1455:
across fields helps established that he is broadly iconic. So, yes, the insects would have a home in the article in any portion that discusses his lasting cultural status as a recognizable cultural figure: people think of him to name insects after, which suggests a level of iconicism. It's the same for him being used in memetic politic rhetoric, and so on and so forth. The purpose isn't to include every single reference to him, but to present a breadth of cultural moments and uses that demonstrate his enduring popularity and cultural recognizability.
1151:
than having this template, and I believe that the fact that so many characters who are considered among the most iconic in films have virtually nothing arguing why on their pages is proof of that. Considering the fact that the templates also link to discussions that lead here, the confusion should be minimal. By having these cleanup templates, the problems with these articles are more evident to editors who may be under the impression that the articles do not have issues to address. -
712:
269:
251:
504:
1459:
that subject in fiction. The thing about, like, insects is a single sentence mentioning that this character is commemorated in a scientific field through this establishes a non-fictional and non-media interaction with a fictional subject. The essay is more relevant for "don't include every single passing reference to Darth Vader in other television shows, unless that instance is in some way highly significant". ~Cheers,
352:
220:
189:
1254:. The removal was the opposite of haphazard. I asked for a peer review from an experienced editor, who recommened that the entire section be scrapped, calling it "atrocious". I agree with this assessment. It's a massive pile of trivia. We need secondary sources that state "Darth Vader is notable because X". A bunch of pop culture references is not acceptable. The key is finding sources
1425:. I've linked to the Content section, which states that a cultural impact section "should contain verifiable information with sources that establish its significance to the article's subject." I realize an essay is not an MOS page, but I would appreciate it if you could take a look. I would say that the insect articles do not establish the beetles as significant to the topic of Vader.
538:
1101:), so it's more of a slow go for me, and I'd have to figure out what film websites are good places to check for sources. If y'all can give me a nudge on that, that'd be fantastic. I don't know that I would actually be writing in any sources (don't know if I could really fit it in my schedule), but I would be fine doing the research so y'all have it at the ready. -
1284:
action would be to create an "Analysis" section and discuss the contents of the article in greater detail, not removing the content outright. Furthermore, the more appropriate - and simple - process would be to discuss what should be removed, not re-added, and why, especially since multiple editors feel you have removed content that ought not to be removed. -
1353:
doing original research. We are claiming that because Vader reference X exists, then it means Vader is notable. We don't have the authority to decide that. We have to rely on secondary sources to tell us what is notable. I did not understand this for a long time. Only after the peer review and another conversation with the reviewer did it "click" for me.
1349:"What follows is a random assortment of references in media without any sourcing to back up that these are significant ones, let alone the most significant ones. A species is named after Vader—sure, species named after popular culture items are a dime a dozen. The same thing applies to astronomical objects, by the way."
1552:). That's not actually a given—it's true if and only if sources explicitly make that point. I haven't looked at the overall literature on the topic, but it does indeed seem likely that they would do so. They would then also, presumably, back up that assertion with some kind of evidence (indeed, perhaps through
1370:
does not argue that significant coverage must come from articles about the subject. Furthermore, it would strike me as strange for an article about Darth Vader to not mention that his name is a part of these things' etymology. It does not necessarily need to contribute a significant degree to whether
1150:
The only better template to use would be notability, since Darth Vader does not demonstrate notability at present. There's also sources exist, but that's reserved for cases where sources are shown to exist, not where they are believed or even known to exist. I believe that having no template is worse
1608:
Would it be okay if we use the example of the insects again? If a Vader-centric source said "Darth Vader is an iconic figure who has species named after him" then we can include that source's reference to the insects. But absent that type of source, what I've been attempting to illustrate is that we
1487:
a broad, shiny, helmetlike head"), Frances
Fawcett (their scientific illustrator) and the Greek words for "ugly" and "having prominent teeth" and the Latin word for "strange." Many of the other names they used for the recently described beetles were derived from various geographic locations, such as
1352:
The important thing here is that the sources cited for the insect names are not sources about Vader. As I mentioned before, cultural impact must be measured by how much weight is given to the subject—in this case, species named after Vader—in reliable, published works about Vader. Otherwise, we are
1085:
In the above articles, they all either have a complete lack of reception or have very little reception for how significant of characters they are. Vader and Piett, for example, having the same number of citations in reception is quite telling of this. I don't think this is a condemnation of any one
1796:
I think this change completely and misleadingly downplays the reception and vast cultural impact of this character. It makes the article much worse and incomplete, turning the article into almost entirely in-universe information and removing vital context about the significance of the character in
1458:
Cukie is correct in that sources do not need to discuss the subject of the article in detail for information contained in them to be meaningful to include. The issue here too is "In popular culture" is often about real-world subjects and avoiding curating sections that are every passing mention of
1283:
I wholeheartedly do not agree with many of the removals, hence why I added the content back. A lot of the content was not good, and I removed much of the bad content. Reading the peer review, there was content removed erroneously, such as the discussion of Darth Vader's psychology. The appropriate
1220:
Thanks for the note. I've been combing through those
Cultural Impact sections, and I did find two tidbits that I restored on the Vader page. I've recognized my tendency to remove content a bit too hastily, and I am now revisiting the previous versions of every character page I've edited, to see if
1135:
I'm still uncomfortable with the templates you've added to the various pages. I feel they are misleading and inappropriate, and will confuse editors. I understand that a template doesn't exist for "this article needs more content to demonstrate notability", but I don't think that's a justification
1627:
Pretty much, yes. It seems unlikely that mentioning species names (I have a feeling that the participants in this discussion do not fully appreciate just how incredibly common it is for species, and for that matter astronomical objects, to be named after popular culture items) would be consistent
1454:
I feel like there's a bit of a backward order of operations here. If the article is trying to establish Vader's broad and lasting popularity as an iconic figure, how would an encyclopedia establish that? A careful selection of the ways that he is invoked and referenced as a character and a symbol
1235:
Yes, I do worry that you were being too haphazard with deleting content. Looking at Darth Vader, for example, a lot of the cultural impact that you removed seemed pretty significant, and was from largely reliable sources as far as I can tell. It's certainly not as dire a situation as I thought. -
1818:
Thanks for offering your perspective. If you would like to restore parts of Star Wars articles I have removed, please feel free to do so. But before you do, I would like to respectfully request that you take a bit of time to carefully review the content you are restoring, especially the cited
904:
Kevin Kiner's children Deana & Sean work together under Kiner's Music (formerly Kiner
Brothers) for various Star Wars properties. Based on their IMDB pages, they exclusively work as a duo. Would it be best to make them a page together (under Kiner Music), or give them separate pages?
926:
Is there enough information and reliable sources to justify a page for the two of them? If so then that would be a logical first step, no need to try give them individual pages if all their work is together. The same is done for famous writers and directors who work together. -
1432:
through the reference in question has the potential to learn something meaningful about the topic from that work alone." What this would mean for our discussion is: Can someone who is familiar with Vader only through the insect articles learn something meaningful about
1436:
The essay continues: "Another good test is whether the item would be sufficiently useful to include in the article even if there were no special "in popular culture" type section. Absent the cultural impact section, would the insect articles have a home in the
1371:
Darth Vader is notable, but not being an assertion of notability is not to suggest that mentioning it gives this fact undue weight. The only reason the naming of these two organisms is mentioned is because the secondary sources cited saw fit to mention them. In
1086:
editor or group of editors as much as it is that there is not the expectation that they need to worry about it. After all, no one is going to say that Darth Vader needs to be merged for not being notable enough. It's just an unfortunate case where, because
1927:
And that's most of the articles I can gather when looking through this user's edits. There was an extensive discussion about this user in the "Insufficient assertions of notability on multiple articles" discussion above, on this
Wikiproject talk page.
1582:
I feel like we aren't necessarily in disagreement there because I do agree that a section should and would be oriented around and based on such sources that do explicitly make that point and that the significant bulk of such a section should draw from
1673:: I want to make sure I understand your most recent comment. Would you mind re-phrasing the last paragraph that begins with "I'm making a point about smaller..."? There are some double negatives and I'm having trouble parsing what you're saying 🙂
1330:
I mean, that's the most sensible course of action. There are many avenues that can be taken; for one, research can be done into whether the political context of Darth Vader as a figure has any greater discussion, such as through scholarly works. -
1586:
I'm making a point about smaller and concisely covered supporting information is does not necessarily not have a place nor is necessarily nor inherently undue, especially if the inclusion goal is to illustrate breadth of, say, homage. ~Cheers,
1505:
This is deliberately obtuse. One is named after an entomologist's wife because she is their wife, and another is named after Darth Vader as a nod to his visual appearance, which suggests enduring popularity as a fictional character. ~Cheers,
1131:
Due to various factors in my life, I'm not able to do dedicated research and article expansion at this time; I'm mostly doing copyediting and source-checking. But if you want to find some sources and save them for later use, that would be
417:
1081:
notable - I would be surprised if Saw
Gerrera wasn't - but as it is, I think it is fair to still question it, whereas questioning, say, Obi-wan Kenobi as someone who knows Star Wars is honestly a pretty ludicrous thing to do.
1729:
With that out of the way: Notability is not a relevant or helpful perspective to take here. The notability is not in dispute, the content is. We have guidance for determining what content should and should not be included:
1269:. "On the subject" is the key: for the Cultural Impact section of Vader, what matters is how sources on the subject of Vader treat his pop culture appearances—not how sources about his appearances treat Vader.
1743:
An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the
513:
947:
Hello! I've been doing a lot of work editing pages for Star Wars characters, and I wouldn't mind a little help. Some of the pages are in pretty bad shape. If you're interested in helping, let me know!
679:
466:
1655:
Our goal should be, above all, to accurately reflect the sources. Illustrating breadth is not an end in itself (but if doing so means that we are reflecting the sources better, then we should).
1483:"The entomologists also named some of the new species after their wives and a former wife, Pocahontas, Hernan Cortez, the Aztecs, the fictional "Star Wars" villain Darth Vader ("who shares with
911:
However I do not think there's enough information on them each individually to warrant individual articles. I believe it would work best as a duo article. Is anyone working on a page for them?
1800:
I also object, in general, to the very aggressive editing by
Wafflewombat on this and other Star Wars articles, frequently wholescale removing and replacing the text of many other users.
39:
1785:, has made hundreds of edits and removed virtually the entire reception and cultural impact sections and replaced them with a single short paragraph about disappointment in
1609:
shouldn't be including mentions of the insects just because we feel personally that it helps demonstrate his influence on culture. Is this similar to what you're saying, @
769:
765:
761:
180:
176:
172:
168:
757:
753:
749:
745:
741:
737:
733:
729:
725:
164:
160:
156:
152:
148:
144:
140:
136:
132:
1422:
881:
695:
689:
662:
654:
621:
583:
569:
454:
1013:
Hi, just wanted to create this thread for both raising awareness and to be able to point to it with the "more sources needed" templates. Just to get ahead of it,
601:
385:
977:, but after two weeks nobody has responded. I was hoping to hear from other editors before boldly uploading a new image. Would you mind giving me your thoughts?
1719:
1428:
Another passage reads, "In determining whether a reference is encyclopedic, one helpful test can be to look at whether a person who is familiar with the topic
591:
74:
1097:
With that said, I don't have as much experience source searching for characters outside the video game space (I actually have a rudimentary tool for that:
1491:
Scientists name species after everything, as illustrated above. Are the entomologists' wives cultural icons, because they had species named after them?
1165:
I understand where you're coming from on this. I don't agree with the conclusion that the templates should be used, but I will accept their presence 😀
1973:
1968:
1833:
I have to agree. The April 26, 2024 is more accurate and... we should return to it, if at all possible. Other Star Wars pages he has edited includes:
1120:
helpful on occasion. Also, I've found it useful to browse through existing WP pages for sources. For example, most of the
Reception section on the
80:
1978:
1819:
sources. When I removed material, I read through every cited source. Sometimes the text in the article did not accurately represent the source.
597:
381:
1393:, it says "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail..." The articles about the insects don't discuss Vader in detail.
1550:
If the article is trying to establish Vader's broad and lasting popularity as an iconic figure, how would an encyclopedia establish that?
1598:
1517:
1470:
1407:
This does not speak to whether they are invalid for inclusion on
Knowledge (XXG), merely whether it can be used to assert notability. -
1098:
683:
470:
832:
575:
543:
276:
256:
24:
520:
1777:
article used to have full reception and cultural impact sections, collectively written by many users over a couple of decades: see
908:
I do not want people to confuse Kevin Kiner with Kiner Music, which is separate…since their father works on additional properties.
20:
1735:
69:
364:
231:
611:
374:
425:
60:
1375:, for example, the author did not list every name, it deemed Darth Vader one of the names of interest for their reader. -
858:
812:
1372:
1195:
character overhauls, but I'm wondering if some of the cultural influence/impact sections you've removed in articles like
1488:
California, Georgia and a few states in Mexico, and for various distinguishing features they discovered on the beetles."
1267:
treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject
431:
Under Early Life. Fix grammar of "towns (plural) predominantly
Protestant technical college" to "town's (possessive)..."
799:
393:
862:
537:
188:
127:
1560:
are the sources we need to base such a section on, not our own intuitions about what would be good to include. As
1191:
Wafflewombat, I know you have been diligent about excising poor sources and "unnecessary" content in your recent
1090:
is a tougher sell, editors will put effort into that over the obvious ones. That's something that a lot of us at
778:
199:
668:
442:
1942:
I am more than happy to discuss any edits I've made on any page. I would welcome a constructive conversation.
237:
288:
saga on
Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
1879:
1593:
1512:
1465:
1412:
1380:
1336:
1289:
1241:
1156:
1125:
1106:
916:
647:
1731:
1629:
1554:
A careful selection of the ways that he is invoked and referenced as a character and a symbol across fields
1262:
674:
461:
1947:
1933:
1824:
1678:
1618:
1532:
1496:
1445:
1398:
1358:
1303:
1274:
1226:
1170:
1141:
985:
952:
1715:
1298:
Are you open to discussing each item in the section line-by-line? I don't know how to proceed otherwise.
50:
932:
889:
870:
840:
1943:
1820:
1782:
1769:
Luke Skywalker reception and cultural impact and large-scale Star Wars article removals by Wafflewombat
1674:
1614:
1528:
1492:
1441:
1394:
1354:
1299:
1270:
1222:
1166:
1137:
1001:
981:
948:
90:
65:
1759:
1755:
1660:
1656:
1637:
1633:
1610:
1573:
1569:
970:
410:
1808:
827:
franchise", there is currently an informal discussion on the talk page about moving the article to
630:
1136:
for using a template that states a falsehood: that the existing content on the page is unsourced.
1670:
1650:
1632:. I could be wrong, of course, but we would need pretty strong sourcing to justify including it.
1588:
1541:
1507:
1460:
1408:
1376:
1332:
1285:
1237:
1152:
1102:
912:
784:
782:
641:
635:
204:
203:
1561:
1951:
1937:
1929:
1828:
1812:
1763:
1682:
1664:
1641:
1622:
1603:
1577:
1536:
1522:
1500:
1475:
1449:
1416:
1402:
1384:
1362:
1340:
1307:
1293:
1278:
1245:
1230:
1215:
1174:
1160:
1145:
1110:
1054:
989:
956:
936:
920:
893:
874:
844:
46:
1738:
436:
1836:
1251:
928:
885:
866:
836:
828:
780:
711:
201:
1390:
1367:
1885:
974:
1091:
1905:
1900:
1863:
1804:
1774:
1754:, or perhaps the cultural impact of Darth Vader—determine what belongs in the article.
1710:
I am the above-mentioned editor who gave input on the "Cultural impact" section of the
1087:
1070:
1050:
1046:
1038:
351:
1480:
Thank you for joining this conversation. One of the articles about the insects states:
503:
1962:
1876:(the entire section for cultural impact was removed, then reverted by another editor)
1842:
1212:
1034:
1014:
1008:
900:
Kiner Music - create two separate pages for the siblings, or one article for the duo?
1868:
865:
about draftying or redirecting their episode articles. Any thoughts are welcome. -
268:
250:
1117:
1017:
was mistagged by me, so that removal was perfectly A-Okay. For the others, namely
1895:
1873:
1751:
1711:
1116:
Thanks for starting this thread. In terms of finding film sources, I have found
1074:
1066:
1026:
1018:
418:
Category:Star Wars articles that need to differentiate between fact and fiction
1848:
1062:
1207:
may have some useful content asserting notability of the character. Also the
1890:
1853:
1042:
1030:
626:
283:
1544:, you appear to be working backwards from the assumption that the article
1915:
1909:
1022:
823:, and the press release from Disney it is "the second installment of the
1858:
1058:
1920:
1121:
882:
Talk:List of Star Wars: The Clone Wars episodes#Episode articles
403:
399:
819:
With the announcement of the second installment being known as
785:
705:
498:
213:
205:
15:
1346:
Alright, I'll start with the insects. The peer reviewer said:
532:
1726:
to the existence of this discussion on my user talk page.
1568:
The same principle applies here (and everywhere, really).
1440:
No pressure to respond right away; I know you're tired 🙂
995:
Insufficient assertions of notability on multiple articles
607:
Tag the talk pages of Star Wars-related articles with the
370:
Tag the talk pages of Star Wars-related articles with the
280:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
1790:
1778:
1723:
1208:
1204:
1200:
1196:
554:
550:
340:
335:
330:
325:
112:
105:
98:
1421:
I'll try another approach. There is an essay titled
1527:I'm sorry for my deliberately obtuse phrasing ☺️
380:banner. Update the classification of articles in
230:does not require a rating on Knowledge (XXG)'s
27:and anything related to its purposes and tasks.
859:Talk:The Mandalorian season 3#Episode articles
386:Category:Unknown-importance Star Wars articles
793:This page has archives. Sections older than
8:
1423:Knowledge (XXG):"In popular culture" content
863:Talk:The Book of Boba Fett#Episode articles
1065:. I also added the notability template to
359:Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
313:
245:
1221:there is content that can be restored 🙂
1839:(not as much as the Luke Skywalker page)
1548:demonstrate that Darth Vader is iconic (
1211:may help in this regard in some cases.—
880:I have started a similar discussion at
247:
1742:
1565:
1553:
1549:
1266:
1077:. Now, this doesn't mean I think they
803:when more than 7 sections are present.
416:Remove any In-universe information at
382:Category:Unassessed Star Wars articles
1714:article when a request was posted to
602:Unknown-importance Star Wars articles
298:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Star Wars
7:
219:
217:
1099:User:Cukie Gherkin/Source searching
1094:are guilty of with our characters.
831:. Editors can weigh in on thoughts
236:It is of interest to the following
1791:the current July 25, 2024 revision
973:about a new leading image for the
14:
1124:page was derived from sources on
797:may be automatically archived by
680:Articles with notability concerns
467:Articles with notability concerns
274:This page is within the scope of
45:New to Knowledge (XXG)? Welcome!
1974:NA-importance Star Wars articles
1969:Project-Class Star Wars articles
710:
536:
502:
350:
267:
249:
218:
187:
40:Click here to start a new topic.
1566:Cite reviews, don't write them.
1979:WikiProject Star Wars articles
857:I have started discussions at
301:Template:WikiProject Star Wars
1:
1781:. Since then, a single user,
1734:, part of the non-negotiable
966:Another request for you all!
667:work on stubs in articles in
598:Unassessed Star Wars articles
292:and see a list of open tasks.
37:Put new text under old text.
1779:this April 26, 2024 revision
574:you can do, as organized by
317:WikiProject Star Wars To-do:
1773:Just three months ago, the
1720:link to archived discussion
1258:that assert his notability.
1995:
1952:14:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
1938:14:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
1912:which was later withdrawn)
1908:(an attempted merger into
1829:12:56, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
1813:06:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
1748:on the overarching subject
894:13:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
875:11:57, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
88:
990:04:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
962:New leading image for Rey
957:02:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
884:for anyone interested. -
845:20:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
312:
262:
244:
75:Be welcoming to newcomers
1764:20:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
1746:That is to say, sources
1683:21:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
1665:21:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
1642:21:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
1623:21:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
1604:21:13, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
1578:20:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
1537:19:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
1523:19:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
1501:19:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
1476:18:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
1450:09:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
1417:08:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
1403:07:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
1385:07:13, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
1363:07:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
1341:06:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
1308:06:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
1294:06:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
1279:05:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
1246:05:10, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
1231:02:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
1216:02:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
1175:00:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
1161:23:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
1146:23:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
1111:19:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
443:Category:Star Wars stubs
1880:The Empire Strikes Back
1845:(extensive edits there)
1126:The Empire Strikes Back
937:10:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
921:09:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
648:Showdown at Centerpoint
584:Copyedit/extensive work
1736:WP:Core content policy
1265:says, articles should
1250:Please take a look at
800:Lowercase sigmabot III
684:WikiProject Notability
544:WikiProject: Star Wars
471:WikiProject Notability
70:avoid personal attacks
612:WikiProject Star Wars
576:WikiProject Star Wars
510:WikiProject Star Wars
375:WikiProject Star Wars
277:WikiProject Star Wars
181:Auto-archiving period
25:WikiProject Star Wars
971:talk page discussion
515:a WikiProject Report
821:Tales of the Empire
631:Secrets of the Jedi
596:Rate articles from
1209:existence of merch
642:Assault at Selonia
636:Ambush at Corellia
304:Star Wars articles
232:content assessment
81:dispute resolution
42:
1783:User:Wafflewombat
1654:
1256:about Darth Vader
1055:Grand Moff Tarkin
813:Tales of the Jedi
807:
806:
563:
562:
558:
528:
527:
497:
496:
493:
492:
489:
488:
485:
484:
481:
480:
212:
211:
61:Assume good faith
38:
1986:
1837:Star Wars (film)
1797:the real world.
1718:in early April (
1648:
1601:
1596:
1591:
1520:
1515:
1510:
1473:
1468:
1463:
1012:
1005:
853:episode articles
829:Star Wars: Tales
802:
786:
714:
706:
616:
610:
548:
540:
533:
512:was featured in
506:
499:
379:
373:
354:
347:
346:
314:
306:
305:
302:
299:
296:
271:
264:
263:
253:
246:
223:
222:
221:
214:
206:
192:
191:
182:
115:
108:
101:
16:
1994:
1993:
1989:
1988:
1987:
1985:
1984:
1983:
1959:
1958:
1886:Rey (Star Wars)
1882:(light editing)
1771:
1599:
1594:
1589:
1518:
1513:
1508:
1471:
1466:
1461:
1006:
999:
997:
964:
945:
943:Character pages
902:
855:
817:
798:
787:
781:
719:
704:
703:
702:
701:
669:Star Wars stubs
614:
608:
524:on 21 May 2012.
477:
377:
371:
345:
303:
300:
297:
294:
293:
208:
207:
202:
179:
121:
120:
119:
118:
111:
104:
97:
93:
86:
56:
23:for discussing
12:
11:
5:
1992:
1990:
1982:
1981:
1976:
1971:
1961:
1960:
1957:
1956:
1955:
1954:
1925:
1924:
1923:
1918:
1913:
1906:Han shot first
1903:
1901:Obi-Wan Kenobi
1898:
1893:
1888:
1883:
1877:
1871:
1866:
1864:Jabba the Hutt
1861:
1856:
1851:
1846:
1840:
1831:
1775:Luke Skywalker
1770:
1767:
1708:
1707:
1706:
1705:
1704:
1703:
1702:
1701:
1700:
1699:
1698:
1697:
1696:
1695:
1694:
1693:
1692:
1691:
1690:
1689:
1688:
1687:
1686:
1685:
1667:
1646:
1645:
1644:
1584:
1489:
1481:
1456:
1438:
1434:
1426:
1350:
1347:
1329:
1327:
1326:
1325:
1324:
1323:
1322:
1321:
1320:
1319:
1318:
1317:
1316:
1315:
1314:
1313:
1312:
1311:
1310:
1259:
1205:Obi-Wan Kenobi
1182:
1181:
1180:
1179:
1178:
1177:
1133:
1129:
1088:Admiral Ackbar
1071:Tobias Beckett
1051:Luke Skywalker
1047:Wedge Antilles
1039:Obi-wan Kenobi
996:
993:
963:
960:
944:
941:
940:
939:
901:
898:
897:
896:
854:
848:
816:
810:
805:
804:
792:
789:
788:
783:
779:
777:
774:
773:
764:
721:
720:
715:
709:
700:
699:
686:
671:
659:
651:
618:
605:
588:
566:Here are some
564:
561:
560:
546:
541:
531:
530:
529:
526:
525:
507:
495:
494:
491:
490:
487:
486:
483:
482:
479:
478:
476:
475:
474:
473:
445:
432:
421:
406:
394:Citing sources
389:
358:
356:
355:
344:
343:
338:
333:
328:
322:
319:
318:
310:
309:
307:
290:the discussion
272:
260:
259:
254:
242:
241:
235:
224:
210:
209:
200:
198:
197:
194:
193:
123:
122:
117:
116:
109:
102:
94:
89:
87:
85:
84:
77:
72:
63:
57:
55:
54:
43:
34:
33:
30:
29:
28:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1991:
1980:
1977:
1975:
1972:
1970:
1967:
1966:
1964:
1953:
1949:
1945:
1941:
1940:
1939:
1935:
1931:
1926:
1922:
1919:
1917:
1914:
1911:
1907:
1904:
1902:
1899:
1897:
1894:
1892:
1889:
1887:
1884:
1881:
1878:
1875:
1872:
1870:
1867:
1865:
1862:
1860:
1857:
1855:
1852:
1850:
1847:
1844:
1843:Princess Leia
1841:
1838:
1835:
1834:
1832:
1830:
1826:
1822:
1817:
1816:
1815:
1814:
1810:
1806:
1801:
1798:
1794:
1792:
1788:
1787:The Last Jedi
1784:
1780:
1776:
1768:
1766:
1765:
1761:
1757:
1753:
1749:
1745:
1741:, which says
1740:
1737:
1733:
1732:WP:PROPORTION
1727:
1725:
1724:I was alerted
1721:
1717:
1713:
1684:
1680:
1676:
1672:
1671:TenTonParasol
1668:
1666:
1662:
1658:
1652:
1651:edit conflict
1647:
1643:
1639:
1635:
1631:
1630:WP:PROPORTION
1626:
1625:
1624:
1620:
1616:
1612:
1607:
1606:
1605:
1602:
1597:
1592:
1585:
1581:
1580:
1579:
1575:
1571:
1567:
1563:
1559:
1555:
1551:
1547:
1543:
1542:TenTonParasol
1540:
1539:
1538:
1534:
1530:
1526:
1525:
1524:
1521:
1516:
1511:
1504:
1503:
1502:
1498:
1494:
1490:
1486:
1482:
1479:
1478:
1477:
1474:
1469:
1464:
1457:
1453:
1452:
1451:
1447:
1443:
1439:
1435:
1431:
1427:
1424:
1420:
1419:
1418:
1414:
1410:
1409:Cukie Gherkin
1406:
1405:
1404:
1400:
1396:
1392:
1388:
1387:
1386:
1382:
1378:
1377:Cukie Gherkin
1374:
1369:
1366:
1365:
1364:
1360:
1356:
1351:
1348:
1345:
1344:
1343:
1342:
1338:
1334:
1333:Cukie Gherkin
1309:
1305:
1301:
1297:
1296:
1295:
1291:
1287:
1286:Cukie Gherkin
1282:
1281:
1280:
1276:
1272:
1268:
1264:
1263:WP:PROPORTION
1260:
1257:
1253:
1249:
1248:
1247:
1243:
1239:
1238:Cukie Gherkin
1234:
1233:
1232:
1228:
1224:
1219:
1218:
1217:
1214:
1210:
1206:
1202:
1198:
1194:
1190:
1189:
1188:
1187:
1186:
1185:
1184:
1183:
1176:
1172:
1168:
1164:
1163:
1162:
1158:
1154:
1153:Cukie Gherkin
1149:
1148:
1147:
1143:
1139:
1134:
1130:
1127:
1123:
1119:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1108:
1104:
1103:Cukie Gherkin
1100:
1095:
1093:
1089:
1083:
1080:
1076:
1072:
1068:
1064:
1060:
1056:
1052:
1048:
1044:
1040:
1036:
1035:Admiral Piett
1032:
1028:
1024:
1020:
1016:
1015:Princess Leia
1010:
1003:
994:
992:
991:
987:
983:
978:
976:
972:
967:
961:
959:
958:
954:
950:
942:
938:
934:
930:
925:
924:
923:
922:
918:
914:
913:Squiddyonwiki
909:
906:
899:
895:
891:
887:
883:
879:
878:
877:
876:
872:
868:
864:
860:
852:
849:
847:
846:
842:
838:
834:
830:
826:
822:
815:article title
814:
811:
809:
801:
796:
791:
790:
776:
775:
772:
771:
767:
763:
759:
755:
751:
747:
743:
739:
735:
731:
727:
723:
722:
718:
713:
708:
707:
697:
693:
691:
687:
685:
681:
678:
676:
672:
670:
666:
664:
660:
658:
656:
652:
650:
649:
644:
643:
638:
637:
632:
628:
625:
623:
619:
613:
606:
603:
599:
595:
593:
589:
587:
585:
581:
580:
579:
577:
573:
572:
571:
559:
556:
552:
545:
542:
539:
535:
534:
523:
522:
517:
516:
511:
508:
505:
501:
500:
472:
468:
465:
463:
459:
458:
456:
452:
450:
446:
444:
441:
439:
438:
433:
430:
428:
427:
422:
419:
415:
413:
412:
407:
405:
401:
398:
396:
395:
390:
387:
383:
376:
369:
367:
366:
361:
360:
357:
353:
349:
348:
342:
339:
337:
334:
332:
329:
327:
324:
323:
321:
320:
316:
315:
311:
308:
291:
287:
286:
285:
279:
278:
273:
270:
266:
265:
261:
258:
255:
252:
248:
243:
239:
233:
229:
225:
216:
215:
196:
195:
190:
186:
178:
174:
170:
166:
162:
158:
154:
150:
146:
142:
138:
134:
131:
129:
125:
124:
114:
110:
107:
103:
100:
96:
95:
92:
82:
78:
76:
73:
71:
67:
64:
62:
59:
58:
52:
48:
47:Learn to edit
44:
41:
36:
35:
32:
31:
26:
22:
18:
17:
1944:Wafflewombat
1930:Historyday01
1869:Qui-Gon Jinn
1821:Wafflewombat
1802:
1799:
1795:
1786:
1772:
1747:
1728:
1709:
1675:Wafflewombat
1615:Wafflewombat
1557:
1545:
1529:Wafflewombat
1493:Wafflewombat
1484:
1442:Wafflewombat
1429:
1395:Wafflewombat
1355:Wafflewombat
1328:
1300:Wafflewombat
1271:Wafflewombat
1255:
1223:Wafflewombat
1192:
1167:Wafflewombat
1138:Wafflewombat
1096:
1084:
1078:
1002:Wafflewombat
998:
982:Wafflewombat
979:
969:I started a
968:
965:
949:Wafflewombat
946:
910:
907:
903:
856:
850:
824:
820:
818:
808:
794:
724:
716:
696:things to do
688:
682:, listed at
673:
661:
653:
646:
640:
634:
620:
590:
582:
568:
567:
565:
547:
519:
514:
509:
469:, listed at
460:
455:things to do
448:
447:
435:
434:
424:
423:
409:
408:
392:
391:
363:
362:
289:
282:
281:
275:
238:WikiProjects
228:project page
227:
184:
126:
19:This is the
1896:Count Dooku
1874:Darth Vader
1752:Darth Vader
1712:Darth Vader
1252:this thread
1197:Darth Vader
1075:Saw Gerrera
1067:Quinlan Vos
1027:Count Dooku
1019:Darth Vader
837:Favre1fan93
113:WT:STARWARS
1963:Categories
1849:Mace Windu
1756:TompaDompa
1657:TompaDompa
1634:TompaDompa
1611:TompaDompa
1570:TompaDompa
1063:Darth Maul
929:adamstom97
886:adamstom97
867:adamstom97
675:Notability
557:this box)
462:Notability
453:* See the
1891:Palpatine
1854:Chewbacca
1805:Lowellian
1485:A. vaderi
1118:this tool
1043:Nien Nunb
1031:Chewbacca
851:Star Wars
627:Mara Jade
295:Star Wars
284:Star Wars
257:Star Wars
91:Shortcuts
83:if needed
66:Be polite
21:talk page
1916:Kylo Ren
1910:Han Solo
1744:subject.
1562:WP:MEDRS
1437:article?
1213:TAnthony
1201:Han Solo
1023:Han Solo
1009:TAnthony
980:Thanks!
975:Rey page
717:Archives
694:See the
655:Requests
617:banner.
521:Signpost
426:Copyedit
128:Archives
106:WT:SWARS
99:WT:STARW
51:get help
1739:WP:NPOV
1716:WT:FILM
1600:Parasol
1519:Parasol
1472:Parasol
1389:In the
1061:, and
795:60 days
518:in the
411:Cleanup
331:history
185:60 days
1789:; see
1583:there.
1564:says:
1546:should
1391:WP:GNG
1368:WP:GNG
1132:great.
1079:aren't
1073:, and
622:Expand
592:Assess
365:Assess
234:scale.
1859:C-3PO
1809:reply
1628:with
1558:Those
1092:WP:VG
1059:C-3PO
825:Tales
698:page
690:Other
663:Stubs
570:tasks
555:watch
457:page
449:Other
437:Stubs
341:purge
336:watch
226:This
79:Seek
1948:talk
1934:talk
1921:Yoda
1825:talk
1760:talk
1679:talk
1661:talk
1638:talk
1619:talk
1574:talk
1533:talk
1497:talk
1446:talk
1433:him?
1430:only
1413:talk
1399:talk
1381:talk
1373:this
1359:talk
1337:talk
1304:talk
1290:talk
1275:talk
1242:talk
1227:talk
1203:and
1171:talk
1157:talk
1142:talk
1122:Yoda
1107:talk
986:talk
953:talk
933:talk
917:talk
890:talk
871:talk
861:and
841:talk
835:. -
833:here
600:and
551:edit
404:Sith
400:Jedi
384:and
326:edit
68:and
1722:).
1595:Ton
1590:Ten
1556:).
1514:Ton
1509:Ten
1467:Ton
1462:Ten
1261:As
553:or
1965::
1950:)
1936:)
1827:)
1811:)
1793:.
1762:)
1681:)
1663:)
1640:)
1621:)
1613:?
1576:)
1535:)
1499:)
1448:)
1415:)
1401:)
1383:)
1361:)
1339:)
1306:)
1292:)
1277:)
1244:)
1229:)
1199:,
1193:SW
1173:)
1159:)
1144:)
1109:)
1069:,
1057:,
1053:,
1049:,
1045:,
1041:,
1037:,
1033:,
1029:,
1025:,
1021:,
988:)
955:)
935:)
919:)
892:)
873:)
843:)
770:12
768:,
766:11
762:10
760:,
756:,
752:,
748:,
744:,
740:,
736:,
732:,
728:,
645:,
639:,
633:,
629:,
615:}}
609:{{
604:.
578::
402:,
378:}}
372:{{
183::
177:12
175:,
173:11
171:,
169:10
167:,
163:,
159:,
155:,
151:,
147:,
143:,
139:,
135:,
49:;
1946:(
1932:(
1823:(
1807:(
1803:—
1758:(
1750:—
1677:(
1669:@
1659:(
1653:)
1649:(
1636:(
1617:(
1572:(
1531:(
1495:(
1444:(
1411:(
1397:(
1379:(
1357:(
1335:(
1302:(
1288:(
1273:(
1240:(
1225:(
1169:(
1155:(
1140:(
1128:.
1105:(
1011::
1007:@
1004::
1000:@
984:(
951:(
931:(
915:(
888:(
869:(
839:(
758:9
754:8
750:7
746:6
742:5
738:4
734:3
730:2
726:1
692::
677::
665::
657::
624::
594::
586::
549:(
464::
451::
440::
429::
420:.
414::
397::
388:.
368::
240::
165:9
161:8
157:7
153:6
149:5
145:4
141:3
137:2
133:1
130::
53:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
