instead use: Star Wars: Episode I: The Phantom Menace ; Star Wars: Episode II: Attack of the Clones ; Star Wars: Episode III: Revenge of the Sith ; we should use colons to separate. It also avoids dash-wars. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 23:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That looks odd... although you make a good point. It looks a bit feeble compared to the dash. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 02:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, you know, dashes can always be redirected. For titles such as this, an endash should be used rather than a minus sign or an emdash. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 20:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Support moves to the double colon title, per 70.51: We have double-subtitled articles such as . For what it's worth, I don't think you can really make a COMMONNAME argument from punctuation differences. Alternatively, move the articles to The Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones, Revenge of the Sith: the short name is clearly the most used in common parlance. Sceptre (talk) 11:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, the most common is with the episode title. Ngram stats for "The Empire Strikes Back", and "Return of the Jedi" have been in great decline for over a decade but Star Wars Episode IV, V, and VI alone as titles have been increasing greatly for over a decade.  I doubt with the prequels it is any different.  And I agree there are alternate ways to write the title, but double colons look damn odd and weak compared to the : and en dash.  Plus, the movie are sold under that format so it is the most accurate style for the name. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 20:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose the double colon title, as it looks damn odd and unprofessional. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 20:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support because I can. I think that the Wikipedia addresses such as: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars_Episode_I:_The_Phantom_Menace, with their underscores and colons, look odd.  GregKaye 19:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

New proposal

 * New proposal
 * Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace → The Phantom Menace
 * Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones → Attack of the Clones
 * Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith → Revenge of the Sith
 * Star Wars (film) → A New Hope

Then, make the opening lines for the pages something like this:

New proposal support
Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 22:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Support The reason I came up with this idea is because we clearly have done this sort of thing with other pages such as The Avengers (2012 film) where the actual name, Marvel's The Avengers is followed by its other common name The Avengers. In this Star Wars case, people who believe the common name is not with the episode title are satisfied, and the people who believe the full title is the common name are satisfied because the articles introduce the topic by the official name (which again, people would argue is also the common name) and says the shorter "common" names in the same introduction sentence.

New proposal oppose

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

Requested move 17 February 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved. Number   5  7  21:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

– I've seen a bunch of editors discussing unrelated topics on Star Wars articles (mostly the ones for the sequel trilogy) supporting these moves. This new format, using "Star Wars: Episode # – Subtitle" over the current "Star Wars Episode #: Subtitle" is a more proper way of handling the subtitle information. Even though this is for the only articles that use this format (since the original trilogy don't and neither does Force Awakens), this format would thus also apply to any place in articles that use the full episode numbers and subtitles of these films. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:41, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace → Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menance
 * Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones → Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones
 * Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith → Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith
 * Star Wars Episode VIII → Star Wars: Episode VIII


 * The colon after "Star Wars" is much closer to the way the official site lists the titles, but I'm not sure I like the en dash. What do other style guides recommend in this case? --Fru1tbat (talk) 13:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: For some precedent, Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol and Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation use a colon and an endash in the article titles. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:35, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Some additional precedent to add to Erik's statement... I stole this from a previous discussion at Talk:Star Wars: The Force Awakens. According to RT, MC, and RogerEbert.com, the alternate titles for TFA showed the en-dash in the following position: Star Wars: Episode VII – The Force Awakens. Out of the few secondary sources that were provided in that discussion, a majority supported this format. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:54, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I did a quick Google search and found the same thing. The only issue I see, then, is why the original trilogy is not handled this way. Can anyone explain? It's a little awkward to have them titled inconsistently. --Fru1tbat (talk) 21:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * We can't control what Lucasfilm and co. decided to officially name the films, no matter how hard people want to as evidenced by all the issues with The Force Awakens article, but we are still being consistent if we always name the article by its official name, whether it is Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace or Star Wars: The Force Awakens, and then also include the extended "Star Wars: Episode # – Subtitle" format for any article that doesn't already have it in the title. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The issue is less about the official titles, though (starwars.com already uses the same format for the original trilogy as the others), and more about the apparent consensus that decided to move the original trilogy to their current titles. See this (result: do not move), this (result: move), and this (result: do not move back). I guess correcting the naming system for just these 4 films is worthwhile, but it still bothers me that they're different. --Fru1tbat (talk) 22:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't wish to rehash the older original trilogy discussions, and hope I'm not. Just wanted to get these four titles properly formatted punctation wise (and create the new format for use in articles moving forward). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Support: I was involved with the discussion at Talk:Star Wars Episode VIII when it was realised that the official announcement of that film starting principal photography referred to it as Star Wars: Episode VIII. So I am definitely in support of that move per that source, and I feel that there should be consistency with the rest of the articles. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * We've already recently discussed moving the original trilogy films. It's unnecessary to revisit that same discussion. The problem with so-called consistency is that it is paying more lip service to fandom than real-world referencing. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 21:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support this is proper formatting, there needs to be some form of punctuation there. -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 04:39, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support this does appear to be proper. I was part of the group who realised that the Episode VIII production press release formatted it in this manner. I think, whether or not we, as editors, "like" the dash, it is how Lucasfilm formats it. Not our job to debate it. Also, IMDb, the Internet's premier source of film knowledge, lists all the films as Star Wars: Episode # – Subtitle. -amccann421 (talk) 03:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Just a note, it's not really the best to cite IMDb as sources for something, since it is not a reliable source. Luckily, GoneIn60 above has provided reliable sources that use this formatting. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:56, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Support per the links GoneIn60 provided and for better punctuation Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


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

E2 3D & E3 3D
The article claims the 3D conversions of E2 & E3 were dropped after Disney acquired SW. Apperently this is not correct. http://www.starwarscelebration.com/Events/Events-R-Z/Revenge-of-the-Sith-in-3D/ E2 3D premiere in 2013 and E3 3D will premiere summer 2016.-- BECK's 23:03, 20 April 2016 (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) 17:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I removed the discuss tag from the lead, as the issue on the talk page you linked (now located here) was resolved in December last year. I didn't put in the references, but if you're so inclined, feel free. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 00:42, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150311190755/http://thewaltdisneycompany.com/sites/default/files/reports/fy13-form-10k.pdf to http://thewaltdisneycompany.com/sites/default/files/reports/fy13-form-10k.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0%2C%2C273480%2C00.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.starwars.com/episode-i/bts/production/f19991102/index.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.starwars.com/episode-i/bts/production/f19990617/index.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.starwars.com/episode-i/bts/production/f19990501/indexp5.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://starwars.talkcity.com/starwars/trans/5-6-99.htmpl
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ultimateeditionsoundtrack.com/index2.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0%2C%2C274944%2C00.html
 * Added tag to https://m.cinemascore.com/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0%2C%2C1169126_15%2C00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120719182252/http://www.youngartistawards.org/noms21.htm to http://www.youngartistawards.org/noms21.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Padme/Sabe
There is currently a dispute between myself and over the following sentence, particular phrase emphasized: "Qui-Gon, Jar Jar, astromech droid R2-D2, and Amidala (in disguise as one of her handmaidens Padmé) visit the settlement of Mos Espa to buy new parts at a junk shop."

The plot point is in the film: Queen Amidala is introduced early in the film as being played by Natalie Portman. She says her whole "I will not condone an action that will lead us to war" line. The movie follows Qui Gon and Obi-Wan for a while, and they meet Queen Amidala face to face for the first time, her second appearance in the film--but at this point Sabé and Queen Amidala have switched places, with Sabé posing as Queen Amidala and Queen Amidala posing as a handmaiden to the queen and using her first name, Padmé. It isn't until later that the switch is pointed out.

I think as written, the sentence implies that Padmé isn't Queen Amidala's name, which is incorrect. If the sentence is changed to "Amidala (in disguise as one of her handmaidens Sabé)" it implies that Amidala has impersonating Sabé, in the way that Sabé is impersonating Queen Amidala; however, Queen Amidala never calls herself Sabé. The plot point is specifically that while Sabeé pretended to be Queen Amidala, Queen Amidala disguised herself as one of her handmaidens by using her little known first name.

The particular plot point, over time, has been subject to much albeit slow-moving change, apparently over the ambiguity of the sentence or confusion over the past six months.
 * January 8, 2017 - 2601:19b:c700:e8b:d927:e8b0:8540:f908 - Padme is Queen Amidala, not the name of one her handmaidens changed "Amidala (in disguise as Padmé, her handmaiden)" to "Amidala (in disguise as one of her handmaidens)"
 * March 30, 2017 - SubZeroSilver - no edit summary changed "Amidala (in disguise as one of her handmaidens)" to "Amidala's handmaiden Padmé" among other changes
 * I (TenTonParasol) immediately reverted as a plot innaccuracy because it clearly states Amidala and Padmé to be separate people
 * March 30, 2017 - SubZeroSilver - Padmé's name is not made known previously and may confuse readers changed "Amidala (in disguise as one of her handmaidens)" to "Amidala (in disguise as the handmaiden Padmé)"
 * June 5, 2017 - 2602:306:ccca:7f60:14e4:7ef4:fada:6fb3 - Fixed incorrect name of Amidala's handmaiden in 2nd paragraph: changed "Padmé" to "Sabé" changed "Amidala (in disguise as the handmaiden Padmé)" to "Amidala (in disguise as the handmaiden Sabé)"
 * June 15, 2017 - 73.115.89.32 - Padme was the handmadien before she revealed herself to be the queen at the end of the film not Sabe changed "Amidala (in disguise as the handmaiden Sabé)" to "Amidala (in disguise as the handmaiden Padmé)"
 * Immediately after - TenTonParsol - We can circumvent this issue--which is going back and forth constantly--by not even mentioning the name changed "Amidala (in disguise as the handmaiden Padmé)" to "Amidala (in disguise as one of her handmaidens)"
 * June 16, 2017 - 73.115.89.32 - "ve included Sabe's name in the plot instead of Padme" changed "Amidala (in disguise as one of her handmaidens)" to "Amidala (in disguise as one of her handmaidens Sabé)"
 * Immediately after - TenTonParsol - Wadme doesn't call herself Sabe. Padme is disguised as a handmaiden, using her real name, and Sabe disguises herself as Amidala. It's a detail we can't fully explain and has been the subject of constant confused change. May as well leave it out changed "Amidala (in disguise as the handmaiden Sabé)" to "Amidala (in disguise as one of her handmaidens)"
 * Current revision - 73.115.89.32 - Sabe was disguised as Padme so they referred to her as Queen Admidala before Padme revealed herself as the real queen at the end of the movie. This plot should stay where it is cause the name need to be included not removed changed "Amidala (in disguise as one of her handmaidens)" to "Amidala (in disguise as one of her handmaidens Sabé)"

It isn't the job of the plot summary to lay out every single plot point in full detail. Does the plot summary make the movie more unclear by leaving out that Sabé is impersonating Queen Amidala and Queen Amidala is posing as a handmaiden by using her real, but little known, name Padmé? Frankly, the plot summary doesn't even point out when the reveal is made, and the details about Sabeé and the name Padmé are mentioned in the character section. The plot summary simply needs to communicate that Queen Amidala was in disguise as a handmaiden on Tatooine. And I don't think it serves the article to introduce an inaccuracy. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  19:48, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's best to leave it out at this point. The absence of a name does not harm the overall plot summary. made a change again without discussing here first, so I've reverted that edit. A consensus should be formed here first before re-adding a name. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:42, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20160825000953/http://my.xfinity.com/slideshow/entertainment-worstsequels/56/ to http://my.xfinity.com/slideshow/entertainment-worstsequels/56/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070706194512/http://secrethistoryofstarwars.com/book.html to http://secrethistoryofstarwars.com/book.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Legacy/Trump
I haven't in any way been involved with the recent removal/re-addition of the last paragraph of the Legacy section, but I think it's problematic. It currently reads: "In the late 2010s, some journalists said that The Phantom Menace was a warning of the ascendency of Donald Trump, who attended the film's premiere and became the president of the United States in 2017. In August 2019, Trump referred to himself as the 'chosen one' to resolve trade disputes with China." The first source just establishes that Trump was at the premiere, which frankly is irrelevant. The next two sources discuss how the film's commentary on politics can shed light on the current political climate in the US. The most you can say about them is that they "draw parallels between the film and Trump". To use them in support of the statement that the film "was a warning of the ascendency of Donald Trump" is a complete misrepresentation. The last sentence is innuendo that seems to attempt to strengthen the comparison between Trump and Palpatine - that's WP:OR. I was ok with removing the entire paragraph, but if a compromise needs to be reached, a more neutral wording would be something simple like: "In the late 2010s, some journalists noted parallels between The Phantom Menace and US politics, particularly the presidency of Donald Trump, calling the film 'prescient' and 'insightful' in its political commentary." As it stands, though, it's inappropriate. --Fru1tbat (talk) 15:02, 10 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I think the content should simply be removed. Although the suggested rewording would be a lot better, I don't think the sourcing is good enough given that the Washington Post article is an opinion piece and the Vox article only mentions Trump once and is more opinion-oriented than news. I'm deleting the inaccurate sentence from the article for now. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:38, 11 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Thanks for removing it! --Fru1tbat (talk) 13:53, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

A suggested edit for the Reception part of this article.
Hello, all.

A few days ago I deleted the first paragraph regarding the Reception of the Phantom Menace. Apparently I should have first asked about the edit here first, so that's what I will do now. Here's the comment I left for the edit when I deleted the paragraph:

10th Dec. "The deleted part didn't seem to add any real value to the topic. It was an anecdotal paragraph that would fit 'development' or other such sections of this article better."

I was referring to the first paragraph of the Reception article and I stand by my argument. I would love to know if there is any opposition for moving that paragraph to some place else.

2001:999:2:866A:8414:6C53:9E4D:5990 (talk) 07:39, 13 December 2019 (UTC)


 * It's not a great paragraph, and considering it's from a "making of" featurette where Lucas and others are discussing a rough cut, it belongs under production more than reception. The entire last sentence of the paragraph is OR. I was ok with removing it, but maybe moving and editing it would be sufficient. --Fru1tbat (talk) 14:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree that the first sentence could be moved somewhere more appropriate. I removed the second sentence that was unsourced. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 14:36, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

"R2-A6" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect R2-A6. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 04:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

"The Battles (or Invasion) of Naboo" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The Battles (or Invasion) of Naboo. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 04:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Unsourced content in lead
, regarding my recent removal of content from the lead, most of these claims were not supported at all by reviews in the main article body and some are even contradicted by them. The Manual of Style was recently updated to include, "Any summary of the film's critical reception should avoid synthesis and reflect detail that is widely supported in published reviews" (see WP:FILMLEAD), and so I kept part of the Jar Jar Binks reference since it is sourced to secondary sources in the main reception section, rather than one or two individual reviews. If you think some of those claims would be useful to include in the article, it may be helpful to first add them to the main reception section. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Plot inaccuracy about Padme
The plot summary previously read as follows (section bolded to draw attention to the part in question):
 * Passing through the Federation blockade, the ship is damaged in the crossfire, and its hyperdrive malfunctions. The ship lands for repairs on the outlying desert planet of Tatooine, situated beyond the Republic's jurisdiction. Qui-Gon, Jar Jar, astromech droid R2-D2, and Padmé—one of Queen Amidala's handmaidens—visit the settlement of Mos Espa to purchase a new part for their hyperdrive. They encounter a junk dealer, Watto, and his nine-year-old slave, Anakin Skywalker, a gifted pilot and engineer who has built a protocol droid, C-3PO.

This is not quite inaccurate, since it wasn't the Queen's handmaiden who went to Mos Espa, but the queen herself in disguise as her handmaiden. So I changed it to read as follows:
 * Passing through the Federation blockade, the ship is damaged in the crossfire, and its hyperdrive malfunctions. The ship lands for repairs on the outlying desert planet of Tatooine, situated beyond the Republic's jurisdiction. Qui-Gon, Jar Jar, astromech droid R2-D2, and Queen Padmé Amidala (in disguise as one of her own handmaidens) visit the settlement of Mos Espa to purchase a new part for their hyperdrive. They encounter a junk dealer, Watto, and his nine-year-old slave, Anakin Skywalker, a gifted pilot and engineer who has built a protocol droid, C-3PO.

Someone (a non-registered user) subsequently reverted the edit, with this justification: "Yes, it is correct that Padme was going disguised as one of her handmaidens. However, anyone watching the film for the first time (or reading this article for the first time) would not yet be aware of this until later in the movie. To divulge it this early would count as a spoiler."

I would like to argue for retaining the change. 1. Avoiding information simply because it is a potential spoiler can't be justified for an encyclopedia entry, since the plot summary is in essence already one huge spoiler, and by being factually accurate it is in the nature of an encyclopedia entry to be a plot spoiler. 2. The fact that it is Queen Padme in disguise as one of her handmaidens is already stated on the page Padmé Amidala (look under the section on The Phantom Menace). So stating it here is simply consistent with the information already stated elsewhere in Wikipedia.

If there are substantive arguments to not making this change, I would like to hear them here, otherwise I plan to reimplement it. Gregorytopov (talk) 04:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Update: My proposed change has been reimplemented by User:UpdateNerd, with reference to Spoiler as appropriate justification. Gregorytopov (talk) 04:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Write to Legacy
Hello: Please, I need you to write the information that I searched for in the reliable sources:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by SamuelPla82 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism
Edit: Thank you :)

Hi, someone has vandalised the page, changing the release date and cast. I tried to revert it all but I don't really know what I'm doing. Mod Help? 60.240.136.160 (talk) 10:30, 15 October 2023 (UTC)