Talk:Lucas announces Star Wars for Blu-ray

licence

hi, I released this particular news on http://www.hdtvtotal.com under CC-By-3.0. best regards, --Andreas -horn- Hornig (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

based-on tag?

hi, I usually release news on de.wikinews and there we have a "based-on" tag for thiskind of news de:Lucas verkündet offiziell: Star Wars auf Blu-ray im Herbst 2011, is there something similar to this in en.wikinews? --Andreas -horn- Hornig (talk) 20:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

minimal news

hi, it's true, that it's minimal, but if you click on the press release that is the very essence of the news and the rest wouldn'tbe newsworthy. if you find other sources feel free to add those. --Andreas -horn- Hornig (talk) 10:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Review of revision 1078248 [Failed]

Revision 1078248 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 11:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: Articles should have a minimum of three paragraphs. Comments by reviewer: None added. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 1078248 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 11:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: Articles should have a minimum of three paragraphs. Comments by reviewer: None added. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Review of revision 1078350 [Failed]

Revision 1078350 of this article has been reviewed by Mikemoral (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 22:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: Is this really newsworthy? Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: Grammar, formatting, please revise Comments by reviewer: None added. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 1078350 of this article has been reviewed by Mikemoral (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 22:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: Is this really newsworthy? Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: Grammar, formatting, please revise Comments by reviewer: None added. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

hi,

newsworthy: according to http://news.google.com/news/more?pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&cf=all&ncl=d6sxnpaA5j2aitM1M4UOMwADO8AmM it is

grammar should be checked by a native speaker, that's true. --Andreas -horn- Hornig (talk) 23:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll do the grammar if you fix the sources. :) —Mikemoral♪♫ 04:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

thx, but what'swrong with the sources? --Andreas -horn- Hornig (talk) 10:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

okay, now I see. but the youtube uploader is written with a small letter, I just kept it that way. greets, --Andreas -horn- Hornig (talk) 23:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Review of revision 1079429 [Failed]

Revision 1079429 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 13:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: The YouTube videos are crucial to verifying this deleted scene thingy. However, Lucasfilm has decided to issue DMCA takedown notices and they are now gone. NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 1079429 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 13:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: The YouTube videos are crucial to verifying this deleted scene thingy. However, Lucasfilm has decided to issue DMCA takedown notices and they are now gone. NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

hi, I have seen this video, other websites cited it, here is another "blury" one from another position [1]. perhaps we could just add that the cited video has been taken down and still use it as a source. The particular scene is described so there is no real use for the video itself. greets, --Andreas -horn- Hornig (talk) 15:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

hi, added 2nd source for the deleted scene. --Andreas -horn- Hornig (talk) 12:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

May I ask...

... why is it so difficult to help obvious newbies with doing an article? Some users like Blood Red Sandman and others do their best to help, and others just push buttons again and again on the page but won't move a finger, even when I ask what I should do. I can't take those persons serious, so I will edit those changes. And I will add the missing stuff, when someone will tell me, what's missing in their opinions (eg the alternative source for the newly removed youtube video). just my method to handle those things, --Andreas -horn- Hornig (talk) 20:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's a thought. Because of all the time it has taken to sort this out, this is pretty much {{Stale}}. However... We only found out yesterday that Lucasfilm were firing out DMCAs against videos that, it could be argued, are actually beneficial to them by helping advertise their new release. So, how about writing up a few lines of OR? That would bring this back into recent news. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

hi, right now there is no line inthe article mentioning the online-videos, so we could add this as "new news", but I haven't found any "source" for this. we could take the dead-link but is that a source? --Andreas -horn- Hornig (talk) 20:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

See below for how I've 'proved' this. I'd much prefer that we didn't have to use the Original Research template, but we have to cite it somehow and, as you say, this is not in the sources per se. So, we are stuck claiming it as Original. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest linking to a video. —Mikemoral♪♫ 20:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

OR

If you check here you'll find that the names of the videos are still available, and correspond to the related content, but they are not playable and instead you are greeted with a message that owing to copyright claims by Lucasfilm they are gone. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

hi and thanks! At least Diego liked your adding and published it faster than I could add another category :). Thank you for your help. Somehow it's even harder to do a news for en.wikinews than it is for de.wikinews! :). --Andreas -horn- Hornig (talk) 21:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Review of revision 1079962 [Passed]

Revision 1079962 of this article has been reviewed by Diego Grez (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 20:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Ultra-stale, but well. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 1079962 of this article has been reviewed by Diego Grez (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 20:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Ultra-stale, but well. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.