Talk:Star Wars

Before We Jump on the bandwagon

Before we jump on the "Wikipedia bandwagon" and call the attention of all the Star Wars fans, can we get some guidance on what's notable on Citizendium and what's not? I think a detailed article on Star Wars ad its impact on society is all that's necessary, with a prominent link to the "Wookiepedia" which would answer any further questions readers might have. Wikipedia's huge section on Star Wars and Star Trek is really overboard, as there is a "Star Wars" wiki (Wookiepedia) and there is a Star Trek wiki (Memory Alpha) that would cover the nitty-gritty stuff about both subjects. Eric M Gearhart

Agreed -- but perhaps we could do something better here. There are fans of Lucas's films, and there are scholars of film studies and cultural studies who could write a thoughtful, historically contextualized entry about these films which would be far more in-depth in its own way, and would not be redundant with fan-written wikis. Russell Potter 07:30, 18 April 2007 (CDT)

Exactly. A high-level view of the Trilogy, from film buffs that discussed e.g. how it influenced a culture and a generation, etc. would be much more encyclopedic than a "shrine to Star Wars/Star Trek." Unfortunately I'm a SciFi geek, not a film major hehe.
The more in-depth "Obi Wan's Light saber is blue" / "In 'The Search for Spock' Spock dies and then comes back to life" details can be left to movie-specific wikis in my opinion Eric M Gearhart

I think films/movies go into visual arts, but they have little to no guidance on their workgroup page. Matt Mahlmann 17:32, 18 April 2007 (CDT)

Well, that's what I thought, too, but film seems to be in "media". There would appear to be some crossover here, but where *should* "the movies" be? Aleta Curry 21:33, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

Good question. Right now there is definitely some confusion about this issue. My opinion is that general, mass-market film topics should not be part of visual arts. I am going to post a new topic on the forums in the "Editorial workgroups and granularity" section so we can get more people in on the discussion. --Eric Winesett 00:32, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

Ugh...must you? (sigh) This is the surest way for me to lost track of discussions/questions I need answered--as they disappear into the vortex of forum threads. Be sure to come back here and let the mere mortals know what's been decided, won't you?) Aleta Curry 19:15, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

Gee, Aleta, I didn't mean to offend. :-) There simply is no definitive answer right now, and I don't think the Star Wars talk page is the place to make a large editorial decision. I'm happy to say MEDIA, but I have no authority to hand down that commandment. --Eric Winesett 22:05, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

Hee, hee--it's just me with my non-technocrat-country-living-dial-up self having a pity party. What you say makes a great deal of sense. Aleta Curry 22:43, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

This is going to be one of those issue that defy purvey of one workgroup to be able to approve, of which globalization is my favorite example. I suggest a way is to jointly place article under purvey of more than one workgroup. Approving requires sign off by them all. Stephen Ewen 04:33, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

That's going to be interesting. If you see that as "working", I'm all for giving it a shot. I think I'd rather see a decision made one way or t'other, but hey, let's give it a go. If it doesn't work out, we can always change it, no? Aleta Curry 19:15, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

Develop or delete?

According to the article deletion policy, an article of 50 words or less that has been on Citizendium for more than two hours should be deleted. This article is a whopping 88 words and hasn't been significantly altered in over six weeks. It's kind of an embarrassment, so if no one is planning to actively work on it, maybe it should be deleted? --Eric Winesett 01:28, 3 June 2007 (CDT)

Eric, you're a madman (and I mean that in the nicest possible way ;)

You cannot possibly delete Star Wars, I don't care if it sits here for a year before someone comes along with the time and interest to develop an article. It is of too much significance. All right--(sigh)--I'll make some time to work on it--but will be out tomorrow so probably on Friday if I don't get some time before. Can you hold off the itchy mouse trigger finger for 48 hours?

I note the deletion policy, and wonder if it needs amending. Is it better to have 50 words about Steven Spielberg, Mahatma Ghandi, Golda Meir, the Victorian Era, Greece, grease, Grease (musical), crab, David Livingston etc etc sit unattended to for six months, or nothing at all? [musing](and won't it be fun when all those links turn blue??)

Aleta Curry 00:02, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

Sorry, Aleta, but this article is Alderaan and I am the Death Star! Bwahahaha!!

Seriously, though, I think it actually is part of the CZ thinking that we would rather have nothing than very little. At least the deletion policy suggests that. But have no fear; I am not a constable and therefore have no trigger to pull. At least I got one person's attention! --Eric Winesett 00:58, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

So which of you is going to work on this? I would hate to have to use my light sabor to unfirl the Dark Force :-) Matt Innis (Talk) 09:54, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

I am! I am! Me! Me! I got distracted by some other articles--I thought the changes needed were pressing. Anyone else can give it a go, too, naturally. But I will not allow you guys to give in to the power of the Dark Side....

Aleta Curry 03:06, 17 June 2007 (CDT)

Article title

Umm, should this be at Star Wars (science fiction)? I ask because of Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative, also popularly known as 'Star Wars'. J. Noel Chiappa 22:18, 19 May 2008 (CDT)

And lest you think I'm being alarmist, we already have an incorrect link to this article, from Reagan Doctrine. So I think disambiguation is definitely in order, alas. J. Noel Chiappa 22:22, 19 May 2008 (CDT)

Well... Reagan's "Star Wars" actually derives its name from the movies, so is it more appropriate to have a "This is about the Lucsfilm movies. For the Reagon proposed missile defense initiative see Strategic Defense Initiative," right? See Wikipedia's Star Wars for a very thorough example -Eric M Gearhart 22:58, 19 May 2008 (CDT)

Hey, I didn't say that 'Star Wars the movies' shouldn't own the 'base name' "Star Wars" - all I am saying is that because we've already got incorrect links to the base name "Star Wars", we should disambiguate that base name. (See CZ:Proposals/Disambiguation mechanics if the 'base name' stuff is unfamiliar.) J. Noel Chiappa 23:32, 19 May 2008 (CDT)

You see you see you see??? I'm going to start crying! Aleta Curry 18:18, 20 May 2008 (CDT)

"Aw, you can't fool me: there ain't no Sanity Claus...." Hayford Peirce 18:37, 20 May 2008 (CDT)

Why, Ms. Curry, thank you so much for volunteering to look at every entry on this here list once a week to make sure no new erroneous links to Star Wars have been made since the last time you checked! (And for our next act, we will hold you down and torture you with mixed nested lists and blank template arguments!) J. Noel Chiappa 18:53, 20 May 2008 (CDT)

Could be worse--remember that contraption on the Death Star? Aleta Curry 21:29, 23 May 2008 (CDT)

Aleta don't take things too seriously! Over time the wiki will work itslef out! There's no use crying over spilled wiki :-) -Eric M Gearhart 21:10, 20 May 2008 (CDT)

No, it's spilled Mos Eisely Cantina cocktails that would be a real problem! Aleta Curry 21:29, 23 May 2008 (CDT)