Talk:Star Wars Holiday Special

"The" Star Wars Holiday Special

Shouldn't this article be called The Star Wars Holiday Special rather than Star Wars Holiday Special?

Agree Czechia2016 (talk) 00:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Canon Error?

"The only element from the holiday special where the canonicity is disputed is its claim that Chief Bast survived the destruction of the first Death Star from A New Hope."

I believe Greedo exists in the special, after being killed in Episode IV. 206.124.7.150 (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• You need to provide proof from a reliable source that it's Greedo and not simply a character of the same race. 68.146.64.9 (talk) 03:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the Rodian character that appears in the special is named Bludlow, although I wouldn't be at all surprised if the costume was identical to the one created to represent Greedo. Even so, it's not the same character. MaxVolume (talk) 06:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

They produced it using same props that Lucas gave them access to. So although Greedo does physically appear from a storyline standpoint it can't be Greedo as he had already been shot. Kav2001c (talk) 16:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)kav2001c

Only Once?

It's not entirely correct that the special was broadcast in its entirety only once. Unfortunately I can't give precise details, having been rather small at the time, but in or around 1978/79 I saw the special in its entirety on television in New Zealand. At the very least, I'd imagine this would also mean that it was probably broadcast in Australia, and perhaps also England. Te Irirangi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.154.97.226 (talk) 08:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

IN ANSWER TO ABOVE: Hi, I am Australian and my best friend and I saw it on Australian free to Air TV at the time, we often talked about it growing up with fond memories. we were in the country and had only two TV stations, ABC (Australian Broadcasting Commission - which is the government financed station, similar to UK's BBC) and GWN (Golden West Network - Local country Commercial station). Hope that helps some. Ari — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.231.249.100 (talk) 11:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it was broadcast on Network TEN in Australia. I had a recording of it on U-Matic tape at the time, that has since been damaged beyond repair. I daresay TEN still has the original 2" broadcast copy in their library/vault... wish I knew somebody who worked there! BTW, I believe the "aired only once" claim refers to the United States only; not world-wide. PSB136 (talk) 14:25, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure that somewhere I read that it was broadcast a second time in the USA, but only on one station deep in rural southeastern Idaho and the last program before sign-off. Why? So it could qualify for some awards nominations. Bizzybody (talk) 00:15, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I remember watching this on Australian TV in the early 80's. This was definitely broadcast more than once. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.125.172.2 (talk) 09:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Re Australia and UK. I saw this on Australian TV during a family holiday. Would have been August 1979 (worked out rough date as we heard the news of Lord Mountbatten's assassination on 27/08/79 as we were flying back to the UK, and we were there for about 3 1/2 weeks prior). It was shown with a suitability rating roughly equivalent to the UK's PG (something like "this show is not suitable for very young children", to which my dad responded "this show isn't suitable for anyone!") Definitely wasn't shown in the UK - all my friends were jealous that I'd seen it and I was occasionally asked to describe it in as much detail as I could remember. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.135.254 (talk) 13:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Your memory as to where, when and whether it was broadcast is not a reliable source. To say anything about the show being broadcast will need a reliable source. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:25, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

True, but information like this is often helpful for people searching for reliable sources. The anonymous user has given us a likely timeframe for an Australian broadcast (correctly providing it here on the talk page and not adding it to the article) so if someone now wants to look through TV listings for the month of August 1979, they might just find it. Then we could have the reliable source the article needs. -ProhibitOnions ^(T) 07:17, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Ebay vs IOFFER

I see that Ebay is on the article from where pirated video/DVD versions of the special is available and also peer to peer file sharing is on here as well under "Availability". IOffer also has pirated DVD copies of this special for sale through it's various sellers on it's site. I feel that IOFFER should be on the article under "Availability" regarding how it can be sought by collectors because if you were to look on that site and type in the search "The Star Wars Holiday Special" and click the search icon, there are lots of copies for sale on the site through their various sellers. I think that it is important that IOFFER also be added.

What do any of you think? Thoughts and comments are appreciated Frschoonover (talk) 01:44, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 17:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The Star Wars Holiday Special → Star Wars Holiday Special – Some sources omit "The" or added either "infamous" or "1978" between "the" and "Star", like news articles and books. George Ho (talk) 03:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The title card in the film itself says The Star Wars Holiday Special... The Wookieepedian (talk) 13:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Another image of the title card (since the above link appears to be broken), showing "The": https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41HyG-UAFoL._SX466_.jpg A145GI15I95 (talk) 00:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I would prefer the page name include the idiomatic "The" from the title card. It's only omitted for convenience when "the" doesn't fit into the sentence, as in the above examples. UpdateNerd (talk) 00:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Move?

• Someone moved it, although BDD dropped "The" and closed the request. George Ho (talk) 06:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
• Simply not uncontroversial. Page had been earlier moved as part of a move discussion in which only one person (the nominator here) took part. Another editor has moved it back again, therefore it can't be uncontroversial. Additionally, I've just declined a move protection request for both pages at WP:RPP. There needs to be another move discussion before these pages are moved again. GedUK  13:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

  @Ged UK:, I think what you say above is incorrect. Controversial/uncontroversial applies to whether a move should be allowed to go ahead without an RM, or if an RM is required. In this case, an RM took place and nobody responded to it, so it was closed as move. From that moment onwards, the new accepted title is the result of the move. So if somebody later comes along and decides they didn't like the move, it's not for them to just move it back to its former title, they must initiate a new move request. I agree it would have been nice to see a relist of this for a further week, but that would be an issue for move review, not a reason to move it back unilaterally. The legitimate home of this article is now Star Wars Holiday Special. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

@Amakuru: There's a confusion here. What I wrote above was what I wrote on the Technical Moves request, which is solely about uncontroversial moves. Moves requested on that page need to be uncontroversial, and by it's nature, and the fact that we need a discussion here, it clearly isn't. I didn't post that here, nor did I intend it to be included in a discussion about where the page should be. I have no particular opinion either way; merely that there's a consensus. GedUK  11:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• I just put the page back at the title that reflects the outcome of the requested move discussion that just closed a couple of days ago (i.e., I put it back at Star Wars Holiday Special). If The Wookieepedian or someone else doesn't like the outcome of the requested move, they should make their case for a move review or, if there is something new to say, submit another move request. They shouldn't just unilaterally move the article. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
  • As I pointed out above, the film itself says The Star Wars Holiday Special. The Wookieepedian (talk) 05:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Not good enough. An officiality is not a mere reason to oppose the move. Per WP:AT, a title does not have to be an official name. One of the names must be most common. --George Ho (talk) 05:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
      • As Johnny Carson would say, "I did not know that". In that case, BDD is correct in moving the page. The Wookieepedian (talk) 05:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

        @The Wookieepedian: does that mean you're now happy with the move?  — Amakuru (talk) 07:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

        • I'm not happy about it, but I do agree with it now, if that makes sense. BDD has a point about how outside sources refer to the film. The Wookieepedian (talk) 08:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
          • I reverted the move on grounds of procedure, not personal opinion about the merits. However, it may also be worth noticing that the File:StarWarsHS.jpg promotional poster does not seem to include the "The". —BarrelProof (talk) 11:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
            • It does; the font size for "The" is very small and almost illegible to read. --George Ho (talk) 21:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
              • Wow – that tiny spec is a "The"? I guess it's there, but to me it also illustrates the degree of importance that the producers put on their "The". —BarrelProof (talk) 22:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
                • If you mean the white text at the lower-left of "W" of "Wars", then that's actually the "TM" symbol for "Star Wars", not "The". PSB136 (talk) 14:42, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I’d suggest reverting under WP:UCN, simply because, to the best of my knowledge, nobody has ever referred to it simply as Star Wars Holiday Special. Yes, it’s been referred to as the infamous Star Wars Holiday Special, or the 1978 Star Wars Holiday Special, but nobody’s simply said, “Hey, did you ever hear about Star Wars Holiday Special?” My counter-argument is simply that it’d sound clunky if you ever tried to say “the infamous The Star Wars Holiday Special”. Should we also change The Lord of the Rings to just Lord of the Rings? To be honest, Lord of the Rings is actually much more common than Star Wars Holiday Special. Or, if we wanna make it really simple, just make it LOTR. 184.5.182.220 (talk) 08:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Lucas involvement

For lack of a better term, there's a "plot hole" in this article. It states that Lucas had little if any involvement in the Special, quoting him as saying others made it. Yet, that doesn't explain the Boba Fett cartoon. Surely Lucas had to have been intimately involved in the making of that segment, given that not only does it feature a major character two years before his film debut, but even back in 1978 I remember people speculating that Nelvana might be lining up to do a spin-off animated series or standalone special. So while I can accept that Lucas may not have been involved in, say, the decision to have Carrie Fisher sing the theme song, or the Harvey Korman comedy skit, there must be something in the myriad of reliable sources relating to Star Wars to flesh out his involvement in the cartoon. Including whether there was ever any plans for a spin-off at that time (Nelvana, of course, went on to do the Droids and Ewoks cartoon series only a few years later so obviously Lucasfilm didn't hold anything against them!). 68.146.70.124 (talk) 16:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I edited the main article to quote Patty Maloney ("Lumpy") who stated that Lucas did indeed approve the "dailies" of each day's shooting... so he certainly did see Carrie singing and so on... and yet let it stay in. Further, the Muppet Show episode of Star Wars had the same look and feel as the SWHS, with C3PO doing a Fred Astaire Dance, the mighty Chewbacca dancing, Luke gargling a song... all as lame and cringe-worthy as Carrie and Korman in the SWHS. My vote is that he liked what he saw, and so repeated the variety-show concept in the Muppets; but then reneged later when the public ridiculed it. He should just man up and confess that it was all his fault. :) PSB136 (talk) 14:32, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Posters don't use "The"

Looking at the derivative version of the poster, I mistakenly assumed that it used "The". (closeup of the original) As it turns out, it didn't. Neither did the other poster. Although the opening includes "The", I am very sure that the decision to drop "The" is correct. The current infobox image uses "TM" in a teeny-tiny small font (and hard to see). --George Ho (talk) 19:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

There are no posters. These are ads from TV Guide. The show itself uses "The" and the announce actually says "The Star Wars Holiday Special". As has been noted, it is *never* referred to as "Star Wars Holiday Special".24.149.45.52 (talk) 00:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 21 June 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: The nominator is inclined to agree that the "The" is unnecessary. The title without the "The" is unlikely to gain consensus per WP:THE. Discussion's already had above a while ago. Not moved. (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 22:57, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

---

Star Wars Holiday Special → The Star Wars Holiday Special – The RM that I created three years ago resulted in omission of "The". Majority opposed it, but I see it hasn't been re-proposed then. Maybe they are confused with the template, but I don't know. I don't want to raise the issue again, even when the handling of it is calm. However, while I still think "The" is unnecessary, if adding the "The" again is what it takes to satisfy the fanbase, I'll do it for the fanbase, regardless of my feelings and thoughts about this. Sources: Book 1 Book2 Book3 Book4 Inquisitr Forbes CNET The Mary Sue Tech Times. Popular Mechanics doesn't use the title in full. George Ho (talk) 01:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• Tentatively support but generally without backbone and willing to crumble with appropriate citation to Wikipedia policy or guideline - I'm not seeing any particular fanbase push to rename the article ... although I suppose I haven't scrolled up the talk page. Oh, I see it now. All the sources I've seen treat the product as Star Wars Holiday Special, without inclusion of The as a proper part of the title. Even if the production itself busts out a "The" (as I think one editor above asserts), this seems similar to e.g. The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times, where it's simply appropriate at Wikipedia to ditch the opening "the". Well, darn: The Washington Post includes "The" in the article name and it appears in the paper's flag; Los Angeles Times omits a "The" (even though it's ordinarily referred to with one) but it doesn't appear in the publication's flag. Now I'm just puzzled. IMDb uses a "The", as does a Mental Floss oral history, and apparently so too did an article in the official Star Wars Insider magazine and the special's official press kit. Regarding the linked articles above: I can imagine plenty of publication style guides suggesting omitting the "The" to avoid awkward flow (which I can appreciate having slammed into a lot of awkward phrases like "the The Clone Wars TV show") ... but mid-article flow is distinct from our article titling. Any relevant guideline or policy direction there? --EEMIV (talk) 00:28, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - as the original proposer of the move in this direction, why have you changed your mind three years later? I'm not seeing any great ongoing angst on the part of people who discussed the mvoe at the time. And as far as I can see, most sources including those cited in this move request do not capitalise or italicise "the" in running text regarding this, so per WP:THE we should not include the definite article.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:THE. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Kenny Baker in the film?

I noticed that the imdb pagefor this movie includes a credit for Kenny Baker as R2-D2, whereas this article said he was not involved. There is no source for this claim though.Paintrayn89 (talk) 16:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm confused about this. On the one hand, IMDb credits Kenny Baker for everything, even ones where he didn't actually appear like The Making of Star Wars and the appearances on Sesame Street an The Muppet Show. On the other hand, it does seem to be generally accepted that he was in the special ([1] and [2]). The easiest way to find out would be to watch the special and see if the two-legged Kenny Baker version actually appear instead of just the three-legged prop version, but that's easier said than done. CamelCase (MyTalk | ConTribs) 00:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The special itself narrates "R2-D2 as R2-D2", making it clear that Kenny wasn't it - in direct comparison to the narration of "Anthony Daniels as C-3PO". Kenny's name also isn't listed in the credits.

It also would be original research, primary sourcing, and unverifiable (you can't ref a fact to "just watch the show and see for yourself"). You can't use IMDb as a source on a disputed statement of fact, particularly on a subject where they are known to be mistaken. The two refs you cite are identical so one is just a mirror and neither look very trustworthy for vetting obscure statements of fact. I would not include Baker. Herostratus (talk) 01:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, I didn't really mean them as sources, but more of a reflection of the fact that most fans seem to think he was in the special. It makes me suspect that there was some Lucasfilm announcement that we missed. Although I did watch the special, and I'm pretty sure he isn't in it. CamelCase (MyTalk | ConTribs) 20:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Star Wars Holiday Special. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050528090452/http://www.staticmultimedia.com/content/film/features/feature_1115643931 to http://www.staticmultimedia.com/content/film/features/feature_1115643931
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051103040257/http://www.starwars.com/episode-ii/bts/me2/9.html to http://www.starwars.com/episode-ii/bts/me2/9.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061230030727/http://www.starwars.com/welcome/about/news/f20041222/indexp4.html to http://www.starwars.com/welcome/about/news/f20041222/indexp4.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080517050749/http://www.starwars.com/hyperspace/member/kessel/f20031119/index.html to http://www.starwars.com/hyperspace/member/kessel/f20031119/index.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://smdb.kb.se/catalog/search?q=%22stj%C3%A4rnornas%20krig%20och%20fred%22%20typ%3Atv%20datum%3A1978-2013&x=0&y=0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Repeated re-adding of probable comedy skit as though it was a serious interview

@Huggums537: Do you mind me asking, have you ever watched an episode of Conan? Or specifically this episode?

We always need to be skeptical of claims that all the content of his any of his interviews were meant seriously, because it was (and to my understanding still is) a very comedy-heavy talk show where even the "serious" interviews contain no end of tongue-in-cheek. You would not add to the Al Gore article that he once said in an interview on Late Night that the correct address for a former vice-president was "Your Adequacy".

The second source you added here does not actually make the claim that everything in the interview was meant to be serious. If you want to remove everything in the paragraph except exactly what that source says (that Ford appeared on Conan in 2006 and claimed never to have seen the special), be my guest. (Also worth noting -- even combined, the sources verify probably less than half the content you re-added.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

By the way: even the new source is tongue-in-cheek. The description in Empire makes it abundantly clear that Conan was not trying to be "helpful" by running the clip. He was poking fun at Ford, and I am fairly certain Ford was in on the joke. The simple fact is that all the sources either give only one basic fact about the interview or make it clear that it was meant in good fun: Empire can describe the tongue-in-cheek interview in tongue-in-cheek fashion themselves, but if they seriously implied that Ford assaulted O'Brien there would be heck to pay so for that one point they had to point out that it was a joke. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:41, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I watch Conan, and yes I watched that portion of the episode on youtube here: [cut]

It looks unscripted to me, unlike the usual fashion that they do when they're running a sketch. The original source describes the content accurately, and it's about as serious of an interview as you could possibly expect from a late night talk show. Also, in the new source, the author begins the paragraph talking about interviewers perspective, and even the paragraph preceding it talks about interviews regarding the special. So, it's obvious from the context that they are talking strictly about interviews. BTW, did Al Gore really say that? Huggums537 (talk) 13:22, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Missed this, but yeah, Gore totally said that. It was in 2002 or 2003, in the lead up to the Iraq War. I was in a real Conan phase and had taped the episode and watched it multiple times, or left it on as background noise, so I can quote some of the interview from memory, which is good because legal copies of old episodes of Late Night with Conan O'Brien are apparently extremely hard to come by (read: attributing anything to the primary source is a violation of WP:V, since one would likely need to watch a pirated copy or personally contact NBC to verify it).

As for "Your Adequacy", he was joking. Because that's what interviewees do on Conan. And Conan led him into it by asking what he was supposed to address Gore as, so it was really obvious that either (1) it was entirely sincere and Al Gore actually meant that his formal title as a former VP is "Your Adequacy", or (2) it was not only a joke, but one that had been set up in advance between Conan's people and Gore's, if not Conan and Gore personally.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the link, but you should know that posting links to bootleg YouTube videos is not allowed per WP:ELNEVER. I have therefore edited your post accordingly. Now I can see for myself and confirm that yes, it was a planned comedy bit. It was not the way we present it, as a super-serious, extremely awkward interview moment. Not at all.

You are missing the point when you say it "looks unscripted". Everyone who goes on Conan knows they are likely to get ribbed and poked fun at, and Ford was either aware of exactly what Conan was going to do and planned his reaction to get a laugh out of the audience, or thought up a funny reaction on the spot, or (and this is the worst option for our purposes) the whole thing was discussed in advance between either Ford or Ford's people and either Conan or Conan's people. By comparing it to "running a sketch", you are missing the point of my comparing it to the Al Gore interview where Gore said he looked into it and discovered that people are meant to refer to him (and by extension various other LPs) as "Your Adequacy". We could say he "claimed" to have researched the proper etiquette, but it's really obvious that the whole thing was meant as a joke because it's Conan.

This is like citing a satirical internet review show as serious criticism of a piece of media -- everyone knows The Angry Video Game Nerd doesn't actually think every game he reviews is terrible, or that Super Mario Bros 3 is satanic, and if you tried to add that to the articles on those games you would be reverted.

And then there's the question of how you just "accidentally came across" an edit I made three months prior, a few minutes after posting a sarcastic attack against me on the MOS:FILM talk page. It's extremely difficult to take this as a good-faith disagreement when you obviously trawled through my talk page and/or contribs looking for an edit of mine that you could revert, and if you are not acting in good faith then I am wasting my time trying to convince you with solid arguments like the above, because making me waste my time trying to convince you when you are not willing to change your mind is apparently the whole point.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:37, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

By the way: Since two editors had already agreed to the removal and it was stable that way for three months, per WP:CONSENSUS, WP:PRESERVE and WP:BRD and virtually everything else (WP:BURDEN springs to mind), your edit should be reverted and the text should stay out while being discussed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Reinserted youtube link because it's allowed in talk pages for discussion purposes on a primary source based on Fair use, but not allowed in articles per WP:ELNEVER/WP:EL (both are same page). WP:ELNEVER is just a small section of WP:EL, and the WP:EL page as a whole, (including WP:ELNEVER) talks about links "in the body of an article", not talk pages. From WP:EL: "they should not normally be placed in the body of an article.", "information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright", "content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article", "external links should not be used in the body of an article". So, it's very clear they are forbidding the linking "in articles", to say nothing of talk pages. Also I think you misunderstood a "few minutes after posting...". If you go back and check, you will see that it looks like a few minutes at first, but it's actually about 24 hours. You said that you could care less about my edits here, and asked me to leave you alone, which I've tried to do. I sincerely apologize if you mistook the edit at MOS as anything other than an attack. I understand I'm highly critical, and given our history, it's understandable how you would not see it any other way. However, I went on to be supportive with the very next edit, and then you could see I was very civil, and even complimentary on your talk page. I'm working very hard to make amends here, although it's understandable how you may not fully trust it. I want to build a good reputation on Wikipedia, and I can't very well do that unless I can learn to establish good diplomatic relations with everyone here. That requires me to rethink the good faith assumptions I failed to give up in the past. You obviously have something to say about this, or else you wouldn't bring it up on an article talk page totally unrelated to the topic. So, we are going to clear it up right now because it does seem important to you. Also, I think the text should stay in since you did agree to tag it with a citation needed, and wait to see if anybody provides sources. I found some sources. If you're not happy with those, I can try to find some better ones. Huggums537 (talk) 03:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Huggums537, no means no. No, that EL says something about what can be in articles doesn't mean that the rules don't apply outside of articles. Sorry, but duh--no, the content is not free, and fair use policies don't allow such links. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 14:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

See also WP:COPYLINK, a subset of the copyright policy, which states without qualification that if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

First of all the, "Sorry, but duh--no" comment is condescending, and an editor of your good standing should know it is inappropriate. Also, "no means no", is not a discussion, it's a dictatorship, also inappropriate. If this were any other video I might agree with everyone. However, if anyone bothered to look, this 3 minute segment of Conan also happens to be the primary source for the content in question. I might have even used it as a source for some quotations in the content per WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD "Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation", and WP:PRIMARYCARE "The film itself is an acceptable primary source for information about the plot and the names of the characters.". Furthermore, WP:EL states, "...these external-link guidelines do not apply to citations to reliable sources...", and "This guideline does not apply to inline citations or general references, ...". If we just simply were not allowed to use, or discuss certain sources, then those quotations would not exist, and I could just go about Wikipedia removing sources here and there only because they contained a trademarked image, and then tell them hijiri and drmies told me copyright violations are not allowed on Wikipedia period. "no means no". Huggums537 (talk) 21:13, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Here's an example: Suppose we were talking about an article on a documentary, and someone wanted to add a 3 minute clip of the film as a primary source for a direct quotation from the documentary. However, it gets brought up for discussion on the talk page. So, the person wanting to add the material provides the source for peers to review. How would that be any different? I feel like my use here is legitimate. If it were under nefarious looking circumstances, then you shouldn't consider it further, but that just isn't the case here. It does, however, feel like hijiri is only crying copyright as a strategy to prevent the source from being reviewed by others so they can't see for themselves that this is in fact an interview, as the sources I provided suggests. Huggums537 (talk) 22:19, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

"Duh" because your argument ("ELNEVER" ONLY APPLIES TO EL) is nonsensical. My status has nothing to do with it. No means no--you don't get it, there is nothing to discuss here. We're not talking about some guideline here, we're talking about linking to copyrighted content. WHICH YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DO. If someone wants to add a 3-minute clip of a film and it's copyright-protected the answer is NO THEY CAN'T DO THAT. I don't know why you are confusing a rule about copyright with a discussion about content. Drmies (talk) 22:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

"Duh" was in no way a proper explanation as to why my argument was "nonsensical". I don't know what meaningful purpose it serves to state the obvious, that I "don't get it", but I do know that I DON'T get it. I already stated that I feel that my actions are legitimate, and provided multiple quotes from guidelines as to why I feel justified in doing so. You, however, started off by being condescending, and still have yet to provide anything useful that might help me understand how to "get it", other than basically screaming in bold, "NO YOU CAN'T". And, I'm the one being accused of making nonsensical arguments? Well, I might be new here, but at least I provided something for an argument that could either be proved, disproved, or discussed. For you to resort to name-calling my legitimate attempts to justify my position as "nonsensical", is just further insulting. The only one to add any value to this discussion, other than myself, was Writ Keeper, who provided us with WP:COPYLINK, which also says, "Since most recently-created works are copyrighted, almost any Wikipedia article which cites its sources will link to copyrighted material.", "It is not necessary to obtain the permission of a copyright holder before linking to copyrighted material,...", and "In some cases, fair use guidelines may allow them to be used irrespective of any copyright claims". So, I keep finding material in the guidelines that makes me think this is legitimate usage. Huggums537 (talk) 00:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

There's a difference, though, between "linking to things that are copyrighted" (allowed and indeed unavoidable) and "linking to things that violate someone else's copyright" (*never* allowed, per COPYLINK). Nobody would object if you were linking to a video legitimately posted by its creator/copyright holder. But linking to a random person uploading a video that isn't theirs to Youtube is *never* allowed: not because the video is copyrighted, but because the uploader is violating that copyright.

And for the record, the policy on copyright, as a policy with legal ramifications for the WMF, is *not* up for debate. It's one of the very few things on Wikipedia that is not subject to consensus. Copyright really is a dictatorship, not a democracy, because to do otherwise could expose the project at large to serious legal consequences. So if we seem draconian, it's because we have to be. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. I can see a difference there. So, my theory is actually correct. I would only need to find the video clip directly from the Conan website, or something like that. It would be the exact same video, just coming from a different source, if I understand you correctly. I'm still unsure that a youtube user uploading a 3 minute segment of a Conan show is actually violating copyright, and isn't fair use itself. However, it appears that the consensus here is that the video is violating copyright. So, would you agree there is also a difference between debating the copyright policy, and debating if there has been a violation of that policy? Thank you for at least acknowledging a discussion on the matter. Also, I disagree that anyone just has to be "draconian" about copyright (or other) policy when there is always another approach. Although, I do understand the thinking behind it. Huggums537 (talk) 03:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

This is hardly "consensus"--it's more like law. Drmies (talk) 04:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Huggums, you still don't seem to understand. You are allowed cite primary sources, no matter how you accessed them, but if said access was to bootleg copies online you are not allowed link them anywhere on-wiki. It would have been more of a grey area if you had said to me "I saw the clip, and you can too. There's a bootleg upload on a certain video hosting site, and just Googling the obvious search terms will bring it up", but linking to bootleg YouTube uploads is absolutely never acceptable. I told you this before, but you didn't listen, even going so far as to reinsert the link, and now you have only pulled back because an admin said the same thing I did. I should not have to go get an admin every time you won't listen to me explaining our policies and guidelines to you, nor should I have to open a noticeboard discussion every time you won't listen either.

Anyway, you are allowed cite primary sources, even ones you only accessed via bootleg copies, but in this case your primary source is a satirical "bit" from a comedy talk show, and no rational viewer would take it as a serious expression of Ford's sincere feelings about the topic. Yeah, he probably doesn't like it, and might even be embarrassed about it (although Fisher and Daniels certainly weren't), but the way it's made out in the Late Night interview (and consequently the way we make it out because we foolishly take the Late Night interview at face value) it's like some horrible, traumatic experience that has haunted his nightmares for decades. One of the secondary sources you located hardly supported any of the material in our article, and the other was clearly just as satirical as the interview itself, only pointing out that they were joking when not doing so would be defamatory.

By the way -- you are very unlikely to find a legitimate upload of the clip "directly from the Conan website", since the copyright for old episodes of Late Night almost certainly remains at NBC, and Conan had a rather public dispute with NBC over his hosting of The Tonight Show back in 2009/2010. Your not being aware of this makes me highly skeptical of your claim, above, that Yes, I watch Conan. This adds strength to my original theory that you were not being entirely truthful when you claimed here that you had accidentally stumbled across my edits to this page you had never edited before, three months after the fact, during which time a dozen other edits had been made to the page, and your stumbling across it just happened to coincide with your disputing with me over a passage in MOS:FILM. You are trying to weave together a story that you have always been a fan of Conan O'Brien and were following this article on an obscure piece of Star Wars media from the start, but it simply doesn't hold up under scrutiny. I suppose next you are going to tell me that you came to this article back in June (and somehow kept quiet until September) since you were following SF Debris's retrospective of the production of The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi and have always been a fan of Charles Sonnenburg (sp?), and use that as an excuse to revert this edit? I had a user once hound me with an obviously false excuse that he had a whole load of interests in common wih me, despite his constantly getting factual details wrong that no one who actually shared my research interests would get wrong. It didn't work out well for them. You made it apparent on Talk:Guardians of the Galaxy (film) (among other places) that you hadn't even seen the films in question (or else you were deliberately "playing dumb" in order to get me to waste time explaining everything about the films to you, which is almost worse), and now you are getting really basic biographical facts about a television personality you claim to "watch" wrong. No one who just happened to know about this topic because they were a Conan fan would think that the show that was on air in 2006 and is referred to as "Conan" is the same entity as the Conan that currently has its own website.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the edit reversion Drmies recently made here to restore the pruned TV appearance and corrected citation that was edited earlier. I think it's a fair compromise. Although, I see the "nonsense" tag remains despite my having politely asked otherwise, and I have no idea what the implied meaning of "you will need permission" is supposed to be. Huggums537 (talk) 09:26, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I still agree with User:Drmies edit per comment above. However, there was some remaining unsourced content that was missed during "the pruning", and I took the liberty of removing it myself. Huggums537 (talk) 10:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that two days ago, at the top of this thread, I proposed the edit Drmies wound up implementing (If you want to remove everything in the paragraph except exactly what that source says (that Ford appeared on Conan in 2006 and claimed never to have seen the special), be my guest.) and Huggums showed no interest in the proposal at the time. Also, the edit he now claims to agree with was a direct revert of his own edit here. I can't figure out how any of this makes sense. Huggums, do you understand the policy, now that Drmies has explained it? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm fully cognizant of being in agreement with a direct reversion to my own edit. That much should be obvious by the fact that I even assisted Drmies with the additional removal of unsourced content that was missed during the reversion of my edit. It makes sense if you make the consideration that my viewpoint simply changed, and now I agree. Hijiri, I would ask you to stop patronizing me, but I don't think it would do any good. Huggums537 (talk) 13:28, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not patronizing you. I'm explaining policy to you when you apparently don't understand it, as I did back in July and for much of this month. I really can't figure out how when I explain the policy to you, you respond with sarcastic attacks and condescension as you did here (even going so far as to make an unsubtle jab at me in a discussion that didn't even involve me more than a week later), but when Drmies does the same you give up and recognize that he is right in his agreeing with what I had been telling you all along. I also find it incredibly convenient that you stopped attacking me directly as soon as two admins showed up.

I would ask you to stop hounding my edits and looking for any excuse to fight with me, but I don't think it would do any good.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

So, I think you're jealous of Drmies then? At least, that was the only meaningful thing I read into those statements anyway. I never would think that's true if you hadn't mentioned it your last comment AND the one before it. I hope it's OK for me to read into that since you are allowed to read into innocent comments as attacks and such. And, you're lecturing me on policy? Huggums537 (talk) 04:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Dsitributor?

@AdamDeanHall: Pinging the user who originally added that the distributor was Disney when they bought Lucasfilm.
As per the common understanding of the purchase (reffed and removed by IP/Huggums) Disney acquired all the distribution rights of the Star Wars films from Lucasfilm with the exception of the six films in the original trilogy and specifically all content originally aired on television. As this special was originally aired on television and it is not one of the films in the first two trilogies, it is clearly under the purview of Disney's distribution rights.
The IP's argument that "Disney did not distribute this" is moot because one need not have distributed to be the entity legally allowed to. This assertion is actually original research, in my opinion. Huggums did not provide any rational for removing this content either. But the panoply of data suggests it's Disney's content, for instance whenever a version is uploaded to YouTube the copyright team that takes it down saying it's theirs is Disney, "This video contains content from Disney, who has blocked it on copyright grounds.".
I know that's not admissable on its face, but there's nothing to suggest that this one special is somehow exempt from Disney's purchase, or, even more bizarre, actually counts as one of the six films in the first two trilogies. JesseRafe (talk) 17:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm weary of this debate. Your sources do not support the claim. I suggest removing them by restoring the original Wikipedia:STATUSQUO and adding a citation needed tag for someone to add a reliable source that actually supports the claim. This will make everyone (except maybe the IP user) happy. I will be done with the debate, JesseRafe will have the beloved content, and perhaps the baseless attacks against me will then stop. Also, I would kindly ask you to strike my name from the false statement "reffed and removed by IP/Huggums" per WP:BLP. Huggums537 (talk) 20:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

There's something you should know: As of yesterday, 20th Century Fox Television is now the property of The Walt Disney Company. AdamDeanHall (talk) 14:19, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks AdanDeanHall for that interesting information. Perhaps we can restore the content reflecting that new change along with a citation needed tag. Huggums537 (talk) 16:01, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Making all of this Mickey Mouse, more or less. Jonathunder (talk) 16:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't really change the status of this film, which was already always with Disney. The distributor should be restored and there should not be a citation needed tag because for the umpteenth time, refs do not go in the infobox. JesseRafe (talk) 16:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

All information added must be reliably sourced and there are other ways of sourcing other than putting it in the infobox such as inline attribution and footnotes... Huggums537 (talk) 17:17, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

JesseRafe The sock puppet investigation has now closed in my favor. I'll ask you kindly one last time to strike or remove the defamatory remark about me. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 20:48, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

No, Disney and fox have made a purchase agreement, but the sale has NOT gone through and it's not even clear if the DoJ will allow it due to antitrust concerns. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:46, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the line. Disputed info shouldn't be in the infobox, as complex issues such as who distributes a show that has only been aired once and never distributed again would better be described in the prose of the article. Per MOS:IBX, Some items in infoboxes may not be readily available or not available at all, such as the producers of an album or film. In these cases it is better to provide available information while concealing fields for which information may not be available. There aren't any reliable sources claiming that Disney-ABC is the distributor, but MeTV, a TV network who are in a position to know who distributes content, credited it to 20th Century Fox Television in a 2016 article, IMDB lists CBS, etc. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:59, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Ahecht, please seek consensus before singularly making changes. I agree with your decision, but we should give Jesse and Adam a chance to respond before making changes. I'm going to revert your edit if it hasn't been done so already until we reach a consensus on this. Thanks for your input and participation. Also, JesseRafe was mostly right that it didn't really matter much either way since the issue here was that, though it's logical enough to combine all of JesseRafe's sources to come to the conclusion that Disney (is rightfully) the distributor even though none of the sources explicitly state that fact, so doing is expressly forbidden by policy as the very first specified form of synthesis, which generally constitutes original research. That is why we removed those sources and added the citation needed tag as a compromise. However, since Jesse pointed out that sources don't go in boxes and you brought up that this info should be in the proseline, I suggest we move it to the proseline. Huggums537 (talk) 17:46, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• One-off TV specials don't have "distributors" outside the broadcast networks that show them. A license-holder is not the same as a distributor. Removing unsourced, erroneous text accordingly. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:59, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 14 December 2017

The sentence "It was also broadcast in New Zealand on TVNZ and in Australia on the Seven Network." is an uncited claim and I believe needs a {{citation request|date=December 2017}} tag.-- Tenebrae (talk) 19:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Agree with request. Huggums537 (talk) 20:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:02, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Star Wars Holiday Special. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051020072824/http://starwarsgalaxies.station.sony.com/content.jsp?page=Wookiee%20Life%20Day to http://starwarsgalaxies.station.sony.com/content.jsp?page=Wookiee%20Life%20Day

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

ABC News citation

I've tagged this "better source" needs. It misspells Carol Burnett as "Burnette", erroneously claims Art Carney, Diahann Carroll and Bea Arthur only made cameo appearances, and also appears to repeat a purported Maxim quote that only appears on Wikipedia and sources using Wikipedia to make that claim. I don't have time at the moment, but there's nothing in that article that can't be cited to better, more accurate sources.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:06, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Article is Repetitive

There are assertions that appear multiple times within the article. An example is the repeated note that the Boba Fett animated short is considered the best part of the special. We get it. It doesn't have to be said over and over.

I don't have time to clean this up now (hit-and-run complaint, I know), but if anyone can strip out the redundancies, the article will be improved. Cernansky (talk) 19:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

YouTube

The article implies that copies of the Holiday Special are hard to locate and need to involve "underground" sources. However, there appear to be several versions floating around on YouTube for unrestricted public viewership (herre is one: Likely copyright violation link removed, per WP:COPYVIOEL. ). --Legis (talk - contribs) 16:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

The special is copyrighted. Only the copyright owner (or their licensee) can distribute the work legally. So, for example, in the link you provided, "DJameyson" who posted the video would need to have either clearly owned the copyright to the special, been licensed by the owner or be using the work in compliance with fair use provisions. There is no indication any of these apply (and strong reason to believe they do not), so I removed the link per WP:COPYVIOEL. Most likely, that particular post will be taken down at some point when YouTube gets a DMCA takedown notice. - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Did Lucas retain the rights to this?

I have heard this repeated in fan circles ever since the sale LucasFilm to Disney but I have never heard an official conformation or denial. Can anyone clear this up? 2601:188:C502:7F50:1523:DB39:6D7B:9CE0 (talk) 03:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

This was not Boba Fett’s introduction in the Star Wars Universe

Boba Fett actually made his first appearance in Star Wars: A New Hope at the end of a scene where Han Solo talks with Jabba The Hutt about his bounty 216.223.198.134 (talk) 03:29, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

That was added in the 1997 Special Edition. Raymond1922 (talk) 15:55, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Cultural Impact, Etc. …

Not sure if this is relevant or not … but, Disneyland,Anaheim, during the winter holidays, sells all sorts of “Life Day” souvenirs - shirts, mugs, ornaments - in their Star Wars area. So, love or hate the special, it’s definitely still being referenced. ( Experienced first hand in January 2023.) 75.107.41.198 (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Community reference?

Wouldn’t say the Inspector Spacetime special is “ a clear nod to the Star Wars Holiday Special” as Inspector Spacetime is a parody of Dr. Who, which has numerous holiday specials. 75.108.235.183 (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC)