Talk:Bantha

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleBantha has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 31, 2007Articles for deletionKept
December 18, 2019Articles for deletionKept
April 2, 2020Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 28, 2020.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the banthas in Star Wars were portrayed by an elephant who kept shrugging the costume off her body during filming due to the intense heat?
Current status: Good article

Pairing[edit]

Am I really to believe that if a Bantha dies, its Tusken Raider owner must walk off into the desert, there to die? -Ikkyu2 06:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. --Maru (talk) Contribs 17:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, all right then. -Ikkyu2 15:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What do they use in the movies?[edit]

Does anyone know what they used as for a bantha in the movie? Dr. Moniker 00:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zitidar?[edit]

What sort of comparison is that? I Googled for zitidar to find out what the heck it is, and there are very few refernces. Best I can find out, it's some kind of whale? It seems to be from some scifi universe called Barsoom. If it were from Star Wars, fine, but it's not. Can someone replace that with a more useful reference? Or maybe better, write an article about it so it can be linked from this one. JoelC 20:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bantha Poodo[edit]

If poodo is linked to the article about feces, is it right to translate it to "fodder"? --markild 15:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This might actually be worth some discussion in the article if it can be properly sourced. In Return of the Jedi, Jabba says someone will be "Bantha poodoo," which is translated in the subtitles as "Bantha fodder." So yes, the translation is official. It shouldn't be linked to Feces, but this is an error that the franchise itself has encouraged. Probably because "poodoo" sounds like something a child would call feces, there are multiple instances of a Star Wars character saying something that smells bad smells like "bantha poodoo." I believe this happens in one of the new trilogy films; it definitely happens in Knights of the Old Republic. KOTOR explains this somewhat: it has an item called Bantha Fodder, whose description explains that the banthas' food is some sort of pungent mix of fungi or something. So bantha food smells bad. But presumably "poodoo" is "fodder" in Hutteese. So if characters speaking in "Common" (English) are using the Hutteese phrase, perhaps it's one that has entered common, similar to how an English speaker might say "je ne sais quois." Or more likely the writers wanted to make some jokes and didn't think about the issue this much. --BDD (talk) 19:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

oh snap i messed up[edit]

uh i screwed up in editing the article i think i removed the references...--Spartan117009 03:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BSH[edit]

For all you Bantha lovers out there we have a question. How long does it take a baby bantha to mature? If any one has a plauseable answer for this please tell us. -Thank you BSH — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bantha child (talk • contribs) 17:53, 3 November 2006

sectionize intro[edit]

I added the colloquial bantha section, and added the wild bantha chase term. I think since this article is starting to expand, the introduction should be further split into sections. Teimu.tm (talk) 21:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CGI Bantha in 1977?[edit]

>>>Lucas retained the original shots of the elephant, rather than replacing them with CGI, for the 1977 Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope.[6]

Come on, where does such info comes from. How can we believe that in 1977, Lucas was ready to make a bantha using CGI. this article should say that Lucas, during the making of the Special Edition wondered if if could use a CGI version of the Bantha —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aldejerph (talk • contribs) 16:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^^^ What he said. This sentence makes no sense whatsoever as-is. Surely the date was intended to be "1997" instead? 69.208.77.112 (talk) 20:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Checking the edit history of the page shows this theory to be correct; I've fixed it and clarified the wording so it hopefully won't happen again. 69.208.77.112 (talk) 20:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bantha. 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:

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) 18:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Bantha/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 15:22, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I was thrilled to see your improvements to this article while it was at AfD. I'm very happy to review it here, though my review may come in dribs and drabs. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • First up, citation errors. Fn. 19 is to Pollock 2001, which isn't in the bibliography. And a number of Whitlatch references (fns. 13, 18, 21, 24, 27, 28) are not connecting to anything in the bib, presumably because Whitlatch is only one of the authors of the book in question.
    • Ahh, yeah, the Pollock 2001 source should actually have been Whitlatch; I must have copy-and-pasted the Harvnb template and forgot to replace the name. Fixed that, and fixed the errors in the Whitlach citations, which as you said should have had two author names... — Hunter Kahn 16:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Infobox says the homeworld is Tatooine; article body says unknown.
    • I had actually meant for "Homeworld" to represent planets where the bantha can be found, not necessarily the "planet of origin", which is unknown. But I can see that chose of wording wasn't the best one, so I've changed it to "Habitats", and I've actually added other planets that the body of the article establishes contains banthas as well (Kashyyyk and Kilia IV). Does this work for you as a solution? — Hunter Kahn 16:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by native peoples for transportation and food" Native to where?
    • I changed "native peoples" to "humans". — Hunter Kahn 16:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "though a lone male bantha often acts as sentries for the herds" Singular/plural issue
    • Changed to "often acts as a sentry" — Hunter Kahn 16:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The appearances section might be a bit listy for some readers - it's definitely something that will/should be picked up at GAC. Some of the mentions may also be a little trivial (similar for the end of the culture section - a little listy, some trivial mentions). I'm not going to make a fuss for the purposes of GAC, though.
    • Yeah, I tried to avoid this as much as possible, keeping it biographical and more of a narrative as best I could. Any specific thoughts on changes that should be made to this section? — Hunter Kahn 16:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stopping there for now. Great read so far. Please check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:55, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks good so far. Thanks very much for taking on this review J Milburn! — Hunter Kahn 16:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Art director Leon Erickson created the bantha costume,[84][86][87] who led a crew of six total crew members in the work.[5][88][89]" This needs to be reworked.
    • Changed to "Art director Leon Erickson created the bantha costume, leading a crew of six total crew members in the work." — Hunter Kahn 01:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the back of the bantha's mount in the scene" - The bantha is the mount, surely? I'm not following.
    • I think that was just a stray word. Changed to "the back of the bantha in the scene" — Hunter Kahn 01:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the footage was captured without incident" Have you not just described some incidents? Without major incident, perhaps?
  • The filming and production section feels a little out of order. Again, I think I would be overstepping my mark as a GAC reviewer to demand changes here, but it's definitely something to think about before FAC.
    • I will certainly consider this when and if I get to that point, though if there were any specifics you wanted to tackle in here, I'm certainly open to it... — Hunter Kahn 01:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ", and said the framework for the luggabeast was to "redress an elephant again, as they did for the banthas in A New Hope"." I don't understand. What is meant by "framework", here?
    • Yeah, the original wording in the source is a bit odd. Concept designer Christian Alzmann said: "Let's try to redress an elephant again, as they did for the banthas in A New Hope. That was literally the framework: Let’s have some new updated versions of old creatures." I've tried to scale down and simplify this in the article by changing it to this new wording: "Concept designer Christian Alzmann said the crew sought to make updated versions of the creatures from the original films, and banthas from the original Star Wars film helped inspire this approach." — Hunter Kahn 01:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Santa Fe New Mexican writer David Rare called banthas one of the most widely appreciated Star Wars creatures and characters by fans.[112]" Repetition. I'd lose the sentence and just add the reference to the first sentence in the section.
  • I wonder if the second paragraph of the critical reception section could be given a section of its own? Or a subsection. "Influence" or "Cultural references" or something? I'm not sure. It doesn't really feel like critical reception. I'd also consider splitting it into three short paragraphs, or else trying to link things together a little more - again, it feels a little listy!
    • I've changed the paragraph to a "Cultural references" section per your suggestion. Didn't break up the paragraphs since I figure that's not necessary now but let me know if you disagree. — Hunter Kahn 01:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, stopping there. I need to look at the sources and images, but the text is looking great. Again, please double-check my edits! Josh Milburn (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the rationales on all the non-free images could be improved (if they're definitely all neeeded, that is). The sourcing on File:NYC Halloween Parade - Bantha.jpg, meanwhile, would never pass muster at FAC - though I am inclined to turn a blind eye here. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:38, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, the only non-free images I added myself were the POV binoculars comparisons; the others were already here before. I'll definitely look to improve upon then when and if I reach the FAC point. As for now, to what extent would you like them improved for the GAN? Were there any in particular you'd like me to beef up at this point, or should I take a crack at all of them? — Hunter Kahn 13:39, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, some of the sources aren't great. Again, I think we can manage with some of the borderline ones at GAC for a topic like this, but you might expect some tough questions at FAC. (I'm not making FAC sound attractive, am I? Oh well...) The only one I have to question now is Medium. What source reliable? It's a blogging site, isn't it? Josh Milburn (talk) 16:20, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're quite right, and in fact I see now that Medium is listed on WP:RS/P as a source to avoid. Fortunately, there was only one sentence I had to strike altogether as a result (the Ray Harryhausen one), and all other citations using that source were being used along with other citations, so the effect on the article was minimal. Thanks J Milburn! — Hunter Kahn 14:44, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, happy to round things off there - promoting now. Great work on this - it'll be useful to point to as what an article about a fictional species could look like! I do hope you'll consider FAC, but, as I noted, there may be a few bumps along the way. Perhaps seek out some comments from a few people experienced at FAC (I'm sure some of them will be SW fans) and/or submit to PR. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:04, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Hunter Kahn (talk). Self-nominated at 03:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]

  • for ALT1, ALT2; for ALT2 ALT3; for the original hook, as it seems to be missing something. Article is high-quality and recently promoted to GA status. Hooks check out (with the exception of the original). Alt2 is my favourite, as I think it'll appeal to the most readers/lead to the most clicks. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks J Milburn. Yes, the original alt was missing the phrase "was portrayed by an elephant", which was of course a very bad omission. LOL But I'm fine with ALT2 per your suggestion. — Hunter Kahn 17:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Josh Milburn, regrettably, you are not an eligible reviewer for this nomination, since you were the reviewer at GAN per WP:DYKSG#H2: You're not allowed to approve your own hook or article, nor may you review an article if it's a recently listed Good Article that you either nominated or reviewed for GA (though you can still nominate it for DYK). The idea is that a new reviewer might spot something that the original reviewer might have overlooked in their review (and indeed this has happened in the past). So we're going to need a fresh review by someone not involved with the GA review. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:50, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

for the main hook, as the online source says only that the elephant kept shrugging off the costume. It would be okay without the last five words, or perhaps Hunter Kahn can say exactly where they are from? ALT1 falls foul of Rule C6.
for ALT2 and ALT3. Article meets the requirements and is recently promoted to GA status, Earwig has no concerns, QPQ done. Moonraker (talk) 05:48, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: Thank God someone else reviewed it. To my eyes, ALT1 doesn't violate C6 at all! Must be because I'm "involved", and not because I understand that ALT1 is a claim about real-world inspirations, and not a solely in-universe claim about fiction. It's great that we have all these rules ensuring that we all waste our time bickering on pages like this rather than improving the encyclopedia. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:16, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Josh Milburn, in my humble opinion C6 is a heavy-handed rule and misunderstood even by DYK’s leading lights (see, for example, here). But the rule is the rule, and one fictional character being inspired by another fictional character within someone’s head does seem to me to be skating on the thinnest possible ice, I am sure that would not get promoted. I rather like the main hook without its stab at the elephant’s thought processes, but it is not for the reviewer to change it. Moonraker (talk) 09:03, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you say so. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:35, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Moonraker Sorry for my delay in responding to this. I'm fine with removing the last five words from the main hook and going with that if that's easiest, but the Pollock book (an offline source cited for this fact) says ""Elephants are not accustomed to the intense heat of Death Valley, and filming went slowly, as the beast kept shrugging off its heavy costume." That's where I got that portion of the hook from... — Hunter Kahn 21:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main hook is good, with the last five words struck out, and so are ALT2 and ALT3. I also like to see the elephant getting into the hook. Thank you, Hunter Kahn, the source doesn’t quite get there. Ready to go. Moonraker (talk) 04:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bantha&oldid=1205708174"