Jump to content

Talk:Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articleStar Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 15, 2006.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 30, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
May 10, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
May 18, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
October 15, 2006Featured topic candidatePromoted
January 14, 2008Featured topic removal candidateDemoted
April 17, 2008Featured topic candidatePromoted
June 24, 2008Featured article reviewDemoted
August 8, 2008Good article nomineeListed
February 16, 2020Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Former featured article
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 00:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 19:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot of Anakin in "Cast" section

[edit]

I don't see how using a screenshot of just Anakin helps increase readers' understanding of the film. I think it's more suitable at Darth Vader. George Ho (talk) 11:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't essential but he is the main character and I don't think removing it would make the article better either. -- 109.79.180.72 (talk) 19:55, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

[edit]
This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article is woefully under sourced, and would likely be a quick fail if nominated for WP:GAN. Some of it is easily fixable because some references are just not being reused (see this edit). However, it needs a lot more work due to years of neglect. New information has come to light at the very least. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:24, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the avoidance of doubt, the only issue I see for this article in concerns with the good article criteria are points 2 and 3. Regards, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:26, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's short in sourcing, not sure this assessment is needed. Govvy (talk) 20:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Govvy: It's not short on sources, but it doesn't support all its facts with citations. I tried being conservative with my previous tagging, but to explain the scope of the problem, I added more tags. There are now 24 instances of citation needed tags, 3 better source needed tags, and one inline original research tag. This needs to be addressed if the article is to retain its good article status, please. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 21:46, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MJL: You asking for citations in a lot of places and really some of the spots you pointed out don't need a citation. You don't need a citation to point out where an obvious is, like where someone has their cameo in the film. This is over-analysation. Also for the sentence "This album was chosen as one of Amazon.com's Top 100 Editors' Picks of 2005 (#83)". (You added needs a better source!) It's a primary statement with a primary source, you can't get much better than that! I think you are showing stupidity there. I suggest you review what you have done, I feel as if you're going to waste a lot of peoples time here. Govvy (talk) 11:55, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Govvy: Amazon.com is listed under WP:BADCHARTS. If it is not acceptable for albums, then it should not be acceptable for movies unless reported on by a reliable secondary source per WP:UNDUE. There is nothing stupid about that. To your first point, per our BLP policy, all potentially contentious information about living person's should be cited with a referenced footnote. The fact the article is claiming Lucas had his own family cameo in the movie is potentially contentious and should contain an inline citation.
You're welcome to disagree with my interpretation of policy, but I am backed by policy nonetheless. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:49, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the Amazon source. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 09:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Lord Sjones23: Awesome! If you or someone else correct the citation issues, then this would be all set. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no one came to save this one after like a month and a half of waiting. Therefore, I felt obligated to delist it at this point. Hopefully, this can get fixed up and renominated though. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:52, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summary

[edit]

While I agree with most of the recent changes to the plot, there are some concerns I want to discuss here. For example, the important part in Mace Windu's death is that he gets thrown out of the window, the means (the Force lightning), not so much, so we might need to cut it down. Also, I think the wording regarding the end of the duel should be written as: "Wan engages Vader in a lightsaber duel that ends with Obi-Wan severing Vader's limbs and leaving him to be burned alive on the banks of a lava river."

Also, Samuel L. Jackson and George Lucas confirmed that Windu might be still alive, so I think the “casting him out the window to his death” should be revised. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:35, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's unclear that Windu died in the scene. But saying that he got thrown out the window does not communicate what happens in the scene. That only makes sense if it's been established that Palpatine's office is on a skyscraper. This leads me to think that the important element is not the window, but the fact that Windu is 'neutralized'. UpdateNerd (talk) 18:05, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summary should refer to Palpatine as 'Sheev', on the grounds of consistency.

[edit]

Virtually every character is dealt with on a first-name basis (e.g. Anakin, Padmé, Obi-Wan, etc.). In order to be consistent, therefore, I propose that the majority of the instances of the name 'Palpatine' should be replaced with 'Sheev.'

180.150.39.79 (talk) 11:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The character's only ever referred to as Palpatine or Darth Sidious in the film, and the first name Sheev wasn't given until years after the film was released – it's an unnecessary detail that isn't relevant to the film. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 11:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sheev's name

[edit]

I appreciate that my above suggestion to change all or most references to 'Palpatne' to 'Sheev' has, rightly or wrongly, very little prospect of getting up. However, is it too much to ask to just include his canonical first name in the Cast section? Other Wikipedia articles, such as the one on the character himself, use the name. Should Wikipedia not strive to be internally consistent?

I made a modest edit – adding just a single word – to include this canonical information, and it was promptly undone, not with any explanation, but merely an obnoxious "Uh, no."

I can't help but think that this is based on little more than a dislike of the name Sheev. And it's okay not to like the name. But his name it is, and no amount of "Uh, no." can change that.

Some, I am sure, will be tempted to argue relevance, given that he was never addressed by this name in the film, and that the name itself was only revealed a number of years later. But this line of reasoning is problematic on at least two fronts: firstly, adding newly released information that is of interest to the subject at hand, even when it emerges some time after the fact, is not uncommon (do you really think articles about the first season of The Mandalorian will refer to "Baby Yoda" once we learn his/her actual name?); secondly, characters such as Tion, who is not addressed by any name during the film, are mentioned by name in the article. If some local governor that Obi-Wan chats to for a couple of minutes gets to have a name, then surely the guy in the film who becomes the Emperor of the entire galaxy ought to have one, too?


180.150.39.79 (talk) 12:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, Tion is apparently named in the end credits, even if never directly named in a scene. And, as far as internal consistency, notice the article for the character is at Palpatine, rather than "Sheev Palpatine". There isn't quite a point to include the name other than "well, it's his first name as revealed in another piece of media that isn't this one". It isn't included for the same reason Star Wars (film) doesn't include that Darth Vader's name is really Anakin Skywalker, that Princess Leia's surname is Organa, and that her father is named Bail—the reason stated above: it isn't included until a later piece of media and so is not relevant to this film. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 04:32, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additions to Other media section

[edit]

@Stephen C Taylor: the Other media is not a section to list every reference, allusion, and plot point of this film that appears in other media in the franchise. It's a summary of other directly related, tie-in, or spun-off media from this film. It's also not a section devoted to in-depth recounts of how other media, especially those with their own articles, deal with or expand upon plot points in this film. Adding, usually unreferenced or cited only by primary sources, lists of allusions and references and plot points to the section is WP:FANCRUFT, overdetailed, off-topic of this film specifically, and catering to fannishness. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christensen performance criticized

[edit]

4TheWynne Hello friend. I see you recently reverted my sentence about Hayden Christensen's performance being criticized by critics. This info is not that hard to find. I've heard it colloquially in real life too. Here are some sources that are green on WP:RSP talking about it:

  • The Guardian - "Unfortunately, there is also a reason why Christensen’s career has nosedived since 2005. He was the weak link that sank the whole trilogy."
  • Vulture - "There are certain criticisms of Star Wars:Episodes I, II, and III that have been repeated so often, they’re basically accepted as part of Star Wars mythology. Things like: The prequels were CGI’d to death. Midi-Chlorians are an abomination. Jar Jar Binks is the absolute worst. Also: Hayden Christensen is a bad actor, based on his performances in Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith."
  • Vanity Fair - "And though many performances (from great actors!) in those Star Wars prequels were on the wooden side of the spectrum, the bulk of the blame landed on young Christensen."

With all of these reliable sources talking about it, I'm surprised that you reverted me. I even gave this the tiniest weight possible... a sentence buried in the reception section. I think that is quite a reasonable place for it. Thoughts? –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Novem Linguae, as I said in my edit summary, you don't say something like "Some critics have also criticized..." and only support it with one source – would be better to have at least three. Of the sources you've listed here, the first one is fine, but the other two refer to the criticisms of the fandom rather than film critics. Reviews of the film (or reflective pieces like the Guardian article) criticising Christensen's performance would be better sources, and if they're "not that hard to find", I'm sure you'll have no trouble. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 00:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Shrug. Anyway, I found a second film critic source. At this point I'd say that both critics and fans didn't like his performance. I'll make the appropriate edits.
  • Rolling Stone - "the film follows Anakin Skywalker (Hayden Christensen — to merely call him wooden is an affront to puppets everywhere)"
–Novem Linguae (talk) 00:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganize Critical response section

[edit]

I suggest splitting the Critical response section, subdividing into more sections. The section contains more than purely responses from professional film critics, and I think reorganisation could be beneficial. For example the section also contains Academic response from Camille Paglia, as an art critic. It also contains a note claiming that the film has a "cult following" that might be considered "Audience response" or "Fan response" or otherwise presented as Legacy or Cultural influence (and I do think claims of cult following need to be better sourced). It also briefly contains a response from the filmmaker, "Directors response" but that could perhaps be presented different as it is was a response to conservative reactions, rather than the reaction of George Lucas to how he felt the film turned out or his reaction to the public response to the film (I'd be very surprised if his opinions on the matter are not on record).

There are various ways it could be done but I think some reorganisation, or even trimming, would help make room for the section to be improved. I think there is potential for the section to be updated and refreshed, to perhaps make room for more reactions and analysis from contemporary film critics, or legacy reactions from critics 10 or 15 years after the release, or possibly even reactions from some of the principal cast, or others involved in making the film besides George Lucas. But again I think splitting and subdivinding in some way would be a good first step towards making room to add more actual "Critical response". -- 109.78.205.220 (talk) 23:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone?
While waiting for second opinions I started by making the most minimal change. I moved the comments from academic and artic critic Camille Paglia down, so that all the paragraphs from regular old film critics are grouped together.[1]
I'd still welcome opinions, I'm not set on any one way to do it, but the result I'd like to see is a Critical response section with more analysis of different aspects of the film making process. -- 109.76.141.49 (talk) 01:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, the critical response section seems a little sparse for this kind of a film. I've separated out a "Other responses" section for a start. Throast (talk | contribs) 08:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The film is now considered a cult classic."

[edit]

Is it, though? This film, like all the other Star Wars films, made something like $100 bajillion at the box office, and is part of a mega-franchise of films and other assorted media. I have a hard time considering anything this massive a "cult" film. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:44, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see that some sites, like Comic Book Resources and "insidethemagic.net", use that phrase. I question that too as it doesn't seem to fit the definition. It was a Hollywood blockbuster that was maligned at the time, but has seen its reputation improve over time. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bongwarrior, Muboshgu, I agree, CBR uses the term "cult classic" very liberally. I also don't see how the film being quoted on TikTok amounts to there being a "cult following". I think the paragraph in the Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith#Other responses section should be removed as well. Throast (talk | contribs) 08:01, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"DO NOT WANT" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect DO NOT WANT has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 8 § DO NOT WANT until a consensus is reached. Di (they-them) (talk) 05:00, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Star Wars Line" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Star Wars Line has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 27 § Star Wars Line until a consensus is reached. TNstingray (talk) 02:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Flac Gise" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Flac Gise has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 27 § Flac Gise until a consensus is reached. TNstingray (talk) 02:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"So this is how liberty dies - with thunderous applause" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect So this is how liberty dies - with thunderous applause has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 27 § So this is how liberty dies - with thunderous applause until a consensus is reached. TNstingray (talk) 02:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Rute Gunnay" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Rute Gunnay has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 25 § Rute Gunnay until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:32, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article issues and classification

[edit]
This article appears to be well sourced but it is in the category "Articles lacking reliable references from December 2019". The B-class criteria (#1) states: The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. -- Otr500 (talk)
[edit]
There are currently eight links in the External links section that is excessive. The same links are or were used in Return of the Jedi and Star Wars (film). The intentions might be well meaning but Wikipedia ends up being the main advertisers for the promotion of these these sites. This is especially true when a site is added that does not contain material considered "further research" and the same information can be found elsewhere in reliable sources.
None is needed for article promotion. It appears, when there is such a section, that three maybe four have shown to be acceptable without consensus.
  • ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
  • LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
  • ELMIN: Minimize the number of links.
Other:
  • External links This page in a nutshell: External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article. With rare exceptions, external links should not be used in the body of an article.
  • Second paragraph, acceptable external links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy.
    • Please note:
  • WP:ELBURDEN: Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them.
I do not see that TCM Movie Database or AllMovie adding anything "extra" according to External links guidelines. -- Otr500 (talk) 14:19, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Star_Wars:_Episode_III_–_Revenge_of_the_Sith&oldid=1262871121"