Jump to content

Talk:Clone Wars

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleClone Wars was one of the Media and drama good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 4, 2006Good article nomineeListed
August 17, 2009Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Requested move 20 April 2015

[edit]
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: no consensus. However, it may be worth another RM with WP:DABCONCEPT as the rationale for the move. Number 57 12:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Clone Wars (Star Wars) → Clone Wars – Easy WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, surely? Outside of a couple of uses in comics, all uses of this term are related to the Star Wars plotline. --Relisted. George Ho away from home (talk) 20:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC) --BDD (talk) 15:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes clear primary topic but, all the same, I don't personally see the problem of referencing Star Wars. My personal choice would be, if anything, to leave the title content but stylise it so it appears at the top of the page as follows:
Clone Wars (Star Wars)
GregKaye 18:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's not possible, as far as I know. DISPLAYTITLE can change the way a title displays, but "only limited modifications can be made". For example, I'll use it here in the meantime so Star Wars is italicized. --BDD (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I rather think the convoluted variations of "Clone Wars" within the Star Wars franchise shows no particular primary topic. The general topic will more likely want to refer to a particular property rather than the fictional event, there being two TV series and a feature film. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nominator's sound and accurate analysis, easily the primary topic. It is the parent article of almost all the other articles listed at the disambiguation page (only exception X-Men 2: Clone Wars which is a partial title match, and clearly secondary in terms of notability). --Cavarrone 10:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom; this is effectively a WP:DABCONCEPT page already. The "convoluted variations of "Clone Wars" within the Star Wars franchise" are still variations of a specific thing within the Star Wars franchise. bd2412 T 00:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While it may be what other topics in the Star Wars universe is named, it is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Three articles receive more views anywhere from two to five times more than this article. Even the 2008 TV series that has significantly more views than any other article, would still not be the primary topic because all of the other article's views add up to about its views. This is clearly a case where there is not primary topic and the disambiguation article should stay where it is at the base name. Aspects (talk) 03:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Clone Wars (Star Wars). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the refs today. Some of the archived URLs aren't working. The two remaining deadlinks are flagged as such in the ref tags. --EEMIV (talk) 01:17, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pulled one of those two deadlinks out. At least, I think so. There remains just the one. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 01:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Saw that; thank you! --EEMIV (talk) 01:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite

[edit]

Folks. This article is wretchedly in-universe and missing essential components for an appropriate article at Wikipedia. I'm working on a rewrite draft at User:EEMIV/Clone_Wars_(Star_Wars). Your edits and/or input here or on that draft talk page are welcome, esp. links to third-party sources. --EEMIV (talk) 00:33, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, I've been working on a rewrite myself for a few months (distracted by end of semester things), but I got fed up just now and kind of just dumped whatever I had onto the article. Unfortunately totally unreferenced, because I haven't put that work into it yet, but I condensed the entire in-universe plot stuff (still a little long because I planned to revisit it), added what I had started on a listing of the media it appears in (though I'm unsure that that is necessary, especially where it'll get LENGTHY with Legends), and I'm in the process of putting in what I still had lying in my own userspace. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 00:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. I'm gonna pause, then, and maybe this weekend jump into what you've shifted over. I have only the barest of third-party sources, and it looks like your rewrite is much broader. Still, the Chris Taylor book has some nice stuff. Anyway. I agree that the plot stuff remains pretty long, but I think I have a talent for truncating plot and I'm happy to work at it. Tuning out for the evening, but again I'll try to work on it this weekend. --EEMIV (talk) 01:16, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, third party sources seems a little hard to find, but I'm generally somewhat sure there'd be enough to make the article something more than plot summary. And, really, I would be so glad to have someone look over it. I tend to get bogged down in detail, and I really hope I remembered it right because the whole Sifo-Dyas thing in TCW was so convoluted. I was thinking maybe reviews of TCW would be useful for an analysis section, but it's a daunting task to think about looking for that. I don't know, maybe I'll so searching through articles for major plot points and see if that's useful.
@Evancahill:, hello! I'm glad you're interested in the helping out with the article. So, the reason I reverted your undo of my edits is that the article as it was before it a massive in-universe plot summary, essentially. The article was unnecessarily detailed, a play-by-play, and it was dedicated more to summary of fictional events (see WP:NOTPLOT) than the real-world grounding. Admittedly, the article after the revisions I made aren't much better, and it still contained a lot more summary than I'd like, but it's more balanced. The former minor skirmishes section is inherently unnecessary by the name alone, and dividing the article based around fictional battles is structuring the article as if it were a real-world series of conflicts, which isn't appropriate. The article would be best served if the plot summary were kept as concise as possible, meaning that extensive detailing of battles be kept to a minimum or not detailed at all. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 02:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So there is a policy against an in-universe article? OK, then I'll leave the page as it is. Evancahill (talk) 03:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Evancahill:, you might find WP:WAF, Wikipedia's guidelines for writing about elements of fiction, useful.
Parasol -- I've starting coming through for copyedits. One thing that stands out (that I haven't gotten to yet) is the framing language about "canon". Canon is more a consideration for an in-universe perspective; so long as our information is verifiable, it doesn't need that sort of hedging qualification. As the Star Trek wikiproject points out in its MOS, canon status does tend to influence third-party commentary, which in turn tends to influence our coverage here. I hope that makes sense. --EEMIV (talk) 17:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll admit that I tend to make distinctions about whether or not something is drawing on canon in an attempt to establish a clear boundary for the section, and make clear what it includes (and doesn't). (Also because I'm low-key trying to ward off attempts to sort of mix the pair together without any sort of indication that they're not in the same continuity.) But, at any rate, it doesn't really change much for this article, does it? (Unlike, for example, if one were to rewrite Mandalorians I guess.) Mm. It does make sense. I wonder if it'd be worthwhile to bring up at the WikiProject? Or, if it's even been brought up. It would seem like a nice thing to discuss and established somewhere there. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 18:34, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it'd be worth bringing up. I've often thought of doing it, and then I start thinking about updating the MOS as a whole, and then I get distracted by something. It'll probably happen again in about five seconds. --EEMIV (talk) 19:04, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Outdenting a bit ... TenTonP, I took a big machette to the rewrite (NB the section below re. tables, although that's only a smidge). I'm interested in your input. Batteries about to die and I'm hungry, so I'm done editing for a while. --EEMIV (talk) 19:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tables

[edit]

I don't think the two tables of films, books, etc. are helpful. The first expands on some plot detail, but it gets into the weeds as it progresses. The prequel summaries in the lede and preceding paragraph are a sufficient summary of the conflict, and bluelinks handy to the notable works for folks interested in learning more. Aesthetically, the table is also a hindrance to easy reading; nitpickily, the column with BBY dates is too inside baseball to be appropriate for a general audience. The second table I worry invites expansion into an exhaustive list of Clone Wars references and appearances, and that becomes indiscriminate. It likewise also interferes with reading. And between the two of them, as I mentioned in the section above, schisms between "canon"ness aren't a primary concern for Wikipedia; really, these two tables would most appropriately be a single item if we were to retain them.

All that said: if there is a need for such a large-ish table, there's a solution at e.g. Spacecraft in Star Trek about halfway down we could adapt. --EEMIV (talk) 17:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I wasn't sure with the BBY dates, considering, and I'm not attached to them whatsoever. They're hell to verify anyway because, in my experience, a lot of it is deduction. And, this morning actually, I was thinking about how the summaries are kind of unnecessary, really, so that would cut the table down. As for the canon/Legends split, I was emulating List of Star Wars planets and moons and just kind of went to split them because that's how the works are typically categorized in my experience (in addition to why I do it in the previous section). I did note in an edit summary somewhere that I wasn't sure if the tables were wise. I did think it worth having a list of works set during the Clone Wars, perhaps at this point explicitly about the conflict rather than simply set during it, (definitely excluding anything that simply mentions it as, like, an event in the past). Meh, I'm not making much sense here. The tables are extremely unwieldy, but I was hesitant to nix them and didn't know how to fix them to be workable. (and I just sort of dumped everything on the page.) ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 18:34, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Summary removal

[edit]

I agree with Sjones23 (talk · contribs)'s removal of this content at the beginning of the Depiction section, and I don't think it had anything to do with an in-universe tone. Some of the plot points can be integrated into the sub-sections, but more broadly it delves too much into individual plot threads/details for a general overview of the subject. --EEMIV (talk) 00:35, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the lengthier, similarly-themed "narrative summary". It is excessive in-universe plot summary that far exceeds the scope for a general-audience understanding of the subject; the "summary" contents are more apt for in-universe projects like Wookieepedia. --EEMIV (talk) 03:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shifting some paragraphs and removing one-ish

[edit]

I've moved the paragraph and blockquote from Lucas up to the development section, since it's from the creator's POV rather than third-party analysis. Likewise, some of the "concept and development" content that is sourced to third-party commentary/speculation is more appropriate in the analysis/allusions section, and I've moved it there.

I removed a paragraph about Palpatine using a false flag. It repeats plot summary from the depiction section, and its citation solely to dialogue in the primary source is inapt for an analysis/allusions section. --EEMIV (talk) 20:13, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My copyediting became a bit more involved than the shifts above. There are a few more morsels regarding concept, development, and response, pls additional tightening of language around the allusions. I removed the tremendous run-on about the American Civil War because it was cited to just one source, and that source didn't make nearly as big a deal about similar word use as the article text suggests. I shifted the assertion earlier in the section and cut it do a much more manageable sentence. That same source was also inaccurately cited to some other claims about jerky documentary-style filming for the Battle of Geonosis, so I removed that claim. I also scoured the old sources, with access dates ~8-10 years ago. We went from five dead links to just two, so that's good. I think I'm fairly well done with the major edits. --EEMIV (talk) 01:15, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Clone Wars (Star Wars). 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive detail

[edit]

User:Sjones23 earlier today removed ~1.5K additional text about details in the Clone Wars, and I just trimmed or removed an attempt to restore it. I didn't excise quite as much as Sjones23, but I agree with the sentiment that the plot description in this article is pretty much at capacity. Additional plot details are more appropriate at e.g. the Clone Wars TV show article, or possibly even Wookieepedia. We do not need an exhaustive list of every type of activity depicted in the Clone Wars TV show (deaths of protagonists! of antagonists! big battles! little battles! peace negotiations! new weapons!). Similarly, I removed an expansion of three titles in Other Media that include the Clone Wars. That path leads to the dark side of an exhaustive list of every title from all media that include the Clone Wars, which becomes unreadable and unwieldy.

Additionally, we need to remember a focus on a non-fan, general audience. Expressions like "the Outer Rim sieges are in full swing" is cryptically jargony to a general reader. --EEMIV (talk) 03:43, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Clone Wars (Star Wars). 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checked, again. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 15:03, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Great Jedi Purge

[edit]

I was looking at the article, and it doesn't seem to warrant standing on its own. It's largely in-universe, and it contains barely anything that supports notability. Even if it technically goes on beyond the Clone Wars, it is part of it, as it's the event that marked the end of the Wars. And I think it can be sufficiently covered here. Unrelated to merging, but the article title has long bothered me. "Great Jedi Purge" is very in-universe, especially as it's called that much less than it's called Order 66. At any rate, it should be merged here, not necessarily in its own subsection or even in a way that noticeably expands this article, but in some capacity. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 18:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merged the pages. Mostly, it involved pasting the former resources section into a new further reading section as the rest is all plot and statements that have no sourcing (and that I couldn't find sourcing for). Placed merge template at top of this page. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Episode IV has no title?

[edit]

Why is it being called "the first Star Wars film" on this article when it clearly has a name? That constant "consensus" discussion was a 3-1 democratic vote that went on the title of the page but is being plastered across Wikipedia even though that discussion was about a page. WP:COMMONNAME does not support changing the name. It has been known by it's title since 1981. An outdated poster does not count as a "source", not even close.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 02:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've laid out my response to this exact issue when you raised it last week at Talk:Star Wars canon#Selectiveness in episode numbers on titles and my stance is the same: "As far as this article is concerned, it's following how the nomenclature elsewhere in the project, i.e. the films' article titles, are given. This article will follow that until a new consensus across the project is established. Following what the articles themselves are called is to prevent constant reversions and edit warring over this very issue. [...] As far as this article is concerned, again I state, it is best that it use what the article titles themselves are. To get that changed, that requires another series of move discussions for each of the three original trilogy articles." ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 03:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"List of Jedi survivors of Order 66" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect List of Jedi survivors of Order 66 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 4 § List of Jedi survivors of Order 66 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. BDD (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 October 2024

[edit]
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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) jlwoodwa (talk) 16:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

– Last discussed in 2015, with no consensus. Appears to be a case of WP:DABCONCEPT, with all other topics relating back to this plot point. 162 etc. (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Clone_Wars&oldid=1251337866"