Talk:Ewok Celebration

Untitled

Does "yub nub" actually mean "freedom"? I know I've seen the lyrics of the song and their translation somewhere on the Internet, and that "yub nub" is translated "freedom", but the Ewoks say "yub nub" so often in Return of the Jedi and (especially) the two live-action Ewok films that it seems incredible that it could mean "freedom". Maybe the Ewoks love the concept of freedom so much that they say "freedom" whenever they get excited about anything? Gildir 22:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Google "Ewok Song Lyrics", you'll come across them. I believe they are official in one way or another.

The ewok song is also heard a little bit in the Star Wars Lego II video game.

And there is also the hilarious crackerjack version on youtube: http://digg.com/videos/comedy/Barbershop_Quartet_Sings_Ewok_Celebration_Song_Yub_Nub

This could be clarified.

> [Yub nub] does not even appear on newer soundtracks, available only in an obscure box set.

Okay . . . why not go ahead and name that "obscure box set"? This is, after all, an encyclopedia.

> The song, however, is used in several Star wars video games released after the special editions came out, such as Lego Star Wars II: The Original Trilogy and Rogue Squadron III: Rebel Strike, although the former reflects the 2004 version of the RotJ ending.

What does that last fragment mean? Reflects the 2004 version in what way? I suspect this is a reference to the final ghostly appearance of Hayden Christiansen as Anakin, in place of fat ol' Sebastian Whatsisface. But, see, I'm not a highly-devoted, heavily-invested Star Wars fanatic, so I DON'T KNOW . . . I don't know the 1997 version from the 2004 version . . . and in this way I am representative of the average reader, who also does not know.

Having copied and pasted it, I also now see the shamefully non-encyclopaedic "RotJ". That is absolutely inappropriate for Wikipedia -- it's strictly fan code -- and I am going to fix it immediately. It might have been just barely acceptable to refer to the film as Jedi rather than Return of the Jedi, but "RotJ"? Oh, HELL no. It's almost worse than "whilst"!

Also, how did "Star wars"[sic] find its way into this article?

I'm just going to put a period after "Rebel Strike", and strike the unclear fragment. If somebody wants to put it back in, please, try to re-write it to clarify just what the hell it means!

--Ben Culture (talk) 16:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

"No need for a four-dollar word like 'incipit' . . . . "

The opening sentence of this article, before I edited it, read:

Ewok Celebration (also known as Yub Nub from its incipit, which means 'freedom' in Ewokese) is . . . .

(I just realized the song titles need quotes, and that "freedom" should be in double quotes . . . there's a lot of minor things wrong with this article, its mechanics of English are somewhat poor . . . I'll get to it.)

Anyway. Notice that the author made sure to include the link to "incipit"s article, because he knew that 90% of the people who read this article are not going to already know what it means, and as many as 50% might not even be able to guess. I was able to guess. But nevertheless, this is poor writing. It's as if the sentence was structured for the purpose of showing off "incipit".

I go along with the maniac who scampers around Wikipedia changing all uses of "comprised of" to "composed of", even though I remain convinced that he's very wrong. I'm not going along with this. I hope to God that "incipit" isn't some Wikipedian's agenda -- that he isn't using Wikipedia to PROMOTE its use!

The sentence now reads:

Ewok Celebration (originally known as Yub Nub, which means 'freedom' in Ewokese) is . . . .

Notice that that is shorter as well as much clearer. I think a good rule of thumb is clearer is shorter, and shorter is clearer.

Now, on to fix "Star wars"; "RotJ", and correct the use of quotation marks . . . .

--Ben Culture (talk) 10:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Rmv citeneeded . . . .

Before this edit, the article read:

Like several other changes in the original movies made for the new editions, some fans of the films were somewhat upset with the absence of the song.

I removed the citeneeded and redrafted the sentence to:

As with virtually all changes made to the original movies for the new editions, some fans were not happy with the change of song.

Notice that it's both shorter and more true now. Weasel words like "several" and "somewhat upset" do not belong. "Virtually all" and "not happy" are much stronger.

I'd like to be like that anti-"comprised of" guy, who has a sort of "bat signal" that alerts him every time the phrase is posted to an article . . . only I'd run around rewriting every sentence that uses "somewhat"! Such a pussy term!

It's the "virtually all changes" that most strongly indicates this statement's inherent accuracy. Practically every change Lucas made to the films, first for the "Special Edition", and more changes since then, fans have complained about loudly and publically. Surely, even the very person who added the citeneeded four (4) years ago has seen or read of Star Wars fans denigrating the new versions. (I myself never went to see the Special Editions, but I understand Jabba looked pathetic in his first insertion into Episode Four. I do have modern editions on DVD.) In fact, it's the complaints I remember most.

It seems like it would be easy enough to find a source for this, but I don't really believe it needs one. Let's assume I'm not going to go get one. You could (a) go get one yourself, for the good of the article, (b) remove the whole statement, which I wouldn't support (but wouldn't really care, either), or (c) ignore it, the way everyone has ignored the citeneeded for four years now.

I believe that, for the sake of a strong Wikipedia, unsourced assertions should be removed, not merely because they ARE unsourced, but only IF somebody honestly disputes the statement. There is nobody who truly believes that every fan, or even 75% of them, simply ADORED the Special Editions, and every subsequent change as well. You'd have to be exceedingly ignorant to believe that, which is why the statement absolutely should remain, sourced or otherwise.

--Ben Culture (talk) 21:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)