Talk:Star Wars (film)/Archive 11

Home media request
Could the home media section be updated to say which (if any) of the video releases include the original scene where Han shot first? I had somehow thought from the Han shot first article that these didn't exist and somehow basically every copy of the film with that scene had been suppressed. Thanks. 2601:648:8200:990:0:0:0:B68B (talk) 22:48, 8 March 2023 (UTC)


 * It was in the original theatrical releases 208.38.236.117 (talk) 00:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

box office success
i have trouble believing gone with the wind outdistanced a new hope at the box office, adjusted for inflation. there have been wiki articles mentioning the hollywood practice of funny math. and, when looking up indications that audiences kept the former in theaters longer than the latter, i cannot find any. i was there to witness the three years that audiences kept a new hope in theaters, in 1977. i think the admitted rerelease campaign of the former movie's makers, is manipulative, and the initial pure theater run(tail), should be the measuring stick. sometimes feeling is truth, and no movie, before or since a new hope, feels it stayed in theaters, initially, the longest. 74.109.247.243 (talk) 06:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)


 * You need to cite a reliable source that discusses any of that. DonQuixote (talk) 12:36, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Cast photos
Does it really make sense to have photos of the cast from thirty to forty years after this film was released? If we could figure out how to find and license images from the time period, I think those would work much better to support the article. This reasoning should apply to not only the other films in this trilogy, but film articles in general. TNstingray (talk) 17:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)


 * In many cases we have to use what's available. There unfortunately aren't free photos of the Star Wars cast from this time period and it would not be appropriate to upload non-free images for an article that's not their own. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 17:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * There's a still from the film featuring Hamill, Ford, and Fisher already present in the article. Surely there are workarounds such as this, rather than unintentionally misleading the audience regarding the perceived age of the actors in this film. It's no different than having an article about the French and Indian War having an image of George Washington as President of the United States. The images used in the article should reflect the content of the article, not other articles. Given the choice between having an inaccurate image or no image at all, I would suggest the latter. TNstingray (talk) 18:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I get what you're saying. We could surely change Hamill's photo to this one from 1978 for starters. There's also this one of Fisher from 1978 although that one isn't exactly appealing. The rest of the cast doesn't have anything else that's free unfortunately. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 19:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Pop-up box
Hi folks. I just started editing this page and noticed that every time I click Edit, a notice box pops up that says:

"There are suggestions on this article's talk page for references that may be useful when improving this article in the future. (See the box that begins "The following ...".)"

I have familiarized myself with the content that the box is pointing to. Since I'm a new editor, I'm not going to be making any large or contentious edits at this time. Is there a way to stop that box popping up every single time I edit? Wafflewombat (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know how that works - maybe visit WP:Teahouse for advice on that? Cnbrb (talk) 10:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Teahouse for the win! Box has been removed.
 * Wafflewombat (talk) 05:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Removal of segment?
Hi everyone, I'm doing a copyedit of this entire article. I've removed a large segment, and I'll explain why. It was under the Development sub-heading in the Production section, and I'll include a bit of the preceding paragraph so you can see where it was placed in the article:

"...and both directors declined to finance it.

Lucas said, "I've always been an outsider to the Hollywood types. They think I do weirdo films." According to Kurtz, Lew Wasserman, the head of Universal, "just didn't think much of science fiction at that time, didn't think it had much of a future then, with that particular audience." He said that "science fiction wasn't popular in the mid-'70s... what seems to be the case generally is that the studio executives are looking for what was popular last year, rather than trying to look forward to what might be popular next year." Kurtz said, "Although Star Wars wasn't like [then-current science fiction] at all, it was just sort of lumped into that same kind of category."

The preceding paragraph (that ends with "...and both directors declined to finance it.) tells us that Universal had concerns about Star Wars and declined to fund it. Do we need more information about that? If so, we could keep the segment, but it's mostly quotes so it will need to be rewritten in encyclopedic prose.

The segment is based on this source. Wafflewombat (talk) 03:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)


 * This could probably be condensed down to a sentence but is worthy of inclusion. Currently, the discussion of studios turning down the film makes it sound like they thought it was a good idea, and only reluctantly declined to provide funding. The way Lucas et al. tell the story, that's definitely not the case. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I noticed those two conflicting narratives. I'm doing a lot of rearranging to try to make the section coherent, so I'll try to get a version of this back in, and then I'll post an update. Thanks for the feedback. Wafflewombat (talk) 08:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I put a sentence from the removed segment back in. It's in bold.

While impressed with the innocence of the story and the sophistication of Lucas's fictional world, United Artists declined to fund the project. Lucas and producer Gary Kurtz then presented the treatment to Universal Pictures, the studio that financed American Graffiti. Universal agreed it could be a successful venture, but had doubts about Lucas's ability to execute his vision. Kurtz has claimed the studio's rejection was primarily due to Universal head Lew Wasserman's low opinion of science fiction, and the generally low popularity of the genre at the time. Francis Ford Coppola subsequently brought the project to a division of Paramount Pictures he ran with fellow directors Peter Bogdanovich and William Friedkin, but Friedkin questioned Lucas's ability to direct the film, and both directors declined to finance it. Disney also turned down the project.

Wafflewombat (talk) 19:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the contribution,. Here's your version for reference:

According to Kurtz, Universal turned it down because its head, Lew Wasserman, was among many studio executives who then regarded science fiction films as unsuccessful (in tandem with the genre's frequent use of doomsday motifs).

There are two issues with it, in my view. The first is that Kurtz said "science fiction had proved to be inordinately unsuccessful," not that execs simply regarded it as unsuccessful. The second is that Kurtz is claiming the genre's low popularity was due to apocalyptic stories. It's a claim, not a fact. If we had additional evidence that 1970's sci-fi was unpopular due to the doomsday themes, then this would be okay, but all we have now is Kurtz's claim. Wafflewombat (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The sentence begins "According to Kurtz...". This should be enough, although we could add the word "ostensibly" or some such about the apocalyptic themes. It should be possible to find another Star Wars-related source backing this up as a cliche of the many banal sci-fi titles of the time. (Although besides the polarizing 2001, Planet of the Apes had been an exceptional success.) At any rate there's more literature than this one IGN interview with Kurtz that should help to paint the picture in due time. UpdateNerd (talk) 04:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I can see you're busy cleaning up a lot of cruft from the article. I think this is probably mostly all good stuff, and thank you for your attention to the article quality. I would remark that you are removing a lot of stuff in a rapid succession of edits, and it's rather hard for other editors to keep track in the article history - just if someone disagrees with something you've excised, it's not easy to pick it out and discuss. I don't think I have any complaints so far, but I may have missed something. Perhaps if you could leave a bit of breathing room in between edits it would help. Thanks again for your contributions. Cnbrb (talk) 14:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually I'm a little perturbed by this edit. It's clearly sourced and a URL being unsecure is not a reason to remove a source. It may not be a reliable source, and may be undue, but the edit summary is not appropriate. Canterbury Tail talk 14:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. I've started a new thread so we can talk about this topic. Wafflewombat (talk) 15:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Having said that, I've just RVed one recent edit. Slow down please and discuss, or use cleanup templates like Better source needed in preference to mass removals, or nobody else has a chance to respond. Thanks. Cnbrb (talk) 14:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the message. I'm happy to slow down. Wafflewombat (talk) 14:42, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Cinematic and literary allusions
I'm starting a new thread for this topic. Thank you to those who requested I slow down the editing and discuss. I'll post some segments I have issues with so others can weigh in.

(1) "According to Lucas, different concepts of the film were inspired by numerous sources, such as Beowulf and King Arthur for the origins of myth and religion." This is what the source says: Like such epics as The Odyssey, Beowulf and the legend of King Arthur, Star Wars drew from a shared pool of mythic archetypes. '''It doesn't say Star Wars draws from King Arthur and Beowulf. I've added a "citation needed" tag.'''

(2) "The film has also been compared to The Wizard of Oz (1939)." '''The first source, when Googled, is almost non-existent, so I recommend we don't use it. The second source refers to Wizard of Oz very briefly: "'Star Wars is straight out of Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon by way of Tolkien, Prince Valiant, The Wizard of Oz, Boy’s Life..."'' I don't think that's enough to say Star Wars has "been compared" to Wizard of Oz.

(3) "The influence of The Hidden Fortress can be seen in the relationship between C-3PO and R2-D2, which evolved from the two bickering peasants, Tahei and Matashichi, and a Japanese family crest seen in the earlier film is similar to the Imperial Crest." '''This segment portrays analysis as fact. Not everyone is going to agree that certain connections exist between works, or that one work absolutely inspired the other. We can talk about how notable writers in the field observe these parallels and claim influence has occurred, but we can't present their analysis and interpretation as fact.'''

(4) "...Sanjuro (1962) also inspired the hiding-under-the-floor trick featured in the film." and "Another source of influence was Lawrence of Arabia (1962), which inspired the film's visual approach, including long-lens desert shots." '''Again, presenting analysis as fact. We need to attribute these claims to the writer making them in the text, not just in citations.'''

(5) "There are also thematic parallels, including the freedom fight by a rebel army against an empire, and politicians who meddle behind the scenes." These themes are in so many works, it doesn't seem to me that this is an important claim to make.

(6) Frank Herbert reported that "David Lynch, director of the 1984 film Dune, had trouble with the fact that Star Wars used up so much of Dune." Frank Herbert should not be used as a source for analysis of Dune's influences on Star Wars, because he wrote Dune and is therefore not an objective observer.

I'll stop here for now. Thoughts?

Wafflewombat (talk) 15:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes, lets stop here for now. It quite a research project you're asking for and not something that can be answered quickly. You've made about 300 edits, and for anyone trying to answer they'd have to go back to a version of the article before you started. I agree some of the citations were poor, but some of the statements you say were uncited in fact cited the Empire of Dreams] documentary, which you removed. It's 2½ hours long. I've watched a couple of minutes and already I find a comparison with Flash Gordon coming from Lucas himself.
 * The The Hidden Fortress has been cited by numerous film authors. It's perfectly legitimate for Wikipedia to describe analysis and interpretation by critics - deleting this just because someone may not agree is not the way to improve an article. It's always better to look for even better sources than delete well presented content.
 * Quite honestly, I now think all your edits should be reverted - it's too much trouble for any editor to sift through all your deletions. Cnbrb (talk) 19:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's entirely necessary. Some of their edits have been good and have cleaned up a bunch of miscellaneous clutter. Although I do agree that they have worked a little too fast to the point where, like you said, it's hard to determine what were good removals and what were bad. Perhaps Wombat's project would have benefited from copying the whole article into a sandbox and working there instead of in the main space, but they're a newer editor so I give them some leeway. Plus, they have clearly put a lot work here, and reverting the entire thing back to before they started editing would be doing a disservice to them, because they have made good changes.
 * P.S. One thing I think the article needs is to utilize J. W. Rinzler's Making of book like The Empire Strikes Back does in quite detail. Using that book would likely cleanup a lot of sources deemed questionable. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 01:33, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for your input. I'm sorry if I've deleted valuable content. Personally, the only content I'm concerned about is the recent material from "Cinematic and literary allusions." I was going too fast, I admit, and multiple people took issue with many of the deletions. I can see that I made a mistake. However, I'm not sure if there are other sections that I've approached in the same rushed manner; I can't think of any at the moment. I hope you won't lose all trust in me as an editor due to a few blunders this morning. I'll be more careful going forward, I'll go slower, and I'll make my edit summaries super clear. I will also look at the version of the article from yesterday and bring back all the content I deleted from the section in question.
 * I'll leave the "Cinematic and literary allusions" section alone for now, since we are in agreement that it needs a lot of research. At this point I still believe a lot of the content I deleted is not presented well and is misleading, but I am willing to be convinced otherwise. To clarify, I haven't deleted anything because I don't agree with it. I deleted because I feel that if one or two newspapers or magazines mention a connection between works (in this case, Star Wars and other works), it doesn't mean there is widespread agreement that there is a connection or influence. I absolutely agree with @Cnbrb that we can document analysis and interpretation by critics, but I feel that the documentation as it stands is woefully inadequate, comprising only a few sources, some of which are not major or highly credible, such as MTV or Cineman Syndicate, the latter of which is almost non-existent on the Internet.
 * Also, I have been consulting the Empire of Dreams documentary extensively, and making sure every time it is cited, the documentary actually supports the claims made in the article. If I made a mistake and deleted a citation which was valid, I'm very sorry. I've been doing a thorough copy edit of the entire article, and part of that has been verifying as many citations as possible. To my surprise, there have been quite a few that were incorrect, meaning that the source cited said something different from what was claimed in the text. I haven't been able to get my hands on most of the books so far, but I've already gotten two of them from the library, so I can check their citations. I hope it's clear that I'm devoted to making this page the best it can be, that I'm being thorough and diligent, and that I'm committed to making this a page completely based on facts.
 * Two questions:
 * 1) Do people want to discuss the various segments I brought up, segment by segment? I created the Talk thread as requested, but I'm not clear on whether it was more just for oversight, or whether y'all want to get really engaged and collaboratively work on that section together.
 * 2) I was removing (in my mind) unsourced or poorly sourced content this morning, with the attitude that we shouldn't give readers false, misleading or incomplete information about the film. If this is not an appropriate approach, and I should be always adding tags instead of deleting, please let me know. As @zmbro pointed out, I'm still a new editor and I'm still learning.
 * One final note: Under the Development subheading, there's a pargraph about Lucas and Flash Gordon. I felt that since it was abundantly clear he was influenced by it, we didn't need to state it again. But perhaps I'm wrong about that.
 * Thanks again for holding me accountable. Wafflewombat (talk) 02:26, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * All my changes to the "Cinematic and literary allusions" section have been reverted. ✅ Wafflewombat (talk) 02:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for being cooperative and understanding. Some of your edits were worthwhile, others really needed discussion. The thing is, Wikipedia is all edited by volunteers and most of us have day jobs! It's asking a lot to get input on hundreds of points in one go. As you've raised the point of citations, maybe editors can start looking at improving references, but it's easier to work with bad material that's still there than trying to remember stuff that's been deleted. Also, you can make use of a number of cleanup templates to draw attention to questionable citations - Better source needed is a useful one, as is cn. A number of editors will be happy to help but it may take some time - on Wikipedia there are no deadlines. Thanks. Cnbrb (talk) 08:43, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestions. I'm just feeling frustrated because whenever I post edits for discussion on a talk page, almost nobody replies. I want to build consensus on larger edits instead of just making them, but sometimes it seems no one cares. Then I make a larger edit, and people get upset. I'm not faulting you, or anyone else, in any way, I understand why you and others were upset about my rushed major edits. I'm just feeling frustrated about this broader trend of not getting input even though I ask for it on talk pages. I become scared to edit pages because the only interaction I have with other editors is disagreement over edits, and very little constructive collaboration. I'm not asking you to offer advice about this situation, I just felt like I needed to tell someone. Wafflewombat (talk) 09:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately that's just the nature of this site. Lots of WP editors aren't that active anymore, and a lot of the time the ones who are just don't bother. Don't feel betrayed whenever you post a talk message and don't get a reply; WP doesn't work that fast unfortunately. For me, it always makes me happy seeing new editors come to the site and are eager to edit (and cooperative) as you have been. So don't get discouraged. If you need to wait a day or two for a reply, it really is no big deal.
 * I know you've been doing a lot of trimming and such, but do you ever plan on doing any expanding? As I stated before, J. W. Rinzler's Making of book would surely be a great source to replace some of the bad ones present, and would do good in confirming info already present :-) – zmbro (talk) (cont) 13:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the encouragement! I looked for the Rinzler book at my local university library, but they didn't have it. I've tried to find a free or very cheap version online, but no luck so far. Wafflewombat (talk) 16:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Cast section
One thing I think needs addressing is the cast section. It currently (as of here) lists every cast member with a bullet point, with the main ones having additional sentences about the casting process. I'm not an expert on film articles, but based on the articles I've read by, the cast list should be the credited cast members on the poster billing in bullet points, with additional cast members listed in prose (all The Empire Strikes Back). Casting information is then placed in its own section under production. This would mean that it should appear like this:

Then the rest of the cast written out in prose here, and each of character descriptions should be sourced as well.
 * Mark Hamill as Luke Skywalker: A young adult raised by his aunt and uncle on Tatooine, who dreams of something more than his current life and learns about the Force and the Jedi.
 * Harrison Ford as Han Solo: A cynical smuggler and captain of the Millennium Falcon.
 * Carrie Fisher as Princess Leia Organa: Princess of the planet Alderaan, member of the Imperial Senate and, secretly, one of the leaders of the Rebel Alliance.
 * Peter Cushing as Grand Moff Tarkin: The commander of the Death Star.
 * Alec Guinness as Obi-Wan Kenobi: An aging Jedi Master and veteran of the Clone Wars who introduces Luke to the Force.

I know this places less emphasis on many of the actors who came to be attributed solely to Star Wars, but based on how I've seen other film articles this is how it should be laid out; billing credits laid out in bullets, with other cast members laid out in prose. Besides, I think we can agree that Don Henderson as General Taggi does not hold the same weight as Mark Hamill as Luke Skywalker. The rest of the casting information would then be moved down to production in an actual casting section. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 18:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think each article is a case by case basis and I have used billing in the opening of film's as well to add additional prominent cast, but I agree that, especially on a film like Star Wars, there should be a section dedicated to the casting and development of some of the most iconic roles in cinema. Star Wars obviously doesn't have any opening billing and it's end credits match the poster as Zmbro has stated, just Hamill, Ford, Fisher, Cushing, and Guinness. It does have a "with" credit for Daniels, Baker, Mayhew, Prowse, Purvis, and Byrne, though I'm not sure what a "with" credit counts for. It also just looks bad from a presentation perspective that 6 characters have a large chunk of background text and then there are some with just a bit of text and some that are just in a list. It isn't aesthetically pleasing and it looks disorganized. I'd support at least Zmbro's version with moving any casting info to a dedicated section, and would be open to discussions on if the "with" credit should be considered part of the core list or not, which is something I approach for a practical perspective because there will be IP edit warring over the lack of Darth Vader in the main list. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:54, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and moved the miscellaneous cast into prose. I think you're right DWB. Maybe it would be beneficial to have the entire main cast in bullets, but perhaps listed by billing order? So Daniels, Mathew, Baker, etc. after Hamill, Ford, Fisher, Cushing, and Guinness? There's also the issue of whether or not James Earl Jones deserves his own bullet since he was technically uncredited for quite some time. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 20:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I have credited him on Empire though I don't believe he is credited until Jedi. I put him alongside Prowse though with a "(voice)" descriptor. Can explain his lack of actual credit in the casting section. I would follow the billing from the end credits since people who change it have no leg to stand on then. The other factor to consider is that by moving all that behind-the-scenes text, that cast image will massively bleed into the sections below, so it may be necessary to place some cast images elsewhere. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah I'm thinking we match what you did with Empire and say David Prowse / James Earl Jones (voice). And I agree about the cast photos. We would shorten it to just Hamill, Ford, and Fisher and put a few in the casting section (maybe Daniels and Baker since they are the first characters seen). – zmbro (talk) (cont) 21:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for implementing this, Darkwarriorblake and zmbro.
 * Three questions:

Do we need photos of Hamill, Ford, and Fisher, since we already have a photo of all three of them in character? Do we want photos of Prowse, Jones, and Baker somewhere? I noticed those have been removed. Is there a reason Baker's blurb wasn't transferred to the new Casting section? I put it in there, guessing it was just an oversight. Wafflewombat (talk) 11:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that's a separate discussion since the image in the plot is Non free content and non free content shouldn't be used where a free alternative exists, plus that image has them all facing off the page when images should have the subject facing inwards.
 * They can be included, I'm not sure where, they just didn't fit in the cast section, and as per above, Prowse's image was facing off to the right side again while positioned on the right. I thought Baker's was largely inessential since he's just a guy in a suit, unlike Daniels who acts and voices his character.
 * Just an oversight. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:13, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Section looks a lot better now. Although the new section is clearly an issue of proseline, it's a very good start and kinks can be worked out later.
 * Imo the non-free image of Hamill, Fisher, and Ford in character adds nothing to the page and should be removed. The cast photos are fine. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 12:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * IMO, the film still with the three leads is important, unless we can find other photos of them around the same age when they made the film (I tried, and could only find a decent photo of Hamill, not of the others). However, I don't know much about image licensing and all the pros and cons of using non-free images. Wafflewombat (talk) 17:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Check out Non-free use rationale guideline. Basically a non-free image on WP has to serve a purpose that's can't be conveyed through words alone. From the page:
 * Is the image a logo, photograph, or box art for the main subject of the article?
 * Is the image being used as the primary means of visual identification of the subject or topic? (e.g., a corporate logo or the box art of a DVD)
 * Does it illustrate the topic of the article? (e.g., a screen shot from a movie)
 * Is it used for commentary on a particular topic? How?
 * Based on these questions, the film still doesn't really add anything. Does seeing the three main leads in character add to our understanding of the article? Not really. Having available images of the three, on the other hand, suffices just fine. I agree that it would be nice if there were photos from the cast at the time, but alas there are not (other than Hamill). So this is what we have to work with. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 18:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. Based on what you said, I wouldn't oppose removing the image. Wafflewombat (talk) 18:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * To be fair, we can add photos of the cast together during the time of the film...in 40 years when the copyright runs out. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah... I don't suppose we want to wait that long xP
 * I checked the fair use rationale on the NF image and it says this under purpose: "The image serves as a means of illustration of the main characters portrayed in the film, in an article discussing the history and production of this film. It does not detract from the original work. It is the sole film still used in this article." I don't really think that's good enough to warrant inclusion (considering it was uploaded in 2016). – zmbro (talk) (cont) 19:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

New cast question
I'm looking at the film's credits, and notice that they differ slightly from what's in the article. Should we be putting verbatim what appears in the film? For example, the credits say Red Three (Biggs) - Garrick Hagon, while the article says Hagon plays "Biggs Darklighter." Would love to hear thoughts from @Darkwarriorblake and @Zmbro Wafflewombat (talk) 05:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think someone with more Star Wars knowledge would need to answer this, I've never been a huge Star Wars fan, I assume Biggs Darklighter is a name the character was given either in subsequent films or books/comics/games based around the film which technically means that was not his name in the film and it shouldn't be here. Red Three I believe is going to be his call sign so he must be one of the pilots, so in this case I'd think it's fair to group all the pilot characters together (assuming there are more than one) and say something like "Red Squadron pilots Biggs, Pikachu, and Darth Morty, rather than literally credit him as Red Three (Biggs). Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah if I recall correctly I think the character was named later. Similar to how when they made this film "Darth" was a name and not a title. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 21:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I went ahead and brought the article in line with the credits. Let me know if there's any issue with how I did it. ✅ Wafflewombat (talk) 02:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I hadn't realized C-3PO and R2-D2 were credited that way. It honestly looks a little odd. I think we should revert it back and perhaps in the cast list say they were credited that way perhaps in a note (with a source too). – zmbro (talk) (cont) 19:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Or maybe "Anthony Daniels as C-3PO (credited as See Threepio)"? – zmbro (talk) (cont) 19:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Aren't films their own primary sources, so we wouldn't need to provide a source if we make a note about the credits? Wafflewombat (talk) 19:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree the "wordified" names look odd, and personally I think they're very stupid! To be clear, I didn't add the parantheses, meaning these are the verbatim credits from the film:
 * See Threepio (C3PO) — Anthony Daniels //  Artoo Detoo (R2-D2) — Kenny Baker
 * C3PO doesn't have a hyphen in the credits, but it has one in most other Star Wars media I've looked at while editing this page. The hyphen may have been added later, but interestingly, the 1997 Special Edition of the film retains the original version of the credits with no hyphen. All in all, I agree it looks odd, but I used the "normal" versions of the driods' names (C3PO, R2-D2) in the rest of the article, so the cast list is the only place where the oddness shows up. Wafflewombat (talk) 20:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Italian Super 8
The first paragraph in the Home Media section deals with Super 8 versions of the film. Most of the paragraph is devoted to listing 8 Italian-language scenes. Is this a violation of the "due weight" guideline? It takes up a large amount of article space for a topic that probably very, very few people will find interesting or useful. But that's just my guess. Thoughts? Wafflewombat (talk) 08:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

zmbro and cnbrb, could I get your thoughts on this? Wafflewombat (talk) 18:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Don't appear that notable to me. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 00:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Would you suggest removing it completely or just making a very brief mention? Wafflewombat (talk) 02:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the information. Please weigh in if you disagree with this decision. Wafflewombat (talk) 21:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Reception
Hey I see you've been removing some original reviews from the reception section. Although they might not be useful now, you should still make note of them for the future if the section is ever fully rewritten so it's in line with WP:RECEPTION (like Empire). It's not often original reviews from a '70s movie are available online and we don't want to lose those to the edit history. It's why I added the original Sight & Sound review to the top of this page (removed by you last week). Just something to keep in mind. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 00:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note. I only removed one source, and I saved it in a spreadsheet I have going. I will probably re-write the Reception section at some point, and I'll be able to consult that source. If I don't rewrite the section, I'll put the removed source in the Further Reading section, which is where I put the Sight & Sound review. Wafflewombat (talk) 00:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * My mistake—I removed two sources. Both have been saved for later. :) Wafflewombat (talk) 01:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

General Tagge
@Wafflewombat, @Fountains of Bryn Mawr Here's just one reliable source I found. Informal sites such as Wookieepedia are clear that the character's name is General Tagge. This is also consistent across the encyclopedia, such as the article for Don Henderson himself. I would appreciate it if this change was restored. TNstingray (talk) 13:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * However in the film itself it is very clearly spelt Taggi in the credits. This is the most authoriative and accurate source for this kind of info. Yes it's primary, but it's one of those cases where primary is the best. Lucas has had many opportunities in various releases to fix that if it was a genuine error, but it never happened. If we do consider the others to be more authoriative than the original source, then I think it needs discussed in the text. Canterbury Tail talk 14:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There is also no reliable source that this is some kind of "mistake". Wikipedia is outside the Star Wars universe so we only describe the film itself, we can't make claims about further treatments of the material. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If we find evidence that it's spelled differently in other Star Wars media, such as novels or comics, we could possibly include that in a footnote.Wafflewombat (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That works. This article is about the film, and the film credits are very clear that it's Taggi. Canterbury Tail talk 15:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * But the very same section in this article talks about how Red Leader and Gold Leader are mistakingly credited. The latter is unsourced, and the former is sourced by StarWars.com. Here is Tagge's equivalent entry in StarWars.com. If you want to remove the "mistakingly" language, that's fine. But the facts are that Don Henderson portrays the character named Cassio Tagge, credited as Taggi. The name Tagge appears to be consistent with the books and comics etc. There are numerous places in film where a character is credited as playing themself (Slimer, Jabba the Hutt, the Wizard of Oz, Bugs Bunny). Wikipedia mentions that, and also reality. TNstingray (talk) 23:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's perspective is outside any fictional universe so we describe this film, not changes made in further canon or things created by/for fan-sites. If the character has further life in other media, and there is reliable sourcing describing why there is a name change, then it goes in the articles covering that.


 * If there is "other stuff" in this article contrary to MOS:OUTUNIVERSE its a reason to delete it, not add more. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * We can describe this film as crediting Henderson as Taggi, but the character's name is Tagge across all other Star Wars media. If we don't clarify this somehow, that is going to be confusing to the reader and inconsistent across Wikipedia. Wikipedia always includes information external to the cast list where necessary: Jabba the Hutt is voiced by Scott Schumann in the Phantom Menace, and we include this information rather than stubbornly insist that Jabba played himself as indicated by the credits. That's an example of where we go beyond the primary source of the film itself. TNstingray (talk) 13:24, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There is a source after Gold Five (TV Guide) which lists the entire cast of the film. That's where the name corrections come from. Since StarWars.com currently spells Taggi's name "Tagge", I created a footnote mentioning that.Wafflewombat (talk) 06:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Care to share/cite the source "Gold Five (TV Guide)"? Footnote is so-so, a fan-site citation, even from a site produced by the content owner, is relatively unreliable, they are un-cited as to content and may just be the work of some web person fleshing out a site. A further source on why there was a name change would be more relevant. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 11:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Don Henderson's obituary from The Independent credits him as General Tagge. Something tells me J. W. Rinzler's book might be beneficial here. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 14:24, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * As of now, the footnote says the spelling is "Tagge" in other Star Wars media. The Independent is not Star Wars media, so does it make sense to include that source? Theoretically, couldn't the Independent have made a spelling mistake in its very brief mention of the character? Same goes for Rinzler. Tagge is mentioned on two pages in the book, both with the spelling "Tagge", but there is no discussion about the spelling of his name, and Rinzler's book also is not "Star Wars media" in the sense of novels, comics, etc. Wafflewombat (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The original film script is faithfully reproduced in The Art of Star Wars . Don Henderson is clearly credited as playing General Taggi, and this is clearly seen on-screen in the closing titles as well. The basic principle is that a Wikipedia article discusses the facts about a film released in 1977, and any subsequent rewrites etc are extraneous information. Adding a simple footnote to explain that the spelling was changed in later works is fine to assist reader understanding, but no more is necessary. Cnbrb (talk) 16:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing that he wasn't credited as General Taggi. A footnote is perfectly suitable to convey the change in spelling, as I would also recommend for Garven Dreis/Red Leader, Jon Vander/Gold Leader, Dex Tiree/Gold Two, and every other character whose brief credit was expanded into a full name and identity in other media thanks to the massive success of this film. TNstingray (talk) 16:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The other character names are not part of this film. There is a "See also: List of Star Wars characters and List of Star Wars cast members" at the top of the section for that. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * And at that location, the actor and character names should be properly reflected as they are presented in Star Wars as a franchise, not just the demonstrably inaccurate credits from the first film. TNstingray (talk) 12:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * How can the 1977 credits be inaccurate for not describing something that George Lucas hadn't invented yet? They're accurate for a film made in 1977. The article has to be written from a MOS:REALWORLD perspective in 1977, when Tagge was Taggi and Garven Dreis did not have a name. Cnbrb (talk) 13:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Drewe Henley is not credited properly. Denis Lawson is not credited properly. Angus MacInnes is not credited properly. There are others who are completely uncredited. And since the release of the movie, all of the Rebel pilots and Imperial leaders have been expanded upon in other media, meaning it is beneficial to the present-day reader to understand that development when they search "Cassio Tagge" and see he was originally credited as "General Taggi" here. I'm not saying change the credits, but to just add simple notes for character names like we have already done for the aforementioned actor names. TNstingray (talk) 14:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Not relevant. This article is about the film, as it was in 1977. Not any future retconning and certainly not about the expanded universe (which incidentally for much of what you are saying has actually been declared non-canon anyway.) Film credits are actually a legal item and they are credited properly. There may be expanded universe stuff from later, but the credits of the film are legally lodged and are representative and are what is true for the film. This is an article about the 1977 film, not any expanded universe. Canterbury Tail talk 14:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment This should be about the history of the character. The character was once called Taggi but is now called Tagge. It should be noted appropriately, and that's about as far as a general encyclopaedia should go. Fictional characters aren't real people and there can be multiple versions of the same character, especially a character that has appeared in multiple media. (See Heracles/Hercules, the many iterations of Superman, etc.) DonQuixote (talk) 15:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This article is about a film released in 1977 on Planet Earth. Any history of the fictional character can sit quite comfortably in the Cassio Tagge article. The Star Wars  article can wikilink to that article, and there, the reader can read all about General Taggi/Tagge to their heart's content. 23:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)