Talk:Star Wars

Article Checklist for "Star Wars"

Workgroup category or categories	Visual Arts Workgroup, Media Workgroup [Editors asked to check categories]
Article status	Stub: no more than a few sentences
Underlinked article?	Yes
Basic cleanup done?	Yes
Checklist last edited by	Eric Winesett 01:30, 3 June 2007 (CDT); David Martin 19:56, 14 May 2007 (CDT)

To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist.

---

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)