This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Library of Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Library of Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Library of CongressWikipedia:WikiProject Library of CongressTemplate:WikiProject Library of CongressLibrary of Congress
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Star Wars, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Star Wars saga on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Star WarsWikipedia:WikiProject Star WarsTemplate:WikiProject Star WarsStar Wars
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disney, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Walt Disney Company and its affiliated companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DisneyWikipedia:WikiProject DisneyTemplate:WikiProject DisneyDisney
This article is within the scope of WikiProject 20th Century Studios, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 20th Century Studios and its affiliated companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.20th Century StudiosWikipedia:WikiProject 20th Century StudiosTemplate:WikiProject 20th Century Studios20th Century Studios
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers
This article was copy edited by Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on November 3, 2021.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors
Would it be beneficial to standardize the article titles for Skywalker Saga films? Lucasfilm has changed its titling policy several times over the course of this franchise, from just the subtitle when the original trilogy was being released to "Star Wars: Episode ? - Subtitle" when the prequels were coming out, to "Star Wars: Subtitle" when the sequels were coming out, and now they're displayed as "Star Wars: Subtitle (Episode ?)" on Disney+. That's all well and good, but Lucasfilm has always retroactively used whatever their current titling policy is to refer to the previous films, so when they made the prequels they were referring to the original trilogy with "Star Wars: Episode ? - Subtitle" and when they made the sequels they used "Star Wars: Subtitle" for both the previous trilogies, and so on. The film articles are frozen to whatever the titling policy was at the time, so they're different for all three trilogies, but Lucasfilm never treats them this way. They're always referred to using the same titling policy. Perhaps more pertinently, sources also almost never treat the films this way. Whenever they're referred to as a set, which is frequently, they always have the same name styles, because that is what obviously makes more sense. I know that this is against normal film guidelines but in this case I think it would be better to follow sources than to follow the normal film guidelines. My personal preference would be to just use the subtitle, like this article does, so it would be for example The Phantom Menace or The Force Awakens. Obviously, Star Wars (film) would be an exception to this because it released without a subtitle and is frequently referred to as just Star Wars rather than as A New Hope. Ladtrack (talk) 17:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this should be anywhere else, please let me know and I'll move it. I didn't really know where to put this so I left it here. Ladtrack (talk) 17:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From my understanding, based on previous RfCs I've read, WP titles these articles by the original film titles, not by retroactive retitles. – zmbro(talk) (cont)23:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I've noticed that, on this page, in-line citations are "bundled" into a footnote when four or more of them appear consecutively. This is great, because it creates a cleaner aesthetic and improves readability. Has any thought been given to bundling blocks of three? Wafflewombat (talk) 16:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've found three is not that much of an issue aesthetically. It usually depends on the editor. Some bundle them up but others don't. It's much more valid to bundle them when there are four or more. – zmbro(talk) (cont)16:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly if there are more than 3 references for one thing, then it's over referenced and the references should be reduced to the most relevant and significant. There is such as thing as too many references. Canterbury Tailtalk16:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This page cites Elaine Baker as the one who appeared in the film but all other websites say it was Marjorie Eaton. Also, the reliability of the cited book has been contested by Lucasfilm themselves. Spectritus (talk) 10:13, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The second doesn't say where it gets the info from but it's CBR and it's a clickbait listicle so it's just regurgitating information it found elsewhere,
Same for Screen Rant, we recently higlighted screen rant as a low quality clickbait news source
Collider is also low quality (the latter 3 are all owned by Valnet) but that source actually backs up what is in the article, that people thought it was Eaton but, per Rinzler's book, it was Baker. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:54, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Darkwarriorblake Collider and Screenrant are widely accepted on Wikipedia and are present on many pages. And what the paragraph on Marjorie Eaton's page says about this should be added to this page. Spectritus (talk) 11:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there's a paragraph on Marjorie Eaton's Wikipedia page that sums this up well.
"In 1979, aged 78, Eaton filmed a scene for the second Star Wars film, The Empire Strikes Back, in which she portrayed the role of Emperor Palpatine, under heavy makeup. She was one of two actresses that shot the scene with the makeup, the other being Elaine Baker (wife of makeup artist Rick Baker). The final character had superimposed chimpanzee eyes and was voiced by Clive Revill. Neither woman received on-screen credit, and sources disagree about which actress appears in the final film.[7][8][9] When the film was released on DVD in 2004, the scene was re-shot with Ian McDiarmid, who played Emperor Palpatine in all of the other films in which the character appears." Spectritus (talk) 10:54, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So we are citing Wikipedia now? Her article cites the Rinzler book, then it cites a non-reliable source in a podcast which refers to Hidalgo's seemingly now-deleted Tweet, and it cites Hidalgo's seemingly now-deleted Tweet directly. It's like a snake eating it's own tail, Hidalgo tweeted, and other sites just ran with it, presumably because they didn't want to pay £45 for Rinzler's book to get actual information. Hidalgo's tweet literally said something along the lines of "Ok, so here's what I've got..." like he'd just asked someone standing next to him at the urinal. There is no genuine, verifiable, reliable and solid source that backs up that Eaton appeared in the film, but there is a solid, reliable source that says she filmed the scene and it didn't work out. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:15, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Darkwarriorblake Why do you not to say on this page that it remains uncertain which of the two actress appeared in the films. Also, the book can feature a mistake. Everyone makes mistakes. And once again, that book is the only thing on the entire internet that says it was Elaine Baker. And also once again, Screenrant and Collider are widely accepted on Wikipedia and are present on many pages. I recommend that we just say it's uncertain which of the two actresses appeared in the film. Spectritus (talk) 11:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the only thing that says that though, the COllider source you linked to says it as well. There's no debate or inconsistency about it, the Rinzler book had access to actual paperwork, cast, and crew from the film, and everything else is based on a Tweet. So no, we're not including Marjorie Eaton anymore than she is already included, and I'm not interested in continuing a discussion with someone who removed a book cited throughout the entire article because it conflicted with what you wanted the article to say. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:34, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Darkwarriorblake I say we completely remove the sentence about who played Palpatine until consensus is met. Neither of us can decide by ourselves. We need consensus. This seems to be a similar issue to Maggie Smith's years active which was removed until further notice as no consensus was reached. Spectritus (talk) 11:41, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We actually don't need to mention who physically played Palpatine on the page since neither of these actresses were credited and uncredited cast members are not usually mentioned on Wikipedia. Spectritus (talk) 11:45, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Darkwarriorblake Marjorie Eaton is also sourced. As said on her page sources disagree. That's why we should either mention them both or just say that it is uncertain which one appeared in the film. Spectritus (talk) 11:54, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is Wikipedia, we deal with reliable sources, not necessarily truth. A deleted tweet on a maybe is not a reliable source (the fact that it's been deleted also calls it into question as something they don't stand behind), and all the other sources can be traced to that now deleted tweet. However the Rinzler book is a reliable source, it was published with the approval and direct assistance of dozens of people at Lucasfilm delving directly into all their archives. Yes Hidalgo is an official Star Wars lore advisor, but that's a far cry from being an expert on the actual making and filming of the movies. At the end of the day he's a fan who got to work on a website and continue working there. That's not the same as a respected author with access and support of all the official material. Canterbury Tailtalk13:29, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
