Talk:Star Wars Day

untitled

OK, be gentle. 'Star Wars Day' is a well-known joke, and I hope I've managed to make the intent of this article clear. If it's excluded from Wikipedia because it's a joke, then some later inclusion will hijack the phenomenon, as has happened with eats shoots and leaves. I've adhered to factual content as far as I possibly can with a first attempt. If further notable refs can be found for the Star Wars Day joke, please add them. If someone can come up with official registration evidence for one of the groups claiming to be Jedi churches who promote a Star Wars Day, please feel free to add to the official section - but remember that 'Star Wars Day / May the 4th be with you' was first a joke. There's a long discussion on the Talk:May 4 page about its inclusion there, please don't hassle the anti-vandal squad on May 4 without first contributing to that discussion. SeanCollins (talk) 05:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I admit at first I was skeptical that this page should exist. But as it exists now it looks pretty good. Kudos on all the citations. If anyone tries to get it deleted I'll be around to help improve it even more. -FrankTobia (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

May 25th

OK, there's an edit skirmish going on. I read the cited article, and it mentions only 25th May, never 25th May 2007. There's a text version of the document at starwars.com that includes the text '25th May 2007', but their version is subtly different to the council archive version. The council's version must be superior. The archived agenda item does mention 2007, but perhaps the final resolution was more generous. I've emailed LA City Council asking for clarification, perhaps that will help. SeanCollins (talk) 07:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm glad that you're attempting to clear it up. It's nice that there are actual people on here who care about accuracy. I hope I'm not coming across as rude with all of those edits. Dates in the council resolutions only pertain to the year in which they are brought to the legislature. Kudos to you for actually emailing the LA City Council; for additional clarification, you can go to the following PDF: [1] which notes the council's final action on the resolution. It has a subject line that states "DECLARING MAY 25, 2007..." on the first page. I will go ahead and leave the article as it is right now, and let you decide, as creator of the article, if you feel that it is enough information to make the edit. I hope that helps. Debigboy (talk) 06:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I initially interpreted the resolution the same way since clearly the actual resolution text, while enacted in 2007 (May 1st?), does not specify that the designation is only for that year. However, all the other sources (and coverage I can find on the web) assume they meant just 2007, which is a reasonable assumption. (No mention anywhere of preparations for Star Wars Day 2008 either.) My sense is that these sorts of "declared days" are not intended for perpetuity, but one-offs. (it doesn't show up on any schedule for this year that I can find).

On the other hand, it looks like the city council is perfectly capable of specifying a scope for the year, for example: Ruben Salazar Day 2008 Hollywood Reporter Day 2008 WORLD AIDS DAY 2007 Los Angeles Literacy Day 2006. So leaving it off for Star Wars Day seems unusual. Given the nature of the honoree, it is conceivable that the Day is meant to be recurring. While an official response from the Council would be helpful, typically getting an email is not WP:Verifiable. I think that policy may be helpful here...

• we can verify that Star Wars Day occurred in 2007 (there are news reports
• we cannot verify that there will be a Star Wars Day in 2008 or future days (no news reports)

I say we wait until there are more verifiable sources before documenting that Star Wars Days recurs every year. From a practical perspective, I think it is unlikely... from a strict reading of the actual resolution passed... we can believe!--Marcinjeske (talk) 06:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

That email brought the reply

I am not sure if anyone ever got back with you, so I am e-mailing in response to your question regarding "Star Wars Day". According to the Council Action on May 9, 2007, only the day of May 25, 2007 is referenced. Therefore, the Resolution was adopted to name only May 25, 2007 as "Star Wars Day".

I hope this is helpful. Please feel free to contact me if you have any other questions.

Sharon Dickinson

<sob>

This is original research though, so I feel quite justified in sulking and not making the change back to 25th May 2007 only. SeanCollins (talk) 23:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

There is another reason for not having Star Wars day on 25th May. That date is reserved for Towel day. One day of celebration at time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.100.43.228 (talk) 08:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

urban dictionary

the example in conversation looks a lot like an urban dictionary entry. ☭  мдснєтє тдлк^ЅТЦФФ 19:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Controversy section

I deleted the Controversy section as it was completely unnecessary. There was no indication that there was any "controversy," but merely the idea that some people (sourced only as the people from urban dictionary, apparently) call it Jedi Day. If we want to work it into the title that it is also known as Jedi Day that's fine, but I would think we need to do better than a single urbandictionary entry with only 34 ratings on it to begin with. Stever Augustus (talk) 23:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a thought, but perhaps it's worth noting that May 4th has other potentially sensitive associations; for instance look up the following phrase: "Tin soldiers and Nixon coming..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob99999999 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

May 4th vs. May 25th

These should be a noted difference between May 4th (which is usually called “Jedi Day” as it is inspired by the common Jedi greeting “May the force be with you), and May 25th (which is “Star Wars Day” as it is the anniversary of the 1977 release date of Star Wars IV: A New Hope).

While the latter is a celebration of the whole Star Wars universe, the former has a more focused emphasis on mythos of the Jedi and the Force. Sg647112c (talk) 12:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit from article

Someone inserted into the article, unsourced. Interesting anecdote, so I thought I would add it here:

I was present when my assistant Zoe Whittiker came up with the idea of "May the 4th be with you" while shooting Star Wars Episode 3 in the UK Janurary 2005, I made her tell Rick McCallum who told her to tell George Lucas. This gag was new to them and Zoe suggested that they release Episode III on this day. They both laughed and found it entertaining but everything was already set for the release on the 19th of May 2005 which could not be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DFS (talk • contribs) 17:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Count Duckula

'May the Fourth Be with you' was used on a British children's television program called Count Duckula. The episode is 'The Vampire Strikes Back' (1988). This could be the earliest use.

68.144.10.151 (talk) 03:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Jedi Church

I noticed that in the footnotes of this article there is a reference to Jedi-church.com, yet in the Jediism article, the reference is to Jedichurch.org. Should we add both references to both articles? or just find one that represents 'the church' correctly and keep it on both?

This came from re-re-reading one paragraph on this page:

• Despite efforts to start a Jediism Church with May 4 as its Star Wars Day...there is no religion-supporting organization that promotes May 4 as Star Wars Day apart from the Church of Jediism.

So is there such a church or not??

Thanks, WesT (talk) 21:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

So in reaction to my comment the entire paragraph was removed??? Can we consider putting it back? I was only concerned about the two different web addresses for the Jedi Church.

WesT (talk) 05:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Template

Is there really any point to the template on this article? All it says is "Star Wars Day" and "May 4". Alphius 22:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thatcher advert/ Hansard?

"when Margaret Thatcher was elected Britain's first female Prime Minister on May 4, 1979, her party placed an advertisement in The London Evening News that said "May the Fourth Be with You, Maggie. Congratulations."[3] This reading of the line has also been recorded in the UK Parliament's Hansard.[4]"

I'm British, born in 1980 (remember Margaret Thatcher, & the us Star Wars getting headlines later in the decade, been interested in politics/recent social/political history & geek stuff for over 20 years) and have never heard this before - if true surely it would'be been mentioned in magazine coverage of the films over the years even if just as trivia , and somebody (even if just as gossip/internet do you remember that Maggie star wars advert nostalgia) would have mentioned / written about it in the recent outpouring of coverage after Thatcher's death?

The paragraph is a slightly treaked c&p from a translation of the cited article - http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Kultur/2011/05/04/134815.htm?rss=true a Danish article from 2011 (posted on a Danish tv website) about Star War Day that gives no source(s) for that information.

Apart from blog articles and fan forums just quoting this article or wikipedia & repeating the factoid I've found this on a blog - might give a more reliable source, shame it doesn't say where/when this article was published.

"According to Lucasfilm’s archives, one of the earliest known uses of the punny greeting in popular culture comes from a 1979 newspaper ad congratulating Margaret Thatcher on her historic election as Britain’s first woman prime minister:

This message, referring to the day of victory, was “May the Fourth Be With You, Maggie. Congratulations.”

(This nugget comes from author Alan Arnold, who wrote about the making of The Empire Strikes Back for Lucasfilm.)" - http://blogs.evtrib.com/nerdvana/events/may-the-4th-be-with-you-margaret-thatcher/92610/ (quote/claim might be in his book Once Upon a Galaxy: A Journal of the Making of The Empire Strikes Back (1980) - anyone got a copy?

The Hansard record in citation 4 has no connection to the advert but records a genuine use of the phrase - recognised as a bad pun on May the 4th *1994* - about the right year I heard Chris Evens on BBC Radio One make the same joke on their breakfast show, about it being 'Star Wars Day, May the Fourth be with you". Looks like even if it was used in 79 it wasn't til the almost mid-90s it suddenly went popular/viral (jokes being shared via the relatively new world wide web?) - at least in Britain.

The Hansard transcript says - House Of Commons Hansard Debates for 4 May 1994 Debate 6 Column 786 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199394/cmhansrd/1994-05-04/Debate-6.html#Debate-6_spnew7 "May the fourth is an appropriate date for a defence debate. My researcher, who is a bit of a wit, said that it should be called national star wars day. He was talking about the film "Star Wars" rather than President Reagan's defence fantasy, and he added, "May the fourth be with you." That is a very bad joke ; he deserves the sack for making it, but he is a good researcher." 109.224.137.121 (talk) 17:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Would the advert have been printed in the London Evening News or The Evening News (London) that merged with the Evening Standard? cf http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/London_Evening_News

Not sure who wrote this, but thank you for your research. I have, in the meantime, downgraded this claim to "apocryphal" before it becomes citogenetic. (Better words? Check papers?) I might look in the papers for that day next time I go to the British Library.Ian McDonald (talk) 12:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Link to image of advert, which was on May 3 rather than May 4: http://imgur.com/Vq46cg1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.24.79.197 (talk) 18:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• The cited source for the Thatcher advertisement is a surprising choice for this matter. It has now been on Wp for 10 years, if the facts are correct we really should have been able to replace them with a reference to the actual advertisement in Evening News (London). The image posted by 50.24.79.197 above implies that the correct date of publication is the day before what is said in the article, and also that the correct wording should be "DEAR MAGGIE, MAY THE FOURTH BE WITH YOU. YOUR PARTY WORKERS.". I can't find a digitized copy of the relevant issues of Evening News (London) online, but physical copies are supposed to be able to be accessed in the National Archives in Kew, or a copy may be ordered for some cost. ref: https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C11010639
• I also suppose the newspaper should preferably be referred to as just Evening News as was its name at this time (or "Evening News (London)" if such specification is needed). ref: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/The_Evening_News_(London_newspaper)
• We could probably blame Alan Arnold for the enormous dissemination of what seems to be a factoid. Though it would be nice to verify exactly where and how he first wrote it. In Rebecca Harrison's book "The Empire Strikes Back" the source is given as "Alan Arnold, Once Upon a Galaxy: A Journal of the Making of The Empire Strikes Back (London, Sphere Books, 1980)". ref: https://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/05/07/throwback-thursday-may-the-fourth-star-wars-day/ and https://books.google.se/books?id=RR75DwAAQBAJ&lpg=PA81&dq=%22Once%20Upon%20a%20Galaxy%3A%20A%20Journal%20of%20the%20Making%20of%20The%20Empire%20Strikes%20Back%22%20%22thatcher%22&pg=PA82#v=snippet&q=may%20the%20fourth&f=false
• Further sign that there is some citogenesis loop going on here is the image that turns up in many places if you search for "may the fourth" and "thatcher". In hi-res version of it it can easily be seen that it is a collage. Furthermore, the photo used seems to be from 1982. ref: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/margaret-thatcher-photos_n_3036385?slideshow=true#gallery/290615/28

188.151.5.134 (talk) 13:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I added three good sources linking it to Tatcher's 1979 election, removed the Better Sources tag. I think the possibility of error still exists (these news sources may not have vetted that kind of info independently), but it's a bit firmer now. Happy Star Wars Day everyone.Robincantin (talk) 14:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

That's a good improvement. It still seems most likely (to me) that this is wrong, but (as you say) it is at least better sourced now. Some suggestions for further improvement would be to: 1. Add reference to Harrison's book (see Google Books link above). 2. Verify the quote from Arnold's book, which is referred to in all sources that refer to something other than another web site, and then (if correct) change the reference to the book. 3. Check the newspaper archives or hope some researcher does that work for a properly researched book/article. 188.151.5.134 (talk) 06:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

here is a picture from the quote in Once Upon a Galaxy (source)

I guess because its an evening paper, the May 3rd edition would be the one read on May 4th, until the next one comes out that evening. Is there a direct link to the the imgur picture above anywhere, a legitimate archive or library site to prove that its not edited? jonas (talk) 10:34, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Other early usage

Except the Thatcher advertisement and the Hansard record, I have stumbled on some other early mentions that might be of interest:

• Sunday Tribune (Dublin, Republic of Ireland) Sunday 10 May 1987 - A notice on a tour by music act Hothouse Flowers includes the text "WILD and weird, the partly concealed visage of Liam O'Maonlai and a not-too-awful pun, 'May the Fourth be with You', have been adorning the walls of Dublin, heralding the release of the single from Hothouse Flowers." - ref: https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0002321/19870510/219/0020 (free registration required)
• Derby Daily Telegraph (Derbyshire, England) Friday 26 August 1988 mentions the Count Duckula usage of the phrase. ref: https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000521/19880826/119/0016 (free registration required)

188.151.5.134 (talk) 09:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Star Wars Day logo

I've been trying to add image to the article's infobox, but no matter what I try to do with the size, it won't resize. These are latest the parameters I've tried. Please correct me o anything I'm doing wrong with the size and add the image to the infobox.

image = File:Star Wars Day logo.jpg (Brackets removed so it won't fill up the page.)

size = 200x72.275px

alt =

caption = The unofficial logo of the Star Wars Day holiday.

Thank you. --Super3588 (talk) 21:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Huh?

"On May 3, 2016, the day before the 4th, Katelyn of Memphis created the phrase - "May the Fourth Be With You." It was then that she received all rights to the phrase and will receive an award from her smart-wit thinking." Huh? I don't get this. Rmaster1200 (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Run of the mill vandalism, self-reverted. If you see obvious vandalism, feel free to be bold and remove it. Also there is an option to "View history" at the top if you want to see if it's a recent edit. JesseRafe (talk) 16:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Ah! What Wikipedia is, um... known for? I guess... Rmaster1200 (talk) 16:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

There was a less than five minute window. It was deleted by the vandal herself within a minute of your post here. As far as I know, Wikipedia is known for being an open-source repository for public information and a free encyclopedia. Just as walls are known for holding up ceilings and roofs and separating rooms and buildings from external environments. That out of the billions of walls or tens of millions of Wikipedia articles out there in the world, a few of them are sometimes targets of vandalism that is removed promptly or maybe left up there for years doesn't seem to supersede what either entity is "known for" in my opinion. JesseRafe (talk) 17:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

First cite is 1978, not 1979 (available on ProQuest database)

The etymologist Barry Popik here. The first cite is 1978, not 1979. Also, there are trademarks. Please add immediately. http://barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/may_the_fourth_be_with_you_star_wars_day_may_4th/ Barry (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but everything about this suggests NPOV, COI, Original Research and your own personal website is not a Good Source. Do you have an actual citation to "New Musical Express published on May 6, 1978". Now I don't know if you're an academic, or just someone who calls himself an etymologist, but the value of scientific sourcing and attributing is the crux of the matter. There is a source for 1979, not one for 1978, your personal website notwithstanding. JesseRafe (talk) 20:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I just said that the cite is on ProQuest! Anyone with New York Public Library access can verify this from home. Many academic libraries also subscribe. I do as much "original research" (horrors!) as the Oxford English Dictionary does for its entries. Someone made a Wikipedia page about me. If you don't want to add the earliest cites and don't want to give me any credit at all, do whatever you want. As a reader, I would want the earliest cites. Barry (talk) 20:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Then cite it. You didn't provide a cite. You provided a link to your own website. Congrats on that! And you comparing yourself to the OED is not in your favor, as you have a demonstrated history on this encyclopedia project of self-aggrandizing and clamoring for credit for yourself in lieu of contributing to a better encyclopedia. To say nothing of how the contributors to the OED are vetted and respected professionals with credentials. JesseRafe (talk) 21:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

You hit the link and you find the cite(s). There are more than one that are before what Wikipedia now has...OED has listed me as a contributor. Are you saying that other professionals are respected, but not me?...Websites like mine and Quote Investigator and Word Spy and World Wide Words and Word Origins write articles about words and phrases. If Wikipedia wants to use our work, that's great. If we don't get credited, then whatever. Barry (talk) 21:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I guess I have to reprint it all here. "May the Fourth be with you" is from 1978, not 1979. "Star Wars Day" (May 4th) is from at least 1994.

6 May 1978, New Musical Express, “Pussbag” by M. Smiff, pg. 62, col. 5: MAY the Fourth be with you. MONTY ZAPPED-OUT, Radio Brampton

29 July 1978, The Globe and Mail (Toronto, ON), “Tasty Tidbits and Palette-able Prose” by Dennis Burton, pg. 31, col. 1: 4/5/78 On the fourth day of May, 1978, it was my wife’s birthday, our 7-year-old daughter, Malhyet, said to her: “I didn’t have any money to buy you a present for your birthday, Mamsay, but...may the fourth be with you!

19 March 1979, Broadcasting, pg. 64, col. 1: The word to NATPE: May the fourth be with you

Google Groups: rec.arts.sf.starwars STAR WARS DAY James Clayton (jclayton@lincoln.gpsemi.com 0522 502284) 5/4/94 Happy Star Wars Day May the 4th be with you.

Google Groups: rec.arts.sf.starwars Happy Star Wars Day Angela Boyko 5/3/95 On Thu, 4 May 1995, Jeff Hills wrote:

> Let me be the first to say May the 4th be with you. > > Happy Star Wars Day > > ROTFLAICGU!!!!!

May the 4th be with you too!

Google Groups: rec.arts.sf.starwars MAY THE 4th BE WITH YOU (yeah) FABIO CESAR RIVERA 5/4/95 This day should be known as Star Wars Day from now on, what do you think? Barry (talk) 15:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I also wrote about the trademark. As I told JesseRafe, I gave up editing Wikipedia 10 years ago -- he knows the many reasons -- but others can add this:

Word Mark MAY THE FOURTH BE WITH YOU Goods and Services IC 016. US 002 005 022 023 029 037 038 050. G & S: Address books; almanacs; appointment books; art prints; arts and craft paint kits; autograph books; baby books; baseball cards; binders; bookends; bookmarks; a series of fiction books; books, magazines, newsletters and periodicals, featuring stories, games and activities for children; bumper stickers; calendars; cartoon strips; Christmas cards; chalk; children’s activity books; coasters made of paper; coin albums; coloring books; printed children’s coloring pages; comic books; comic strips; coupon books; decals; decorative paper centerpieces; diaries; drawing rulers; dry erase writing boards and writing surfaces; envelopes; erasers; flash cards; gift cards; gift wrapping paper; globes; greeting cards; guest books; general feature magazines; maps; memo pads; modeling clay; newsletters and printed periodicals, featuring stories, games and activities for children; newspapers; note paper; notebooks; notebook paper; paintings; paper flags; paper cake decorations; paper party decorations; paper napkins; paper party bags; paperweights; paper gift wrap bows; paper pennants; paper place mats; pen or pencil holders; pencil sharpeners; pen and pencil cases and boxes; photograph albums; photographs; photo-engravings; pictorial prints; picture books; plastic party bags; plastic shopping bags; portraits; postcards; posters; printed awards; printed certificates; printed invitations; printed menus; recipe books; rubber stamps; score cards; stamp albums; stationery; staplers; stickers; trading cards; ungraduated rulers; writing paper; writing implements Standard Characters Claimed Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK Serial Number 86342025 Filing Date July 18, 2014 Current Basis 1B Original Filing Basis 1B Published for Opposition March 10, 2015 Owner (APPLICANT) Lucasfilm Ltd. LLC LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY CALIFORNIA One Letterman Drive, Bldg. B San Francisco CALIFORNIA 94129 Attorney of Record Barbara Quinn Type of Mark TRADEMARK Register PRINCIPAL Live/Dead Indicator LIVE Barry (talk) 15:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Barry, for spamming the Talk Page with unreadable blocks of text without clear intent or explanation of what you think you are trying to prove. For a self-proclaimed "etymologist" you seem to have a problem with the word "cite". It's clear that this isn't all about your ego and giving you credit after all, right? Just to embed as many links to your own personal website to use Wikipedia's Alexa ranking and trusted search engine ranking as you can, right? Not a conflict of interest at all. You've been asked to provide a citation and you instead decided to through a temper tantrum and scream about your own personal website being a citation. You then say the links are there, why don't we just click them? Well, why don't you just right-click them and copy them here in an appropriate format. If you don't know how to format them correctly, there are helpful links on your talk page. Cheers! JesseRafe (talk) 16:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

You really are a nasty piece of work. ProQuest is a paid website. I cannot provide a free link to a paid website. I told you what the cites are and where they are--many times. Don't you have better thing to do than to ruin my life? I provided the earliest cite for "May the Fourth be with you." I provided the second earliest cite. I provided the third earliest cite. I provided the earliest cite for "Star Wars Day." I provided a relevant trademark. I make no money and give away my work for free. I have Crohn's Disease. If you want my blood, too, I'll give it to Wikipedia. I said I provide my work for what it's worth. I do not enter it in Wikipedia. If you want to ignore all this, you are welcome to ignore it all. What more do you want from my life? Barry (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Revenge of the Sith celebration date

Wouldn't it be more appropiate to celebrate the Sith on May the Sixth, instead of May 5th, since the word "sixth" is more similar to "Sith" than "Fifth"? Sixth differs to Sith by only one letter, where as Fifth differs by two letters. I don't imply that we can just change the date of a holiday, just discuss it. The concept of a revenge is that it is something that happens after the fact. It really doesn't matter if it takes place one, two, or fifty days after, just that it does. I actually managed to say that it was May the Sixth yesterday (May 5th), although I knew that it was May 5th. I guess I said sixth, because that was more orthographically similar to "Sith" than "Fifth" is. Anyway, I would greatly appreciate any comments you guys may have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrulsBekk (talk • contribs) 00:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest, and while I do see the merit in "the sixth" being closer to the "the Sith" than the "the fifth" is, that is not the issue here. Wikipedia is not a forum where whims and wants are catered to, but an encyclopedia that pushes itself to only include reliable well-sourced information. As it is, the 5th has been reported and commented on and published on, so that's what it is. Doesn't mean you can't celebrate on the sixth, nor does it in encroach on what you think the definition of "revenge" is. Thanks for your contributions, but remember Talk Pages aren't fora on their subjects, but please stick around and try to help out the encyclopedia! JesseRafe (talk) 13:37, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

We do need to add Revenge of the 6th, people do celebrate that day, also, there aren't any sources, it's not official, but people do celebrate the 6th — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colt 4532 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Consensus: Should this article have a logo?

Question: Should this article have a logo in the infobox? I believe it should, as many logos (both officially from Lucasfilm and unofficially from fans) have been created and used. I'm looking for consensus on this. -- Gestrid (talk) 22:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Sure, but all of the logos you mentioned are copyright protected, so we can't use them. No way WP:NFCC would allow a non-free image in this context. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:07, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Is there a way to send a request to use the logo here? I'm not very familiar with image licensing policies on Wikipedia. -- Gestrid (talk) 00:09, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Another possibility might be (Again, I'm not familiar with Wikipedia's image copyright policy.) for one of us to make a logo like it and donate it to Wikipedia. (I'm not volunteering myself, as I have no artistic talent whatsoever.) -- Gestrid (talk) 00:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Either is possible. Getting permission might be possible from a fan. It is very unlikely from lucas/disney. In either case, it needs to be donated into the creative commons. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:43, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

If it is made just to add to this article, then NO. It would have to be the actual logo of the Day or the/a organization behind it. For several reasons. One can't just make a logo for Tuesday or for Turkey sandwiches or whatever we think should have a logo because we want it to be there. A company's page, like the Lucasfilm page, has a logo because the company has a logo. An image can be added, of course, but it can't be called a logo. That's disingenuous and misinformative. JesseRafe (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Earliest mentions

A Lucasfilm employee did some digging as well, the Thatcher mention is still unconfirmed, and the earliest dated use comes from 1980, where the AP quotes a Steelers fan saying "May the fourth be with you" while referring to their fourth Super Bowl victory. --jonas (talk) 07:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

As this article is about using the phrase to describe May 4, I don't think other punny uses of the expression are relevant since they use the original meaning of the modal verb "may" and don't convert that to the month May as the focus of this article is about. The comic and ad both seem to be unambiguous references to July 4, called by some USians "the Fourth", given the "red, white, and blue" picnic and the firework, and still are only using the phrase to express a kind of "well wishes" (genuine or sarcastic) not a comment about a day. JesseRafe (talk) 13:50, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Italics

Should “Star Wars” be italicized? Isn’t the day about the franchise in general, rather than the 1977 film? 31.54.161.105 (talk) 18:29, 4 May 2023 (UTC)