There was no movie released in 1980 titled "Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back." Lucasfilm might have later renamed the movie, and its own promotional materials treat the name change as retroactive to the initial release. However, this is an encyclopedia recounting events of historical fact, not retconning by Lucasfilm. For encyclopedic purposes, the article should identify the fact that the movie was released as "The Empire Strikes Back" and marketed under that title for about fifteen years. It should then indicate that Lucasfilm "retitled" it and now markets it under the name "Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back."

This is a recurring problem in Star Wars-related articles. They lack an "out-of-universe" perspective, and repeat Lucasfilm's official revisionism as though it actually did change events of historical fact. Anyone interested in Lucasfilm's current recounting of the Star Wars universe can visit its web site. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. 12.4.231.134 17:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC) reply

The film may have been marketed without the "Episode V" moniker, but it was identified on posters as Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back, and the film has always officially been titled on-screen as Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back - as referenced here in a 1980 Time article referencing the new epsiode designation. TheRealFennShysa 18:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Look at the official movie poster from 1980 in the article. It doesn't have the words "Episode V," and it has the words "Star Wars" only appear in the tag line "The Star Wars Saga Continues." Look at any review from 1980. No reviewer in 1980 was aware that the title of this movie was "Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back." The Time article you refer to only underscores this. It says that "Empire Strikes Back" is identified as Episode V in the series, but this is a far cry from saying that the movie's title is "Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back." To the contrary, the Time article identifies the movie's title as "The Empire Strikes Back." 12.4.231.134 18:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC) reply

The specific quote is "The very first surprise in The Empire Strikes Back comes in the opening credits: the movie is identified as Episode V." Seems pretty clear-cut that Time is identifying the movie as Episode V in the article, and immediately thereafter refers to Star Wars as Episode IV. Please stop changing this, as you are in error. TheRealFennShysa 18:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC) reply

"Identified" and "titled" are very different things. Obviously, the opening sequence indicated that "The Empire Strikes Back" was the fifth episode in the series. But that is not the same as saying that its full official name was, in 1980, "Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back." It simply wasn't. The fact that the title has changed over time is an important point to discuss in the article. The article shouldn't falsely suggest that the film has always been known and identified as "Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back." In any event, consider the compromise changes I made. 12.4.231.134 18:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC) reply

As mentioned in other comments, the film's title cards identify the film on-screen as Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back. This is how the film has *always* been identified, and that has never changed. While you may disagree, this has been discussed many many times around here, and the consensus has been to list all the films in a similar style, especially considering that this is how they are to be permanently known from now on. Make a not somewhere in the article itself, as was done in the Star Wars article in regards to "A New Hope", but your other changes are unnecessary. TheRealFennShysa 18:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Why such a long name? What is wrong with The Empire Strikes Back? -- mav 11:42, 23 May 2004 (UTC) reply

Consistancy, all the other Star Wars movies have their titles written the same way. Why? Because if we made the title of the article for the first..er, I mean fourth film A New Hope, nobody, except Star Wars fans, would know what we're talking about.

Besides, Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Stikes Back is the title of the movie. - Acjelen 02:12, 25 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Yeah, only purists call it "The Empire Strikes Back," or those not so much in the fandom. Adamwankenobi 04:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry, but the title of a movie comes from the title card (see, for example, Se7en) and has nothing to do with purity or perspective. When watching the movie, first "Star Wars" appears, followed by "Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back"; thus the title. While 'purists' and 'regular people' may think the movie is titled merely "The Empire Strikes Back", they are incorrect. - Acjelen 21:37, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply

It was called "Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back" since it was released in 1980. See the IMDb profile. Osaboramirez 07:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

The novellization of the book came out before this movie. -- 172.194.68.52 16:30, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

From the article:

• Great secrecy surrounded the fact that Darth Vader was Luke's father. This secrecy extended to the cast with only Mark Hamill being told the truth so he could react to it. David Prowse was given the line, "Obi-Wan killed your father", to say during the scene and didn't find out the real lines until the premier screening.

Surely James Earl Jones knew as well, seeing how he spoke the "I am your father" line. Right? -- TomPreuss 22:13, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but only when he got the finalized script right before recording the line.

and Prowse said more the "Obi-Wan Killed your Father", as they did many shots of it, and they told him something new to say each time. I think another one of them was long the lines off "Obi-Wan is your Father" but i can't be sure about that

I saw the credit for Yoda in the movie, and it says "Frank Oz Performing Yoda", so I will correct it, but leaving the link for "Yoda".

Also, I noticed that James Earl Jones is not credited, so I will remove that information.

In the 2000 VHS version of the Special Edition of "The Empires Strikes Back", James Earl Jones IS credited as "Voice of Darth Vader".

When you wackos have stopped your war and unprotected the page, correct a typo "When the Star Destroyer preforms its regular release of waste," -- should be "performs".

210.17.200.11

There doesn't seem to be any disputes here that I can see. Just wondering, what is it exactly that causes the page to be protected?

Well, there has been an ongoing edit war between Copperchair and myself ( Adamwankenobi). The issue is this: I want The Emperor in this film article, in the non-credited roles, to be credited to Ian McDiarmid for his portrayal of him in the 2004 updated re-release of the Star Wars Original Trilogy. And... Copperchair doesn't. He wants the cast list, even the non-credited roles to reflect those listed in the theatrical release version of the film. Myself, I want the cast list to reflect George Lucas's changes to them over the years, as these are the way he wants them, and he, the creator of them, considers them the versions he originally intended to make. I am trying to make the cast list fit this. -- Adamwankenobi, 20 July 2005

I'm I the only one who sees an easy solution here? First: Start a disscussion on the talk page like this, that way, people can give their opinions, second: wait until a consensus has been reached until you make further edits, thrid: support your argument. Frankly, the DVD version does matter (unless we give it a seperates page.. which is not likely) and therefore the credit should be given to Ian McDiarmid somewhere. I think Copperchair is being a little overly sensitive here, I think an acceptable compromise would be to list a section as ===Additional Special Edition credits=== and list him under there. No confusion with the other credits. Sasquatch′↔ Talk↔ Contributions 03:46, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

PS: I'm adding this to WP:LAME. Sasquatch′↔ Talk↔ Contributions 03:50, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

How about listing a section as ===Additional DVD Version credits===? Copperchair 04:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Is it just the DVD version tho? I thought it was all special editions including the VHS... anyways, you have the idea, let's just get the facts straight and get this settled. Sasquatch′↔ Talk↔ Contributions 05:40, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Ian McDiarmid only appears as The Emperor in the DVD version. Copperchair 05:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Fair enough, this dispute is pretty much settled then =) we shall create a sub-section Additional DVD Version credits. Consensus seems to be clear on this one, now lets just get this page unprotected. I imagine this will also apply to Episode VI. Sasquatch′↔ Talk↔ Contributions 06:55, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

But changes to the movie aren't necessarily restricted to DVD format. Might as well have it as Special Edition.

Adam, don't tell me I have no write to fix this article. I have MORE right, because my edits delete bad content. On what grounds do you argue that I don't have the right to edit this article? - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:38, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

You're deleting things that need not be deleted. The only thing I believe I agree with you on is that the plot summary needs to be condensed (among all Star Wars movies), but other than that you're deleting things that don't deteriorate from the article. KramarDanIkabu 01:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC) reply

We don't need an entire cast list, the the opening crawl creates a copyvio problem; it's not necessarily a copyvio status, but one other user I showed this to immediately said it was a copyvio problem. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:44, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not allow for people to own articles. The article belongs to everyone, so anyone can edit it as they feel fit. But suggest yall talk it over to see what is needed or not. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC) reply

I do want the plot summary to be shortened, but I suggest it be done by the writer of it, TheCoffee. Adamwankenobi 01:53, 25 August 2005 (UTC) reply

I suggest you stop reverting it then. You have basically admitted to reverting edits because you don't want anyone but the Star Wars community to edit Star Wars articles. I suggest you back off while you still have your ability to edit. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:58, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

My ability to edit? Look, I've tested the administrators many times. It's all in good fun. But at the end of the day, my real goal is to make these articles, the important ones, that is (not ones like the George W. Bush one), the best they can be. What I meant was that anyone should be able to edit, but not someone who is going to detract from the quality of an article. Adamwankenobi 02:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC) reply

I deleted no quality, I deleted a bunch of Star Wars cruft. Give me one good reason why it's GOOD to tell everyone every single scene in ESB, okay? If you can't, don't bother responding. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:26, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

From what I looked, all of the Star Wars movies have the opening crawl. While I am not sure if this is a clear copyright violation, we could put the opening crawls into one article, if yall so desire. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:22, 25 August 2005 (UTC) reply

I think we should state in the articles, or somewhere that the opening crawl and all of its rights are copyright Lucasfilm, in order to clear up all problems. Adamwankenobi 02:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC) reply

We don't even NEED it. Include bits and pieces in the improved plot summary. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:33, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of trying to condense the summary here. I would appreciate if everyone read it and edited in order to improve it as necessary before we post it here. KramarDanIkabu 02:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC) reply

It's much better, but it still has the flaw of being just the movie, condensed. The plot summary should not be describing Event 1, Event 2, Event 3 and then the End, it basically has to do like what the opening scroll does (but try to make an original one). I mean, game articles and movie articles, usually, it's just a synopsis of what a character does early in the movie. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:51, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, it needs to explain what is going on. This may sound cheasy, but this is star wars, not just some movie. Yeah, I know, that spounded extremely fanboyish! Adamwankenobi 02:54, 25 August 2005 (UTC) reply

I see what you mean, but I think its needs to be a real summary that has actual plot details. If I go to an article about a movie, I expect to be able to read that article and know exactly what the movie is about (and get spoiled doing it). KramarDanIkabu 02:57, 25 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Then the people who haven't seen the movie will lack any reason to watch it; Empire's best feature was the plot. Describing the action scenes in SW won't ruin it, because it'll still be actiony, but not being able to experience the plot by your own selves ain't no fun. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:07, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

The reason I don't want the cleanup template at the top of the page is because that's not specific enough. I only support "cleaning" the plot summaries of Eoisodes IV, V, and VI. Adamwankenobi 04:33, 25 August 2005 (UTC) reply

The cleanup applies to the entire article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:59, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't write the current plot summary, but I am working to condense it. I'll try to have it done by tomorrow. Also, I'm with User:A Link to the Past on removing the opening crawl. That is of interest to fans (and I am a fan), but it's a copyvio and not encyclopedic. Coffee 20:53, 25 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Oh, sorry, I thought you might have since you did the Revenge of the Sith one. Anyway, that's good that you are condensing it. So, has A Link to the Past agreed to allow you to insert the plot summary into the article? I am in full support of a smaller plot summary. But, I still think that the opening crawl should stay. Just like the images we use of the poster and DVD's of the movies, all we are doing with the opening crawls is showing them. We are not saying they were original creations, or something we created. We are more or less promoting the opening crawl. What is wrong with them exactly? TheAlternateReality 22:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Whew... alright, the plot summary is now about a third its previous size, and roughly consistent with the other Star Wars plot summaires (except for A New Hope, which is still massive). As for the opening crawl... I can't find the appropriate Wikipedia guideline/policy page right now, but I think articles in Wikipedia should be more about the subject than a repository of public domain or fair use sources. For example, articles about songs don't include the actual lyrics to the songs, though they can say a whole lotr about them. Coffee 23:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Looks good. A Link to the Past will be glad to hear that I am now content with the way the article looks. To prove that, I will remove the opening crawls from each of the six films. Find out what Wikipedia policies say, tough, as I'd love to have them back in. TheAlternateReality 00:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC) reply

It's still not what's appropriate. It shouldn't tell me a story, it should set me up for one. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:54, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

So let's change it to a movie preview instead of a plot summary, that's what you're saying? KramarDanIkabu 00:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Yeah, I mean we put spoiler warnings for a reason. TheAlternateReality 01:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Well, let's consider the fact that the OPENING CRAWL didn't reveal every single plot detail, so this should not. It's INAPPROPRIATE CONTENT, not length. Plot summary, this is not. Let me ask you - is it good to give people no reason to even watch the movie? It's listing every important event of the movie. Does Casablanca do that? No. Does Sunset Blvd. do it? No. And you know what? They are FEATURED. I guarantee you that the plot summary now will prevent this article from EVER being featured. A featured article is an example of the best writing on Wikipedia, and if it cannot pass through the candidacy process, it is not appropriate for the article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:04, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

It's not imperative that this, or any of the star wars articles be featured. Yeah, it would be good, but, I mean, it doesn't have to be. TheAlternateReality 01:11, 26 August 2005 (UTC) reply

If it can't get featured, it shows the content is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Featured article is another word for great article; so it doesn't matter if you want it to be official or not, if it can't be featured, it's not great. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:14, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

OK, so you want it to be exceptional, that would be ok. But, this article also needs to be appealing to star wars fans as well, who are the ones who likely most use this page. TheAlternateReality 01:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Look, not having every minute detail is good, and getting only to the most important events is good, but what you're asking is to pretty much give no information about the movie from how I see it. I think this is what you want as the summary: "The Rebel Allaince continues its struggle against the Galactic Empire." That's pretty much all we can give you. KramarDanIkabu 01:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC) reply

By the way, the link for copyright information is [1] TheAlternateReality 01:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Breaking the long chain of colons... Casablanca (film) gives a brief summary on the plot. It doesn't spoon feed it to you, it leads you into it. And, based on logic, this article shouldn't spoon feed the plot, it should lead you into it. Use Casablanca's plot as an example. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:16, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

A Link to the Past: if you keep vandalizing this page, your conduct will be reported to the administrators. Copperchair 03:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC) reply

The same admins, no doubt, that agreed with me, such as Tony_Sidaway who agreed it needed cleaning up. Are you honestly telling me the IDENTITY OF A SNOW MONSTER is encyclopediatic? This is not IMDB's article, this is a Wikipedia article. Are you telling me we need to point out every single actor that played a freaking Ewok? You don't care to have any improvement in the article; you show no interest in any form of cooperation, and all you care about is how you want Wikipedia to be run. Adam agreed to get rid of the scroll, you seem to be the only single person who wants it. So, what's your argument? That copyvios improve the quality of the article? Christ... - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:50, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Let me point out that there are more people that would side with me on this. If you want me to, I can get those people, including many admins. Do you want to do this quietly? - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:17, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Everyone cool it. You're starting to sound a bit hostile too, LttP. I think we can at least all agree that the current plot summary is better than the previous one (which was bordering on being a short story). If you feel that it should be different, go ahead and make changes and we'll try to arrive at consensus about it. By the way, the Casablanca plot summary actually does give the entire plot, not just "lead you into it" like the summary at the back of a book. I did consider the Casablanca and Sunset Boulevard plot summaries when I was making my summary, but I just find that the Star Wars fils are very event-oriented... a lot of things happen. Again, if you feel the plot summary should be different, by all means, edit it as you see fit. Coffee 09:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC) reply

The difference is that Casablanca and Sunset Blvd. don't put their plot summaries on a spoon and shove them down your throat. We're not writing a book version here. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:32, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm interested and willing to see what you think would be the ideal plot summary. Or at least be nice about it, I spent quite some time making the current summary. :/ Coffee 20:31, 26 August 2005 (UTC) reply

So, the situation is: we either have a short plot summary or we don't have any at all. Hmm... TheAlternateReality 20:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC) reply

I don't necessarily agree with the plot summaries on the other movie articles, but they aren't trying to be a story book. IMDB doesn't tell a story, if you haven't noticed. We're not trying to make the longest article, we're trying to make the best. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:48, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

See the plot summary I chopped up at User:TheCoffee/temp. Is that anything like you have in mind? (feel free to edit that page) Coffee 21:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC) reply

What I want for it isn't to make it really tiny, I want it to not go so much indepth on minor details. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:09, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

No offense, but some of us thrive on minor details. Adamwankenobi 04:02, 27 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Most of us don't. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:30, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Is some sort of consensus going to be estableshed regarding who is going to be credited in the cast section, and how? I'm looking at a months worth of back-and-forth edits over this or that actor getting or not getting mention, and it's getting pretty silly. Please stop reverting and discuss it somewhere. I suggest here. - A Man In Black ( Talk | Contribs) 06:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply

I didn't remove the credit for Denis Lawson as Wedge. I removed the strange remark someone added "as Denis Lawson." Copperchair is the one removing the entire credit. The Wookieepedian 07:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply

Man in Black: It was discussed and there is a consensus, Copperchair just ignores it. — Phil Welch 07:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply

It is important that we leave the "(as Dennis Lawson)" in there. Why? Dennis spells his name with one "n", but Lucas, for whatever reason, credited him as two-N Dennis. A search on IMDb for "Dennis Lawson" immediately redirects to "Denis Lawson" and shows his roles in Ep IV and V as being "(as Dennis Lawson)" just as we have here. The whole point is to indicate the discrepancy between what the actor's name is and what the credits say it is. (This is probably more important in situations where the actor was credited under a pseudonym, like Mike Judge in Office Space, rather than a simple spelling error.)-- chris. lawson 13:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply

Check your user page. The Wookieepedian 13:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply

I've protected this page for the time being, and directed everyone involved here. Once consensus is established how to credit Denis Lawson (or people have cooled off), I'll unprotect it. - A Man In Black ( Talk | Contribs) 07:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply

It's fine with me how you've credited Denis Lawson. That's the version I keep reverting it back to. It's Copperchair that keeps reverting it. The Wookieepedian 07:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Just so we're clear, that's how you credited him; I just protected the page. Like the template says, it's not an endorsement of the current version, and I'm personally indifferent about how he's credited. - A Man In Black ( Talk | Contribs) 07:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Copperchair is going through here and reverting all the star wars articles to how he wants them. They already decided how it should be. He's not following their policies. The Wookieepedian 07:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply

They? I realized there was a larger dispute here, but perhaps I didn't realize how large. What do you mean by "they"? - A Man In Black ( Talk | Contribs) 07:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Phil, me, Coffee, several others who voted on shortening the cast. There is a consensus that's unspoken, with the fact that everyone seems to be reverting his edits. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Ah, okay, I thought it was more than simply "Me and those who agree with me," so it turns out to be exactly the dispute I thought it was.

My suggestion is that you open an issue RFC on this topic (although I am aware of the User conduct RFC pending regarding Copperchair, but that's as much about uncivility as anything as far as I can tell), and get the input of the movie Wikiproject (if there is one). These revert wars don't serve any purpose, and to be honest, the world won't end if Copperchair's version ends up being on the article page for a bit while the issue is discussed. - A Man In Black ( Talk | Contribs) 08:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Yeah, as far as the cast listing goes, it think it might be best in this case if we get input from the wiki films project people. Maybe they can make some suggestion s as to the format of the cast. The Wookieepedian 08:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply

The guy deleted my comment to him on his talk page about his reverts as seen here. The Wookieepedian 07:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Don't worry. He violated 3RR thrice. However, you did too, but since you have at LEAST tried to clean up your act, I asked for a lighter sentence. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Thanks The Wookieepedian 07:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply

OK, as someone who got into this whole mess doing RC patrol and who doesn't much give a crap one way or another about Star Wars (I like the movies, but as Johnny Cash up there said, this has got to be one of the lamest edit wars ever), here's my comment:

We should list Wedge. Why? Because he's major enough to be mentioned in the plot summary. If a character is important enough to be mentioned in the plot summary, the character is important enough for us to list in the credits. If the character isn't important enough for us to list in the credits, we shouldn't be talking about that character's exploits in the plot summary.

Since Wedge figures prominently in the movie, he gets a plot summary listing, and therefore a cast listing. Sounds reasonable, and there's ample consensus for this. Good.

OK, so how do we list him? Well, the way IMDb does it is the way it's listed in the section header here. In my fairly neutral opinion, that's how we should do it. IMDb is pretty much the industry standard, as far as I can tell, for how folks in the know list movie casts. I don't see any particularly compelling reason not to follow IMDb in this case.

Back to how we choose who gets listed. I wouldn't object to simply taking the cast as listed on the front page of IMDb. In other words, "Cast overview, first billed only." That might be a more objective means than the above suggestion, and like I said, I don't think we're going to exactly go wrong by following IMDb here.-- chris. lawson 21:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply

If we were to use IMDB's cast list, there would need to be a set standard, and complications would arise when it goes by appearance. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Can you cite an example of the latter?-- chris. lawson 23:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply

City of God? Many movies list charas/actors by appearance. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC) reply

As far as I can tell, that's not listed in order of appearance. That's listed alphabetically. IMDb, again lists the cast differently, as "Cast overview, first billed only".-- chris. lawson 02:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC) reply

I said movies, not IMDB. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Again, care to cite an example of Wikipedia doing that? I'm not understanding your point here. Is there something specifically wrong with using IMDb's cast listings as a guideline?-- chris. lawson 03:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC) reply

I NEVER said they do! I said they would HAVE to. If IMDB's setup becomes guidelines, that means that any credits that feature a Policeman at the beginning, we would have to include them. And IMDB follows the movie credits down to the letter. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC) reply

OK, one more time. Can you cite a specific example where such an inclusion would be a problem? More importantly, do you have a better suggestion?-- chris. lawson 04:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Okay, I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to be a little rude and beligerant.

PAY ATTENTION!

FACT: IMDB uses the credits as they are in the movie.

FACT: That means that if one credits uses by appearance, IMDB uses by appearance.

FACT: That means that WE use it by appearance, failing to credit main characters and instead crediting Joe Schmoe the random passerby.

FACT: We could not make an exception with that, by not going with IMDB. Many movies do this, so many IMDB articles do this, so there would be no order with this movie policy.

Do you UNDERSTAND? Here's a better explanation - LEAVE IT ALONE! - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Again, more importantly, do you have a better suggestion? Obviously, our current criteria aren't working. We need something objective that folks like Copperchair can't argue with. Remember, I'm mostly on your "side" here. :)-- chris. lawson 00:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Okay, destroy Wikipedia so Copperchair couldn't complain. I prefer leaving it alone to conforming to get people to shut up.

Repeat: If we use IMDB, we have to go by the order THEY have! And many movies have it by appearance! So yes, people WILL complain! - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC) reply

There seems to be something terribly familiar about this argument. The Wookieepedian 00:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC) reply

This is NOT an argument. Clawson just doesn't understand the complications that will arise with using the movie credits as they write them. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC) reply

I think this discussion in basic premise alone constitutes "feeding the troll". An editor who refuses to contribute in good faith ought to have his opinions discounted. — Phil Welch 01:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC) reply

I ask you, in all honesty, what's wrong with Coffee's suggestion? That way the list remains short, but it also follows something objctive, not to mention its order. Copperchair 02:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC) reply

I would have to agree, now don't get all hostile, but, as I have said many times before, if we had a concise list that followed some set standard, rather than a group of us deciding what is and isn't important on each article, then it could be a standard we could then use on all wikipedia movie articles. What I am saying seems to follow somewhat A Link to the Past's suggestion. The Wookieepedian 02:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC) reply

That's the exact opposite of what I want. Also, there is an obvious consensus to include Wedge, and it seems only you seems interested in keeping the cast listing how it was before we came along. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC) reply

OK, holy fucking crap, people.

This isn't a goddamn federal case.

Surely we can come to some sort of agreement.

Adam, where's this Wikifilms project? I'm heading over there. The folks here obviously don't give a crap about making any useful suggestions. Phil, Adam, you guys with me?-- chris. lawson 04:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC) reply

So, you basically argued that if I don't agree that we need change, I don't give a crap. Holy fuck, I have an opinion. I must be the antichrist werewolf baby killer! You can screw off with that attitude. If I don't think it needs change, you don't say my suggestions are not of any worth. Because, contrary to your idiotic belief, you're not some fucking God, and I am not inclined to follow your opinion of this needing change. If I don't agree that there needs to be a set standard, you fucking respect that. If you don't want people to disagree with you, don't ask for consensus. People are inclined to disagree if they do not agree! So, yeah, blow me. I don't want to change it, so what? Are you gonna have a fucking heart attack over it? This is just Wikipedia. If my opinion is of no worth, then I won't even bother to vote on the matter, since anyone who doesn't agree with it obviously is worthless. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC) reply

I asked twice for a better suggestion. You have not yet provided one. Hence, your commentary is useless. You're not contributing anything constructive to the discussion. Either put up or shut up, OK? What the hell is the point of discussing this if you're just going to sit there and shoot down every idea anyone throws out?-- chris. lawson 04:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Oh, forgot, you obviously have a lot more fuckin precedence than I do on here. Are you saying that it is undeniable fact that there needs to be a fucking change? If you are, you can fuck off. Your opinion is of no more worth than mine. My better suggestion is to leave it alone. Maybe you don't quite get it; fact 1. You are no deity. Fact 2. You can go screw yourself, considering that you are saying it's useless because I don't agree with it being changed. We might as well start telling everyone else that their opinions are of no worth. Change your user page, and if you don't agree with it, you are a communist. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC) reply

I think ALttP has provided a better suggestion, namely, maintaining the status quo. We don't need a new guideline here, m:Avoid instruction creep. — Phil Welch 05:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Thank you. I intentionally chewed out Clawson for general rudeness on his part. I find your opinions are useless as they are not in agreement with mine. Isn't that great logic? I do not want change, and you are telling me that opinion is useless for what reason? - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC) reply

That would be fine, except for the fact that the current critera are not objective. While it's fine to come up with a consensus for each film individually, that creates two huge problems of its own:

1. It's not practical to do this for every single film with an article on Wikipedia. In other words, this solution scales very poorly.
2. It leaves us open to exceedingly lame edit wars like the one that caused this article to get locked. Certain users will continue reverting because they enjoy disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point as long as no one can provide them with objective reasons why their point of view is not in agreement with the consensus.

I want one thing to be perfectly clear: I like the way things are with the cast listing here right now. But that's entirely irrelevant because one person is fucking it up for the rest of us, so we need an objective solution that this user cannot argue with. You guys get what I'm saying?-- chris. lawson 05:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC) reply

It should NOT be policy. For example, Bruce Willis wouldn't be listed on Sin City, as IMDB doesn't list him right away. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Coming up with guidelines and policies in order to placate trolls like Copperchair isn't a good idea. — Phil Welch 05:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC) reply

I'm not trying to placate him. I'm trying to take away the one argument he has by creating some objective criteria that he can't complain about.-- chris. lawson 11:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Is everyone but Copperchair in agreement on how this page should appear? I was under the impression there's something of a three-way revert war going on here, with significant disagreements about the order of the credits and the phrasing of Denis Lawson's credit. - A Man In Black ( Talk | Contribs) 05:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Buckling under pressure to trolls =/= good. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Ah yes. "Denis" vs. "Dennis." It seems Link is the only one who has a problem with the credit as listed in the header of this section.-- chris. lawson 11:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC) reply

The fact that Lucas liked to typo his name is irrelevant and barely qualifying of being considered a trivial fact. Why do we NEED this information? Such trivial information should be left for IMDB to list. We are an encyclopedia, and we should only add important information. We do often add trivial information, but never have I seen anything THIS trivial. This information should be mentioned on HIS page, not the pages where the typos happen. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Okay, looks like just about everybody is in agreement on this. Let's try editing again. -- Tony Sidaway ^Talk 17:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Page is reprotected due to edit war over navbox templates. Discussion is ongoing at Talk:Star Wars#The debate over the correct templates. - A Man In Black ( conspire | past ops) 05:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC) reply

He agreed to stop reverting. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC) reply

All 6 Star Wars film are protected from editing. This bickering is pointless. I find your lack of good faith disturbing. For the sake of unifying discussion, please try to settle the dispute at Talk:Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope. Coffee 06:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC) reply

No constructive discussion is taking place, so I'm unprotecting the article. Please try to work together and reach a compromise rather than simply reverting each other's edits every day and hoping one of you gets tired. Coffee 12:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC) reply

It isn't working, they're still continually reverting each others edits and messing it around for everyone else. I think more serious action needs to be taken, unfortunately. Ben W Bell 14:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC) reply

It already has. They've filed a request for arbitration against Copperchair. The Wookieepedian 20:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC) reply

I have reordered the opening paragraphs a bit (not claiming perfection, though). Especially the first sentence with the two parantheses felt too convoluted to me. The only info I removed was that fans call the movie ESB or TESB. I don't think this information is so important that it needs to be in the first few words of this article -- fans know that anyway, and do non-fans really need this info? It seems the abbreviation isn't even used on the page. I think it can be dropped or put into "Trivia", but somebody who feels it is important should please find a better place to put it than the very first sentence. -- Kusma 06:36, 6 November 2005 (UTC) reply

I think the logic here is pretty sound. We have common abbreviations in leads in lots of WP articles. For instance (just picking a few from my watchlist that come to mind): Political correctness and Majestic 12 both do this, and Majestic 12 is arguably far less well-known that the various Star Wars movies are. It could stand to be re-worded, but I think the abbreviation needs to stay in the lead sentence. -- chris. lawson 06:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC) reply

In contrast to your examples, where the abbreviations are actually used by the general public or on Wikipedia, "ESB" and "TESB" are used only on some talk pages (says the google). That certainly doesn't say they shouldn't be in, but does it really justify this prominent place to put them? -- Kusma 06:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC) reply

You can go on any Star Wars message board and see these abbreviations, as they are very well-known among fans. -- The Wookieepedian 06:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Heck, I don't even frequent SW message boards. I'm not even that big of a SW fan! But I definitely knew about the abbreviations and what they referred to. Contrary to your claim, I found nearly a quarter-million pages on Google when I searched for "ESB star wars" (no quotes). That's hardly "used only on some talk pages". Of course they're not going to show up on Wikipedia if people keep deleting any mention of them!-- chris. lawson 07:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC) reply

I concur. -- The Wookieepedian 07:20, 6 November 2005 (UTC) reply

I was only googling Wikipedia itself, not to the whole WWW. However, this discussion is missing my main point. I don't really care about these abbreviations all that much. I'm putting it back in now, as a separate sentence where it doesn't disrupt the reading flow as much as the parentheses did. -- Kusma 07:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC) reply

I think we should put ESB somewhere in the opening paragraph, and then use the abbreviation thereafter. Makes things easier to understand, and equally importantly, to write. -- Maru (talk) Contribs 18:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Once again, I concur. The "ESB" abbreviation somewhat reduces space on the page, and of course, reinforces the fact that "ESB" is a very well known abbreviation. The Wookieepedian 19:01, 6 November 2005 (UTC) reply

It's not about the fans's abbreivation or lack there of- the issue is whether we should use an obvious, intuitive acronym to make the prose flow better and ease the writer's task. After all, it is only a small step from Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back to The Empire Strikes Back to ESB. -- Maru (talk) Contribs 20:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC) reply

I have to confess, I've never seen the abbreviation "TESB" used for this film - I'm sure some people have, it's just that "ESB" as an acronym is extremely common - "TESB" definitely isn't. I've added "ESB" into the paragraph alongside "TESB", but honestly I think we should just delete the latter in favour of the more common former. -- DJ Mike TJG 19:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I contributed some things on this movie page. I did:

• "awards and nominations " section
• "music" section
• "quotes" section
• "budget/box office info" section
• added to the "radio drama" section
• "theme" section
• "setting" section

I added these things to make the Wikipedia entry more complete and informative. I hope my contributions helped. :) -- Dancerlbw 12:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Yes! They certainly did. Now we can apply that to the other five Star Wars film articles. The only thing is, we removed redundant (setting) or POV sections (quotes, theme). Everything else is fine. This article was severely lacking in content, and your contributions helped quite a bit, from what I can see. -- The Wookieepedian 17:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

I'm gonna link to WikiQuote. I'm surprised there is not already a quote link, but no better time than the present... -- Maru (talk) Contribs 19:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC) reply

What is this about 3-D version of the movie? Source, please.-- FDIS

Lucas himself explained at Celebration III that he plans to release all of the Star Wars films in 3D, beginning in 2007. The Wookieepedian 07:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC) reply

That's too funny. Crazy old George.-- FDIS 20:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC) reply

And then he'll release the Sooper Dooper Home 3D Mega Ultimate Final This Time I'm Not Kidding DVD Director's Cut. Endomion 18:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply

What do you think? E Pluribus Anthony 19:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC) reply

The "Budget/Box Office" section says "The estimated budget was $18,000,000." The trivia section says "However, certain production problems (especially while filming the Hoth scenes in snow-stricken Norway) caused the budget to rise to $33 million, making it one of the most expensive movies of its day." The latter attributes the documentary Empire of Dreams.

That's a pretty wide discrepancy there. Both iMDB and BoxOfficeMojo cite the budget as $18M. Without further data to substantiate the $33M claim, should it be left in? BinaryTed 16:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Please argue here about whether to mention the EU origin of the Dark Side cave on Dagobah in this article here instead of revert warring. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 00:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Neutral: First of all this is a film article and the Expanded Universe is a different article entirely. Since we a encyclopedia our goal is to keep things short and to the point not put in information for the sake of extra information. But as you can see im neutral meaning that i do not care if you guys put it in or not, i wont revert it or anything. Its up to you guys. Tutmosis 01:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Don't mention it, but I'm really neutral :). It's simple: by leaving it to another article, you keep everyone happy. The information is still present, but it's not included in this article. There's always wikilinks.... Deckiller 01:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Keep. The added info seems to reinforce the significance of the cave. The Wookieepedian 00:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Keep. I'm not a big defender of the expanded universe; for me, this was about stopping vandalism and identifying a sock puppet. The only rationale offered was that it wasn't in the movie, but there's no precedent for demanding that canonical information be removed from a fiction article without compromise or discussion, and there's no reason not to have it ( Wikipedia is not paper). I'm ambivalent about the content, I just don't like people vandalizing articles and making up their own policies to support their opinions. Kafziel 00:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Keep. My opinions are aleady known on this issue. Leaving it without explanation grates. -- maru (talk) contribs 01:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Personally, I would be strongly opposed to mentioning this without mentioning that this is a factoid originating in the EU, as it isn't mentioned or even implied in the movie itself. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 16:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Well, I wasn't planning to make this a vote, because voting is evil. I just wanted to get the edit warriors talking, and some new voices involved. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 01:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC) reply

As you can see from the article history, Skinmeister isn't interested in talking. At this point he's just interested in vandalizing the page. He doesn't respond to the warnings on his talk page, or the explanations of why it can be left in, and he evidently doesn't care about what we decide on the talk page. He's said he doesn't care if he gets blocked, either. This isn't edit warring, this is just undoing vandalism. Kafziel 13:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC) reply

There's clearly a content dispute here, and this is a contribution made in good faith. Assume good faith on the part of those who disagree with you, please. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 16:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I did assume good faith, at first. Ten or eleven edits and one meatpuppet later, I don't have to "assume" anything. I can see that it's bad faith, and constant repeated reverts without discussion is vandalism. Kafziel 16:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Huh, wasn't aware the edit war had been going on that long, but that's still an edit war, not vandalism. An effort to improve an article (say, by omitting a bit of cruft that isn't actually mentioned in the work the article is about) is never vandalism, however obnoxious a form that effort takes. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 16:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I agree, which is why the first couple of times he did it I explained the situation to him on his talk page and the edit summaries. As I said above, I don't care for "expanded universe" stuff either (and when I first saw that information, I didn't think it should be there) but Maru has precedent behind him. Skinmeister was immediately confrontational and uncivil, and used a sockpuppet to subvert 3RR. He's not interested in discussion, and he doesn't care what policy says or what is decided here, so I don't really see the point. Kafziel 17:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I've added some wording specifically disclaiming the Bpfassi bit as a retcon from a later novel. If someone could mention which novel it is mentioned in, we can probably put this to rest. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 21:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC) reply

According to the footnote for Bpfassh, it's from: Timothy Zahn, Vision of the Future, Book 2 of The Hand of Thrawn Duology (1998). ISBN 0553100351

I'd put the ref in myself but I'd rather not edit this article for a while. Kafziel 21:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC) reply

While we're talking about this, I'm going to try and rewrite the plot summary, to get it down from its terribly bloated 16 paragraphs. I make no promises about keeping every single plot point or bit of trivia that has been crammed in; while I realize ESB is a plot-dense movie, I'd rather the plot summary read like the ones in Blade Runner and Sunset Blvd. (1950 film), both FAs. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 08:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I agree. Those summaries you gave as examples are very concise, while getting the point across. (The Wookieepedian is snapped out of his fanboy tendencies on the issue, and applauds Mr. Cash.) ;) The Wookieepedian 21:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Anyone want to get this to featured article status? .... 01:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Yes, it would be the best SW film article to be featured, but I would prefer if we get the main Star Wars article featured first. The Wookieepedian 06:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply

I noticed a mistake in the 'errors' section. Where it says, "In the second paragraph of the title crawl, the subject and verb don't agree. The subject ("Freedom fighters") is plural, while the verb ("has established") is singular."

This is incorrect. The subject of that sentence is not "Freedom fighters", it's "A band of freedom fighters", so the subject is "Band", so the singular tense still agrees. Can someone fix or delete? Thanks

I've been contributing most of the revisions for the Empire page in the last several days. Empire is one of my favorite films and this has been a labor of love. For those who caught and corrected my little errors of syntax, redundancy, and spelling — thank you!

My initial goal was to clarify the plot summary because I encountered a few problems. The first problem was something you may have noticed before: a fan-centric overemphasis on Star Wars gadgets, military hardware, and proper names from the Expanded Universe that are neither noteworthy by Wiki standards nor helpful for someone who came into this article "blind," i.e., not knowing much about Star Wars. I hope I don't offend any well-intentioned Wiki contributors, but some of the fanboy excesses were hilariously inappropriate. My favorite was a reference to Darth Vader doing a "Force Choke" on Admiral Ozzel, something explicitly described in the Star Wars: Battleground II video game but never referred to in the movies themselves.

I think that we as Wiki contributors — and, especially, as Star Wars fans — run the risk of forgetting that the vast majority of the Wiki readership doesn't give a doody about Star Wars. We need to constantly ask ourselves, "What would someone who knows nothing about this need to know?" and "What is NOTABLE by Wikipedia standards?" It's not our job to create a Star Wars Wiki entry exclusively for fanboys, (that's what the wonderful Wookiepedia is for!); we need to come into it dispassionately and be governed by what is explicitly revealed in the movie itself.

I edited out proper names like "Wampa", "AT-AT," and "Boba Fett" for that reason. They are never named in the film and their presence in the plot summary just confuses things for a reader. I consulted the film a few times, noticing for example that "X-wing" is named aloud (by one of the pilots escorting the Rebel transports out of the Hoth system), but "TIE fighter" is not. This is not to completely ignore a term like "TIE Fighter" You will find that descriptors are linked to other Wiki entries: e.g, "Imperial Walkers" is linked to the AT-AT entry, "The bounty hunter" is linked to the Boba Fett entry, "Imperial pursuit craft" is liked to the TIE Fighter entry, and so on.

My second goal was to make the whole thing a pleasure to read. I was especially aware of this near the climax. From Luke's duel with Vader to the end of the film, I wanted to communicate a sense of the significance of these events — Luke's sense of failure and despair, Leia's mysterious connection with Luke, Leia's feelings for the missing Han, Vader's contemplative pose, and the heroes' relief and sense of purpose in the final scene as they anticipate rescuing Han.

My third goal was to clarify and streamline the other prose sections. These were largely left unedited — previous Wiki contributors had compiled a fantastic wealth of data, especially about the filmmakers' style and technique. I mostly removed redundancies and gave the sections a nice scrub of logic, making sure cause-and-effect relationships between facts made sense.

My overall goal has been to simply make sure the whole thing flows. This meant grouping most of the prose sections together and relegating the tables, charts, and lists to the end.

I have not removed any factual contributions, though I wish the contributors would have cited their sources, especially about the production of Empire. I sincerely doubt Wikipedia would make Empire a Featured Article if it doesn't have citations.

I personally don't care for the excessive listing and table-ing of elements like, for example, a thumbnail of Mark Hamill. First of all, it's redundant, because we know what he looks like in the frame-grabs above. But more importantly, it defeats the purpose of Wikipedia: that LINKS knit the whole thing together and if you want to see what Mark Hamill looks like, you click his name. It's that simple. Excessive table-ing and charting dishonors the Wiki contributors who wrote the "Mark Hamill" entry.

I would ask what this Talk group thinks about the notion of going through the Star Wars film entries — just the movies themselves, not the Expanded Universe stuff — with a big red pen, metaphorically speaking, and editing out the fan-centric stuff. I do intend to tackle the A New Hope and Return of the Jedi plot summaries next.

Matt Genné 15:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Reasons for failing -

• no references
• stray links that should be refs
• random templates down at the bottom
• no fair use rationales

Please see WP:CITE and WP:FAIR. H ig hway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 10:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Could/should the soundtrack section be expanded? The section as it exists seems to only mention the 1997 Special Edition double CD release (originally by RCA and later re-released by Sony). The first release was a double LP (the second and final such release for the Star Wars series; RotJ only got a single LP/cassette release). Then there was the 1993 Star Wars Trilogy soundtrack box set, released by 20th Century Fox Film Scores - each movie in the trilogy got one disc each, with bonus material from all three on disc four. -- JohnDBuell 03:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Eh, went ahead and did it. The liner notes in the original RCA Victor book that accompanied the 1997 double CD release mentions that the first (undated) CD release (prior to the 1993 Fox box set) condensed the material originally available on the double LP, and it wasn't until the 1993 box set that all of that material DID become available on CD. Does anyone have a date for that first, "bargain" (their word) CD release? -- JohnDBuell 03:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Just weighing in with an opinion here, since I think John did a fine job with the info he had. I think that the soundtrack listing may merit its own Wikipedia page...perhaps a combined page consisting of all the soundtrack music from the six Star Wars films? -- Matt Genné 12:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply

The original Empire sountrack was released on the disco label RSO, not on 20th Century Fox Records. The original double lp package had an inside booklet with pictures and text of the film. The booklet also had a section that was an interview with John Williams explaining the music. -- FMArocho

I've expanded the sountrack section with information on the various releases of the original soundtrack as conducted by John Williams and performed by the London Symphony Orchestra. I did not include any details of "inspired" releases or those conducted by others or performed by other orchestras since these would not be considered "canon", although a section on this topic may merit some inclusion after further discussion (for instance, the disco-inspired version put out by Meco on the Casablanca label or the 1993 Varese Sarabande release, not to mention countless others.) The information I have included is based on the different releases I own and on versions I have seen and read about on sites such as ebay. -- FMArocho

I think there should be a Music Appreciation section to the Soundtrack. The information I provided focuses on the different releases, record labels, packaging. There should be a separate section or page just on the musical merits of the score. -- FMArocho

Great work on that! Please consider registering to Wikipedia as a permanent contributor, emsy writes like yourself are always needed. :-) — Mütze 11:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply

The second point of trivia says "This is the only one of the six Star Wars films in which no major character dies." Which major character dies in Ep II? I know the question isn't directly related to Ep V but it's on this page, so I'll ask here. -- Tim ^{( talk), ( contribs)} 23:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Um, Jango Fett? -- Dunhamrc 14:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC) reply

In the filmography section of his article, Empire Strikes Back is listed among the films Treat Williams has been in. He is also in [Category:Star Wars actors]. Was Williams actually in the movie? I don't seem to remember. Do any of you know what character he played? Serpent-A 06:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

I seem to remember reading that Williams is a friend of Harrison Ford. He appeared in the Hoth/Echo Base sequence as a Rebel soldier or officer. -- Matt Genné 20:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Lots of changes to the article lately, I know. One of the big ones was the elimination of many fair use images, but if you take a look at any of the prequel Star Wars movie articles, you see a great deal of restraint about which ones they use, since only a few are allowed for FA. I hope to soon submit this for GA status, and help do the groundwork for FA status. Judgesurreal777 04:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

If someone wishes for this to reach FA status, the casting section would need a major overhaul as reviewers would cite it as a weakness. Check Night of the Living Dead or Halloween, both FA examples, as to how the casting section is laid out - Bullet points are usually frowned. Who was originally considered for the parts? How did they get the parts and why did Lucas choose them etc? These are possible questions to answer in the section. If this articles follows the examples I have cited, it would greatly improve its FA / GA chances. LuciferMorgan 14:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC) reply

However, Casablanca (film), Blade Runner, Richard III (1955 film), V for Vendetta (film), and TPM, AOTC, and ROTS all feature dot point cast lists. Do not change, the Cast list is fine. Some people may not like it, but it's not going to stop FA status, or even GA. ...._{( Complain)}^{( Let us to it pell-mell)} 06:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC) reply

We need a plot picture of Yoda, and the iconic moment from this film is Vader beckoning Luke to the dark side. I vote we go back to the two other plot pictures. Judgesurreal777 13:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC) reply

The pictures currently there depict the significant opening event and the significant closing event, just like all of the prequel photos. The iconic moment with Vader at the end is aural, not visual. Perhaps a fair use .ogg file of the revalation would suffice? Because the duel is a more significant visual event than the beckoning. Actually, just looking at that shot of Luke and Vader, it's a striking example of how the cinematography and director were differing from the original. ...._{( Complain)}^{( Let us to it pell-mell)} 05:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC) reply

I really want this article to become a GA, but unfortunately I have noticed several glaring problems.

• All the pictures except for the poster need fair use rationales.
• The last paragraph of the "Production" section jumps around way too much, and perhaps has too much information. Stuff like the Rishi Maze from Attack of the Clones cold probably be omitted.
• "Synopsis-The diverting plot threads are very well balanced and don't jump around, so good job there. But throughout the entire section there are short sentences and poor flow (ex."Han discovers Luke. Han keeps Luke from freezing to death by eviscerating his Tauntaun and stuffing him inside for warmth. The next morning, Rebel searchers rescue the two from the wastes"). Some sentences are redundant (Luke Skywalker, "the son of Skywalker"). Some aren't even full sentences.
• "Reaction"-Some more quotes and refs would be nice. The final paragraph could be slimmed down and better written-we don't need to know every single award the film received. The Literary Impact part either better have some serious references or deleted entirely (I'd go with the latter). It is immensely POV.
• Obviously "Cinematic and Literary Allusions" could be much expanded upon, but I think it can be glanced over for now.

Good Article in the making here, but I think it needs to receive a thorough copyedit before it moves on.- Dark Kubrick 00:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC) reply

I'll take care of the initial copyedit, although all copyedits require at LEAST two people making passes. Didn't know you guys were pushing to get the original trilogy featured, as well! — Deckill e r 02:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply

I think it's in the ESB Special Edition VHS that people from ILM talk about these mattes and they were not mistakes; they decided to not print the optical elements of the cockpits at full opacity so that the black lines that traditionally plagued optical mattes (especially when compositing elements into snowy scenes) would be minimized. When they released the SE back in '97 they re-composited the elements digitally, which allowed them to make the cockpits fully opaque and not show the outside landscape, while not showing any matte lines either. On another note, I saw the note on Treat Williams being one of the Rebel Officers in Hoth, and I saw no mention of John Ratzenberger's small appearance as a Rebel Officer, which is mentioned in his article; there are two stubs about his character, Major Bren Derlin in the List of minor Star Wars Rebel characters or Commander Derlin; apparently they're the same character but I believe that the lines given for his character in the Commander Derlin stub were spoken by another actor... Daniel Villalobos 23:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC) reply

The 'spoilers end here' tag is missing. It starts at the beginning of the spoilers, but there's nothing at the end of the spoilers.

Fixed it. KdogDS 21:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply

The "Production" section is an interesting and informative read—right up to the point when you start reading the last, big paragraph. It is simply a long list of trivia, seperatied by periods with no apparent connection. I suggest that it either be turned into a list and moved further down into a new "Trivia" section, or it be reworded into a more coherent text. As it is, it just doesn't fit there and reads terrible. Opinions? — Mütze 14:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I vote for rewording, because trivia sections wont get through FA. Judgesurreal777 16:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Your reformatting of the paragraph at the bottom of the production section, into a trivia list section only solves the problem with another problem. Not only have you created list which is often times chastisised in good article and FA reviews, you have also created a trivia section which contradicts WP:AVTRIV. This solution is not any better than the original problem, in fact I would say it is worse. The Filmaker 14:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC) reply

(I didn't change it, I'm just participating in the discussion)

This disagreement quickly leads us to the real problem: That whole paragraph didn't belong there in the first place. It contains nothing but trivia and fanboy information that can hardly be called useful for this article. The problem is only intensified by the content's protrayal in that long list of unconnected sentences or list entries, but in the end, it will probably just have to go entirely, until somebody maybe inserts parts of it properly integrated in the context. Therefore I now change my position and suggest we revert to the long text and then comment that text away, adding a request for proper integration. Just because every Simpsons episode's article has endless lists of trivia (and horrible goof lists concerning the color of Homer's nose in certain frames), this one shouldn't too. Any opinions? — Mütze 15:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I deleted the section, recommending it get moved to the proper section, but then i realized, there really isn't one....so I suggest under cinematic and literary allusions, there be created a "Impact of the film", section showing how the film influenced culture, not just how it was influenced by culture. Judgesurreal777 15:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Just a question - why is this in here? It's not a "fact" more of an opinion, at least there should be supporting idea's to this (such as why is it considered the darkest? In ANH for example Ben, Owen, Beru, the Jawa's, etc. etc. die while in this one only something bad happens to Han really).

I think it's the fact that there are no Jawas to begin with. ;-)

But you're right. That doesn't belong there. Even if we find a proper way to explain it (because it is probably accurate), it would be Original Research, and that is part of what [[WP:NOT|Wikipedia is not]. — Mütze 14:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Only something bad to Han? Howabout the Empire winning their first battle on the ice planet, Luke getting smacked and wrecked around on Cloud City?

Yeah and the rebels were ready to kick some ass after that battle.. not to mention Vader just helped Luke with that swipe to the arm, remember when that fat guy shot Luke in ROTJ? McDonaldsGuy 01:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Is not the Galaxy at the end the Milky Way? It seems like it, though I could be wrong. NapoleonAlanparte 11:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC) reply

The Milky May is a completely different galaxy, it does not have an end. ;-) See Star Wars galaxy — Mütze 11:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Hello, I'm sorry to have failed this article's GA nomination, perhaps with some more time this article will reach that status. Some points I noticed...

• The article is glaringly under-referenced, especially in the Production and Soundtrack sections, but it is a problem throughout the whole article. Article also does not cite a direct quote attributed to the Los Angeles Times in the Radio Drama section
• Image:ATAT Sketch.png lacks a fair use rationale.
• The prose does not flow correctly at times, especially in the Awards part of the Reaction section, it reads like a giant list.
• The prose is at times not written in an encyclopedic tone(e.g. Three years after the Battle of Yavin, three valiant heroes of the Rebel Alliance — Luke Skywalker, Han Solo, and Princess Leia — are pursued by the evil, implacable Darth Vader and the forces of the Galactic Empire.) This reads more like a story than an encyclopedia article

Overall I enjoyed reading this article and feel that it doesn't have far to go for GA status, provided that it receives a good copyedit and my suggestions are acted upon. Cheers for such a great attempt. Deyyaz ^{[ Talk | Contribs ]} 01:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I agree with the suggestions; however, I had a version where the summary was written in encyclopedic prose; I may break it out and reintroduce it into the article now that we have someone else agreeing that it reads like a story. — Deckill e r 03:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm deleting the paragraph on Alan Dean Foster's novel Splinter of the Mind's Eye being a possible low-budget sequel, although I believe it to be true, I can't find any suitable sources. If anyone is able to find one, please post it here and I will re-add it into the article. Thanks. :) The Filmaker 03:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply

The idea of having Vader as Luke's father mimics Darkseid and Orion.

Also, if Luke had though it through, he could have done more by accepting Vader's offer to join the Emperor insincerely, acting as a spy within the Emperor's inner circle for the Rebels.

15:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Enda80

• If you would want us to feature it in the article, you would have to provide a citation of this assertion. I do, however, find it unlikely as Lucas has never referred to comic books as a source of inspiration for Star Wars. The Filmaker 22:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I've decided to rewrite the article to state that the film received favorable reviews as opposed to mixed reviews. So far I have been unable to locate any notable critic other than Vincent Canby that wrote a negative review about the film. Rotten Tomatoes features only one bad review out of 51 (Canby's), and the Empire of Dreams film states that the film was received well. The only other source of this supposed outlook is Ben Burtt on the audio commentary. He will be mentioned but I don't think the "mixed" evidence outweighs the "favorable" evidence. I'll begin writing the article soon. If anyone has a valid objection, please feel free bring up here. :) The Filmaker 23:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Look up Pauline Kael's original review - she was not complimentary - I feel rewriting this based on current searches (when most of the reviews in question are more than 25 years old and predominantly offline) is *very* premature, considering how much Empire has grown in stature over the years. Empire of Dreams glossed over a lot, and Burtt's recollections are accurate. MikeWazowski 06:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I've found Pauline Kael's review and it appears, she was in fact complimentary. I'd like to hear what you would suggest we do to make the change less premature. As the only evidence we have is Burtt's recollections, one negative review, and your assurance. The Filmaker 00:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Don't know if this helps, but there's a fairly negative review from someone at the Washington Post. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 16:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC) reply