Talk: Form IV/Legends

Article milestones Date Process Result February 3, 2007 Featured article nomination Success March 4, 2007 Featured article by Atarumaster88 May 15, 2011 Re-Featured article candidate Failure December 1, 2011 Featured article by Menkooro February 1, 2012 Featured article review Kept March 4, 2012 Featured article November 5, 2012 Featured article review Kept December 16, 2012 Featured article October 23, 2018 Featured article review Removed November 14, 2018 Former Featured article

Current status: Former Featured article

Users of Ataru

Hi everyone, do you think we should change the layout of the users section so that it looks more like a list and less like a paragraph? Also, although never stated, it is mentioned Nick Gillard that Sidious is a master of every style and form, so could we had Palpatine to the list of users or possible users?Makashi Master 16:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think Gillard ever specifically stated "Ataru" as one of Palpatine's styles, and no canon source has ever actuallly confirmed what form Palpatine used. Gillard's statements are mentioned in the Behind the Scenes section of the article, and that's the only place in the aricle where it should be mentioned. Palpatine shouldn't be added to the users list unless a source specifically identifies Ataru as one of his forms. 96.240.194.226 18:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • We should not make this like a list. In fact, that would be a very good way to have this article's featured status revoked. The Inquisitorius review board would not tolerate that, nor would it look good. The paragraph format gives more information anyway. Atarumaster88 ^{(Talk page)} 19:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Ataro

Just curious, has this ever been canonically ruled to be a mispelling, or is it potentially an alternate spelling? It appears in all three of The Dark Lord Trilogy, so it seems prudent to ask. I'll see if I can find if Leland Chee has said anything about it. Crash Override 00:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• Every other source outside of those calls it "Ataru". I see no reason to suspect that it's anything different, especially given the descriptions in the Dark Lord trilogy, which match Ataru perfectly. Atarumaster88 ^{(Talk page)} 02:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I didn't suspect it to be a new form or variation, just an alternate spelling of Ataru. I'll report if I find anything about it, but I imagine it's just a misspelling. Crash Override 02:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Images

I gotta say we need more good images for the article. Other than the main image and the guard, all we have are bladelocks, and I feel we need more pictures of the acrobatic aspects, that being the primary identifiable feature of the style.Jensaarai 16:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Two Blades?

so i was reading the artical about jar'Kai and it said that ataru also used two blades. So my question is where does it say on this artical that ataru practioners can be trained to use two blades. --Bach9291 03:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)bach9291

Page locking

• The page has been locked for a week due to edit warring and constant reversions. To clarify matters over the canonical issues that instigated such edit warring, here's what I've found after some research:

1. An'ya Kuro isn't confirmed to be any kind of anything practitioner when it comes to saber forms. A check of the Clone Wars Campaign Guide reveals that nothing is said about her saber form, whereas several other prominent characters do have forms confirmed in that work. Adding her to any of the saber form articles as a confirmed practitioner is original research and will lead to warnings/blocks.
2. I've just checked Rule of Two, and while I'm far from infallible, I'm not seeing anything to confirm Raskta as a practitioner of Ataru or any/all the forms either. If there is proof, post a quote here. Until then, the article will remain without their names being added. That is all. Atarumaster88 ^{(Talk page)} 01:23, September 9, 2009 (UTC)

• • That's exactly what I said... Makashi Flourish 16:33, September 9, 2009 (UTC)
    • I've resolved the issue with Tommy over e-mail. Atarumaster88 ^{(Talk page)} 16:48, September 9, 2009 (UTC)

Qui-Gon

Out of curiosity, is Qui-Gon ever specifically stated as an Ataru user? I admit i haven't read any of the books, but after just re-watching his fight with Darth Maul at the end of epI, it didn't seem like he was using Ataru, if anything it looked like Form V —Unsigned comment by 24.189.70.89 (talk • contribs)

If you read the article, and follow the ref tags to the source links, you will see that Qui-Gon is stated to be an Ataru user in the Fightsaber: Jedi Lightsaber Combat article on StarWars.com. - Cavalier One^{(Squadron channel)} 18:07, January 18, 2010 (UTC)

I think at some point we have to admit the card for Qui-Gon was a misprint. He is clearly form 5 based on the descriptions given of the forms.

umm, why?...

Why was my revision of the Ataru article was reverted. I know a great deal of this is just my ego talking, but my ego raises a great many points about how my revision is an improvement over the original, which I will now delve into.

• The Description heading of all the lightsaber combat articles, as far as I can tell, is devoted towards explaining the philosophy and the practical details of the lightsaber form in question. If this is the case, many details on the Ataru article appear misplaced, such as the explanation of the su ma rotations, which appear in the Applications section as one of the methods that Yoda utilizes. Granted, Yoda's fighting form is based on the standard components of Ataru, as specified by the original Fightsaber article, but the standard components are practical details, and should be described and elaborated on in the Description section. Also, the Moves and Maneuvers section is examining other practical details of Ataru, namely various fighting stances and combat maneuvers, and should be a sub-section in the Description portion, not a section all their own (Also, I included new information in the Moves and Maneuvers section, such as the Ataru Attack Mode from the Ultimate Battles visual guide).
• My additions to the Applications section, such as Obi-Wan Kenobi's application of Ataru, were done in an effort to make this article less Qui-Gon Jinn/Yoda centric. Also, Anakin Skywalker's dual-blade application of Ataru should also be included in the Applications section, not the practitioners section, a portion of the article that, by it's very nature, is already cluttered enough. The inclusion of Kas'im's dual-blade application was done for the same afforementioned reasons, but also because the novel specified that Kas'im was utilizing the dual-blade variant of Form IV, i.e. Ataru.
• My changes to the Behind the Scenes section were mostly done to clean it up.

I hope that you will look at my reasoning for changing the Ataru article, and perhaps reconsider letting it stand. Obviously, I've given this a lot of though, and again, a lot of this is my ego talking, but my ego raises quite a few points that I consider good ones. Jensaarai 03:06, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

• This article is a featured article, which means that it has undergone review before being deemed such. Any major changes to featured articles are reverted if they have not been discussed on the article's talk page beforehand. It's good that you have done so now, but if you feel that parts of this article are lacking, I would suggest that visit the FA maintenance issues page and discuss the problems. We are having a meeting soon, and we could discuss the possible changes then. Thanks. Cylka^-talk- 03:19, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, at least we have my version already waiting in the wings. Jensaarai 03:44, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not really sure on the merits of the layout change. I'm happy to discuss the specifics of your concerns and ideas, but tbh, the prose in your revision was laden with POV, flowery prose, and underwhelming in terms of quality. I would have immediately reverted your changes just because they overall lowered the quality and readability of the article. Atarumaster88 ^{(Talk page)} 21:16, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
  • To provide some explanations for some of the issues; the spellcheck on my computer is set to Canadian spelling rather than American (can you guess where I'm from?), and also the lack of information. For example, I had to describe Qui-Gon Jinn's fighting style, and all the information available only establishes two facts; he was a master of Ataru, he was brought down by fatigue and an inability to be effective in close-quarters. The picture that paints is that Jinn is utterly incompetent, despite being one of the best swordsman in the Jedi Order; I had to essentially scrutinize his swordsmanship in Episode I and try to describe it in a manner that makes it look effective, which is kind of hard. I had similar issues throughout. Jensaarai 17:57, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

Applications Revisions for clarity

I would like to amend the first paragraph under "Applications" so that the line "It was well-suited to close combat, particularly against single opponents." Reads 'melee' instead of "close", since I feel this more clearly expresses the strengths and weaknesses of Ataru. The form is obviously weak in confined spaces, and I feel the wording of "close combat" implies the opposite. --TyperionVector (talk) 00:56, February 26, 2013 (UTC)

Grammar

The grammar of this article is embarrassing. I have attempted before to fix it, but my edits keep getting deleted. I am going to attempt to fix it again. If the edits are deleted again, I would appreciate it if the individual responsible for doing so would provide an explanation as to why he/she wants a featured article to sound like it was written by a child. Alucard10001 21:51, January 1, 2014 (UTC)

Idk how to respond directly, but alucrad101, I looked at the revision history for the page, and it looks like Cade or someone has left a pretty clear, and easy to understand reason for why your edits have been reverted. Maybe you didn't think to check what the edit summary said? 66.87.73.80

Actually, I have looked. Neither your response nor the revision history page answers the question of why there are so many places in this article that so blatantly need to be edited for grammar. I added some info into the article that was removed earlier, but the purely grammatical changes should have been kept. A great deal of this article is just flat out poorly written, to the point where I shouldn't even have to point out where or how. I can if need be but that would be a very, very long post. Bottom line, someone needs to edit this article for grammar and basic writing quality. Alucard10001 00:06, January 2, 2014 (UTC)