Talk:Star Wars: The Force Awakens/Archive 3

1205:. Yes, I can cite that because I also know policies. You are reverting the addition of a comma and the change of the word "his" to the "the". Because you needed an explanation for something so minor, I gave it to you (the first, though not so obvious sign of OWN). You then reverted and told me to discuss as per WP:BRD (second sign of OWN). Muboshgu then reverted you and saw how very minor of an edit mine was that it did not need discussed. You then revert him and told him "um yeah... per WP:BRD, it does." (third sign of OWN, and the one that stood out as OWN). I revert you and call you out on the issue of OWN. You then revert me, again, with "if you can cite OWN, then you can read WP:BRD. stop edit warring and discuss your edit on the talk page". (the fourth sign that solidified the issue of OWN). Oh, and to top it off, you put a warning on my page for edit warring. 2174: 1226:

Once I reverted you, you should have started a discussion here to support your edit, not continually revert, in concert with your friend Muboshgu. Now, I can admit I shouldn't have repeatedly reverted (and have since stopped), but can you admit you should have followed BRD in the first place? Also, surely you don't need me to explain to why OWN doesn't apply here, do you? Now that I've agreed to stop reverting you, instead of complaining, how about you

31: 2210:. After attempting to change it to say New Republic, something the link already directs you to anyway, I was reverted. Before reverting, I just wanted to explain why. Just because it isn't explicitly called that in the film, doesn't mean there aren't reliable sources that back up what it is specifically. Just like Maz is described as a cantina owner, even though the word cantina isn't used either. There is no reason not to be more specific. 1597:, this has absolutely no relevance to the current discussion. Could you by chance listen to some of the other editors that are confused by the 'his' wording? "Disruptive" is referring to continuing to say the same thing over and over when everyone says the opposite, "belligerent" refers to your dismissive attitude toward other editors' opinions. I see that you've already been taken to the 3RR noticeboard by Scrapiron. 2126: 2453: 510:...and you're asking this why? It doesn't state in the article that Luke has a light-saber with him in exile, nor do we see one with him the film. Unless you're looking to discuss the content of the article, this is not the appropriate place for your question. I've added a welcome template to your talk page to help you out. - 639:'s comment, of course the ending is a cliffhanger, but that doesn't mean it needs to be explicitly stated as such in the plot summary. It works perfectly fine without doing so: The film ends with Rey holding out the lightsaber to Luke, and the plot summary ends with the same statement. I don't see any problem with that. -- 2298:

What evidence do we have that the Republic portrayed in the film is the "New" Republic? Being supported by novels and other legacy materials doesn't justify its inclusion here. The opening crawl is probably the most important piece we can look at. If the film supported the term, then clearly it would

2012:

did not underperform overseas if accounting for its 40/60 domestic to international split." I added it because a Deadline source offers the view that the film did not truly underperform overseas. Would you rather that I remove that line? Or reword it? If reword, reword it how? Either way, the section

1649:

The final shot shows her "presenting" or "showing" but not necessarily "giving". That's probably a moot point, but thought I'd point that out. As for "the" vs. "his", I think it would be better to leave it at "the" simply because throughout the plot section, only one lightsaber is ever mentioned. Had

1532:

Stop being biligerent. Clear disruptive attitude, I count two recent edit wars wolf started looking back through the history of the article, repeatedly breaking 3RR. The edit itself has been discussed above and the consensus seems to be that the edit is better than the original. I suggest taking wolf

362:

1) You didn't address your comment to Fru1tbat. 2) Your comment followed mine. 3) It's an open talk page, anyone can reply to anyone. 4) I don't see where Fru1tbat said anything about offers being mandatory 5) Many of your comments don't seem to make much sense 6) Why are you sooo desperate to change

2283:

made is fine. The "new" (capitalized or not - I don't care which) provides context and clarity, and differentiates it from the Republic of the previous films. I wouldn't use "New" every time the republic is mentioned, but the first time seems reasonable to me. An alternative would be to describe the

2240:

The film just refers to Anakin asDarth Vader, not actually Anakin, so why is his name allowed as that in the plot summary? And the New Republic is canon, and it is what the film refers to when speaking of the Republic. The film also doesn't use the phrase cantina, although it is also in the summary.

2225:

It is explicitly referred to as just "the Republic" throughout the film, including the opening crawl. The term "New Republic" is not actually in the film, and not actually codified as being the name. It's a hold over from the old EU, and not actually canon to this film. But regardless of canonicity,

1862:

To the OP's point (more or less), though, it would be nice if there were a metric that didn't depend on multiple fluctuating exchange rates (e.g. ticket sales?). For comparing pure financial success, it's the most accurate, but it seems to me that it's often equated with "popularity", for which it's

1170:

I just haven't had a chance to post here yet. For the record, I'll stop reverting that edit. I was waiting to see if the user that added the edit would start a discussion to support after being reverted per, WP:BRD. I still don't that discussion, just a complaint of edit warring by another, involved

102:

The description of the ending currently reads: "She finds Luke and presents him with his lightsaber." The word "presents" can imply that he accepts it, depending on how the Knowledge reader interprets the word "presents". However, Luke accepting or rejecting the lightsaber does not happen during the

1262:

BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing. The talk page is open to all editors, not just bold ones. (on this one, you should have started this discussion instead of continually

1061:

I already made a revert to the edits in question and suggested a talk page discussion in the edit summary. I then started said discussion. You ignored that (and WP:BRD) and needlessly reverted me. As it is, I've now boldly removed the day/month part of the dates in the lead along with the refs, and

902:

Also, the nominator doesn't seem to have edited the article at all, or considered noticing major contributors. Plus, the article isn't exactly very stable at this point, since the film is still in theaters and gaining repercussion, and it indeed seems too early to give it a GA nomination. This will

576:

Eh? No need to bite me either, hardly or at all, young wolf. ;) I'm happy to edit again (see discussions above, and the page history) but don't want to do so unless (as seems likely) it will just be reverted, hence my discussion first: your comments aren't very encouraging in that respect. I'm also

2388:

and re-add it. One user disagreeing with it is not enough to warrant keeping out an edit that improves the article by alleviating any confusion a reader would face. For example, the whole reason I made the edit in the first place is because someone I know thought the Republic now is the same as it

300:

We seem to have opposite views of "offer" and "present." If "offer" were mandatory, why would "I'm going to make you an offer you can't refuse" have such a big impact in The Godfather? If "present" implied the ability to refuse, why would it make such news when an athlete is presented with a medal

1225:

BRD is pretty simple, You boldly change to "the", I revert back to "his" Sure, it's minor, but that doesn't exempt it from discussion, nor does that mean that your preferred choice of wording stands. Even Scrapiron diagress with your edit, and as you can see, he is not doing so as a favour to me.

1254:

Actually OWN applies pretty well here, which Scrapiron noticed. And actually (Scrapiron can correct this if I'm wrong), he didn't "disagree" with the edit. He just didn't see it necessary (there's a difference). BRD is pretty simple, and you might want to review it, especially these two points:

938:

The nomination is being reverted: the nominator made a series of thirteen GA nominations today, and also conducted a review that showed he is unclear on the GA process altogether; all of his nominations are being reverted. The GA nomination of this particular article does seem premature for the

1021:

Reverting me was not necessary. I agree with leadcite, that's one of the reasons I suggested moving the refs out of the lead and to the sequels section. Instead of reverting, simply asking the community if we should the day/month part of the dates to that section as well. As it is, there is no

1377:

That is a whole other debate within itself (Was she returning it to him, or was she presenting it as a way to say "train me"? etc.). In regards to the issue at hand, it may not be confusing for you, but it can be for others. As Torchiest pointed out and the reason I made the edit, using "the"

880:

Is it just me, or this somewhat pre-mature? There is still new info coming in on a daily basis; box office updates, box office records breaking, changes in critical reception, awards, awards and more awards, production-notes, home video release, etc., etc., etc. The article is being edited by

239:

Having thought about it more, I think I prefer "present". Maybe I'm being too picky about nuance, but it seems to me that "offer" implies a required acceptance, whereas you can "present" something to someone for their information, approval, acceptance -- whatever. Is she really intending to

413:

My last comment: Multiple articles from reliable sources have called out that the ending is a cliffhanger, for instance so I am puzzled that the wording of the plot does not make it clear that it is a cliffhanger. I will follow the notice to stop editing the plot. I'm just puzzled.

1258:

BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common

1981:

But generally, it also seems to be a strange section, both saying the film's performance isn't good (when by any reasonable measure it's incredibly successful) and at the same time making excuses for that supposed failure (again, not really a failure). Seems like it's almost

685:

The 'plot' section of the article is specifically about what took place in the film. It wouldn't be appropriate to add details and info from a novel. That said, it might be worthwhile to have a section in the article about the novel and what plot-points it expands upon. -

1680:

belongs to luke. and 2: Luke also has another green lightsaber that he used in RotJ, Thus making 'his' lightsaber a possibly ambiguous statement to some readers that haven't watched the film (i.e. they most recently saw luke with the green lightsaber at the end of RotJ)

1288:

Wolfchild is bieng disruptive, reverting a comma and a 'the' ... Seriously? Also the 'the' is a nessessary change. The lightsaber isn't even lukes, if anything it was anakin's, or maybe it belongs to rey now... The confusion here clearly means 'the' is the right choice.

669:

The novel version of the film identifies the planet Luke Skywalker lived in exile as "Ahch-To". But since the name was never mentioned in the film itself, it wouldn't be wise to add the name to the plot itself. But shouldn't at least add a note about it to the article?

796:

I hadn't seen that, strangely enough. I think a novel is warranted. After all, there are a number of plot elements that did not take place in the film and the same guidelines that allowed for the first six installments to have their novelizations counted apply here.

2299:

have been used here. Remember, events and timelines that existed previously outside of the earlier films do not necessarily apply to the events and timelines depicted in this film. The only thing we know for sure is that we are picking up from where we left off in

1102:

specifically provides for editorial discretion on whether or not references should be included. If the release dates are in question (as they seem to be) or in flux, the citations in the lead are perfectly acceptable, and I think I'd personally prefer they stay.

1650:

another been brought up, then clarifying "whose" lightsaber would be necessary. That doesn't mean "his" is necessarily wrong; it just means it's optional and probably best avoided since it adds interpretation that apparently multiple editors don't agree with. --

577:

still not inspired with confidence that you're really reading other people's comments: the only other comment on "cliffhanger" I can see is again Fru1tbat, below, who seems to be saying that "of course the ending is a cliffhanger" but it's covered already. ‑‑

1566:. And, since when do talk page comments get reported to the "3RR notice board"? (whether they're "deliberately inflammatory" or not?). Simply put, I believe the original wording was correct. The lightsaber clearly is "his". This hasn't resulted in confusion 2340:

Wow, that was embarrassing! Shows you just how much I know! In light of this rather obvious information (thanks JDC808), I think I'll gracefully bow out of the discussion. Still interesting the crawl doesn't use "new", but I'm dropping my opposition to it.

981:

Do we really need the full d/m/y dates (with refs) for the two upcoming sequels in the lead? Wouldn't the years only suffice? We have a "Sequels" section lower down for this kind of detail. Perhaps we could move the full dates and their refs to there? -

555:

done?) Also, I didn't see what the question of whether or not Luke having a light-saber has to do with the original content question of this section. Lastly, I don't agree with the "cliffhanger ending", and now it seems that others don't agree either. -

323:

act. Now, I don't know where you got "mandatory" from, or how it applies here, nor how the ability to "refuse" applies either, but they're basically irrelevant. The way the last line is written is perfectly acceptable. There is no need to change it. -

1511:

of the other involved editors are finally discussing it as well. You got to post your (belated) little dig, but I won't be explaining anything to you. Do you have anything relevant to add to the current "his" vs "the" content discussion? -

1839:

films traditionally haven't done well in China, for example. I state "traditionally" because of this latest film having had a solid opening weekend there. That solid opening weekend is due in part to the marketing; so I will be adding

822:

Oh, I agree. 30+ years is long time, and there is certainly a lot of questions that can't be answered in ≈2 hours. As it so happens, I just came across a digital copy of the novel and I'm probably gonna start reading it tomorrow. -

1323:

Can't believe I'm gonna chime in on this but... yes, "the" makes more sense, as ownership of the lightsaber changed multiple times throughout the films (Anakin, Obi-Wan, Luke, Maz, Finn, Rey), and Luke had a second lightsaber in

2245:, which is where the link even takes you with a lot of reliable sources there as well. The fact is that there are many specifics and elaborations I have seen in film summaries, including this one that aren't explicitly stated. 2259:

I agree. If it helps the reader understand, there shouldn't be a problem with saying New Republic. I've actually tried changing it to New Republic in the past for the same reason you did and got reverted for the same reasons.

1046:

moving the sources properly, but that's neither here nor there. It also isn't something that really needs to be discussed (at least the ref part). I agree with the fact that there is no Ep. IX date. That should be removed. -

1306:

Well, it was Luke's at one point, but you're correct and is the reason why I made the change (and explained in my first revert's edit summary), "the" takes away any confusion that could be associated with the lightsaber.

2317:

But there was a change. The Republic of the prequel trilogy became the Galactic Empire of the original trilogy (which was declared by Palpatine in Episode III). The Republic in this film is not that same Republic. Also,

1793:

I think that this point is moot because how much revenue the movie does overseas needs to consider dollar exchange rate, and for example Mexico's Peso is in an all time low, so the revenue for the movie wont be as much.

2625: 1506:

And what is the point of your post? You're the last one who should be criticizing. An admin asked me to stop reverting and I have... quit some time ago now. I have been discussing the issue, for quite some time now.

1603:-- and that is the problem. this isn't a good reason to repeatedly revert someone, the only good reason is that what they wrote is demonstrably WRONG. otherwise you are (as others have pointed out) acting like you 775:

right above this one. I'm not sure it would merit it's own article (but, who knows?). I'm thinking it might be worthwhile to add a section to this page mentioning the novel and any plot points it may expand on. -

1624:

Ah, I see... anytime anyone edits an article in a way you don't like, they're "OWNing" it. If they disagree with you on the talk about it, they're destroying the very fabric of Knowledge as we know it. Got it. -

2393:. Also, the argument that "It isn't called that in the movie" is not really enough to warrant leaving out a fact confirmed by reliable sources for the same reason other implicit facts are in film plot summaries. 1171:

editor who is trying to bypass BRD by tag-teaming the edit back in. Now I've agreed to leave it the edit alone, I would like to see either JDC808 or Muboshgu actually address the edit here on the talk. -

1570:

since it was edited that way over 3 weeks and 700 edits ago. (alleged "confusion" on other message boards is irrelevant here). Lastly, why would Rey give him the lightsaber if it didn't belong to him? -

121:

I was ok with "offers", but I'm also ok with "presents". Presentation does not imply acceptance to me, so I don't see any ambiguity. Either way, I think it's probably accurate enough for a plot summary.

1356:

Luke's lightsaber. - (edit: also "ownership" and "possession" are two different things. At no time did Obi Wan, Maz, Finn or Rey assert ownership. Themost recent, and still current "owner" is Luke.) -

939:

reasons mentioned above. If one of the people working on the article had nominated it believing that it was ready, that would be another issue, but as this is a drive-by nomination that did not, as the

957:

Do note that film articles can only be nominated once the film is no longer in theaters. So even if main contributors felt it was ready, it would still automatically fail based on that requirement. -

140:

I think the "offers" version of the last sentence is easier to understand. I can understand the reverts against the version that talked about the audience, but offers seems like a good clarification.

1593:

WOW that 'source'... so disingenuous. Its a link to an article about the trailer (before the film came out) 'confirming' that the lightsaber featured in the trailer is the same blue lightsaber from

1550:

So... I'm not allowed to participate in the discussion? And if I do, but happen to disagree with you, then I'm being "belligerent" and "disruptive"? Also I see you cited WP:OR above. I cited a

881:

numerous users daily. There is an active discussion about adding more content, like a section about the novelization of the film. Is this really the best time to do a GA review? Discuss. -

1131:

There's a whole lot of it going on and it needs to stop. Thewolfchild seems to be doing the majority of it. Seriously reverting the addition of an Oxford comma and change in pronoun? –

843:

Great; I can't wait to hear what kind of impression it leaves upon you. If you kick off the article, I'll definitely be up for helping with shoring it up with reception and what-not.

2013:

is not stating that the film's performance overseas was not good; it's stating that it did not do as well overseas as it did in the United States. It relays that when compared to

1422:

your interpretatoon of the final scene is just that; yours. As in OR. There is plenty of confusion online as to what the final scene means. Therefore 'the' is the clear choice.

551:

It's hardly "biting", It's not as if I insulted this person, I just let them know what is acceptable. I even went so far as to add a welcome template to their page. (what have

2303:, in which case the Republic is still the Republic. To call it the New Republic would be to suggest some change occurred that was not implied by any of the films so far. -- 1914:

I find it curious that we're saying that the seventh-highest-grossing film of all time overseas isn't "doing so well." What are the criteria? I wish I were doing so well.

2017:, which is the film it keeps getting compared to in terms of box office performance, it did not do as well overseas; the section then explains why. The section is not 1725: 1974:

May I request that we ditch the word "underperformed". Besides being a bit of corporate speak, it's also not clear what it is in comparison to. Is it lower than

455: 1670:. 'His' isn't necessarily wrong, the lightsaber did once belong to Luke, the issue is twofold, 1: it isn't clear that Rey is "giving" the lightsaber to him as 86: 81: 76: 64: 59: 2559:

Second the questioning of the need. The plot summary effectively covers the film's plot without getting bogged down in minutia. I see no need at all.

387:

yours is indented the same as yours, then the author is likely responding to the same person you were. Otherwise, they would have indented it more. --

1153:

But for the article, It was pretty clear that the lightsaber was Luke's in the film, so why the need to change the pronoun? Oxford comma, no sweat.

1775: 1738: 943:

state, consult with the people actively working on the article, it is being removed, and should not be restored with this nominator's name on it.

1146:

The edit warring is a big deal, and for all the wolfChild's talk about taking it to the talk page, I don't see them here. Looks like a case of

1885:

Yeah, all Im saying is that the "poor" performance of the movie overseas can be accounted to more factors than "not nostalgic about the film"

1003:

I don't care either way if the full dates are included in the lead (people will keep adding them if we don't, so I don't see the harm). And

2530:

This was a pretty monumental movie release, perhaps the plot summary should be expanded a bit beyond the guidelines of typical summaries.--

2501: 1841: 742: 1978:? To analysits' projections? It's not a clarifying word at all, and a clearer rephrasing without the corporate-speak would be beneficial. 1901: 1810: 497: 2021:, since all of what is there is thoroughly discussed in many WP:Reliable sources. See the Commercial analysis section I wrote at the 270:

ation" sounds more like something physical. As we know, nothing was said between Rey and Luke, she just held out the light saber. -

1724:

and 1) it's got a lot of juicy information, 2) this information could be useful. I'll toss any info I think useful for any articles

47: 17: 2425:"Members of the Reisitance include Emun Elliott as Brance" (with reference 60) in this article contains a misspelling (Reisitance). 1690: 1616: 1542: 1431: 1298: 859: 813: 761: 722: 2441: 1491:, but no serious attempts at constructive dialogue, makes me think he's using "discussion" as a tool to block any edit when he 1335: 922: 2460:. Thanks for pointing it out. Simple errors like that don't need a talk page post. Feel free to correct them as you see them. 631:

Which, by the way, was meant somewhat lightheartedly. Failed there, I guess. Although I would find it hard to believe he does

1728:, but if anyone has anything specific they want to ask about and think might be in the book, feel free to give me a shout. – 590:

You need to relax there, apparently-even-younger-Yodin... not everything is about you. Now off to Knowledge-101 you go... -

2062: 706:

I think the plot elements should go into a separate article dedicated to the novel. See the discussion immediately below.

2136: 2573:

I agree too: absolutely no reason to ignore all the rules and expand the plot. Covered fine. We aren't Wookiepedia. -

2226:

which is an in-universe thing, it's the fact that the film just call it the Republic, and so should the plot summary.

1771: 1734: 1683: 1609: 1535: 1424: 1291: 2601:

No it isn't. It's 697 words, three below the limit, so it's pretty much perfect as it is (in terms of words used). -

2389:

was, because "Knowledge doesn't say New Republic". This is a fact even though the link still directs you to the page

38: 2180:

it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.

904: 467: 315:

By your own words, you've confirmed what I just wrote. Your Godfather quote about an offer is about a character

2102: 2070: 2038: 1965: 1942: 1849: 1492: 419: 353: 306: 111: 1863:

somewhat less appropriate. I agree with Flyer22 that it's still completely relevant to the article, though. --

2320: 2132: 1594: 1378:

clarifies that its talking about the lightsaber in this film, and not by some chance Luke's lightsaber from

2650:

The plot section is not the most important part of the article, or the most notable thing about the movie.

1897: 1806: 1766: 1729: 501: 2437: 2241:

There are others as well. The fact is that there is really no good reason to not just refer to it as the

2655: 2606: 2592: 2578: 2550: 2535: 2509: 2483: 1208:

Because you absolutely had to have a discussion about this very minor edit, what is there to discuss? --

1052: 1012: 962: 948: 2659: 2643: 2610: 2596: 2582: 2568: 2554: 2539: 2513: 2487: 2469: 2402: 2350: 2335: 2312: 2293: 2271: 2254: 2235: 2219: 2191: 2166: 2106: 2074: 2042: 1995: 1969: 1946: 1923: 1893: 1872: 1853: 1802: 1780: 1760: 1743: 1693: 1659: 1640: 1619: 1586: 1545: 1527: 1501: 1458: 1434: 1417: 1393: 1372: 1339: 1328:

which could more accurately be described as his. Using "the" makes it clear its the one in this film. —

1318: 1301: 1283: 1245: 1219: 1186: 1165: 1140: 1112: 1077: 1056: 1037: 1016: 997: 966: 952: 929: 896: 863: 838: 817: 791: 765: 726: 701: 679: 648: 616: 605: 583: 571: 544: 525: 505: 434: 423: 396: 378: 357: 339: 310: 285: 253: 230: 200: 168: 149: 131: 115: 480: 2429: 1919: 1889: 1798: 855: 809: 757: 718: 2433: 534:; again he was clearly replying to Fru1tbat, part of whose argument was "Is she really intending to 2564: 2465: 2231: 2098: 2066: 2034: 2026: 1991: 1961: 1938: 1934: 1845: 1821: 916: 636: 415: 349: 302: 244:

Luke the lightsaber? She must know he's already got one... (Yes, I'm definitely being too picky) --

145: 107: 2158: 2346: 2308: 2289: 2030: 2022: 1868: 1827: 1655: 1196: 1136: 1108: 1099: 1007:

should be followed, with the refs down in the section (they'll have to be down there anyways). -

1004: 644: 496:

As a side note, do we know from a canonical source that Luke has a lightsaber in his self-exile?

392: 249: 226: 127: 907:

film articles, which are predominantly GAs, but became so after their theatrical release ended.

2008:

I'm not sure what you mean, but I think what has confused you about the section is this line: "

2630: 2207: 2162: 1671: 1627: 1573: 1514: 1484: 1445: 1404: 1359: 1232: 1173: 1064: 1024: 984: 883: 825: 778: 688: 592: 558: 512: 365: 326: 272: 187: 217:

of "present", multiple forms support its use in the article, especially 6a which states, "to

2651: 2617: 2602: 2588: 2574: 2546: 2531: 2505: 2479: 2398: 2330: 2266: 2250: 2215: 2186: 1755: 1483:

through reversions on the article: please do explain why you think "OWN doesn't apply here"

1388: 1313: 1278: 1214: 1155: 1048: 1008: 958: 944: 2029:, I didn't realize that other Knowledge articles would copy that style, but they have. The 2500:

Most of the lines/characters (as well as some clarification on certain actors) are listed

2018: 1983: 1915: 844: 798: 772: 746: 707: 221:

to view". None of the definitions suggest it must be accepted in order to be presented. --

1819:

I don't think it's moot at all; how well a film does overseas matters. Compare how well

99:

I've had two attempts at clarifying the ending reverted, so am bringing the issue here.

2560: 2524: 2461: 2385: 2227: 1987: 1330: 940: 910: 675: 531: 363:

the last sentence of the plot? There's nothing wrong with it. 7) Move on already... -

141: 1201:

Seriously? thewolfchild, you started this "edit war" and are showing blatant signs of

2520: 2504:

if anyone wants to take a stab at adding what isn't there already or reformatting. -

2342: 2304: 2285: 2157:

I would like to help update the cast list , to add more people that were in the film

1864: 1667: 1651: 1604: 1488: 1480: 1202: 1147: 1132: 1104: 640: 388: 345: 245: 222: 123: 1844:

to the Commercial analysis section of the article...if no one beats me to it first.

1533:

to the 3RR notice board if he is going to continue to be diliberately inflammatory.

301:("offered a medal" seems to be used before an awardee is chosen) and turns it down? 214: 2390: 2242: 2203: 1563: 1551: 2025:

article for a comparison. When I added a Commercial analysis section there and at

456:

The Only Thing in the New Star Wars That Doesn’t Feel Like Star Wars Is the Ending

2394: 2381: 2325: 2280: 2261: 2246: 2211: 2181: 1750: 1383: 1308: 1273: 1209: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

106:

It would be clearer for all Knowledge readers if some other wording were used.

2206:

is generally referred to as the Republic which could cause confusion with the

1497: 612: 579: 540: 430: 164: 2284:

republic a little more, but that could be awkward and unnecessarily wordy. --

1749:

I heard that Kylo Ren has an eight pack, that he's shredded. Is this true? --

1399: 671: 185:"Presents" is fine. There is no need for a change, hence the revisions. - 1487:. Very confrontational style on the talk page, combined with appeals to 1042:

You reverted me first so you know, as I was just cleaning up the lead

2587:

In proportion to the rest of the article, the plot is a bit small.--

2065:, and so that's what I did; this makes the argument factor clearer. 1765:

I don't want to answer in case I get thrown into a soda machine. –

2624: 1344:

There is no confusion. The lightsaber clearly belongs to Luke. It

2478:

The article is locked so they might have had trouble doing that.

266:

An "offer" sounds like something verbal (or written) whereas a "

2120: 1937:), and because I feel that this thread was archived too fast. 538:

Luke the lightsaber? She must know he's already got one..." ‑‑

25: 1062:

moved them down to the sequel section, where they belong. -

348:, who did say that "offer" seemed mandatory, not to you. 2277: 2094: 2090: 2058: 1958: 1954: 1930: 1600:

Simply put, I believe the original wording was correct.

1440: 1352:

it to Luke. This is why Rey is returning it to him. It

319:

something. At the same time, a medal presentation is a

1835:

has done overseas; that is a huge difference. And the

1789:Tidbit about the movie not doing so well Overseas 2097:), I removed another "underperformed" instance. 737:Would anyone who has ready the novelization of 483:Charlotte Observer, credited to New York Times. 2324:confirms that it's called the New Republic. -- 2117:Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2016 1150:and another trip to the noticeboards for them. 771:Actually, the novel is being discussed in the 2033:article is one example. This one is another. 1929:I de-archived this discussion to note that I 8: 1268:I guess you missed the edit summary where I 1348:Anakin's, he lost it to Obi Wan who then 2061:. I originally thought about giving it 1722:The Art of Star Wars: The Force Awakens 447: 1555: 665:Addind a possible note to the article. 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 2622:- You can expand it by 3 more words. 1022:mention of Ep. IX date right now. - 7: 743:Star Wars: The Force Awakens (novel) 2321:The Force Awakens Visual Dictionary 1556:There is plenty of confusion online 1554:, how is that OR? You replied with 24: 1674:suggests and that the lightsaber 1230:state a reason for your edit? - 481:A peak beyond the new ‘Star Wars’ 428:Agree, this is the crux of it. ‑‑ 95:Wording of ending in plot summary 18:Talk:Star Wars: The Force Awakens 2623: 2451: 2172: 2124: 903:probably be a similar case with 29: 741:like to create that article at 2421:Spelling error in Cast section 1959:the Deadline sources mixed up. 468:Almost the Best Star Wars Ever 1: 1098:It should be noted here that 2660:07:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC) 2644:05:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC) 2611:04:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC) 2597:04:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC) 2583:03:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC) 2569:03:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC) 2555:03:31, 3 February 2016 (UTC) 2540:02:31, 3 February 2016 (UTC) 2514:03:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC) 2488:02:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC) 2470:18:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC) 2403:02:38, 23 January 2016 (UTC) 2351:19:18, 22 January 2016 (UTC) 2336:19:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC) 2313:18:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC) 2294:15:29, 22 January 2016 (UTC) 2272:15:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC) 2255:03:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC) 2236:03:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC) 2220:03:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC) 2192:08:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC) 2167:08:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC) 2137:Star Wars: The Force Awakens 2107:04:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC) 2075:03:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC) 2043:03:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC) 1996:03:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC) 1970:03:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC) 1947:02:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC) 1924:07:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC) 1873:20:45, 11 January 2016 (UTC) 1854:20:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC) 1781:02:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC) 1761:02:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC) 1744:02:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC) 1694:01:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC) 1660:01:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC) 1641:02:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC) 1620:01:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC) 1587:00:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC) 1546:00:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC) 1528:00:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC) 1502:23:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC) 1459:00:56, 21 January 2016 (UTC) 1435:00:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC) 1418:00:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC) 1394:23:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC) 1373:23:41, 20 January 2016 (UTC) 1340:23:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC) 1319:23:27, 20 January 2016 (UTC) 1302:22:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC) 1284:22:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC) 1246:22:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC) 1220:21:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC) 1187:21:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC) 1166:21:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC) 1141:21:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC) 1113:21:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC) 1078:21:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC) 1057:21:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC) 1038:21:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC) 1017:21:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC) 998:20:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC) 967:20:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC) 953:15:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC) 930:15:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC) 897:12:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC) 864:04:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC) 839:06:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC) 818:06:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC) 792:05:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC) 766:05:21, 17 January 2016 (UTC) 727:06:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC) 702:07:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC) 680:07:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC) 649:13:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC) 617:12:26, 15 January 2016 (UTC) 606:21:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC) 584:17:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC) 572:18:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC) 545:12:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC) 526:04:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC) 506:04:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC) 435:12:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC) 424:08:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC) 397:15:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC) 379:08:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC) 358:07:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC) 340:04:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC) 311:04:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC) 286:22:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC) 254:21:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC) 231:21:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC) 201:20:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC) 169:18:53, 12 January 2016 (UTC) 150:18:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC) 132:18:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC) 116:17:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC) 2151:to reactivate your request. 2139:has been answered. Set the 2684: 383:When a comment that comes 2384:, yeah, I am going to be 2202:In the plot summary, the 1831:did overseas to how well 1720:I've picked up a copy of 905:Marvel Cinematic Universe 2198:New Republic in the plot 610:Replied on talk page. ‑‑ 1595:The Empire Strikes Back 1398:FYI - Disney says it's 162:Agree with "offers". ‑‑ 2063:WP:In-text attribution 2057:I changed the line to 1686:InsertCleverPhraseHere 1612:InsertCleverPhraseHere 1538:InsertCleverPhraseHere 1427:InsertCleverPhraseHere 1294:InsertCleverPhraseHere 1272:explained my edit. -- 532:don't bite the newbie 42:of past discussions. 1931:expanded the section 1715:Art of Force Awakens 344:I was responding to 2027:Titanic (1997 film) 2301:Return of the Jedi 2031:Frozen (2013 film) 2023:Avatar (2009 film) 1953:Latest version is 1380:Return of the Jedi 1326:Return of the Jedi 454:Wickman, Forrest. 2640: 2446: 2432:comment added by 2208:Galactic Republic 2155: 2154: 2010:The Force Awakens 1906: 1892:comment added by 1833:The Force Awakens 1815: 1801:comment added by 1779: 1767:The Millionth One 1742: 1730:The Millionth One 1637: 1583: 1524: 1493:WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT 1455: 1414: 1400:Luke's lightsaber 1369: 1242: 1200: 1183: 1074: 1034: 994: 921: 893: 852: 848: 835: 806: 802: 788: 754: 750: 739:The Force Awakens 715: 711: 698: 635:have one. And to 602: 568: 522: 375: 336: 282: 197: 92: 91: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 2675: 2638: 2627: 2621: 2496:Additional voice 2459: 2455: 2454: 2445: 2426: 2333: 2328: 2269: 2264: 2176: 2175: 2146: 2142: 2128: 2127: 2121: 1905: 1886: 1842:material on that 1814: 1795: 1769: 1758: 1753: 1732: 1692: 1635: 1618: 1581: 1544: 1522: 1500: 1453: 1433: 1412: 1391: 1386: 1367: 1316: 1311: 1300: 1281: 1276: 1240: 1217: 1212: 1194: 1181: 1162: 1160: 1072: 1032: 992: 925: 919: 915: 913: 891: 850: 846: 833: 804: 800: 786: 752: 748: 713: 709: 696: 615: 600: 582: 566: 543: 520: 484: 477: 471: 465: 459: 452: 433: 373: 334: 280: 195: 167: 73: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 2683: 2682: 2678: 2677: 2676: 2674: 2673: 2672: 2636: 2615: 2528: 2498: 2452: 2450: 2427: 2423: 2331: 2326: 2267: 2262: 2200: 2190: 2173: 2144: 2140: 2125: 2119: 2093:(followup edit 1887: 1796: 1791: 1756: 1751: 1718: 1682: 1633: 1608: 1579: 1552:reliable source 1534: 1520: 1496: 1451: 1423: 1410: 1389: 1384: 1365: 1338: 1314: 1309: 1290: 1279: 1274: 1238: 1215: 1210: 1179: 1158: 1156: 1129: 1070: 1030: 990: 979: 941:GA instructions 923: 917: 911: 889: 878: 862: 831: 816: 784: 764: 735: 725: 694: 667: 611: 598: 578: 564: 539: 518: 489: 488: 487: 479:Hahn, Lucinda. 478: 474: 466: 462: 453: 449: 429: 371: 332: 278: 193: 163: 97: 69: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2681: 2679: 2671: 2670: 2669: 2668: 2667: 2666: 2665: 2664: 2663: 2662: 2648: 2647: 2646: 2635: 2632: 2527: 2517: 2497: 2494: 2493: 2492: 2491: 2490: 2473: 2472: 2422: 2419: 2418: 2417: 2416: 2415: 2414: 2413: 2412: 2411: 2410: 2409: 2408: 2407: 2406: 2405: 2366: 2365: 2364: 2363: 2362: 2361: 2360: 2359: 2358: 2357: 2356: 2355: 2354: 2353: 2199: 2196: 2195: 2194: 2184: 2153: 2152: 2129: 2118: 2115: 2114: 2113: 2112: 2111: 2110: 2109: 2099:Flyer22 Reborn 2082: 2081: 2080: 2079: 2078: 2077: 2067:Flyer22 Reborn 2050: 2049: 2048: 2047: 2046: 2045: 2035:Flyer22 Reborn 2001: 2000: 1999: 1998: 1979: 1962:Flyer22 Reborn 1950: 1949: 1939:Flyer22 Reborn 1912: 1911: 1910: 1909: 1908: 1907: 1878: 1877: 1876: 1875: 1857: 1856: 1846:Flyer22 Reborn 1790: 1787: 1786: 1785: 1784: 1783: 1717: 1712: 1711: 1710: 1709: 1708: 1707: 1706: 1705: 1704: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1700: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1696: 1647: 1646: 1645: 1644: 1643: 1632: 1629: 1578: 1575: 1519: 1516: 1477: 1476: 1475: 1474: 1473: 1472: 1471: 1470: 1469: 1468: 1467: 1466: 1465: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1450: 1447: 1409: 1406: 1364: 1361: 1334: 1266: 1265: 1264: 1263:invoking BRD). 1260: 1249: 1248: 1237: 1234: 1192: 1191: 1190: 1189: 1178: 1175: 1151: 1128: 1125: 1124: 1123: 1122: 1121: 1120: 1119: 1118: 1117: 1116: 1115: 1087: 1086: 1085: 1084: 1083: 1082: 1081: 1080: 1069: 1066: 1029: 1026: 989: 986: 978: 975: 974: 973: 972: 971: 970: 969: 933: 932: 888: 885: 877: 874: 873: 872: 871: 870: 869: 868: 867: 866: 854: 830: 827: 808: 783: 780: 756: 734: 731: 730: 729: 717: 704: 693: 690: 666: 663: 662: 661: 660: 659: 658: 657: 656: 655: 654: 653: 652: 651: 637:Thisisnotatest 629: 628: 627: 626: 625: 624: 623: 622: 621: 620: 619: 597: 594: 563: 560: 517: 514: 486: 485: 472: 460: 446: 445: 441: 440: 439: 438: 437: 416:Thisisnotatest 411: 410: 409: 408: 407: 406: 405: 404: 403: 402: 401: 400: 399: 370: 367: 350:Thisisnotatest 346:User: Fru1tbat 331: 328: 303:Thisisnotatest 293: 292: 291: 290: 289: 288: 277: 274: 259: 258: 257: 256: 234: 233: 215:the definition 210: 209: 208: 207: 206: 205: 204: 203: 192: 189: 176: 175: 174: 173: 172: 171: 155: 154: 153: 152: 135: 134: 108:Thisisnotatest 96: 93: 90: 89: 84: 79: 74: 67: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2680: 2661: 2657: 2653: 2649: 2645: 2642: 2641: 2637: 2633: 2626: 2619: 2614: 2613: 2612: 2608: 2604: 2600: 2599: 2598: 2594: 2590: 2586: 2585: 2584: 2580: 2576: 2572: 2571: 2570: 2566: 2562: 2558: 2557: 2556: 2552: 2548: 2544: 2543: 2542: 2541: 2537: 2533: 2526: 2522: 2518: 2516: 2515: 2511: 2507: 2503: 2495: 2489: 2485: 2481: 2477: 2476: 2475: 2474: 2471: 2467: 2463: 2458: 2449: 2448: 2447: 2443: 2439: 2435: 2431: 2420: 2404: 2400: 2396: 2392: 2387: 2383: 2380: 2379: 2378: 2377: 2376: 2375: 2374: 2373: 2372: 2371: 2370: 2369: 2368: 2367: 2352: 2348: 2344: 2339: 2338: 2337: 2334: 2329: 2323: 2322: 2316: 2315: 2314: 2310: 2306: 2302: 2297: 2296: 2295: 2291: 2287: 2282: 2279: 2275: 2274: 2273: 2270: 2265: 2258: 2257: 2256: 2252: 2248: 2244: 2239: 2238: 2237: 2233: 2229: 2224: 2223: 2222: 2221: 2217: 2213: 2209: 2205: 2197: 2193: 2188: 2183: 2179: 2171: 2170: 2169: 2168: 2164: 2160: 2150: 2147:parameter to 2138: 2134: 2130: 2123: 2122: 2116: 2108: 2104: 2100: 2096: 2092: 2088: 2087: 2086: 2085: 2084: 2083: 2076: 2072: 2068: 2064: 2060: 2056: 2055: 2054: 2053: 2052: 2051: 2044: 2040: 2036: 2032: 2028: 2024: 2020: 2016: 2011: 2007: 2006: 2005: 2004: 2003: 2002: 1997: 1993: 1989: 1985: 1980: 1977: 1973: 1972: 1971: 1967: 1963: 1960: 1957:. I'd gotten 1956: 1952: 1951: 1948: 1944: 1940: 1936: 1932: 1928: 1927: 1926: 1925: 1921: 1917: 1903: 1899: 1895: 1891: 1884: 1883: 1882: 1881: 1880: 1879: 1874: 1870: 1866: 1861: 1860: 1859: 1858: 1855: 1851: 1847: 1843: 1838: 1834: 1830: 1829: 1824: 1823: 1818: 1817: 1816: 1812: 1808: 1804: 1800: 1788: 1782: 1777: 1773: 1768: 1764: 1763: 1762: 1759: 1754: 1748: 1747: 1746: 1745: 1740: 1736: 1731: 1727: 1723: 1716: 1713: 1695: 1691: 1689: 1688: 1687: 1679: 1678: 1673: 1672:|Thewolfchild 1669: 1665: 1664: 1663: 1662: 1661: 1657: 1653: 1648: 1642: 1639: 1638: 1634: 1630: 1623: 1622: 1621: 1617: 1615: 1614: 1613: 1607:the article. 1606: 1602: 1601: 1596: 1592: 1591: 1590: 1589: 1588: 1585: 1584: 1580: 1576: 1569: 1565: 1561: 1557: 1553: 1549: 1548: 1547: 1543: 1541: 1540: 1539: 1531: 1530: 1529: 1526: 1525: 1521: 1517: 1510: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1499: 1494: 1490: 1486: 1482: 1478: 1460: 1457: 1456: 1452: 1448: 1442: 1438: 1437: 1436: 1432: 1430: 1429: 1428: 1421: 1420: 1419: 1416: 1415: 1411: 1407: 1401: 1397: 1396: 1395: 1392: 1387: 1381: 1376: 1375: 1374: 1371: 1370: 1366: 1362: 1355: 1351: 1347: 1343: 1342: 1341: 1337: 1333: 1332: 1327: 1322: 1321: 1320: 1317: 1312: 1305: 1304: 1303: 1299: 1297: 1296: 1295: 1287: 1286: 1285: 1282: 1277: 1271: 1267: 1261: 1257: 1256: 1253: 1252: 1251: 1250: 1247: 1244: 1243: 1239: 1235: 1229: 1224: 1223: 1222: 1221: 1218: 1213: 1206: 1204: 1198: 1197:edit conflict 1188: 1185: 1184: 1180: 1176: 1169: 1168: 1167: 1164: 1163: 1152: 1149: 1145: 1144: 1143: 1142: 1138: 1134: 1126: 1114: 1110: 1106: 1101: 1097: 1096: 1095: 1094: 1093: 1092: 1091: 1090: 1089: 1088: 1079: 1076: 1075: 1071: 1067: 1060: 1059: 1058: 1054: 1050: 1045: 1041: 1040: 1039: 1036: 1035: 1031: 1027: 1020: 1019: 1018: 1014: 1010: 1006: 1002: 1001: 1000: 999: 996: 995: 991: 987: 976: 968: 964: 960: 956: 955: 954: 950: 946: 942: 937: 936: 935: 934: 931: 928: 927: 926: 920: 914: 906: 901: 900: 899: 898: 895: 894: 890: 886: 875: 865: 861: 857: 853: 842: 841: 840: 837: 836: 832: 828: 821: 820: 819: 815: 811: 807: 795: 794: 793: 790: 789: 785: 781: 774: 770: 769: 768: 767: 763: 759: 755: 744: 740: 732: 728: 724: 720: 716: 705: 703: 700: 699: 695: 691: 684: 683: 682: 681: 677: 673: 664: 650: 646: 642: 638: 634: 630: 618: 614: 609: 608: 607: 604: 603: 599: 595: 589: 588: 587: 586: 585: 581: 575: 574: 573: 570: 569: 565: 561: 554: 550: 549: 548: 547: 546: 542: 537: 533: 529: 528: 527: 524: 523: 519: 515: 509: 508: 507: 503: 499: 495: 494: 493: 492: 491: 490: 482: 476: 473: 469: 464: 461: 457: 451: 448: 444: 436: 432: 427: 426: 425: 421: 417: 412: 398: 394: 390: 386: 382: 381: 380: 377: 376: 372: 368: 361: 360: 359: 355: 351: 347: 343: 342: 341: 338: 337: 333: 329: 322: 318: 314: 313: 312: 308: 304: 299: 298: 297: 296: 295: 294: 287: 284: 283: 279: 275: 269: 265: 264: 263: 262: 261: 260: 255: 251: 247: 243: 238: 237: 236: 235: 232: 228: 224: 220: 216: 212: 211: 202: 199: 198: 194: 190: 184: 183: 182: 181: 180: 179: 178: 177: 170: 166: 161: 160: 159: 158: 157: 156: 151: 147: 143: 139: 138: 137: 136: 133: 129: 125: 120: 119: 118: 117: 113: 109: 104: 100: 94: 88: 85: 83: 80: 78: 75: 72: 68: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 2631: 2629: 2529: 2499: 2456: 2428:— Preceding 2424: 2391:New Republic 2319: 2300: 2276:I think the 2243:New Republic 2204:New Republic 2201: 2177: 2156: 2148: 2133:edit request 2014: 2009: 1975: 1935:WP:Permalink 1913: 1894:198.70.2.200 1888:— Preceding 1836: 1832: 1826: 1820: 1803:198.70.2.200 1797:— Preceding 1792: 1721: 1719: 1714: 1685: 1684: 1676: 1675: 1628: 1626: 1611: 1610: 1599: 1598: 1574: 1572: 1567: 1559: 1537: 1536: 1515: 1513: 1508: 1485:Thewolfchild 1479:Very strong 1446: 1444: 1426: 1425: 1405: 1403: 1379: 1360: 1358: 1353: 1349: 1345: 1329: 1325: 1293: 1292: 1269: 1233: 1231: 1227: 1207: 1193: 1174: 1172: 1154: 1130: 1127:Edit warring 1065: 1063: 1043: 1025: 1023: 985: 983: 980: 977:Sequel dates 909: 908: 884: 882: 879: 826: 824: 779: 777: 738: 736: 733:Novelization 689: 687: 668: 632: 593: 591: 559: 557: 552: 535: 513: 511: 498:50.0.128.168 475: 463: 450: 442: 384: 366: 364: 327: 325: 320: 316: 273: 271: 267: 241: 218: 188: 186: 105: 101: 98: 70: 43: 37: 2652:Popcornduff 2618:Prisencolin 2603:Favre1fan93 2589:Prisencolin 2575:Favre1fan93 2547:Popcornduff 2532:Prisencolin 2519:Seeking an 2506:Favre1fan93 2480:Popcornduff 2382:User:JDC808 2281:User:Chambr 1100:WP:LEADCITE 1049:Favre1fan93 1009:Favre1fan93 1005:WP:LEADCITE 959:Favre1fan93 945:BlueMoonset 213:Looking at 36:This is an 2141:|answered= 1933:(that's a 1916:Antinoos69 1443:below. - 443:References 2561:oknazevad 2462:oknazevad 2434:jaguarjim 2228:oknazevad 2178:Not done: 2091:this edit 1988:oknazevad 1837:Star Wars 1331:Torchiest 530:Come on, 142:JMcGowan2 87:Archive 6 82:Archive 5 77:Archive 4 71:Archive 3 65:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 2442:contribs 2430:unsigned 2343:GoneIn60 2305:GoneIn60 2286:Fru1tbat 2019:WP:Undue 1984:WP:UNDUE 1902:contribs 1890:unsigned 1865:Fru1tbat 1811:contribs 1799:unsigned 1776:contribs 1739:contribs 1668:GoneIn60 1666:I agree 1652:GoneIn60 1133:Muboshgu 1105:Fru1tbat 641:Fru1tbat 389:GoneIn60 321:physical 246:Fru1tbat 223:GoneIn60 124:Fru1tbat 2525:WP:PLOT 2159:NichoXE 1822:Titanic 1270:finally 1228:finally 918:ατάστασ 876:GA nom? 773:section 470:, Wired 458:, Slate 268:present 103:film. 39:archive 2521:WP:IAR 2395:Chambr 2327:JDC808 2263:JDC808 2247:Chambr 2212:Chambr 2182:clpo13 2015:Avatar 1976:Avatar 1828:Avatar 1752:JDC808 1558:- now 1489:WP:BRD 1481:WP:OWN 1385:JDC808 1310:JDC808 1275:JDC808 1259:sense. 1211:JDC808 1203:WP:OWN 1148:WP:OWN 317:saying 2639:child 2545:Why? 2145:|ans= 2131:This 2089:With 1677:still 1636:child 1582:child 1523:child 1498:Yodin 1454:child 1441:reply 1413:child 1368:child 1336:edits 1241:child 1182:child 1161:pIron 1073:child 1033:child 993:child 892:child 834:child 787:child 697:child 613:Yodin 601:child 580:Yodin 567:child 541:Yodin 521:child 431:Yodin 385:after 374:child 335:child 281:child 219:offer 196:child 165:Yodin 16:< 2656:talk 2634:WOLF 2607:talk 2593:talk 2579:talk 2565:talk 2551:talk 2536:talk 2523:for 2510:talk 2502:here 2484:talk 2466:talk 2457:Done 2438:talk 2399:talk 2386:bold 2347:talk 2309:talk 2290:talk 2278:edit 2251:talk 2232:talk 2216:talk 2187:talk 2163:talk 2103:talk 2095:here 2071:talk 2059:this 2039:talk 1992:talk 1966:talk 1955:here 1943:talk 1920:talk 1898:talk 1869:talk 1850:talk 1825:and 1807:talk 1772:talk 1735:talk 1726:here 1656:talk 1631:WOLF 1577:WOLF 1568:here 1560:that 1518:WOLF 1509:Some 1495:. ‑‑ 1449:WOLF 1439:See 1408:WOLF 1382:. -- 1363:WOLF 1350:gave 1236:WOLF 1177:WOLF 1137:talk 1109:talk 1068:WOLF 1053:talk 1028:WOLF 1013:talk 988:WOLF 963:talk 949:talk 887:WOLF 860:cont 856:talk 851:OTTO 847:ARTH 829:WOLF 814:cont 810:talk 805:OTTO 801:ARTH 782:WOLF 762:cont 758:talk 753:OTTO 749:ARTH 723:cont 719:talk 714:OTTO 710:ARTH 692:WOLF 676:talk 672:CAJH 645:talk 596:WOLF 562:WOLF 536:give 516:WOLF 502:talk 420:talk 393:talk 369:WOLF 354:talk 330:WOLF 307:talk 276:WOLF 250:talk 242:give 227:talk 191:WOLF 146:talk 128:talk 112:talk 2628:- 2143:or 2135:to 1774:) ( 1737:) ( 1605:OWN 1562:is 1402:- 1346:was 1157:Scr 1044:and 633:not 553:you 2658:) 2609:) 2595:) 2581:) 2567:) 2553:) 2538:) 2512:) 2486:) 2468:) 2444:) 2440:• 2401:) 2349:) 2341:-- 2311:) 2292:) 2260:-- 2253:) 2234:) 2218:) 2165:) 2149:no 2105:) 2073:) 2041:) 1994:) 1986:. 1968:) 1945:) 1922:) 1904:) 1900:• 1871:) 1852:) 1813:) 1809:• 1658:) 1564:OR 1354:is 1307:-- 1139:) 1111:) 1103:-- 1055:) 1015:) 965:) 951:) 745:? 678:) 647:) 504:) 422:) 395:) 356:) 309:) 252:) 229:) 148:) 130:) 122:-- 114:) 2654:( 2620:: 2616:@ 2605:( 2591:( 2577:( 2563:( 2549:( 2534:( 2508:( 2482:( 2464:( 2436:( 2397:( 2345:( 2332:♫ 2307:( 2288:( 2268:♫ 2249:( 2230:( 2214:( 2189:) 2185:( 2161:( 2101:( 2069:( 2037:( 1990:( 1964:( 1941:( 1918:( 1896:( 1867:( 1848:( 1805:( 1778:) 1770:( 1757:♫ 1741:) 1733:( 1654:( 1390:♫ 1315:♫ 1280:♫ 1216:♫ 1199:) 1195:( 1159:★ 1135:( 1107:( 1051:( 1011:( 961:( 947:( 924:η 912:κ 858:• 849:B 845:D 812:• 803:B 799:D 760:• 751:B 747:D 721:• 712:B 708:D 674:( 643:( 500:( 418:( 391:( 352:( 305:( 248:( 225:( 144:( 126:( 110:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index