446:, in which "mostly" and "widely" emerged as possible candidates that could replace "overwhelmingly". In fact, "widely" was used for a short time until "overwhelmingly" found its way back in. They are all rough synonyms of each other, including the newly-suggested "predominantly". I don't feel strongly about the choice, but I think if an editor feels the need to change it from "overwhelmingly" to one of the other choices, they're acting on personal preference and splitting hairs. I don't think an entire discussion is worth the gratification a handful of editors might receive should their intended preference emerge the victor. I say leave it as is and move on, and only discuss its removal altogether if new information warrants its exclusion.As for "fan reactions", we typically exclude those from film articles. There are very few instances of when they are permitted. Any source can scour social media or interview a random fan and get a reaction, especially the kind they're looking for to support their narrative or viewpoint. We have to be careful about those. It's preferred (per the guideline Flyer mentions) that we only mention audience feedback from polls that were carried out in "an accredited manner". I would suggest breaking that out into a separate discussion thread if that's something you really want to pursue. --
653:
31:
803:"pick the top results off of google". I looked at the content of pages presented and picked the ones that I thought would provide valuable reference to the article. I didn't pick the pages because they contained a word in the title that fitted a pov or that fitted something like a restricted search criteria. Issue had previously raise with the wording "critical acclaim" in the discussion now in
170:
224:
780:. Since when has an article title (which is often not written by the author) supposed to be more important than the text of an article? If youād prefer a more commonly used phrase, the term ācritical acclaimā or āacclaimā was used in a ton of articles and would easily be supported by a variety of sources, including aggregator Metacritic.
646:
639:
1113:
This isn't to say that any of the alternative options are bad, but "overwhelmingly positive" is clearly the more commonly-used pairing in
English news sources, and I don't think that's an anomaly. The order we have here is about the order of preference I'd support at this point. I also don't think it
802:
sources" that both used "overwhelmingly" in their article titles. In my first post above I mentioned that I was concerned that citations were taken from mysanantonio.com and qz.com and I've indicated that Google, as one assesser of content, did not even categorise them as news. In my edit I did not
300:
How about something along the lines of "a star-powered superweapon capable of targeting systems across the galaxy?" This explains what SK can do that the DS couldn't and doesn't need to refer to the hyperspace stuff. Also, I checked again, and the dialogue does refer to the destruction of the
Hosnian
269:
I would partially oppose your subsequent change, because even if accurate, as you correctly point out we state below it can destroy planetary systems so to say it's capable of it here as well is redundant. IMO mentioning that the weapon fires through hyperspace is unneeded crufty detail, but happy to
261:
I wasn't aware of any dialogue or images (beyond bright lights in the sky from a distance) that stated it was capable of destroying entire star systems. The hyperspace bit seemed unnecessary and a bit synthy (firing though hyperspace vs firing at hyperlight speed which is what is actually said in the
285:
I agree it's redundant to what appears two paragraphs later and should be removed. However, a very brief description at some point that this is more powerful/deadly than the Death Star should probably be somewhere in the plot summary. The film goes out of its way to clarify this, but writing that it
1083:
I'm still of the mindset that all this effort and time could be better spent elsewhere, but I'll bite one last time. Replacing with "predominantly" isn't a terrible option, but it's an unnecessary one. If we go a bit further and look at how often we see the occurrence of each phrase in Google News,
706:
Iām not really sure youāre familiar that must with how
Knowledge coverage of movies works, which is concerning given the large number of edits you have been making in Star Wars topics in particular. There is absolutely nothing wrong with using reliable sources to describe the coverage of films. Not
351:
I think that wording such as "predominantly" should be used in the first sentence and that the fourth paragraph, instead of beginning with the apparent contradiction "Despite the overwhelmingly positive reception for the picture, certain critics found...", could say something like, "Contrary to the
693:
Editors have raised issue with this before and I predict that they will again. I say that we should present citations from the most productive and noteworthy of available sources and then simply present content in a straightforward way? I hope that we can progress with a simple, straightforward,
1140:
671:
I'm not going to pretend to know how the sources were arrived at, as I was not a part of that process, but I'm trying to understand what harm is being identified here. Is the issue about determining which synonym is ultimately picked and inserted into the article? Because if that's the main drive
1326:
and the only guidance I can see that you've taken from it is to organize opinions into what was praised and criticized, which is fair enough. However, so much of the section has been trimmed down during the rework that we're only left with two very short paragraphs, with a lot of the wording and
125:
IT moved Daisy Ridley's name to the top in the actor's list. We could consider and discuss the following: Her character is the main character, obviously, so it should go on top. The list is one of actors. The actor represents the character, but is not the character. Harrison Ford, Mark Hamill,
417:? Whether or not to include that critic's commentary is more so opinion. As for audience reception, if there is enough material that warrants there being an "Audience response" section, one can be added. If not, that small audience piece should remain there in the Critical response section. See
632:
997:
and resorting to nostalgia. He felt that it "didn't a return to the universe" from not having an original story of its own to tell in the plot, characters, and musical score, negatively comparing it to George Lucas' prequel trilogy, and that some of its climactic moments felt unearned.
799:
615:
341:
976:, Scott Mendelson cited the film's "top-tier production values and a strong sense of scale and scope", but felt it was so much "an exercise in fan service it is only due to the charisma and talent of our newbies and J. J. Abrams' undeniable skill as a visual storyteller that the
339:
I reviewed the article afresh, unaware that this had previously been discussed, but was immediately concerned that the references for the claim to "overwhelmingly positive reviews from critics" came from the less prominent sources mysanantonio.com and qz.com. I did a search on
593:
Any source that looks into the divisive aspect is going to look into the Rotten
Tomatoes audience score issue, just like media sources have. The source doesn't state that the Rotten Tomatoes audience score is valid. In fact, it mentions criticism of it. It mentions the trolls.
1189:
Yes, and everyone is welcome to an opinion of course. I happen to believe it is a common way to describe a large majority. Now if we used a phrase like "universally", then you'd be onto something. Seems like this is rapidly descending into "hair-splitting" territory.
984:
wrote that "Science fiction is supposed to be all about exploring the unexplored, not rehashing the well-trod ā¦ one of the most unabashedly creative enterprises of the 20th century has been rendered another largely enjoyable, but mostly forgettable
Hollywood reboot."
690:. Who or what is overwhelmed? So the film had mostly positive reviews. Why not simply say that? Why suggest that a certain set of reviews, as presenting a certain judgement, were overwhelming? We can just say something like most and let the reader get on with it.
253:. I've got a lot of respect for what you do across a variety of articles and hope we can come to understand each other. The previous, shorter version, before the addition by the IP on January 6th didn't define what it was capable of 'annihilating'. I opposed the
1335:
been quoted, their placement at the end of the first paragraph seems very haphazard and gives it little sense of flow. I can understand if you'd wanted to trim the section, but in my opinion it still could have been achieved by better detailing the sources.
270:
hear otherwise. Is there any evidence in the film or official lore that it destroys entire systems rather than planets? I hadn't noticed the other reference lower down, but I won't touch it as this section also been pretty stable, pending this discussion.
775:
Since when are we supposed to pick the top results off of google? I fail to see how this has ever been remotely relevant in how
Knowledge determines which sources are reliable or not. Also, youāre explicitly searching for search results in the
1176:
I think that, as qualifiers go, other options could be more encyclopedic than "overwhelmingly". "Overwhelmingly" is akin to "overflow" and suggests a numerical quantifiation that discounts the rest. Other qualifiers don't do this.
1118:
when used in this context as a quantifier. We are simply invoking it's definition "very great in number", and using it in the sense of an "overwhelming majority". That is a common, straight-forward way of describing a vast majority.
574:
Iām not gonna relitigate TLJ but I will say that source mentions the audience score, which was proven to be manipulated. Itās safe to say any source that mentions online audience scores as reputable is not really great quality imo.
737:" but I agree in what you say about RS. I've initiated with you on your user page which might be a more appropriate forum for more personal discussion. If you want I'd be happy for you to delete this comment along with yours.
1100:
1106:
1094:
404:
edit, I removed the "Despite" piece as unnecessary and repetitive. Regarding your edits, I will state that you should be aware of how the critical reception sections of film articles are commonly written. Regarding
1088:
1041:, which consists of mixed, lukewarm, and somewhat negative reviews. Their presence in the article doesn't somehow disqualify the accepted viewpoint that a large majority of reviews were positive. --
846:
1021:
I guess they these reviewers didn't get the memo about being overwhelmed and I'd see the "critically acclaimed" wording as less problematic in regard to policy that the overwhelming puffery.
536:
Comment: I don't agree that an "Audience response", which is about more than just what fans think, should only be included in historical cases. We include them when they are warranted per
478:
aggregations with a numerical quantity, be it 29 percent positive reviews or 99 percent positive reviews: Just give the number and let the reader draw their own conclusion. I know we have
508:
Everyone else said things about as well as I could so Iāll just concur with them, especially on āfan reactionsā, which 99% of the time arenāt notable. In fact, online audience scores are
122:
Regarding the edit "02:42, 16 January 2019ā Branjsmith94 (talk | contribs)ā . . (220,940 bytes) (0)ā . . (Daisy Ridley is the main character of this film, as stated in interviews.) "
1162:
is not a numerical quantifier. All the examples listed above are. We are comparing these to one another, not to other random words that are obvious violations of PUFFERY. --
548:. To say that this is "a historically appropriate exception" (although I stated that the divisive aspect would be noted in academic books, and I was right...as seen with
1261:, you'll find numerous discussions in which many veteran editors disagree on whether a summary statement should be used. There was never a consensus to add guidance to
841:
618:
sources, both happen to use "overwhelmingly" in their article titles, perhaps it's not surprising that this wording 'found its way back in'. The situation smacks of
1331:. There's no quoting of the individual reviews used for summarizing the aspects that were praised, and while the examples used for the musical score and screenplay
1146:
Just because news reporters refer to people and things that they regard as "legendary", that doesn't mean we are warrented to use
Knowledge's voice to do the same.
1265:
either. All of these debates ended in stalemates, with editors understanding that it would be handled on a case-by-case basis. It just so happens this article,
899:
804:
443:
265:
The "official" databank entry for starkiller base (starwars.com) also just talks about sterilising entire planets with a single shot (rather than systems).
72:
67:
59:
204:
Change: It was produced by
Lucasfilm Ltd., Abrams's production company Bad Robot Productions, and distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures.
851:
207:
To: It was produced by
Lucasfilm Ltd. and Abrams's production company Bad Robot Productions, and distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures.
861:
687:
409:, they sometimes include things like "gave it five stars out of five." And they usually include "indicating 'universal acclaim'" when that is the
1359:
an improvement here and are heavily skewed towards negative criticism - an odd move for a film that was, by all accounts, critically acclaimed.
104:
906:. Some reviewers have certainly regarded the film with critical acclaim while a 2015 minority have taken other critical views as per:
970:
wrote that Abrams had delivered "everything we expect, as opposed to those nebulous wonders we didn't know we wanted". Reviewing for
126:
Carrie Fisher, Oscar Isaac, Lupita Nyong'o, all, maybe, more recognizable. Her name should follow theirs when listed by real name.
47:
17:
960:
that it was "the work of a talented mimic or ventriloquist who can just about cover for the fact that he has nothing much to say".
474:
that covers audience reaction. And such unquantifiable, hyperbolic adjectives as "overwhelmingly" do not belong at all ā we have
418:
798:
Taking a step back, in my last post I commented on consecutively presented citations "which both come from less notable and
344:
and, failing to find the previous references but finding relevant content from latimes.com and indiewire.com, I attempted
1319:
873:
This is in addition to
Metacritic. If weāre going to use a modifier, ācritically acclaimedā seems like an accurate one.
180:
363:
I also think that relevant reports on fan reactions to the film could have inclusion in the critical response section.
898:
Here's how I see issues as relating to the "critical acclaim..." phrase. As mentioned, editors on this article have
826:
of 8.27/10. ..." and present a straightforward lead into the content. Wording like "mostly" and "widely" also works.
622:
editing with editors having having either cherry-picked or mined for references that supplied wording to suit their
38:
614:
In context that the first two citations that are presented for the wording, which both come from less notable and
1328:
1227:
599:
565:
557:
553:
545:
431:
108:
1366:
880:
787:
756:
714:
582:
519:
176:
856:
1341:
1318:
Following my tweaking of your edits to the section, I just wanted to give my thoughts on the re-written
619:
136:
1372:
1345:
1298:
1278:
1252:
1199:
1184:
1171:
1153:
1128:
1050:
1028:
886:
833:
793:
762:
744:
720:
701:
681:
666:
603:
588:
569:
525:
499:
455:
435:
386:
324:
310:
295:
279:
238:
216:
154:
140:
112:
103:
using the term "international" and some articles use phrases such as "and in other terriritories". --
397:
1239:
823:
466:
rare, historically appropriate exceptions such as the 1970s fandom that kept the cancelled original
1323:
1258:
595:
561:
462:
I agree with my colleagues that fan reaction has no place in a WikiProject Film article except for
427:
370:
320:
150:
we order the cast based on the credits, not based on our perceptions of their importance. Thanks.ā
1361:
1294:
1285:
1274:
1249:
1238:
reported that 91% of critics have given the film a positive review based on 457 reviews, with an
1195:
1181:
1167:
1150:
1124:
1046:
1025:
961:
875:
866:
830:
782:
751:
741:
709:
698:
677:
663:
577:
514:
495:
490:
after those guidelines began, I don't see any harm in adding a note to this effect in FILMMOS. --
451:
383:
376:
306:
291:
275:
208:
1337:
1231:
1115:
815:
549:
483:
479:
100:
950:
132:
1033:
I fail to see the point of this analysis. An overwhelming majority of reviews doesn't mean
659:
I'm left to wonder about the process that editors used to compiled the existing citations.
1313:
1235:
966:
955:
819:
475:
232:
212:
1037:
reviews. This paragraph represents a slice of the minority viewpoint in accordance with
1352:
1136:
987:
552:
2019 "Disney's Star Wars: Forces of Production, Promotion, and Reception" source, from
426:
Since this article is on my watchlist, I ask that you don't ping me to this talk page.
316:
250:
1269:, is one of those examples where local consensus was formed in favor of having one. --
1290:
1270:
1246:
1191:
1178:
1163:
1147:
1120:
1042:
1038:
1022:
827:
738:
726:
695:
673:
660:
623:
537:
491:
447:
380:
373:
367:
302:
287:
286:
can destroy a "planetary system" doesn't necessarily make this obvious to readers. --
271:
151:
301:
system so I stand corrected. I'm fine now with leaving the second reference as-is.
1245:
In this case Knowledge has not presented its own numerator or qualifier thereof.
471:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
118:
Re: "Daisy Ridley is the main character of this film, as stated in interviews."
993:
410:
147:
400:
and this discussion has been started for further debate on the matter. With
749:
Questioning your understanding of a policy area is not a personal attack.
1262:
977:
360:
trilogy," . Then again some of that wording might be dumped altogether.
396:
the previous references for "overwhelmingly positive" since that is the
1327:
citations having been taken directly from the Reception section on the
944:
trilogy, some expressing their opinion that the film was essentially a
352:
predominantly positive reception for the picture, some critics viewed
972:
945:
88:
Edit request rephrase to avoid unnecessary use of the term "overseas"
991:'s Gerardo Valero went as far as to accuse the film of plagiarizing
980:
narrative doesn't outright destroy the picture". Brian Merchant of
707:
only is it common, itās actually in keeping with our policies here.
1322:
because I don't really see the reasoning behind it. You've quoted
929:
the scathing fourth paragraph of the critical responses section
642:
returned six results (with some pages copying the same content)
392:
I'm not debating the "overwhelmingly positive" thing again. I
164:
25:
822:, it has a 93% approval rating based on 426 reviews, with an
335:"Overwhelmingly" for the Critical response section yet again
814:
received predominently positive reviews from critics. On
672:
behind this, that would seem kind of petty. No offense. --
342:
allintitle: force awakens reviews 1 Dec 2015 -- 1 Jan 2016
560:. But it is true that these sections are rarely needed.
903:
541:
414:
406:
401:
393:
345:
254:
540:. After much discussion (including RfCs), we included
838:
Hereās a handful of sources I found in five minutes:
486:
already, but given that we're still discussing this
725:I'm not really sure you're familiar with policy on
96:to avoid the repeated use of the term "overseas".
810:My proposal is that we simply say something like "
640:allintitle: "force awakens" reviews overwhelmingly
1355:reverted to a prior version. Chompy's edits are
1289:go as far as having it displayed in the lead. --
633:allintitle: force awakens reviews overwhelmingly
419:Knowledge:Manual of Style/Film#Audience response
161:Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2019
1257:Correct, and if you search the talk archive at
8:
895:(out of sequence but relating to the above)
1228:Star Wars: The Last Jedi#Critical response
924:
694:encyclopedic edit without the hyperbole.
442:This has been brought up several times in
201:Third sentence of the body of the page.
927:
686:The guideline is that we should avoid
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
807:but you can certainly make your case.
366:Pinging previously involved editors:
7:
1283:I mean, hell, some articles such as
654:allintitle: "force awakens" reviews
647:allintitle: "force awakens" reviews
729:which advises that we "Comment on
556:, pages 314-320) would be akin to
24:
18:Talk:Star Wars: The Force Awakens
222:
168:
29:
542:the "Audience response" section
146:Thanks for your edits, but per
1087:- "overwhelmingly positive" ā
656:returned "About 2,830 results"
635:did not match any news results
356:as derivative of the original
239:20:38, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
217:18:45, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
1:
1373:13:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
1346:13:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
1099:- "predominantly positive" ā
688:Words that may introduce bias
1299:08:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
1279:08:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
1253:08:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
1200:06:29, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
1185:06:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
1172:05:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
1154:05:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
1129:05:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
1051:07:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
1029:05:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
887:21:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
834:20:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
812:Star Wars: The Force Awakens
794:19:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
763:21:24, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
745:21:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
721:20:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
702:20:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
682:19:14, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
667:18:24, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
649:returned "About 102 results"
604:20:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
589:20:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
570:20:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
526:23:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
500:19:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
456:17:57, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
436:16:50, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
387:16:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
181:Star Wars: The Force Awakens
155:04:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
141:02:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
1307:Re-worked Critical response
954:. Andrew O'Hehir wrote for
940:derivative of the original
325:14:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
311:12:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
296:12:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
280:10:27, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
195:to reactivate your request.
183:has been answered. Set the
99:The Knowledge project film
1389:
413:consensus. And stuff like
1135:From the word listing at
554:University of Iowa Press
546:Star Wars: The Last Jedi
113:20:21, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
1084:here's what we'd find:
1105:- "widely positive" ā
1093:- "mostly positive" ā
936:Certain critics found
904:used in other articles
902:and yet it is clearly
315:Is be okay with that.
470:a viable IP. We have
42:of past discussions.
1230:simply begins: "The
1158:Apples and oranges.
1141:gets 67,900,000 hits
101:style guide suggests
92:Please rephrase the
900:objected to its use
805:Archive_5#Reception
1286:Terminator Genisys
962:Stephanie Zacharek
857:Hollywood Reporter
778:article title only
257:addition because:
1320:Critical response
1232:review aggregator
1003:
1002:
938:The Force Awakens
816:review aggregator
558:WP:CRYSTALBALLING
354:The Force Awakens
199:
198:
85:
84:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
1380:
1317:
925:
652:In Google (all)
638:In Google (all)
444:past discussions
237:
226:
225:
190:
186:
172:
171:
165:
129:Just a thought.
81:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
1388:
1387:
1383:
1382:
1381:
1379:
1378:
1377:
1311:
1309:
1236:Rotten Tomatoes
1143:in Google News.
1114:qualifies as a
1004:
930:
847:Washington Post
842:The Independent
820:Rotten Tomatoes
800:less accessible
645:In Google News
631:In Google News
616:less accessible
476:Rotten Tomatoes
337:
247:
245:Starkiller base
231:
223:
188:
184:
169:
163:
120:
90:
77:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1386:
1384:
1376:
1375:
1329:sequel trilogy
1308:
1305:
1304:
1303:
1302:
1301:
1281:
1243:
1242:of 8.09/10..."
1240:average rating
1222:
1221:
1220:
1219:
1218:
1217:
1216:
1215:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1211:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1207:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1144:
1139:, "legendary"
1111:
1110:
1109:
1103:
1097:
1091:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1001:
1000:
988:RogerEbert.com
932:
931:
928:
923:
922:
921:
920:
919:
918:
917:
916:
915:
914:
913:
912:
911:
910:
909:
908:
907:
896:
871:
870:
869:
864:
859:
854:
849:
844:
824:average rating
808:
773:
772:
771:
770:
769:
768:
767:
766:
765:
691:
657:
650:
643:
636:
628:
627:
620:wp:tendentious
611:
610:
609:
608:
607:
606:
596:Flyer22 Reborn
562:Flyer22 Reborn
531:
530:
529:
528:
503:
502:
459:
458:
439:
438:
428:Flyer22 Reborn
423:
422:
371:Flyer22 Reborn
336:
333:
332:
331:
330:
329:
328:
327:
267:
266:
263:
246:
243:
242:
241:
197:
196:
173:
162:
159:
158:
157:
119:
116:
89:
86:
83:
82:
75:
70:
65:
62:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1385:
1374:
1371:
1370:
1369:
1365:
1364:
1358:
1354:
1350:
1349:
1348:
1347:
1343:
1339:
1334:
1330:
1325:
1321:
1315:
1306:
1300:
1296:
1292:
1288:
1287:
1282:
1280:
1276:
1272:
1268:
1267:Force Awakens
1264:
1260:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1251:
1248:
1244:
1241:
1237:
1233:
1229:
1226:
1223:
1201:
1197:
1193:
1188:
1187:
1186:
1183:
1180:
1175:
1174:
1173:
1169:
1165:
1161:
1157:
1156:
1155:
1152:
1149:
1145:
1142:
1138:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1126:
1122:
1117:
1116:biased phrase
1112:
1108:
1104:
1102:
1098:
1096:
1092:
1090:
1086:
1085:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1073:
1072:
1071:
1052:
1048:
1044:
1040:
1036:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1027:
1024:
1020:
1019:
1018:
1017:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1013:
1012:
1011:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1005:
999:
996:
995:
990:
989:
983:
979:
975:
974:
969:
968:
963:
959:
958:
953:
952:
947:
943:
939:
934:
933:
926:
905:
901:
897:
894:
893:
892:
891:
890:
889:
888:
885:
884:
883:
879:
878:
872:
868:
865:
863:
860:
858:
855:
853:
852:NY Daily News
850:
848:
845:
843:
840:
839:
837:
836:
835:
832:
829:
825:
821:
817:
813:
809:
806:
801:
797:
796:
795:
792:
791:
790:
786:
785:
779:
774:
764:
761:
760:
759:
755:
754:
748:
747:
746:
743:
740:
736:
733:, not on the
732:
728:
724:
723:
722:
719:
718:
717:
713:
712:
705:
704:
703:
700:
697:
692:
689:
685:
684:
683:
679:
675:
670:
669:
668:
665:
662:
658:
655:
651:
648:
644:
641:
637:
634:
630:
629:
625:
624:point of view
621:
617:
613:
612:
605:
601:
597:
592:
591:
590:
587:
586:
585:
581:
580:
573:
572:
571:
567:
563:
559:
555:
551:
547:
543:
539:
535:
534:
533:
532:
527:
524:
523:
522:
518:
517:
511:
507:
506:
505:
504:
501:
497:
493:
489:
485:
481:
477:
473:
469:
465:
461:
460:
457:
453:
449:
445:
441:
440:
437:
433:
429:
425:
424:
420:
416:
412:
408:
403:
399:
398:WP:Status quo
395:
391:
390:
389:
388:
385:
382:
378:
377:Toa Nidhiki05
375:
372:
369:
364:
361:
359:
355:
349:
347:
343:
334:
326:
322:
318:
314:
313:
312:
308:
304:
299:
298:
297:
293:
289:
284:
283:
282:
281:
277:
273:
264:
260:
259:
258:
256:
252:
244:
240:
236:
235:
229:
221:
220:
219:
218:
214:
210:
205:
202:
194:
191:parameter to
182:
178:
174:
167:
166:
160:
156:
153:
149:
145:
144:
143:
142:
138:
134:
130:
127:
123:
117:
115:
114:
110:
106:
105:109.79.102.79
102:
97:
95:
87:
80:
76:
74:
71:
69:
66:
63:
61:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
1367:
1362:
1360:
1356:
1338:Wikibenboy94
1332:
1324:WP:RECEPTION
1310:
1284:
1266:
1224:
1159:
1089:117,000 hits
1034:
992:
986:
981:
971:
965:
956:
949:
941:
937:
935:
881:
876:
874:
862:The Guardian
811:
788:
783:
781:
777:
757:
752:
750:
734:
730:
715:
710:
708:
583:
578:
576:
520:
515:
513:
509:
487:
467:
463:
365:
362:
357:
353:
350:
338:
268:
248:
233:
227:
206:
203:
200:
192:
177:edit request
131:
128:
124:
121:
98:
93:
91:
78:
43:
37:
1095:57,700 hits
982:Motherboard
735:contributor
472:Cinemascore
133:Liberty5651
36:This is an
1314:Chompy Ace
1101:1,400 hits
994:A New Hope
951:A New Hope
512:notable.
484:WP:PEACOCK
480:WP:PUFFERY
411:Metacritic
234:KuyaBriBri
185:|answered=
148:MOS:TVCAST
94:Box office
1368:Nidhiki05
1160:Legendary
942:Star Wars
882:Nidhiki05
789:Nidhiki05
758:Nidhiki05
716:Nidhiki05
584:Nidhiki05
521:Nidhiki05
468:Star Trek
464:extremely
358:Star Wars
346:this edit
317:oknazevad
251:Oknazevad
79:ArchiveĀ 6
73:ArchiveĀ 5
68:ArchiveĀ 4
60:ArchiveĀ 1
1291:GoneIn60
1271:GoneIn60
1263:MOS:FILM
1234:website
1192:GoneIn60
1164:GoneIn60
1121:GoneIn60
1107:753 hits
1043:GoneIn60
978:Mad Libs
818:website
674:GoneIn60
492:Tenebrae
448:GoneIn60
394:restored
374:GoneIn60
368:Tenebrae
303:Scribolt
288:GoneIn60
272:Scribolt
255:original
152:TAnthony
1351:I have
1259:WT:FILM
1137:WP:Puff
867:Fortune
731:content
39:archive
1353:BOLDLY
1039:WP:DUE
973:Forbes
946:remake
727:WP:NPA
538:WP:Due
262:film).
957:Salon
510:never
488:years
209:Trobc
189:|ans=
175:This
16:<
1342:talk
1333:have
1295:talk
1275:talk
1250:Kaye
1247:Greg
1225:Note
1196:talk
1182:Kaye
1179:Greg
1168:talk
1151:Kaye
1148:Greg
1125:talk
1047:talk
1026:Kaye
1023:Greg
967:TIME
831:Kaye
828:Greg
742:Kaye
739:Greg
699:Kaye
696:Greg
678:talk
664:Kaye
661:Greg
600:talk
566:talk
550:this
496:talk
482:and
452:talk
432:talk
415:this
407:this
402:this
384:Kaye
381:Greg
321:talk
307:talk
292:talk
276:talk
228:Done
213:talk
137:talk
109:talk
1363:Toa
1357:not
1035:all
964:of
948:of
877:Toa
784:Toa
753:Toa
711:Toa
579:Toa
544:at
516:Toa
249:Hi
187:or
179:to
1344:)
1297:)
1277:)
1198:)
1190:--
1170:)
1127:)
1119:--
1049:)
680:)
602:)
568:)
498:)
454:)
434:)
379:,
348:.
323:)
309:)
294:)
278:)
215:)
193:no
139:)
111:)
64:ā
1340:(
1316::
1312:@
1293:(
1273:(
1194:(
1166:(
1123:(
1045:(
676:(
626:.
598:(
564:(
494:(
450:(
430:(
421:.
319:(
305:(
290:(
274:(
230:ā
211:(
135:(
107:(
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.