Talk:Technology in Star Wars/Archive 1

Archive 1

Mention of lightsaber without any source of laser technology

Is it a good idea to mention lightsaber's without any sources for laser technology? Also note there is discussion of it in Physics and Star Wars which has sources I believe. I'm not against inducing mention of lightsaber's, but the section was meant to be on laser technology in general and perhaps include mention of lightsaber-all with sources.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Empty sections

All the empty sections I have created have a large number of online results for sources. It just needs to be added. Iĺl do it when I have more time. You can add them yourself if you wish to otherwise I´ll do it when I have more time.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 20:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Lightsabers

Any mention (and technical specifications that should go with it) of lightsabers should go under the laser section of the article. May want to see Physics and Star Wars as a guidance or just add info on lightsabers to that article instead.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 17:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Forcefields

Please do not remove the content from the forcefields section just because it's incomplete as I plan on expanding on it later.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 03:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm still in the process of editing the section on force fields. It's not uncited, I've got the sources, I just need to add them, so don't remove.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 05:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Corrections and copyedit

This article suffers from a lot of repetition and redundancy. There are also many cases where the word "however" is used as a pause, rather than to show any actual contrast (though this problem is endemic to Wikipedia). There are grammar mistakes such as "Prosthetics was" instead of "Prosthetics were". Several citations did not include a date reference.
I started to try and fix some of these problems but my edit was reverted which happens. What surprised me was User:Nadirali described the revert as being due to unsourced and undiscussed POVs and it is not at all clear to me what was meant by that. It is not clear to me what part of my edit might be considered opinion or point of view. My intent was to tidy and copyedit, not in any way to change the substance of the article but to improve readability. I made my edits in good faith but no good faith efforts were made to keep any of it, not even the addition of proper dates in the citations. This is very disappointing.
User:Nadirali has made several unusual reverts to the BB-8 article, which is being discussed (Talk:BB-8). I may try again to fix this article if the other discussion becomes any clearer. I might not have time, so I'm writing this note to encourage other editors to try reading this article out loud, and then consider ways to improve the article. -- 109.79.102.243 (talk) 01:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

No offense meant to Nadirali, but he/she is a relatively new editor and hasn't totally gotten the hang of this yet. But he is open to advice and constructive criticism. He probably did not look at all your edits before reverting, most of what I saw was great, like removing contractions ("do not" instead of "don't"). Also, Nadirali created the article, so there could be some newbie ownership stuff there. Anyway, I encourage you to do some cleanup again now that Nadirali has done further rewrites, and maybe in smaller edits (by section?) to avoid any kind of mass revert. I'm not really watching or editing this article at the moment, I'd like it to settle down a bit before I consider contributing. Thanks! — TAnthony^Talk 01:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The pattern of complaints and warnings User_talk:Nadirali are not encouraging. It does seem very much like a case of ownership but I am still disappointed by the lack of any good faith effort to retain any small part of an edit I thought was entirely uncontroversial (not even the indentation and pretty printing of the wikisource, who could object to that?). I cannot spend even more time on this without some small show of good faith first.

One of the other problems I tried to fix was the statement that ~Empire was the 2nd film, and 5th in the chronology~ a massively unnecessary detail. I see User:Postdlf added the detail to specify that it was the 2nd film but the important point is that saying what order number it was should not even have been mentioned at all. It is not a detail that should need to be explained in every Star Wars article. It is far simpler to say ~Prosthetics were first seen in Empire~ and avoid the order number entirely.

This is a time where the article is trying to be too specific, and adding a lot of redundancy. There are also times where the article is far too vague, using phrases such as recent or currently that are better avoided in what is supposed to be an encyclopedia. See WP:TIME and WP:NOTNEWS.

The content has potential but the prose and style need substantial work for this to article to approach a rating of C Class. -- 109.79.83.120 (talk) 15:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I've made a few smaller edits, with longer explanations. The edits are small so it should not be difficult to revert just one edit without reverting them all. -- 109.79.66.123 (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@TAnthony: LOL I'm not a new user. I've been here for many years and re-joined Wikipedia last year. In my total time here, I've created over thirty pages. The reverts I made were mostly what this IP user pointed out. I did not have the energy to manually undo some his undesired removal of relevant details, so I had to automatically remove them which may have resulted in removing other more constructive edits. Not defined as WP:OWN. The detail of Episode V being the fifth film in the saga being removed is hardly constructive. Just because older fans are familiar with it, doesn't mean everyone is. And given that Episode five has been stripped off it's official title (that is Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back) on Wikipedia, I think newer fans and readers about Star Wars who are less familiar with the saga are prone to confusion. That is not what Wikipedia should be for. Let's focus on improving the article instead of removing relevant details, and that goes particularly to you our IP friend.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

You have many warnings on your talk page, you got it wrong on the BB-8 article, you seem to get it wrong a lot, and yet you continue to assert that you are correct. You make some very odd English mistakes, maybe it isn't your first language but either way it shouldn't have taken this much edit for you to accept the grammar correction. You admit to being lazy "I did not have the energy to manually undo" and you haven't shown much good faith with your large reverts and little attempt to at least take the edits as a suggestion and improve the text in your own way. You continue to assert that you are correct and remove my edits with almost no explanation, acting as if you own the page. It doesn't need to be me but you should get a native English speaker to copyedit the page when you think you are nearly finished expanding the content.

You continue to assert that I removed "relevant details" but if you read the introduction out loud it is very obvious that the sentences are verbose and repetitive. I'd appreciate a third opinion to look at my edit of the introduction and tell me if they think I removed any relevant details. You still don't seem to see the problem with including time phrases (today, modern times, current, recent, etc).

You have some very strange ideas about what details are necessary and what details are not. You chose not to introduce the article by properly explaining that Star Wars is a film, but think it is important to say it is a blockbuster, and you think it is worth verbosely explaining in tedious detail that Empire is 5th but 2nd. You need to think about the readers, and what they might or might not know already about Star Wars when they read this page. If you really believe so much detail is needed, you do need start by saying it is a film, a "blockbuster space opera film" if you must. I still think it is irrelevant and hyperbole to say it is a blockbuster in this context.

Certainly not. The fact that you want to mention only one films of the saga (A New Hope) as being "Star Wars" and don't seem to know that other films don't exist or don't exhibit these technologies demonstrates your ignorance in the subject, which will only do more damage to the article than good. The warnings on my talk page are ages old and have no relevance to this article. The fact that you continue to add factually incorrect edits such as SW being a single film as opposed to a series of films shows me that you are not capable of adding anything truthful to this article. If you don't want your others edits to be reverted, don't use them to bury your incorrect edits, or else you will be reverted again. Users such as TAnthony have made a number of useful contributions without being reverted, but since you do not wish to do the same you want to misuse WP:OWN to bypass factual information and insert your own unsourced POV. Sorry, but on Wikipedia that is just not acceptable.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 05:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Try not to be so obviously lazy, instead try to include the suggestions of others, and not just reverting with such vague edit summaries. Try reading WP:GOODFAITH again. I hope you can at least understand the article needs a lot of work and you need to let others help improve it, even if you are going to reject my edits again. -- 109.79.66.123 (talk) 05:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Lazy? I added more than 90% of content to the article without anyone's help, even if it took me over a year. I call laziness removing factual info. And just because I reverted you, does not mean I reject help from anyone. Stop this dishonesty. Going through the history of article, you'll find lots of users (especially TAnthony) making edits without ever getting reverted. Keep your edits constructive otherwise stop all together. Failing to abide by Wiki standards will get you reverted and more warnings on your talk page. Good night.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 05:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Use of them term blockbuster

I used it in the intro because Star Wars is indeed a high grossing film franchise, not because I want to give it a positive image. It is a fact that this film series is one of the highest grossing at the box office, so I think it should stay there. But let's not get focused on this too much. See my comments in the previous thread and stick with that for now; especially you IP user. See also WP:DISRUPTION--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

See above. It is a film, a blockbuster film, or if you must, "a blockbuster space opera film" but the important descriptive word is film. -- 109.79.66.123 (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• No it is not "a film". Star Wars is a franchise consisting of multiple films. The fact that you seem to be unaware of this shows me that you have little or no knowledge in the subject and are best advised to read up on it before editing it again. Please stop this.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 05:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Possible quotes to use?

I found this quote to be interesting "Star Wars is also very much concerned with the tension between humanity and technology, an issue which, for me, dates back even to my first films. In Jedi, the theme remained the same, as the simplest of natural forces brought down the seemingly invincible weapons of the evil Empire."

I think we can cut out the reference to Return of the Jedi, but stick with the reference to the technology and add it to the intro of the article.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 23:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I decided to add it. If anyone has an objection, bring it up here.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 23:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

To do list

@TAnthony: Amongst the things we need to clear up here are:

• The overuse of the word "however" as you pointed out
• Additional citations for verification
• I was unaware that book sources have a specific way of being cited including their ISPNs. I was citing Star Wars Technical Journal by Shane Johnson as a source by the time I realized this. To make it easier, I created a bibliography section with the book including it's ISPN number. Over a long time span, I think the book citations can be re-titled in the encyclopedic standard. Note that I have done the same for Physics and Star Wars (which I will request you to review once I'm done fixing it over the span of the next few weeks) so when anyone looking to correct the book citations can check the bibliography section.
• Expansion of sections requiring expansion and tagged for it
• Creating empty sections- which I am in no shape to do at the moment
• Creating any new subtopics that require creation
• Adding any new relevant info, but avoiding any picky issues such as the titling of the films, which I have shortened when they are mentioned more than once.

I'm done editing this article for the time being aside from some possible minor changes. I've had enough of it as it is and will be busy with other Star Wars pages, so you can consider it "settled" and are welcomed to improve it as much as possible, but perhaps discuss any questionable changes (which I doubt will occur).

You might want to contact our IP friend to help out. He's made a series of useful edits, but wants to be cautioned not to make the mistakes of removing relevant information. If you have any questions and/or comments, just message me. Happy editing!--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 03:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Potentially useful reference

FYI: http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2015/12/14/droids-and-the-force-how-the-technology-in-star-wars-is-actually-real/ --EEMIV (talk) 20:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much again for posting this. There is an empty section in the article about armor that could use it. My only concern is that this is a blog. Is there another publication of this material?--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 00:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Article feedback

I've skimmed through this article and have a few observations regarding content and sourcing. I'm going to add a couple of cleanup tags -- copyediting and needing help with sources -- indicating as such, and perhaps that will draw the attention of other editors outside Star Wars wikidom who sometimes help with these types of things.

• Copyediting: Although written well enough for The Financial Express to copy-and-paste large portions, this article just needs a good copyedit. I changed one awkward sentence, but I see awkward comma use, wordiness, etc.

• Original research: a few of the uncited assertions about Star Wars content read like generalizations stemming from isolated if consistent examples in the text. An example of OR is the assertion that "not all types [of missiles] may have a real-life equivalent." Per WP:WAF and WP:OR, we don't state our own inferences as facts about a fictional world; we need third-party substantiation.

• "Exhaustion": Many of these sections reads as if they're trying to provide an exhaustive, all-encompassing list of details and examples of that type of tech. in SW. Wikipedia is not meant to be exhaustive in its coverage, merely compelling and sufficient for a general-interest audience. The presence of different types of explosives in Star Wars can be sufficiently asserted in a single sentence ("Characters use a variety of explosives in the Star Wars films and other content.") and does not need the three paragraphs enumerating granular details about each explosive used in three different films. That level of detail is more useful and appropriate at Wookieepedia. More broadly, it appears this entire article is attempting to offer an exhaustive list (see next items) of technology in Star Wars, and that's both a) a fruitless task and b) inconsistent with what Wikipedia is (not).

• Article or list?: Other than Lawrence Kasdan's quote in the lede, I don't see any citation to sources addressing Technology in Star Wars as a whole. In the absence of overall cohesion, I wonder if instead this would be more appropriately moved to List of technologies in Star Wars, where we can bullet-point elements of fiction. (An aside about the Kasdan quote: at some point, it should leave the lede; generally, we don't have verbatim quotes or footnoted content in the lede section.) For better or for worse, Lists of... also tend to be a bit more for forgiven/forgiving when it comes to in-universe plot detail balanced against real-world origin and impact.

• Article or list, part 2: The above said, there probably is a good article about Technology in Star Wars to be had. The current structure a) enumerates a piece of technology in Star Wars and then b) appends whatever articles in can find that mention Star Wars in connection with a real-life use or inspiration. But I suspect somewhere there are thoughtful reflections and insights into e.g. Does the absence of writing utensils in Star Wars mean all the characters are functionally illiterate? Is it possible the humans in Star Wars evolved with integrated technology that allows characters to use the Force (a theory NadirAli and I have read about in The Science of Star Wars)? How has the depiction of technology -- whether it's lasers or cybernetics or cryofreezing -- inspired scientists or engineers into their fields to make their own notable contributions? Besides the "used universe," what deliberate production decisions to Lucas and Abrams make in depicting characters' interactions with technology in the films? In other words, this titular subject might be better approached in terms of themes and real-world impact rather than in terms of components and devices.

• Mis-reading of sources; sources don't back up claims: the laser section asserts that the Air Force is developing "laser cannons [that] use the same concept of ion-based technology as seen in Star Wars." I checked both citations attached to this claim, and neither makes any claim like this at all. In fact, the only reference to Star Wars are in both articles' headlines; neither draws a parallel to Star Wars in the article, and even the "Star Wars" in the headline could have been replaced with "Star Trek" or "Buck Rogers" or "sci-fi". The Mashable article doesn't even mention ions. I did not check any other citations in the article, but I'm concerned about others similarly having (at best) a tenuous connection to the claim they apparently substantiate. Probably both of those citations should be deleted and replaced with a tag. (Go figure, one of the citations was broken and instead I found a mirror to make it accessible.)

• Images: I challenge the appropriateness of the picture of the concussion missile (a copyrighted image from an Essential Guide) and the image of Luke next to the vaporator (from a cut scene), specifically regarding non-free content criterion 8, significance to article. Their inclusion does not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and [their] omission would be detrimental to that understanding." I will nominate both images for deletion because of disputed fair-use claims on Tuesday unless the article shifts to provide meaningful, cited commentary on both items' appearance in a way that meets NFCC #8. (I think the picture of the prosthetic is okay because there is specific, meaningful discussion about how its appearance is beyond what our own prosthetics can provide.)

Three changes I went ahead and did:

• I removed a reference to Wookieepedia, which under no circumstance should Wikipedia ever site as a source due to its status as a self-published fan site.
• I fixed a broken citation: the link wasn't working, but I found another article with the same headline (perhaps a mirror) and dropped that in instead.
• The very first clause -- "The space opera blockbuster Star Wars" -- reads as effusive about the topic's source material and doesn't read as encyclopedic; "The Star Wars franchise" would be a more neutral expression, for example, and consistent with how other Star Wars-related articles generally describe the franchise. Additionally, "blockbuster" is inapt because that's a term almost entirely having to do with films, and the franchise has lots of content wasn't blockbustery (TV shows and comic books, for example).

I'm disinclined to try to jump into doing significant work on this article, but again I hope the maintenance tags draw some additional attention. Perhaps the primary editors could raise a flag for additional input at the wikiproject page. --EEMIV (talk) 01:50, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

@NadirAli: -- I see you reverted an edit. Mind responding/explaining why you think "blockbuster" is an appropriate term here? It's not used in the lede of any of the other Star Wars good or featured articles, or even any of the less-good ones. It reads as non-NPOV. Please articulate a rationale to retain the term (other than "Well, it's true" -- this doesn't address the concern about avoiding an inappropriately effusive tone or the aspects of the subject to which the term "blockbuster" don't apply). --EEMIV (talk) 13:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

@EEMIV:, oh man, I have not "reverted" you, I simply kept both edits in as a compromise, even though I think it's totally unnecessary. Blockbuster is there to incorporate the financial performance and recognition of the franchise, not to promote it. There was a discussion about using "epic" and it was settled as kept in. The image of the concussion missile is there to illustrate what missiles in SW look like. I think this blockbuster is more neutral than the "epic' label.

• And the other arguments are also somewhat appalling. The images illustrate the technologies and are there under fair use since they are not replaceable by free use ones being the intellectual property Lucasfilms. I have already made references to these technologies from the films and commentaries on them as a balance. Incorporating too much from the stories would be WP:INUNIVERSE. There is mention of vaporators in that section and since there is no current equivalent to a moisture vaporator, it will give the reader an idea of what is being discussed.

• Not every single SW technology is an inspiration nor has to be one. That is not the purpose of this article. And just because it isn't doesn't mean it does not belong here. As long as there is some social scientific commentary and not too much In-universe stuff. Rather a balance of both. Otherwise this article should have been created on Wookiepedia. I worked hard to keep it a balance over the course of two years.

• While this article does not give exhaustive coverage, it has to give a balance of what is real and what is just science fiction. Besides interesting audience is not the job of Wikipedia. It's purpose is to inform, that's all. And an accurate one that is, not to the preferred level of one user. Most of the sources discussing these technologies are academic and reliable sources, well within guidelines.

• I made all references to films and appearances of these technologies and in other media.

• The title change is not acceptable. Magic in Harry Potter doesn't need to be changed to "List of magic in Harry Potter" or "list of magic spells in Harry Potter". This is an encyclopedic analysis of the technology in Star Wars as a whole, not a shortened list. Because these technologies are distinct, we have to divide them. Read History of Turkey as a random example. We don't change it to "List of historic time periods in modern Turkey." it is divided for a purpose and reason.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 00:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it just feels like 50% of this is you mis-reading (or perhaps me not being clear about) what I'm saying/trying to say. And rest reads as you being disinclined to accept feedback that doesn't align with your own preferences for style and content. Oh, well. I've gone ahead and nudged the missile image re. disputed fair-use rationale and am happy to take it to XfD if the article content doesn't improve to address NFCC #8. --EEMIV (talk) 16:32, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

No, it feels like you're asking for the article to become what it already is. You want to scratch out the sections such as the explosive devices to something that you like but does not read as encyclopedic at all. You are asking for the sections to cut down because it feels "too extensive" to you, when all it does is give a brief insight to the technologies and gives a link to a main page. But that is how Wikipedia does it. Almost every article is divided into sections. Lists are List of Star Wars characters and stuff like that which is very different from an article. By your reasoning Star Wars should be changed to List of Star Wars media, History of Iran should be changed to List of historic time periods in Iran.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 18:15, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

*sigh* Yeah, that must be it. --EEMIV (talk) 14:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@EEMIV: This is why I have neither contributed to or watched this article, you and I have a completely different way of thinking than NadirAli, as we all know from other articles hahaha. That said, I will just add that while I like this article and really appreciate that NadirAli has singlehandedly developed it, I also pretty much agree with everything EEMIV has argued above. Just a few comments:

• The copyediting and original research are definitely a problem. But it really disturbs me to hear that some of the statements in the article are not backed up by the sources. We all know that SW was innovative and has inspired/predicted things, so it is tempting to read into sources what we want to see. But sometimes the sources we need just aren't out there, or at least are not readily available. NadirAli, you created this article and have been its primary editor. I think you're learning what constitutes OR and editor opinion, but I know from my own experience that it can be difficult to not editorialize a bit at times. But neutrality and sticking to the sources are two of the most important aspects of building an article.
• I don't know why you find the suggestion to change the article name so objectionable, a list is not a bad thing! This article is explicitly listing Star Wars technologies and what real-world technologies they may have inspired or predicted. It is not really discussing as a whole the concept of the use of technology in the franchise, as one would expect from the current title. The examples you are using here for comparison are not really the same thing. History of Iran is not listing time periods. Star Wars does not just list the various works, it covers the cultural impact, thematic elements and multitude of other aspects of the franchise. I wouldn't push for a name change now because this article can still develop, but you should understand that right now it's not entirely addressing the topic.
• EEMIV is correct in his interpretation of NFCC #8, but luckily you have a lot of Commons images. I know a couple of "expert" editors in image use that I will eventually guide to this article to get their opinion on the use of non-free images.

You might want to consider seeking a peer review to get some mainstream feedback from someone other than EEMIV and myself LOL. I don't think the article currently meets Good article criteria but that's also a way to get detailed feedback from editors well-versed in article content across Wikipedia.—  TAnthony ^Talk 20:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

To editor TAnthony:, the fact that this article has problems, does not mean I do not intend to take care of them or fill up the empty sections. Also three non-free use images in the whole article should not cause a panic anymore than a few [accidental] original research claims that can be easily fixed. What gave me the idea to write this article is all the coverage on the technology.

I noticed you contributed to an article called Technology of the Dune universe. Although I really don't know anything much about Dune, I am curious to ask why that article is not a list or why isn't it a good article, despite being much older than this one? And yes History of Iran is essentially an article about the historic time periods in Iran divided into sections- no different from this or any other Wikipedia article divided into subtopics. This article is an introduction and analysis of the technology in Star Wars and it's scientific credibility as documented by the sources. If I created it otherwise, it would be an in-universe pile of junk.

The article needs to be filled up and expanded on, which I will take care of. I've taken care of most of this articles needs and can continue to do so. I have time before I transfer to another university in September. So I don't see what the complaints are about. Lots of articles are not good articles how come they are not nominated for lists? A list will not discuss and sections, an article does. And no why is History of Iran any different? That article can be broken down into a list.

PS, I emailed the links to Jeanne Cavelos in a conversation and she called them really good. I'm just curious what the complains are about when they can be easily fixed.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 23:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that, I've moved the article to List of technology in the Dune universe. Making something a list does not mean you have to strip it down to bullet points or a table, List of Millennium characters is a Featured list that is formatted in sections like this article. Anyway, obviously you don't see the difference that I see between this and History of Iran, so go ahead and improve this article as you see fit, and when you are ready you can seek feedback from the community at large. I understand what you're going for, and by comparison, your Star Wars technology list has a lot more real-world perspective and impact than the Dune list, which has very little (it would not make Good article status either without improvements). This article is way better than that one on that point. No one is suggesting that you haven't boosted each subtopic here with some analysis etc, it just remains to be seen whether "the technology of Star Wars" can be considered an actual topic in the same way that the cultural impact of Star Wars can, insofar as what analysis is available. With something as huge as Star Wars though, it's probably out there somewhere.

I wouldn't take this constructive criticism and feedback as "complaints". I know it can feel personal when you work on an article and other editors have things to say about it, but that's what the collaborative process is all about. Fortunately for you in this case, EEMIV and I are not actively working on this article as happened with The Force (Star Wars) LOL. I'm not instituting a deadline for this article to be complete and perfect and I don't think EEMIV is either. The reason I have brought up Good article status and peer review with you now and in the past is because you seem to dismiss most of our advice as if we don't know what we're talking about, but I believe that any formal assessment you get will sound a lot like what we've been saying. That said, I don't want to come off like I'm always picking apart your work, I'm not perfect and not every article I've ever worked on is complete and of the highest quality. Thanks.TAnthony^Talk 00:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

User:TAnthony. Ant I was just using your rationale. I don't actually believe that you should have changed it to a list and think you should revert it to it's encyclopedia name. Lists should only be bullet forms and that article is an overall description of the technology, not a list. I was just arguing with your rationale. Anyways this article has taken two years to reach it's present condition and will require many more months. Inspite of all that and despite not being currently at GA standards, it is still overall a good and well sourced article. Also to mention that this article was reviewed by users with review rights in the first months of it's creation, so regardless of anything else it's definitely on the right track.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 21:07, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Standalone lists are not necessarily just bare bulleted lists or tables, as with my FL example above. The Dune article is essentially listing the various technologies, though each has a generous description and its own section, but there is no over-arching discussion or analysis of the topic of technology in the series beyond the lead itself. The same can be said about this article, but you have a lot more real-world information and there is more potential here.TAnthony^Talk 21:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Confusing content changes: 3/6/17 UTC

Hi, NadirAli! Thank you for your edits!

I’m somewhat confused about your last four edits to this page:

1. The phrase “all of this is a possibility in the future” was changed to “all of this is future possibility”. What exactly does “future possibility” mean? I assumed it meant “a possibility in the future”, but perhaps it meant something else. Whatever it does mean, please let me know.
2. In a quote from a novel, a period at the end was removed when there was also a period after the quote. I had assumed that the period in the quotation was there because it was in the quote, and I placed the second period there because the quote was at the end of a sentence. However, if the two periods’ existence do, in fact, comprise a redundancy error, I would be happy to know why.
3. The phrase “mildly argues the accuracy of the ‘Star Wars’ depiction of lasers as accurate”, which I had changed to “argues against the accuracy of the ‘Star Wars’ depiction of lasers”, was changed back. Was the phrase supposed to be “mildly argues that the ‘Star Wars’ depiction of lasers is accurate”? If not, please let me know.
4. The sentence “Holography was first seen in the first ‘Star Wars’ film ‘Episode IV: A New Hope’” was changed to “Holography in ‘Star Wars’ was first seen on film in the fourth film of the saga ‘Episode IV: A New Hope’”. I am confused about a few parts of this sentence:

1. First of all, thanks for clarifying that it was Holography in Star Wars, not Holography in general.
2. Next, I think “in film” is probably the appropriate way of saying “in a film”, although you could say that too. However, I think that “on film” does not mean exactly the same thing, but instead means the same thing as “recorded”, “on tape”, etc., which would imply that there is real-life video footage of Holography. If this is not actually the case, please let me know.
3. “in the fourth film of the saga ‘Episode IV: A New Hope’” is a bit ambiguous, and implies that Episode IV: A New Hope is a saga, which this happens in the fourth film of. Maybe “in the fourth film of the Star Wars saga, ‘Episode IV: A New Hope’” would be less ambiguous?
4. A phrase describing “Episode IV: A New Hope” as the “first film” was changed to describe it as the “fourth film”. Are there any policies which could help figure out whether it counts as the first or fourth film? I really don’t know which it counts as.

I would be really happy if you would clarify why the above matters happened, so that, hopefully, we can reach consensus.

Thanks again for your edits!

Noah Kastin (talk) 07:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

To editor Noah Kastin: To address your points:

1) If the quote does in indeed require a second full stop then I'm OK with it, though I thought if a sentence ends, it needs only 1 full stop.

2) Mildly argues is the correct statement because the author of the paper argues this in only one sentence. That is completely different from arguing against it.

3) On film refers to the Star Wars films and not on other forms of media such as comic books or video games. It also mentions it's appearance in the novel of the film.

4) It doesn't imply that episode IV is a saga. It clearly says the fourth film of the saga. That implies it's part of the saga, not an equivalent of the saga.

5) The episode number speaks for itself. Weather or not which film was produced first is irrelevant. I made a small note differentiating the release date and the chronology in brackets in the prosthetics section.

You're welcome. I'm glad I could be of help and managed to clarify.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 18:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm a month late, but I'd like to weigh-in on some of this. (Thanks for discussing, BTW, and not edit warring.) Please don't take any of this too critically. Copy-editors train themselves to notice even tiny clarity issues, and it can be nit-picky by nature.

1. Wikipedia uses the logical quotation style MOS:LQ which means that punctuation is only included inside the double-quotation marks if it's part of the actual quote. Most of the time, punctuation goes outside of the quote. But if the quote includes a period/full stop, it's good to keep that inside the double-quotes so readers know that was the end of a sentence and a complete thought. In such cases, editors tend to integrate the quote into the sentence so that the full stop inside the quote also serves as the full stop for the sentence. Wikipedia doesn't like having multiple terminal punctuation (MOS:FULLSTOP). To my recollection, the only valid case is with titles, such as "Who Mourns for Adonais?". (Forgive me for mentioning Star Trek in a Star Wars discussion.) The sentence needs a period which helps distinguish the question mark as part of the title, and clarifies that the sentence itself is not a question.
2. discusses the functions of lasers and mildly argues the Star Wars depiction of lasers as accurate. This reminds me of the Monty Python sketch "Argument Clinic" which noted "An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a definite proposition." One sentence in a paper might be a bit short to call it an argument, and the "mild" part did have me second-guessing the intended meaning. In cases like that, sometimes it's best to step back and try rephrasing it. How about: "discusses the functions of lasers and briefly notes the accurate depiction of Star Wars lasers."
3. Saga wouldn't have been my first choice of word, but the term seems to be widely used by WikiProject Star Wars, and is included in the navigation template at the bottom of the article.
4. Holography in Star Wars was first seen on film in the fourth film of the saga Episode IV: A New Hope. I can tell what that means, but I agree with Noah Kastin that it'd be clearer with a comma after "saga". There are some other minor issues, though (prepositions, numbers, two instances of "film"). This may be another awkward passage to be rephrased. The article is about technology in Star Wars, so that could be assumed. You could make it more general "Holography has been depicted in every film of the Star Wars saga" (perhaps have to fact-check that) or "Holography has been depicted since the first feature release of the Star Wars saga" to give a sense that it was a part of the setting from the very beginning of the franchise.

I hope this is of some assistance – Reidgreg (talk) 11:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Armor section

I have a little more to add there, so don't worry there too much. Although it's a small body, developing sections in an article like this one can be hectic.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 06:32, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Prosthetics section

Is this piece worth including in the article? It contains additional information about fingers being operated individually by smartphones. Discuss here.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 04:08, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Goal of This Article

I'm a little confused but what exactly is the goal of this article? Most of the entries continually make reference to real world technology which makes it sound like the goal is to delineate what technology inspired Star Wars and vice versa (similar to the opening sentence) but then it mentions concepts like force fields and artificial intelligence which both predate the franchise and thus make it sound like the it's just a run down of all the notable technology that exists in the Star Wars universe which begs the question of what function mentioning real world use of the technology is supposed to serve.

To me it makes more sense to re-write the article to remove the real world references unless they're a bonafide inspiration starting with Star Wars and limit the total number of times we have to mention something outside of canon. I think mentioning the real world too much makes it hard to figure out what the underlying idea of the article is supposed to be if the idea is to just describe the franchise canon. 2620:0:691:3:0:0:0:10 (talk) 19:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

This is a very poor article. There are lots of things to do to improve it, though removing real-world references probably isn't it. Very generally, I imagine a healthy version of this article would explain the various production decisions made in conceiving and depicting Star Wars tech, along with commentary on how those creative decisions influenced the real world and/or garnered significant third-party commentary. --EEMIV (talk) 20:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)