Name change in order (Tarkin spoiler)[]
As pointed out by Purpilia, I think that page will have to be renamed "Imperial Palace/Canon," since Tarkin reveals that the Imperial Palace is in fact a refitted Jedi Temple. Since "Imperial Palace" is the last known name of the building in canon, I guess that should be the title. --Lelal Mekha 
(Audience Room) 18:43, October 24, 2014 (UTC)
- Reposting what I said on Talk:Imperial Palace—I would wait until Tarkin comes out (that's where the Temple/Palace bit is identified) so we know the full context. That way we can make a completely informed decision. Aka, did the Emperor revamp the Temple? Did he demolish it and create a similar building (as seen in Episode VI)? It's clearly going to be the former, but I'd rather wait and be right than be quick and wrong. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 18:45, October 24, 2014 (UTC)
- I've renamed the page. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 01:26, November 5, 2014 (UTC)
Three conflicting sources[]
Oy. I thought the Lucasfilm Story Group was supposed to prevent this stuff. Out of curiosity, though, and with an eye toward updating the article, what are the conflicts? I think I get the one discussed above, but what's in Return of the Jedi that creates a conflict? ProfessorTofty (talk) 12:13, October 29, 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I think it's more that The Rebellion Begins conflicts with Tarkin AND Episode VI, not necessarily that the three contradict each other. But I couldn't find a satisfying way to express that using our templates. Tarkin isn't out yet, so we should take it with a grain of salt, but the Amazon preview shows that all that remained of the Jedi Temple complex was "its corpse of five skyscraping spires," but it was renovated and refitted into the Imperial Palace. On the other hand, The Rebellion Begins says that the Temple was razed to the ground. And Episode VI shows the Temple unchanged from its appearance in the prequels. --Lelal Mekha
(Audience Room) 12:23, October 29, 2014 (UTC)
Restore Jedi Temple[]
I don't think this page should've been renamed Imperial Palace. Although it seems the temple was refitted into the palace, it is far more commonly known as the Jedi Temple and should be listed as such. Cevan (talk) 01:32, November 5, 2014 (UTC)
- Although I favor the "use of last known name," perhaps a vote is in order. --Lelal Mekha (Audience Room) 01:38, November 5, 2014 (UTC)
- It may be more commonly known as the Jedi Temple, but, canonically, its last known name is Imperial Palace. I see no need for a vote; the naming policy is clear: "Whenever alternate names are used in canon, use the name under which the subject was known during the later time period." - Brandon Rhea(talk) 01:42, November 5, 2014 (UTC)
- While I normally would agree, I think the Jedi Temple should be an exception to this rule. It's one of if not the most iconic buildings from the prequel era, and has appeared in all three prequel films and countless episodes of TCW under the name Jedi Temple. When people search for it, they aren't going to be searching for Imperial Palace since the only way to know that's what it was during the Imperial period other than reading about it online is to read Tarkin. Cevan (talk) 02:01, November 5, 2014 (UTC)
- I disagree. In the most recent chronological sources, it's the Imperial Palace. We need to be objective about this, and not go based on personal preference. And remember, eventually this page is going to be moved to "Imperial Palace," and "Jedi Temple" will likely redirect here. Jedi Temple currently links here, so people can still find it. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 02:07, November 5, 2014 (UTC)
- Keep at this page. People can still find with the appropriate links and redirects. ProfessorTofty (talk) 03:09, November 5, 2014 (UTC)
- Keep at this page.AV-6R7User talk:AV-6R7 03:33, November 5, 2014 (UTC)
- Keep at this page. People can still find with the appropriate links and redirects. ProfessorTofty (talk) 03:09, November 5, 2014 (UTC)
- I disagree. In the most recent chronological sources, it's the Imperial Palace. We need to be objective about this, and not go based on personal preference. And remember, eventually this page is going to be moved to "Imperial Palace," and "Jedi Temple" will likely redirect here. Jedi Temple currently links here, so people can still find it. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 02:07, November 5, 2014 (UTC)
- While I normally would agree, I think the Jedi Temple should be an exception to this rule. It's one of if not the most iconic buildings from the prequel era, and has appeared in all three prequel films and countless episodes of TCW under the name Jedi Temple. When people search for it, they aren't going to be searching for Imperial Palace since the only way to know that's what it was during the Imperial period other than reading about it online is to read Tarkin. Cevan (talk) 02:01, November 5, 2014 (UTC)
- It may be more commonly known as the Jedi Temple, but, canonically, its last known name is Imperial Palace. I see no need for a vote; the naming policy is clear: "Whenever alternate names are used in canon, use the name under which the subject was known during the later time period." - Brandon Rhea(talk) 01:42, November 5, 2014 (UTC)
A lot of new info (in case it was missed)[]
A lot of new canon info on the Temple was just dumped in this article it is almost certainly canon, there is nothing to indicate it is Legends. ralok (talk) 22:42, November 8, 2015 (UTC)
- There's definitely a mix of canon and Legends in there. For example, it talks about information from A New Dawn, but the bit about Darth Ruin is certainly Legends. These articles are generally written from an OOU perspective, combing information from across all forms of Star Wars media, canon or otherwise. They're not meant to be a source of new information. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 22:45, November 8, 2015 (UTC)
- But legends information has been canonized in the past (in almost every canon work some aspect of legends material has been ccanonized, everything from little known fruit to whole planets). As well most the material from legends material does not match its legends usage precisely... The article is not written from an OOU perspective, adds new information, and doesnt contradict canon while carefully using canon information to legitimize itself... ralok (talk) 22:53, November 8, 2015 (UTC)
- This is a discussion that we end up having every few months here, because not everyone seems to be able to grasp the very basic concept that not everything that comes out of Lucasfilm is meant to be a source of information for Wookieepedia articles. I hate to be that blunt, but this is something that people need to start understanding. Not everything can or should be considered a source for Wookieepedia pages. The articles you linked to are written by online contributors, not in-universe or even reference book authors, and we've been given no indication that they go through Story Group vetting. Other StarWars.com contributors have explicitly said that their articles are OOU, and are not meant to be considered canon sources. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 22:58, November 8, 2015 (UTC)
- Dude really? Not all articles are going to be the same, and it wasnt just randomly written b some random person online it is from the official star wars website... and it is in-universe information not an out of universe overview or a behind the scenes thing.... also I linked to a single article, not to multiple articles... dont go throwing around plurals. ralok (talk) 23:02, November 8, 2015 (UTC)
- If you want to say that this article is different, it's on you to prove it. You need to prove that this has gone through Story Group vetting and is meant to be a source of information. Until that time, this SW.com article could be linked to in External Links, but it isn't a valid source of new in-universe information. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 23:05, November 8, 2015 (UTC)
- for the record, I am not saying that "this articcle is different" I am saying "no articles arre the same. There is no consistency whatsoever to the articles on the site and as far as I can tell there never has been, and they should be judged as individually as possible... now to go bug members of the storygroup about this article on twitter. ralok (talk) 23:09, November 8, 2015 (UTC)
- We have to take a consistent approach, otherwise we're just guessing—in which case there's a good chance we're wrong. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 23:21, November 8, 2015 (UTC)
- for the record, I am not saying that "this articcle is different" I am saying "no articles arre the same. There is no consistency whatsoever to the articles on the site and as far as I can tell there never has been, and they should be judged as individually as possible... now to go bug members of the storygroup about this article on twitter. ralok (talk) 23:09, November 8, 2015 (UTC)
- If you want to say that this article is different, it's on you to prove it. You need to prove that this has gone through Story Group vetting and is meant to be a source of information. Until that time, this SW.com article could be linked to in External Links, but it isn't a valid source of new in-universe information. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 23:05, November 8, 2015 (UTC)
- Dude really? Not all articles are going to be the same, and it wasnt just randomly written b some random person online it is from the official star wars website... and it is in-universe information not an out of universe overview or a behind the scenes thing.... also I linked to a single article, not to multiple articles... dont go throwing around plurals. ralok (talk) 23:02, November 8, 2015 (UTC)
- This is a discussion that we end up having every few months here, because not everyone seems to be able to grasp the very basic concept that not everything that comes out of Lucasfilm is meant to be a source of information for Wookieepedia articles. I hate to be that blunt, but this is something that people need to start understanding. Not everything can or should be considered a source for Wookieepedia pages. The articles you linked to are written by online contributors, not in-universe or even reference book authors, and we've been given no indication that they go through Story Group vetting. Other StarWars.com contributors have explicitly said that their articles are OOU, and are not meant to be considered canon sources. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 22:58, November 8, 2015 (UTC)
- But legends information has been canonized in the past (in almost every canon work some aspect of legends material has been ccanonized, everything from little known fruit to whole planets). As well most the material from legends material does not match its legends usage precisely... The article is not written from an OOU perspective, adds new information, and doesnt contradict canon while carefully using canon information to legitimize itself... ralok (talk) 22:53, November 8, 2015 (UTC)
Main image change (Fantasy Flight Games?)[]
The Imperialized temple
Since we're now treating the content of the post-reboot Fantasy Flight Games sourcebooks on a case-by-case basis, shouldn't we replace the current infobox image by this one? --LelalMekha (talk) 22:23, June 7, 2016 (UTC)
- 100% absolutely yes from me! The Jedi Temple becoming the Imperial Palace was created for canon, and has no basis in Legends, so this was definitely created to be a canonical image. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 22:32, June 7, 2016 (UTC)
- I'll implement the change, then. (Unfortunately, it doesn't mesh very well with the description of the Palace given in Tarkin, but we can't help it. The best we can do it mention the discrepancy in the BTS.) --LelalMekha (talk) 22:38, June 7, 2016 (UTC)
- Can you remind me what it said? From what I recall there was a misinterpretation from some readers about what Tarkin was actually saying. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 22:40, June 7, 2016 (UTC)
- "Tarkin realized that the Emperor’s current residence had once been the headquarters for the Jedi—though practically all that remained of the Order’s elegant Temple complex was its copse [sic] of five skyscraping spires, now the pinnacle of a sprawling amalgam of blockish edifaces [sic] with sloping façades." --LelalMekha (talk) 22:45, June 7, 2016 (UTC)
- That still feels like it lines up with the image + the typical depiction of the Jedi Temple, as well as the fact that the interior of the temple was gutted but the exterior was left. It just seems like an overly-prosey way of saying it. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 22:50, June 7, 2016 (UTC)
- Well, the text does imply that recent and substantial alterations have been made to the structure itself ("now the pinnacle of a sprawling amalgam of blockish edifaces"). The FFG Palace, however, doesn't look like an amalgam, it's very uniform in style. In fact, it's your classic, Jedi-style building with a few Imperial banners here and there. --LelalMekha (talk) 22:53, June 7, 2016 (UTC)
- I think that's just referring to the fact that some parts of the core structure are blockish, some have slopes, etc. This is in Episode VI, after all, so there's no reason why it would be described differently. It's just unclear writing more than anything else, I think. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 22:57, June 7, 2016 (UTC)
- Well, the text does imply that recent and substantial alterations have been made to the structure itself ("now the pinnacle of a sprawling amalgam of blockish edifaces"). The FFG Palace, however, doesn't look like an amalgam, it's very uniform in style. In fact, it's your classic, Jedi-style building with a few Imperial banners here and there. --LelalMekha (talk) 22:53, June 7, 2016 (UTC)
- That still feels like it lines up with the image + the typical depiction of the Jedi Temple, as well as the fact that the interior of the temple was gutted but the exterior was left. It just seems like an overly-prosey way of saying it. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 22:50, June 7, 2016 (UTC)
- "Tarkin realized that the Emperor’s current residence had once been the headquarters for the Jedi—though practically all that remained of the Order’s elegant Temple complex was its copse [sic] of five skyscraping spires, now the pinnacle of a sprawling amalgam of blockish edifaces [sic] with sloping façades." --LelalMekha (talk) 22:45, June 7, 2016 (UTC)
- Can you remind me what it said? From what I recall there was a misinterpretation from some readers about what Tarkin was actually saying. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 22:40, June 7, 2016 (UTC)
- I'll implement the change, then. (Unfortunately, it doesn't mesh very well with the description of the Palace given in Tarkin, but we can't help it. The best we can do it mention the discrepancy in the BTS.) --LelalMekha (talk) 22:38, June 7, 2016 (UTC)
Current image's source[]
The source for the current image comes from (according to its page) a Legends source. I'm aware there's been some debate in the past about how to handle content from the Fantasy Flight Games resources—was a decision on this matter finally made? Cevan 
(talk) 00:51, June 15, 2016 (UTC)
Seperate articles to Jedi Temple and Imperial Palace[]
There is a problem. The canon Imperial Palace is both the Coruscant Jedi Temple and the Imperial Palace. The legends-counterpart to the canon Imperial Palace is the legends Jedi Temple. For the legends Imperial Palace, you first have to been looking. The canon-counterpart to the legends Imperial Palace is the former Jedi Temple/now Imperial Palace. But there, the legend is the legends Jedi Temple. But two time legends looks strange.
So, is it possible to create both a canon Jedi Temple article with "As Imperial Palace" and the legends Jedi Temple as legends-counterpart and a canon Imperial Palace article with "As Jedi Temple" and the legends Imprial Palace as legends-counterpart? —Unsigned comment by 2003:75:E67:D01:410E:FB40:AC2D:BB21 (talk • contribs).
- It seems unnecessary to create a canon Jedi Temple considering the Jedi Temple became the Imperial Palace in canon. I did add the link to the legends page in the youmay template so that the readers can still get to the legends version of the Imperial Palace --Lewisr (talk) 17:11, July 28, 2017 (UTC)
Concept Art[]
I think it is worth noting that in the storboards, and probably early concept art... that the Jedi Temple itself was based on the same concept art that Ralph McQuarrie made that became the imperial palace! His art became the imperial palace in the EU, and then the same art was used for the Jedi Temple (and evovled) so the Jedi Temple in the canon continuity and imperial palace were combined, possibly because they were both things based on the same concept art... isnt that neato!!! Also if you dont believe me, check out page 95 of the Episode 1 phantom menace illustrated screenplay. ralok (talk) 06:56, September 13, 2017 (UTC)
DIFFERENT BUILDINGS![]
The Jedi Temple is not supposed to be the Imperial Palace! They are two different buildings. The Palace is the tallest building on Coruscant. How are they going to recanonize The Force Unleashed? 4:35 PM; January 18, 2019; User:Ghost of LucasArts
- Well the short answer is they aren't. The Imperial Palace and Jedi Temple is the same building in canon, sorry if you don't like it but it is what it is --Lewisr (talk) 21:41, January 18, 2019 (UTC)
- There are various sources that establish that the Jedi Temple was transformed into the Imperial Palace.--Vitus InfinitusTalk 21:51, January 18, 2019 (UTC)
- The Databank being one of them. JRT2010 (talk) 01:21, January 19, 2019 (UTC)
Article is overlinked[]
This article heavily suffers from seas of blue, easter egg links, and overlinkage in general. For example(s):
In "...to use and better their skill with a lightsaber", the word "skill" is an easter egg link, as readers cannot know where it leads without clicking or hovering over it. This could be fixed by instead saying something like "...to better their skill in lightsaber combat."
"Grand Vizier Mas Amedda" is a sea of blue; they are two links that are put together in a way that makes them seem like a single link.
Pages should not be linked to if they are not relevant to the article or surrounding text. For example, in "the Jedi Temple was rebuilt and expanded several times over the centuries", it doesn't make sense to link to the page time, because it has nothing to do with the sentence it is in; while in the sentence "times" is being used as in the amount of times, the page "time" refers to the unit of time.
I would be making these edits myself, but I got reverted very quickly after trying, with minimal explanation as to why, so I have no idea what links do or do not belong by Wookieepedia standards. {{Sweetkid01|Talk|Contributions}} 21:37, August 24, 2020 (UTC)