I don't think it changes enough for anyone to be confused, especially since the other terms in that section are clearly outdated ("short trousers" is not common). A wiktionary link would theoretically be more appropriate, but also suggests there is no meaningful difference. Kingsif (talk) 16:50, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
You are possibly correct. Looking again, for some readers it may need to be clarified why wearing these shorts was so significant. Was it breaking normal dress code? Was the colour controversial? Is the style of the shorts significant?
I think the fact it's a strange - eye-catching - choice of outfit is implicit in the fact it caught so much attention. It will have to be, anyway, since no source actually mentions why, as you ask, wearing them was significant. Kingsif (talk) 18:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
This (written in 2019), describes the appearance of the “fabulous-looking crew member” as “lively”. The site adds that “the identity of A New Hope’s pink shorts guy has remained a mystery for so many years”. The article could do with a these details included. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
I would be disinclined to include such a source, since it is user-submitted post to a blog site, and thus doesn't meet RS requirements, actually. Kingsif (talk) 19:00, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
So would I, but it gives a clue about the fascination with the shorts, I'll Iook around for a proper reference, as I expect there's something out there. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:19, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
Happy to drop the shorts link issue.
The citations in the lead sections are not needed, as the information is not controversial.
While it was to support the potentially-controversial take that he was best known for the photo, I have removed them. Kingsif (talk) 16:50, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
Career
Who is George Lucas?
Though the article doesn't introduce him, the sentence of first mention is ...was noticed by George Lucas when Lucas was forming his Star Wars crew. - he's clearly the director of Star Wars from this phrasing. Kingsif (talk) 16:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
It's not clear, and he needs to be introduced properly.
Added "director" Kingsif (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
...invited to Buckingham Palace. - I know what this means, but other readers might need some clarification.
Could you explain this? Is the phrasing unclear or do you think people can't click the link to Buckingham Palace? (It would be out of scope to describe it) Kingsif (talk) 16:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
It needs to be clear what such an invitation signifies. What happened to them there?
They had lunch, is that relevant? It's mentioned more to make the point that he was included in the Oscar win, which is what the invitation signified, and is in the article. The following quote is the entire mention in RS, so I can't imagine we can mine for much more context:
"They went up to Buckingham Palace and had lunch in the garden with the royal family," Terence Nightingall said. "They all went off dressed in top hat and tails, picked up in a Rolls Royce."
No point is being made at all. Not all readers would understand the significance of the sentence—I do, being British. If someone told me they had been invited to the Palácio da Alvorada, I would want to understand that it was to meet the President of Brazil at his/her official residence. Something similar needs to be done here. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:06, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
...1963's Paranoiac… - is too informal.
It is not, it's a legitimate way films are dated in academic works when "film" has already been established, as it has in this sentence. Kingsif (talk) 16:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
Ditto ...1998's Lost in Space..
I wasn't explaining clearly, the phrase is euphemistic, as Paranoiac didn't belong to something called 1963, it was premiered that year.
I didn't link "Tunisia", someone who thought it was unclear did, I'll defer to someone outside of a review finding it necessary. Kingsif (talk) 16:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
It doesn't matter who linked the word. MOS:OVERLINK specifically says that unless a country is particularly relevant to the context in the article, it is usually not linked. Please unlink "Tunisia".
I think you missed the point of mentioning why someone else linked it, but very well Kingsif (talk) 18:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
Who was Alec Guinness and who is Mark Hamill?
I've added "actors". Kingsif (talk) 16:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
... who was also wearing socks and boots… - I’m unclear as to why this is needed, as I can’t think of many examples of paid workers who operate with bare feet.
Again, I didn't add it, someone who thought that it should be specified he wasn't otherwise completely naked did. Kingsif (talk) 16:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
It doesn't matter in Wikipedia if you put this in or not, Kingsif, or why another editor thought it was a good idea to add it. It is not necessary to mention that he was in socks and boots just because Variety mentions it, and the text should be removed.
Link Lego minifigures as a single link, not as two.
He is survived… - the event happened in the past, so ‘He was survived…’ is better.
Then you would be wrong per grammar. Kingsif (talk) 16:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
Was is definitely correct here.
No, it's not. The living people are the ones surviving Nightingall, and as they are still alive it's not past. It's also an idiom that's generally not subject to tense changes unless historic. If you want to argue that the time of his death was historic, go for it, but it's a waste of time (usage, if it helps). Kingsif (talk) 19:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
I can go with that (nice graph). Amitchell125 (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
