Talk:Return of the Jedi/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Improvements?

I was considering cleaning up and editing this article to match up with the other SW articles. Any ideas on improving this article should be great. Thanks. Sjones23 21:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I just got some ideas, from Darthgriz98 (a Wikipedia administrator), that this article needs copyediting and sources need to be cited in the reception section as well. Any other things you want to throw in? Sjones23 20:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

How about updating/changing the cast? Allen649 13:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Unless you can specify something that is currently wrong with the Cast section. I see no reason too. The Filmaker 13:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Star Wars Episode VII: The Dark Arrival?

What is this broken link (in the film infobox) supposed to refer to? -- Pennyforth 07:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Just vandalism I would imagine. MarcK 13:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Peer review

I was wondering if this article to go for another peer review. This article needs a lot of copyediting and improvements to go up to FA status if anyone is up to it. Thanks. Sjones23 20:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. Sjones23 18:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Automated PR Response

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • correctly
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • Avoid using contractions like (outside of quotations): didn't.
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, APR t 23:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Anything of the above will be a great appreciation of this article to become a Featured Article status. Thanks Sjones23 14:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

FAC

I have placed this article under FAC in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi. I am going for an FA push. Sjones23 21:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I've temporarily halted the FAC until these issues are resolved:

    • Reaction - needs to be expanded
    • Citations - article needs additional sources especially to the Production section
    • Copyedit - entire article needs thorough copyediting
      • Green tickY Done. Greg Jones II 01:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
        • The article should be copyedited again before the FAC. Partially because it couldn't hurt, but also because of the new information added. The Filmaker 04:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
          • It could be. The five films (ANH, ESB, TPM, ROTS and AOTC) are at FA just to clarify. Greg Jones II 17:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

If those issues are resolved, I will continue this FAC. Thanks. Sjones23 21:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Those issues are discussed here. Sjones23 21:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Alright, what I was getting was that I've been the prime editor in all of the FACs for all of the other Star Wars articles up to here. And I can tell you that it's not ready. It's close, but it's not ready. The reaction section needs to be made a little more neutral by adding a negative review(s), additional citations are needed to appease the citation crowd, and at least one copyedit by a trustworthy copyeditor is needed. The copyedit is desperately needed and has been the hardest to secure. At this point the FAC shouldn't even be considered until the above issues are resolved. The Filmaker 21:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I would copyedit this article myself if I can. Sjones23 21:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
My additional concerns are that there is also redundant wordings in some parts. Sjones23 21:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I copyedited some parts of the article. I need some help in sources, however. Sjones23 21:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
The Filmaker, I really need your help in getting this article featured. I've made some edits, but are there any other reliable sources for any section (especially in the Production section)? If there are links to some, let me know here. Since I am Being Bold, I am trying to contributing it significantly. If I had done any wrongdoing, I apologize. Sjones23 22:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
See the above section for further details. Thanks. Sjones23 22:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I've placed a copyedit request here. Sjones23 22:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I will perform searches for additional references. The Filmaker 22:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Good idea. Sjones23 00:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Just to let you know, additional sources can be found in various places, such as the official Star Wars website, the IGN website and so on. Sjones23 19:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I am aware of how to find sources, Sjones. ;) It's just something I need to find the time to do. The Filmaker 22:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I will also find a trustworthy copyeditor or I will copyedit this myself if I can. :D Sjones23 01:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I have copyedited some parts of the article myself. Sjones23 01:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I have also added the {{copyedit}} tag. Sjones23 02:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Erm... The Filmaker, are there any other issues left? Sjones23 15:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're asking. Is it alright to proceed with the FAC? Or if I simply have more issues with the article? Well, I still would not proceed with the FAC considering that only one of my issues has been addressed. Even that I have my doubts about. I mean no disrespect to Beverson, but very little was changed in his copyedit. Either this means that the article was not that bad to begin with, or another copyeditor needs to be brought into play. I don't know, I've never been great with prose. However, the Reaction still needs to be expanded and the citations need to be varied. The Filmaker 02:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I am great with prose and I can copyedit this myself. I mean no disrespect to anyone, including yourself. Thanks for the helpful info. Greg Jones II 00:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Also, Filmaker, I do not mean any disrespect, but I will let you do most of the FA push yourself. That would be appreciated. Greg Jones II 00:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I will continue nomination of this featured article whenever I get the chance. Sjones23 01:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I've also added a verify tag on the top and an expand tag in the reaction section. Sjones23 01:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

This article still needs a huge copyedit, I did the production section and am willing to look over the rest as time permits this week, but it definitely needs a second opinion. Perhaps the league of copyeditors? DarthGriz98 18:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Lauren. The League of Copyeditors are a good source. I've added a copyedit request at Wikipedia:WikiProject_League_of_Copyeditors/proofreading#Copy-edit_requests_for_other_articles. I am part of the league of copyeditors. Sjones23 11:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I will also work on this large copyedit myself. Greg Jones II (Sjones23) 16:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Also, wikilinking needs to be fixed. Greg Jones II 20:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I just completed a pretty lengthy LoCE copy edit, which included extensive cleanup of wiklinks, some style standardization, lots of edits for clarity, and a few factual corrections. I think it needs to be gone over again before being given a final proofread by the LoCE. —beverson 07:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Sjones, thanks for reviewing my work (and especially for catching that goof in the plot summary — it was late when I was working on this). The Filmaker, I saw that you reverted a few of my larger reorganizational edits. I'm not trying to be confrontational at all, just trying to understand so I can better perform these copyediting tasks. The changes in the "Releases" section seem like they could go either way, though I did put some thought into the way I had done it — trying to group theatrical releases and home video releases separately (and yes, there are variations between the theatrical SE and the DVD release of the SE, re: the actor playing ghost Anakin, as already noted in that section). I'd like to hear your rationale for keeping it the way it was. I feel a little more strongly about the placement of the "Production" paragraph beginning: "Return of the Jedi was filmed on a budget of $32,500,000. The film was originally titled Revenge of the Jedi...." I think it works really well as an overall lead to that section. I can see that maybe a discussion of keeping the film within budget can lead into a discussion of what the budget was, but that seems like very important information to be buried at the bottom of the section. Additionally, one of the most interesting pieces of production trivia seems to be the name change, especially now in light of the naming of Episode III. Having that paragraph first in that section really just seems more encyclopedic to me. But let's discuss that section before anyone changes it again. —beverson 20:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • You're welcome, User:Beverson. The copyedit is much appreciated. I placed the final proofread request at Wikipedia:WikiProject_League_of_Copyeditors/proofreading#Ready_for_final_proofread. Greg Jones II 22:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
    • The majority of the reverts (if you want to call them that) were done simply for symmetry between the other five FAs. In addition to symmetry, to title the section "Theatrical Special Edition" implies that it was only released theatrically, when it was in fact it was released on VHS. I am also aware that the were changes between the Special Edition and the DVD release. However, the DVD release was not a release of the Special Edition films with additional changes, it was the release of the Star Wars films with changes that included those previously featured in the Special Edition. It is typically referred to as the "DVD edition". The Filmaker 02:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Hey man, no need to get upset. I do call them reverts because that's what they were. While I stand by my original editing decisions in the context of copyediting this article and being bold, I appreciate your broader knowledge of these other articles and a desire to keep them consistent. At the risk of question other Star Wars FAs, maybe their Production sections could be similarly improved, with the most important info up top. That being said, in the future, when attempting to provide copyediting assistance, I'll try to do a better job in researching and following stylistic and organizational choices in other, better, and related articles. I'm hoping you don't resent me, an outsider, coming in and making a lot of mistakes you have to go back and fix. But taking the extra two minutes here to explain your perspective (or engage in some debate) can help make that process go more smoothly. I appreciate that as well. —beverson 04:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
      • But please don't misunderstand, I appreciate your copyediting the article. I was not upset by your edits, nor was I upset that I had to explain why I reverted them. I apologize if I came off resentful, please know that I did not mean too. The Filmaker 04:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Quotes Section - Yay or nay?

I haven't seen this film in a long time, but surely a Quotes section is a good idea?

No. Save quotes for wikiquote. Any list here would just be an arbitrary and unencyclopedic WP:ILIKEIT list. If there are particular quotes that you can place in context to clarify plot, themes, etc. go for it, but a quotes-only section would be inappropriate. --EEMeltonIV 12:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Article issues?

This article is coming together. I think there are still a couple of issues - i.e. verifying sources. If anyone can address these issues, let me know here. Thanks. Greg Jones II 20:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

No issues. Just needed something called how many casualties during a battle like above Endor.(TougHHead 22:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC))

Archive

Comments from 2003 to April 2007 are now archived. Greg Jones II 20:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Need some help

Hey. I need some help on this article. It is almost ready for FA status and I just need some helpful information. Thanks. Greg Jones II 03:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC) What do u need help on? Shaun k7 (talk) 09:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Psst

Citation #13 is blank.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Solved. Girolamo Savonarola 01:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments

I have commented on Episode V here, but I think some of these comments apply to this article too. This article has a weak lead and plot section, a lack of reliable sources where they are needed, and a tendancy to approach the subject from an in-universe point of view. I think that fixing these issues would be an important step towards FA status. Geometry guy 23:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Article degrading

Why was the cast photo removed? Why are there now no plot images, and now there is that ghastly comparison shot of the replacement of the old Anakin? And why has half the prose in the article been replace? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The Metal Bikini

Why was there no discussion or illustration of Leia's famous gold bikini? I'm putting it in. 76.200.219.185 (talk) 23:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

As you already know, it's rather irrelevant to the overall plot, and the associated pic would be inappropriate anyway. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 03:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Is Leia attractive? Sure. Does she look good in the costume? Of course. Carrie Fisher was twenty-six at the time, so it benefited her to let her hair down and show off her figure, as I'm sure the modest, butter-wouldn't-melt-in-her-mouth attitude of her character would eventually get tired. But is that metal bikini the real point of the sequence? Well, maybe. . . if you're Jabba the Hutt. . . IMO, though, the real shocker is that Leia was the one who managed to kill Jabba, not Luke or Chewie. She also improvised it skillfully, what with the chain and all (it brings to mind something from a 1970's gangster movie, although I can't remember which). That was the real shocker to me, when I first saw it, but most fanboys merely remember the bikini and nothing else, including what Jabba did to the princess while she was wearing it. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 02:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit that my first masturbation fantasies were about Leia and her metal bikini. I didn't imagine myself as Jabba the Hutt, thank god.76.27.232.185 (talk) 11:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Spirits.jpg

Image:Spirits.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Image status: asap

Hello all. As the original uploader of the image Spiritsjedi.jpg, I have now been notified, for what is probably the third time since I uploaded the image, that there is impending deletion regarding it due to the image being orphanated (that is, not being used on any articles). The image is supposed to be used on this article, for comparison regarding the digital replacement of actor Sebastian Shaw with Hayden Christensen in the "spirit scene" at the end of the movie. I don't know what happened this time, I haven't checked yet, but all of the previous times the image had been arbitrarily removed by a user who decided, by himself, that it shouldn't be there. Obviously, the image ended up being reinstated (along with an image showing Christensen in the scene, for the aforementioned comparison).
Now, we can't keep having this back-and-forth with this (and possibly others) image. I have suspended the deletion of the image pending this discussion, but depending on the outcome I will delete the image myself, immediately. So the question is: do we want this image (and possibly the Christensen image) for comparison effect in the article, or do we think that it is not necessary? We need to decide, and if that decision should be in favor of having the image in the article, the image will not be removed from the article again without previous discussion and consensus, otherwise the edit removing the image(s) will usually be rolled back on by an administrator. So, what say you? Regards, Redux (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Original title?

As with Empire, this film has never been retitled since its first release. Video and DVD covers may have changed over the years, but the on-screen title has remained the same. Chris 42 (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


Original Theatrical Version on DVD

Under the section "Home video release," the article states that the original theatrical version was released in 2004 (as opposed to the Special Editions). I believe this is incorrect, as all the sources I could find state that the original movie has never been released on DVD (though it has been released on LaserDisc). Also, the reference for this section mentions nothing about the set including the original theatrical version. If someone could find a better citation, go ahead and put it back, but I edited that section a little. It still needs to be cleaned up a little bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.179.9 (talk) 06:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

the original theatrical version was released in the 2006 release (codenamed the GOUT (Georges original unaltered trilogy) http://www.amazon.com/Star-Wars-Trilogy-Harrison-Ford/dp/B001EN71DG/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1251482669&sr=1-1)- no account —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.236.186.109 (talk) 18:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

GA Sweeps: Pass

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I went through the article and made various changes, please look them over. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2007. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would be beneficial to cover the home media releases, and see if there are any more recent stories in the news. I would also recommend updating the access dates of the sources. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was discussion moved to Talk:Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back#Requested move to centralise discussion given the likely similarity of discussion. Comments left here mainly consisted of see comments on the Episode V page or were very similar. Non-admin closure. Dpmuk (talk) 10:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi → Return of the Jedi — I understand wanting to create consistency with the other Star Wars film articles, but there are important user concerns to consider. Return of the Jedi is the common name of the film, and the one people are most likely to search for in the search engine. The whole "Star Wars: Episode VI" prefix is a recent invention, and certainly the film wasn't called that when it was initially released. As a related aside, I'm curious as to what the copyright entry on the film actually is. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Support as common name. Jafeluv (talk) 05:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Oppose per comments at Talk:Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back. The Filmaker (talk) 09:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Metacritic score

Metacritic has aggregated 14 contemporary reviews of RotJ, and has given it a score of 52 out of 100, suggesting "Mixed or average reviews". Could this be included in the Reception section, or would it contradict the current statement about the film being a "critical hit"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nerimon (talk • contribs) 12:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

A good addition. A comparison between scores from Metacritic for Jedi and Empire would reiterate the point that Empire was better received by critics, with a score of 78% based on 15 critics reviews.
Care does need to be taken, the smaller sample of critics used by Metacritic and different scoring system make direct comparisions to Rotten Tomatoes difficult and should probably be avoided. (Rotten Tomatoes Top Critics does often come up with a very similar scores to metacritic). Metacritic also tends to more recent reviews, and unlikely to be using any contemporary reviews from when the film was first released. -- 109.77.40.121 (talk) 18:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Retention of comparative photo of digital manipulation

thumb|200px|right I had recently uploaded an image (in the right) comparing the digital manipulation in new editions of DVD releases of Return of Jedi film, where Shaw's portrayal of Anakin's ghost (above) is replaced by Hayden Christensen (below), who portrayed Anakin in the prequel series which was shot and released after the original three films. However Solopiel has repeated removed the image citing that The change is not such an important issue in this article, replacing it with the shot of Shaw's portrayal in the original version. I would like to state that the image is in the home video section with the adjoining para describing the digital manipulation in later versions and how it drew criticism, thus a comparative photo would bring out clearly the differences and would make the point more transparent and easy to understand. I would also like to bring to notice that such comparative photo montage has been used in other wiki articles to bring out the similarities and differences like in E.T._the_Extra-Terrestrial#20th_anniversary_version, Padmé_Amidala#Costumes, Photo_manipulation#Political_and_ethical_issues etc. Hence I would like to request all editors to discuss and retain the comparative image on the right instead of just the original shot. LegalEagle (talk) 13:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

This issue is not that relevant to have it illustrated in this article. There were changes in all three Episodes of the Original Trilogy, some of them very controversial, but you don't see them in the articles of the previous two Episodes. Solopiel (talk) 22:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply, but in none of the other two articles do we find that a shot has been used to highlight the change, but it has been done in this article hence I would like to reiterate that to better illustrate the change it is imperative that we use a comparison montage of both the original and the manipulated shots. LegalEagle (talk) 04:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't see why it is not more useful to have both versions (to replace the single image with the double-image). While I don't see this as terribly important (and certainly not imperative), I also see it as inexpensive easy and interesting, as well as "free"... it does not make the article more complex or harder to read or maintain. I was invited to comment here by LE86.- Sinneed 16:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I think this makes the article feel too charged. Furthermore, this has been discussed before, which led to the deletion of the previous comparisson image. I was invited to comment here by Solopiel. Xnacional (talk) 04:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Xnacional, thanks for your comments, I presume that the discussion that you are alluding to is this request by Redux for discussion on the issue, which was not replied to by any editor (if you know of any other discussions that turned down comparison photo in this particular instant, please let us know). Also I would request you to elaborate on what you mean by charged and why you think the retention of the image would make the article charged? Thanks. LegalEagle (talk) 13:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
No, the discussion I am talking about was deleted along with the image (Spirits.jpg). By "charged" I mean it looks too full. Not by quantity of images, but because this particular image has a needless comparisson that distracts from the main topic: the movie itself. Its different versions is a minor issue. Xnacional (talk) 03:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you that the movie is the main topic, but then by your standard the article should only contain the plot summary and nothing about production, reception etc. I would like to reiterate that the home video sub section of the article speaks about changes in the later releases and gives a shot from the old release thus for better understanding of the change a comparative image is needed as it would be more illustrative. I would also like to refer you to E.T._the_Extra-Terrestrial#20th_anniversary_version where a similar section has comparison photo to illustrate the difference between the earlier release and later ones. LegalEagle (talk) 10:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
No, that's not true. What I mean is that the change is not so important as to have an illustration. All the Trilogy's Episodes' home video sub section of the articles speak about changes in the later releases, and none has an image. I would like to follow that trend. Xnacional (talk) 05:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I second that. Why does this particular Episode's article has to have a comparisson image? Solopiel (talk) 06:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Going by Xnacional's logic of no other Trilogy Episodes having any image, then we should also remove the image of Hayden Christensen, what I want to point out again is if the Hayden Christensen image is used it would be more enticing for average readers who may not have seen the film to compare the difference, as brought out by the comparison images. Also I feel that the discussion is going nowhere, so I would request all that we ask reputed editors/administrators to chip in the discussion.LegalEagle (talk) 10:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, we should. The changes are a minor issue in these articles. Xnacional (talk) 05:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
If you believe that the change is a trivial issue then why not let the new image stay. LegalEagle (talk) 13:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
You answered that with your own question. Xnacional (talk) 06:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Thats exactly the difference, I dont believe that this is a minor issue and think that the comparison image scores over the single image (because I am serious I have started this discussion to reach a consensus). And again I see no point having this discussion between 4 editors who have already made up their mind so I would request you to solicit other editors to put in their views on the issue. LegalEagle (talk) 13:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
In terms of Wikipedia guidelines, I can't really see anything to pick one image over the other. If anyone has a relevant guideline, policy, essay... please share. Otherwise I see the arguments for both images to come down to wp:LIKE... what each of us individually finds to be interesting to add to the article.- Sinneed 15:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I believe we can follow wp:CONS. LegalEagle (talk) 10:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
wp:consensus, in a sense, plus wp:IAR, resting on top of the wp:Five Pillars is, in a sense, all there is... everything else devolves from those. :) I was hopeful that their might be something useful within wp:MOS or wp:UNDUE or such from similar concerns in the past. :)- Sinneed 20:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

As a further boost to my argument in favor of comparative image I would refer all readers to look at the images at Censorship of images in the Soviet Union, it would show why comparative images are more encyclopedic in nature. LegalEagle (talk) 10:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, just causally reading through this topic and thought I'd ask a question or two. Would you be including any additional sources to improve the argument that whatever change this documents is significant? Also, why not illustrate the difference here instead? They have an image in that article for 'Greedo shot first' after all. $0.02 DP76764 (Talk) 16:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Dp76764 for weighing in, at present I do not have any plans to introduce any new/additional documents to improve the argument (given the hostility faced in improving an image, I guess the challenges to improve upon the text would be even more). I would definitely introduce the comparative image at List_of_changes_in_Star_Wars_re-releases#Return_of_the_Jedi. Just as a side note there is inherent difficulty in comparing changes in Greedo shot given the 2 frame difference. LegalEagle (talk) 02:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi I write in response to the request at Star World Portal [1], if the comparative image is as per the referred ET image, I guess an average wiki reader like me would be happy to see the comparative image instead of just the old image Thanks Sumo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.208.251 (talk) 13:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I second that. I found the picture useful as to understand the issue. Unlike other changes to the original episodes, this seems a rather central one and well deserves the attention the picture gives it.--93.82.28.139 (talk) 22:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed that the bottom part of the image in question (the section with Hayden Christiansen edited in) has a completely screwed up aspect ratio? eyeball226 (talk) 01:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes :) The ratio of the lower part is vertically stretched and should be fixed. It's easy - one only has to adjust it to the number of the vertical pixels of the upper part. I also think this is an important change in the movie and has to be visualized here. -- Hansen 95.42.34.136 (talk) 20:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Filming location not really Redwood National Park

Today, June 4, 2010, the article shows a photo and caption saying that Redwood National Park was used to film the forests of Endor. That apparently needs to be corrected:

Redwoods filming location for Endor in Return of the Jedi

The page provides a reasonably good basis. Would it be best to change the article so it mentions the main location? Or should the speeder parts be included? ThreeWikiteers (talk) 01:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Original ending

A new article by IGN here details how the series would have ended before producer Gary Kurtz left. Ωphois 03:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC) The phrase that Kurt revieed the truth behimd the hances is wrong, he xclaimed this, but this is nt fact it can be propoganda so the article should say he claimed thise. 62.45.85.181 (talk) 20:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

uh credits do work that way, people are somwetimes not credited for extra work and people are sometimes inckluded out of curtisy, check al other wiki articles which mention Lucas wrote a big paert the screenplay without credit and check the article which mentions the producer from VI was also producer for the later half of V in Kurtz place, check Raider`s wiki, erealy can wikipedia atleast try to be consistent, please??????????? 62.45.81.211 (talk) 06:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Theft of 70mm film prints from Kansas in 1983

This is in reference to the recent rollback where unreferenced info on alleged theft of 70mm print of 'return of jedi' from Overland Park, Kansas, was removed. I googled it and found some interesting results [2], [3] there are few other message boards and discussions which also discuss the incidence. This can be a hoax and the sources seem not very reliable. However if someone from Kansas has access to news archive it would be great if you could check the local papers printed after July 6, 1983 (the day of the purported theft). Thanks. LegalEagle (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit Wars On Ending Plot

People keep changing it back, but Palpatine IS killing Luke with lightning, not just torturing him. He says "YOU WILL DIE"! And YES, Anakin Skywalker reemerges from within Vader before he picks up Palpatine and throws him down the shaft, at the cost of his own life. Stop undoing a correct and common sense edit!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.127.119.2 (talk) 19:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

WHY IS IT BEING EVEN CONTESTED??? IT'S OBVIOUS TO ANYONE WHO HAS SEEN THE MOVIE THAT PALPATINE INTENDS TO KILL HIM AND ISN'T JUST GOING TO TORTURE HIM? WHY DOES THIS EDIT VIOLATE ANYTHING? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.127.119.2 (talk) 08:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, just calm down. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.
  • Grimes, Caleb; Winship, George (2006). "Episode VI: Return of the Jedi". Star Wars Jesus: A spiritual commentary on the reality of the Force. WinePress Publishing. ISBN 1579218849.

Speculation on "threatens"

The text "Vader discovers that Luke has a sister, and threatens to turn her to the dark side." has been modified (and reverted a few times) to be vague and less precise. To the IP: my selected quote was shortened and I'm surprised you didn't realize that and that you didn't know the preceding text that makes the above statement accurate and clear. "If you will not turn to the dark side, then perhaps she will." That's about as clear of a "threatens to turn her to the dark side" as you can get. Check and mate. DP76764 (Talk) 20:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Marquand interview

I bookmarked this not too long ago, meaning to integrate with this article, and just haven't yet -- and, with a big move coming up (personal, not article), I suspect this will just languish on my to-do list. So, for those of you keeping a tighter eye on the article, here ya go: http://io9.com/why-return-of-the-jedi-was-the-most-grown-up-star-wars-575749331. --EEMIV (talk) 16:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Running time

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the infobox should list the first theatrical run. The original runtime is 131:33 according to the BBFC. However, it was reverted with the DVD version, which is unsourced. So, as we should not edit war, I, an uninvolved user, have decided to take this discussion to the talk page. Thoughts on the matter would be appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

"Jedi" title in the lead section

An IP user, 99.246.137.205 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has added "(sometimes shortened to Jedi)" in the lead section, but it has no sources yet. In this case, I think we should use only the original title of the film or find sources for the title. Rather than getting involved in an edit war, I am taking this discussion to the talk page. What are your thoughts on the matter? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I've never seen it shortened to just "Jedi" in all the Star Wars coverage I've read. I've seen ROTJ but not Jedi. I don't think it warrants inclusion. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Jedi is simply a personalized abbreviated name that the cast, crew, and fans of Star Wars use in colloquial conversation, much like Empire is to The Empire Strikes Back. It's nothing official and frankly, it's not notable to include. Otherwise, every other film article will be subject to include self-proclaimed alternate titles. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 18:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 19:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

one year after the empire strikes back?

at the end of episode V Luke and Lando are plotting to rescue Han from Jabba, I seriously doubt Lando and Chewie would last so long in Jabba's palace that long or plan something so far ahead. More like 3-6 months which would give luke efficient time to recover and continue his training to be prepared to take on Jabba and his gang.

Could the rebels stay hidden as long as 1 year? Any sources that it's one year after episode V? otherwise it's OR isn;t it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.246.181 (talk) 07:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Is there a difference between the running times of the original version, the special edition and the DVD version?

The running time of the original version is 132 minutes, while the running time of the special edition is 133 minutes and the running time of the DVD version is 134 minutes. Is there a difference? AdamDeanHall (talk) 16:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Article name in lead

The consensus at Talk:Star Wars (film)#Requested move was to move this page to Return of the Jedi, not Star Wars: Return of the Jedi. The film itself never used that - it was always Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi if you include the opening crawl. The small Star Wars on the original 1983 poster looks to me like it's identifying the franchise, but is not meant to give Star Wars: Return of the Jedi as the official title. People may debate about that, but again, the film itself always used Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi, but the WP:COMMONNAME was Return of the Jedi, and the lead should match the article name. All this is also true with Empire.

This article lead should say Return of the Jedi, later retitled Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
One small change - given that the film title itself was never changed, just the promotional title, the article lead should say Return of the Jedi, later released as Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi. I'll implement this. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The article should use the full title (as I've suggested for the other two original trilogy films). The opening crawl uses the full title, Wookiepedia uses the full titles for the three films, and most fans today know the films by their full titles (though obviously in day to day conversation we'd say either the episode number or subtitle as it's a mouthful to say the whole thing), but the article title should be the film's full title. It was never "retitled." From what I've observed only older fans from the 1970s and 80s use the abbreviated titles as official titles. The full title should be the article's title. Emperor001 (talk) 00:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

External links

Recently I changed a link to Wookieepedia on this article and Empire Strikes Back, because the old links went to nonexistent pages on that site. Now I see that the changes I made have been undone. I'm not sure why anyone would want links that go to nonexistent pages instead of links that go to existent pages. Teknomage (talk) 20:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested move (October 2014)

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

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. (While respecting the thoughts of the editor who requested that the discussion be given more time, it is clear that the current discussion will not result in a consensus to move the page, and I would add that these discussions are not votes and that canvassing is frowned upon.) If there is evidence that consensus has changed or new evidence is introduced that is relevant to naming policies and guidelines, please initiate a new request at that time. A multimove request would also be advisable in that case. Dekimasuよ! 00:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Return of the Jedi → Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi – The third and final film of the trilogy is commonly referred to by this title in official media. AdamDeanHall (talk) 23:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Support It was never "retitled" and always known as it's title episode. I have copies of the original theatrical editions on DVD and the screen crawls refer to them by their episodes. Even Star Wars Episode IV was known as "Star Wars" only till 1979. If it's not possible to change them to their official names, I support adding what their official names are.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 23:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
The current lead does not say it was "retitled". And your statement the first film was known as "Star Wars" only till 1979 is quite wrong. As pointed out before, you should read WP:OFFICIALNAMES, i.e. WP:UCN. - Gothicfilm (talk) 20:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. The Star Wars Episode VI thing is fairly new. It was never commonly known as that on its release and I doubt whether it is even today. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Motion to postpone poll closing date I am requesting this poll closing date be postponed by another ten days from now since this issue seems to be raised a number of users on talk pages regarding the dubious claims that these movies were "later released as.." but seem to unaware of this poll. if it's closed within the next few days, it would not be considered a fair vote. Thanks.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 20:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Title and infobox name

There is currently a debate about whether the original title should be first in the lead, or it's shortened title. I think it is inappropriate for the shortened title to be first, as the title is the title. Not only is "Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi" the current title of the movie, it is also the original title. S806 (talk) 01:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Under WP:BRD, you discuss a change on the Talk page, not put in what you want. You have been given a WP:3RR warning. I'm restoring the page to the agreed upon version, arrived at through long discussion last January. Read WP:CONSENSUS. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
We are building consensus. S806 (talk) 01:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I propose we have the lead read as "Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi (also known as Return of the Jedi)". S806 (talk) 02:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose. The current lead

Return of the Jedi (later released as Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi)

is the most accurate. It was agreed to in long discussions in January 2014. "Later released as" refers to trailers, posters and all other promotional material, not the film itself. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:11, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
The movie was always named "Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi" S806 (talk) 02:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
That was not on its trailers, posters or any other promotional material when it was released in 1983. Thus it is not its WP:COMMONNAME. And the lead is supposed to match the title. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME doesn't reference leads, only page names. And many leads don't match the article title, see Borat. Please, please stop being so dishonest. S806 (talk) 02:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Try reading WP:AGF. And discussions should be in one place. Let's keep it at Talk:The Empire Strikes Back - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:09, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Return of the Jedi was released into theaters as "Star Wars Episode VI: Return Of The Jedi" on May 25, 1983. "Later Released As" is an incorrect statement. That is like saying "The Phantom Menace (later released As Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace)". Also, the argument "because the trailers, posters and all other promotional material said so" is an invalid argument. The movie should be titled by its correct, theatrical name: Star Wars Episode VI: Return Of The Jedi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 00717F (talk • contribs) 16:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: Use the full title as it has always been the title of the movie. I recognize that people didn't really notice "Episode VI" until the prequels came out but it was always where. Emperor001 (talk) 03:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with user:S806 this is just plain fanboy POV pushing.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 22:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
    • I somewhat agree with user:Nadirali: this is largely a generational debate. Older fans know the original trilogy as "Star Wars," "The Empire Strikes Back," and "Return of the Jedi" due to how they were marketed even though Lucas changed the title of the first movie early on to "Star Wars Episode IV A New Hope" pretty early on (but no one really took notice). The opening crawls to the second two movies always had the full titles of "Star Wars Episode..." and people tended to ignore the Episode numbers even though they were there. It was not until the prequels came out (my generation) that people started actively referring to the movies by their episode numbers. Lucas himself once stated that "Star Wars" is one movie divided into six chapters but he released Episode IV first. He renamed the first movie as soon as he realized it was popular enough to be an entire film franchise. On Wikipedia itself I note that these articles were at their full titles for the longest time and it was not until this past year that they were changed to their shorter titles the older fans know them by (my theory is that early on Wiki was dominated by my generation who knows these films by their full names but then older fans became knowledgeable, signed on, and voted to change the titles to what their generation knows these movies as; in so many years when that generation passes on we will probably revert these articles back to the full titles because that is what the younger generations that grew up with the prequels knows these movies as). I personally never referred to the first movie as "Star Wars" because even as a kid I noticed that it had "A New Hope" in the same place where the other movies had their respective titles (and I didn't know what an episode was until Episode I came out) and I was puzzled why older people like my dad called it "Star Wars" when "A New Hope" was right there in the crawl. Emperor001 (talk) 00:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
That's interesting on an anecdotal level, but film history places the most importance on the original release. Star Wars had its greatest impact in 1977. The article focuses on its development, production, and yes, the original release. The later title is much less important. And then there's the matter of Wikipedia policies, which clearly go with the shorter promotional title for all three films in the original series. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
It is my understanding that Wiki policy is to use the most common name which today is the full title. In the 1970s and 80s the shorter titles might be appropriate, but today they are known by their full titles and released as such. All official sources give their full titles. Emperor001 (talk) 01:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
That was not on its trailers, posters or any other promotional material when it was released in 1983. Thus it is not its WP:COMMONNAME. The lead is supposed to match the title. And discussions should be in one place. This is not a voting section anymore. Let's keep it at Talk:The Empire Strikes Back. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I think the real issue is whether or not the full title was included in the original release, which according to the U.S. Copyright Office, see here it was, so to suggest that the full title was later added would be inaccurate from this point of view, assuming the USCO is enough to go on.--Tærkast (Discuss) 20:43, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
The lead is misleading, the film was originally released as Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi. Stating that the film was "later released as Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi" is simply not accurate. Yes, some pre-release promotional material simplified the title to just "Return of the Jedi," but the full title upon it's release was Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi (it was not later released as such, it was originally released as such). To get technical, much of the early promotional material (trailers, posters or any other items) actually used "Revenge of the Jedi" but we don't have the page lead reading "Revenge of the Jedi (later released as Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi)." Likewise "Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace" was known simply as "Episode I" on much of it early teasers, posters or promotional material but we don't list it as "Episode I" (later released as Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace"). The film itself has always been "Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi" even if the pre-release marketing materials and logos didn't use the full name. I was there on opening day in 1983 and it was "Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi" saying that it was later released under that name is not accurate, it was originally released under that name. Statler&Waldorf (talk) 20:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
You're repeating what has already been said and answered above. The trailers, posters and other promotional material used Return of the Jedi when it was originally released in May 1983. Thus that is its WP:COMMONNAME. And discussions should be in one place. Let's keep it at Talk:The Empire Strikes Back. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Nobody is disputing the common names of the films. Return of the Jedi has always been released as Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi. It is the title under which the film is registered with the U.S. Copyright Office and the BBFC, among others. See this link and [4]. Nobody is suggesting the article be moved, just the lead rewritten to accurately reflect the information on its release. --Tærkast (Discuss) 20:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Star Wars (film) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

protection request

Can anyone semi-protect this page??? Is to prevent vandalism and to keep the good article criteria. Pancho507 (talk) 23:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)Pancho 507 (talk)

Box Office

The Numbers tracking website states that Jedi made $572 million, as opposed to the $475 million that Box Office Mojo claims. Both websites are permitted as sources for Wikipedia articles, with neither having any superiority to the other. However, it is clear that Box Office Mojo has various errors when it comes to the gross of older films because their information is incomplete ("Alien" is a prime example) and the site appears to be less reliable than The Numbers for films from other eras. I've therefore updated the article to use The Numbers as the source. 88.104.9.12 (talk) 13:48, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


Hi, How about we chose a single source for the box office numbers because in the box office section of this article it is listed as 475 million dollar gross but in the box it says 572 million dollar gross. So how about we change it to a single source. It doesn't matter which one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.151.112 (talk) 19:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Genre classification

There is a discussion in progress concerning the "epic space opera" label being used throughout the Star Wars film articles. Both epic and space opera are being questioned in the lead. Please voice your opinion on the matter at: Talk:Star Wars (film)#Epic sf war film. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Redwood Image Caption & Location

Today the redwood image caption states Redwood National Park was used for Endor. That is incorrect. Who has a good idea for how to suppply a redwood image with a more accurate description. Endor was done on private redwood forest and the trees no longer remain. More info: http://www.mdvaden.com/redwood_star_wars.shtml The Real Luke Skywalker (talk) 18:33, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Problem

Oh man. Somethings gone wrong on this page. Someone vandalized the cast section adding a random fake actor to the list and when I fixed it everything got messed up. Also we should change the B.O number to the box office mojo one because many articles I have read say 475 million. None say 572. Broncosman12 (talk) 18:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I fixed it. Italia2006 (talk) 18:12, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Sometimes, different sources can say different things regarding a film's budget/gross. TheNumbers.com is an approved site on Wikipedia, as is BOM, and so when this happens we can simply state what each source says without giving either one of them more prominence than the other. 2A02:C7D:2B99:DF00:F55B:AF45:B9EC:2536 (talk) 04:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
The Numbers may be reliable but all sources make mistakes from time to time. There is almost a $100 million difference between the two figures so is there any corroboration for the higher figure? The George Lucas Blockbusting book (published by George Lucas Books also goes with "nearly $476 million"). If there is a legitimate disagreement then both figures should be included but at the same time we need to make sure we are not perpetuating a data entry error. Betty Logan (talk) 03:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
The Numbers is as reliable as BOM, though either can make mistakes as you say. This isn't the first film where there's a difference of $100m either. If you look at Alien, BOM states it made $100m less than The Numbers, though I would be far more inclined to believe that BOM was wrong in that particular case because their international figure is basically little more than what Alien made just in the UK alone. It gets tricky when dealing with older films because box office tracking was far less sophisticated than it is now (and in some countries, virtually non-existent). It's just a theory, but I wonder if some sources are reporting Jedi's gross pre-Special Edition, and The Numbers is reporting all of it together. Betty, why don't you e-mail The Numbers and query their figure. Ask them how they came to it, tell them what you think is evidence to the contrary (the book, with the page number) and see what they say. If they revise their figure down on their website, we can change the article to reflect that. If they don't, then it can simply stay as an alternative figure/source alongside the other. 2A02:C7D:2B99:DF00:AD05:151A:22BB:C551 (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Luke's lightsaber

An anon clarified that Luke constructed a new lightsaber in the film, but it keeps getting removed for being "unnecessary". Have you forgotten that Luke lost his lightsaber in the previous film? The clarification certainly is needed for readers who aren't experts and it's not like that sentence fragment is overflowing the plot section. DarkKnight2149 15:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Readers who aren't experts will not be wondering what weapon Luke is using because of what happened in the previous film. The point of a plot summary is to convey the main lines of the plot, and not to provide random details that a hypothetical reader who has never seen the films but is somehow obsessing over them anyway might be wondering about. Mezigue (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
On the contrary, readers who are experts will already know that and these articles are meant to be accessible to the non-expert. Luke constructing a new lightsaber is an important plot point, as he lost his lightsaber in the previous film. There isn't much of a reason to not include it, aside from you labeling it as trivia (which I disagree with in this instance). Why does he have a lightsaber if he lost it in the previous film? Did he buy it on eBay? It's just illogical. DarkKnight2149 14:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
I also think, it is an important detail and since only two little words are dedicated to it, it doesn't clutter up the summary in any way.91.23.174.157 (talk) 14:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
It is not an important detail and was in fact confusing as it refers to something that happened in a previous film. The plot is over-detailed as it is. Mezigue (talk) 18:32, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
It's minutiae. How Luke obtains a new light saber has no bearing on the story. Betty Logan (talk) 16:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Star Wars (film) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 04:59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Return of the Jedi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Current edit war about continuity

I think there is a point in removing that statement, as it is a debated one (see number 2 on on http://www.goliath.com/movies/the-10-worst-changes-george-lucas-made-to-star-wars/). 186.26.115.51 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC) Hi, folks. Being this a contentious issue, I must say I consider it best to leave it open for interpretation rather than use as a fact one view or the other. 186.26.115.51 (talk) 07:03, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

How is it contentious? The film edit itself is contentious among fans, yes (as opined in the above link), but the fact that it was edited is, er, a fact. At the moment, the text in the article doesn't say whether the film edit was good or bad--it just says that it was made to reference the prequel movies. DonQuixote (talk) 12:46, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

The source says it was a good edit. 186.26.115.51 (talk) 12:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

And? That's not what's being said in this article. DonQuixote (talk) 13:00, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Also, the above Goliath article says the same thing in terms of the text in this article. We can cite both the current source and the Goliath article and the text in this article doesn't have to change. DonQuixote (talk) 13:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree with DonQuixote. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 15:19, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the first post. Furthermore, the change ruins any consistency with the prequel trilogy, since in Episode III it is said "there was good in him", e.g., he lived thorought the original trilogy, and the change implies he died young. 200.122.170.70 (talk) 21:37, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Er...you both GeoLocate to Costa Rica, which is suspicious. Please review WP:SOCKPUPPET and WP:MEATPUPPET.
Also, that's your interpretation and original research. It's also in-universe and not real world perspective. DonQuixote (talk) 23:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
I also agree with DonQuixote that the information as presented in the article is not opinionated. The move to change Anakin's appearance was obviously made to bring the film in line with the prequels. Whether or not you agree with the move is the opinion, and that's not being expressed in this statement. Also as DonQuixote cautions, you should be aware of the policies surrounding sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry. These offenses are not taken lightly around here. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:47, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, it is in-universe, and that universe has some logic, which the change doesn't respect. 186.26.115.51 (talk) 08:47, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

If this edit warring continues I'm going to protect the page. Canterbury Tail talk 12:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
You've missed the point that in-universe perspective is against policy. We write from a real world perspective. DonQuixote (talk) 14:51, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Right, it's protected for a month since there is a jumping IP disruptive editor. Canterbury Tail talk 22:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Return of the Jedi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

[5]

Why was this reverted as a "ridiculous edit"? I understand that Wikipedia is descriptive, and that it was already mentioned before in the lede that the film is a fictional work, but you describe after you make sense of the thing first, and make a real semantic break. Just blurting out the plot in the lede out of nowhere seems semantically wrong to me. "The film stars Mark Hamill, Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher, Billy Dee Williams, Anthony Daniels, David Prowse, Kenny Baker, Peter Mayhew and Frank Oz. The Galactic Empire, under the direction of the ruthless Emperor, is constructing a second Death Star in order to crush the Rebel Alliance once and for all." These two sentences just don't work unless you mention that you start talking about the plot. That'd be like if I said these two sentences together as quoted: "The Wizard of Oz is one of the best films of all time. Dorothy is taken to a magical land." Those two things together do not make sense in or out of context. If you didn't know the plot of The Wizard of Oz and I said to you just these two sentences alone, you would assume that I was delusional or something and talking about an actual person named Dorothy who was taken to a magical land. However, if I said "The Wizard of Oz is one of the best films of all time. In the movie, Dorothy is taken to a magical land." now that makes a little more sense. Just because it is incredibly obvious because of common knowledge of the film doesn't mean you assume it's always too obvious to clarify. When you explain what the film is, then suddenly start talking about the "Galactic Empire" without beforehand mentioning it is a part of the plot, that's equivalent to my example. I don't think you would let this kind of thing slide in an article about an unpopular film... so don't let it slide in a film everyone knows either. Be fair. So...clarify why my edit was unacceptable...? PseudoSkull (talk) 06:41, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Lead

"it was followed by a sequel trilogy". Shouldn't that be "prequel trilogy", as in the lead of Star Wars (film)? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:40, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Nope, that's referring to Force Awakens, The Last Jedi and Star Wars IX. Canterbury Tail talk 10:51, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but it was followed by the prequel trilogy before it was followed by the sequel trilogy. What makes the sequels lead-worthy but the prequels not? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:31, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Depends on the definition of follows I suppose. From a chronological series perspective a prequel trilogy can't follow the last part of a trilogy. However from a real world timing perspective yes you would have a point. I guess we're interested in what bookends the trilogy not what was just produced next. Canterbury Tail talk 12:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Gråbergs Gråa Sång on this point. Wikipedia shouldn't be presenting facts from an MOS:INUNIVERSE perspective. The film was followed by two further trilogies, one of them being the prequel trilogy. Betty Logan (talk) 12:41, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
That, WP generally likes real world. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:00, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't disagree, I was just trying to interpret the current text. Canterbury Tail talk 14:10, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Continual IP removal against consensus

We've all seen the roving IP edit that crops up continually to remove content regarding Hayden Christensen's force ghost against consensus and removal of references. I'm talking about this edit. We've all seen it, half of us have probably reverted it. It's been discussed, we have consensus. However the roving IP keeps coming back from different sources and removing it. Since this is the majority of edits by non-confirmed editors on this article, anyone object to page protection? Or at least pending changes confirmation? Canterbury Tail talk 16:22, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Request semi-protection. If you get pending changes you'd have to keep reverting it regardless, but semi would allows us to edit it but not the IP. Betty Logan (talk) 23:54, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
I'd recommend trying short-term semi first (start with a week, escalate to 2-4 if needed), and then if that doesn't help, try long-term pending changes next. Under PC protection, only registered/confirmed users will see the disruption, so it's not as damaging to a majority of readers. It's a good next step before long-term semi or full. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:04, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Thoughts on whether or not the pending is working on the article? Canterbury Tail talk 22:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Obviously not very well. UpdateNerd (talk) 23:46, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to semi the article. Save the hassle and it's not edited much by non-vandalism IPs. Canterbury Tail talk 15:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion of a Good Article reassessment. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:GAR. No further edits should be made to this page.

(non-admin closure) No attempt was made to get the article back to GA quality in the substantial time this page was open, despite multiple Wikiprojects having been notified, and there were barely any responses at all. Unfortunately, there's really no option but to delist. Hopefully one day, it will get back to GA standards. Closing as nom. DarkKnight2149 05:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Return of the Jedi/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I actually have been meaning to nominate this since 2016. Quite frankly, this article doesn't come close to meeting GA quality anymore. Between the high traffic editing and the addition of excessive amounts of disruptive editing, poor grammar, uncited material, original research, ETC, all of which has earned the article pending changes protection (I would argue that it was worthy of indefinite semi-protection). One section has been templated since 2017, others are lacking in citations, and I am scratching my head as to why someone didn't nominate this for reassessment a lot sooner. DarkKnight2149 18:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

The main reason it's pending protected is because a roaming IP from Costa Rica keeps performing the same edits they have for 3 years. Perhaps it's time for a rangeblock on them. Canterbury Tail talk 23:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Wait, that's what finally did the article in? That's even more surprising, given the history, persistent disruption, WP:OR, and the other stuff I mentioned above. Then again, it probably shouldn't be; it took me this long just to nominate it for reassessment. Over the years, the page has proven unstable, and has had problems in terms of unsourced material, poor writing, inexplicable additions and massive unexplained rewrites from IP editors, ETC. It definitely doesn't meet GA criteria anymore, which is unfortunate. DarkKnight2149 07:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: About a week has passed and the article is still having the usual problems with IP editors, no one has tried to get the article back to GA standard (which it hasn't been for a really long time), and so far the only response has been someone pointing out that there is also a persistent WP:SOCK issue that might require a rangeblock. At this point, is there any reason it shouldn't be demoted? DarkKnight2149 19:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Oddly enough, this page also isn't showing up at WP:GAR, which may explain the lack of responses here. I'm thinking about just doing a full, formal re-review using the GA criteria. DarkKnight2149 05:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: Darkknight2149, while community reassessments show up at GAR, since the community is expected to comment, individual reassessments like this one do not. It is hoped that the notifications made to the involved WikiProjects and significant contributors to the article (including the original GA nominator) at the time the reassessment was opened will get some response, but sometimes it doesn't. A formal re-review will give potential editors things to work on, but you may want to do it in stages so that you don't spend a large amount of time on a full review should no one show up to address the issues you initially raise. Or you could just close this as unsuccessful; the issues you mention are sufficient to show it is not currently at GA quality per the criteria. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: First, I'll send a notification to the Wikiprojects WP:STARWARS and WP:FILM, and then wait another week, just to give everyone some extra time. I'm trying to avoid closing the page as "Demoted" prematurely. DarkKnight2149 19:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
It's always the goal of GAR to reassess so that the article has the chance of being restored to Good Article quality, meeting all the criteria; having to delist is sometimes necessary and always unfortunate. Thanks for waiting another week to see if work can progress on the article, Darkknight2149, and it sounds like you'd be willing to work with any editors over a longer period so long as they're making good progress on the issues, which is great. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: I notified the Wikiprojects and waited an additional month. No responses or attempts to revise the page :( DarkKnight2149 05:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Just recent news.

I just heard that the Return of the Jedi just preserved in the Library of Congress, along with the other films today.

https://deadline.com/2021/12/national-film-registry-2021-list-star-wars-return-of-the-jedi-fellowship-of-the-ring-sounder-nightmare-on-elm-street-wall-e-1234890666/

--Stephenfisher2001 (talk) 13:07, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Return_of_the_Jedi/Archive_3&oldid=1159841822"