First things first[]
As with the [[Wookieepedia:Jedi Exile]] essay, this was not originally my idea. I just took a good idea and ran with it. That's the beauty of adminship. Some random user posts this, it might get speedied, they might get offended and angry, and it devolves into a big furball. An admin posts this, and it forces people to stop and think. So blame Muuuuuurgh for planting the seed, but blame me for watering it. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 00:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Non-canon[]
Shouldn't this just be non-canon? I mean, come on. Chack Jadson Talk 23:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Who said it was non-canon? -- Ozzel 23:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well, no one said it, but it's from a battery commercial. I'd think it's common sense to slap a non-canon tag on it. Chack Jadson Talk 23:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- i agree jackson. Ralphjedimaster 16:32, November 3, 2010 (UTC)
Name[]
The creature known only as the Energizer Bunny...
Is it ever called the energizer bunny in the commercial? The tag says the name is conjectural, so it's not known as the energizer bunny. This should probably just read, "The Energizer Bunny..." Did that make sense? It's kinda late... —Xwing328(Talk) 05:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Sourcing issue[]
Our source is gone. Click the link and see. Roger Roger 21:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sure is. Good ol' YouTube. Anyway, I'll remove the dead link. -- Ozzel 21:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Supervolt[]
It says that Darth Vader's saber was powered by Supervolt or whatever but it doesn't say that in the commercial. Am I missing something?—Darthtyler 
Talk 04:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Probably because it was in the 60-second commercial (which has since been removed from YouTube) and not the 30-second one. That's my guess, anyway. -- Ozzel 04:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Ah. I see.—Darthtyler Talk 04:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- It's written on the batteries. You can see the batteries at the 48 second mark of the 60 second commercial, though the distortion on the YouTube copy makes it very difficult to make out. jSarek 10:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- You can see it much better here at 44 sec.—Darthtyler Talk 05:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- You can see it much better here at 44 sec.—Darthtyler
- It's written on the batteries. You can see the batteries at the 48 second mark of the 60 second commercial, though the distortion on the YouTube copy makes it very difficult to make out. jSarek 10:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Ah. I see.—Darthtyler
Title[]
Shouldn't the title of this article be something like "Energizer Commercial" or something? The title makes it sound like the Energizer Bunny is a real character from Star Wars. Bradj47 20:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Bradj47
- Is there someone or something that indicates otherwise? -- Ozzel 20:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Are you serious?
- how could this POSSIBLY be cannon?! Ralphjedimaster 20:28, September 26, 2010 (UTC)
Should be a featured article[]
LOL.
205.250.102.212 16:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
absolutly not!!! Ralphjedimaster 20:29, September 26, 2010 (UTC)
Is this serious?[]
I can't believe this article actually exists, it's about a battery commercial! If you absolutely must have it, at least mark it non-canon. The "Energizer Bunny" has absolutely nothing to do with the Star Wars universe. Rain Thalo 01:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- You'll see that it's marked "ambiguously canon", because LFL has made no judgment on the matter. Now, of course, we're pretty sure that it's not meant to be canon (okay, some of us are :-P ), but that's not our call. Atarumaster88
(Talk page) 01:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- I grudgingly accept the inevitable answer :P Rain Thalo 21:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- it's very obvious that this is not cannon! it's from a battery commercial. how could it possibly cannon?!! Ralphjedimaster 19:32, September 29, 2010 (UTC)
- in that case, i shall assume the liberty to re-mark it non-cannon. Ralphjedimaster 02:23, December 5, 2010 (UTC)
Proof this is non-canon.[]
First of all, if the Energizer Bunny is canon because it is in a commercial that involved a character from Star Wars, then that means that Dick Cheney is also canon. Second, lightsabers aren't battery powered, and Vader's lightsaber in the video shows this. —C Teng(talk) 21:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Also, I posted this comment here not to talk about the Energizer Bunny, but to discuss that this article should be called non-canon. —C Teng(talk) 21:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- The bunny's presence on Star Tours establishes it as ambiguously canon, not the commercial. Graestan(Talk) 15:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for giving me an answer and not just deleting my comments. In that case, we can keep the page, but I'm pretty sure that lightsabers aren't powers by lightsabers. —C Teng(talk) 22:48, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
- of course they are not, which proves that this is non-canon (although i will keep it the way it is even though it is not accurate at all). Ralphjedimaster 19:36, September 29, 2010 (UTC)
Seriously?[]
Wouldn't it be more appropriate for this to some how be mentioned on the List of references to Star Wars in miscellanea (or something to that extent) than have an actual article of its own? Korsa3 04:35, January 25, 2011 (UTC)
- I might be inclined to agree with that if the character didn't evidently appear in Star Tours, which I'm to understand gives it some degree of canonicity. Alternatively, I don't consider the commercial to have any degree of canonicity, which would require a total overhaul of the article in its current state. Toprawa and Ralltiir 04:38, January 25, 2011 (UTC)
Two Issues[]
First, it seems a bit bizarre to cover the subject of the commercial, yet have no page on the short film in question itself. Is there any particular reason for that?
Second, the commercial has been understandably classified as non-canon, but Star Tours has not. So shouldn't the Bunny as a whole be deemed probably-Legends-canon, regardless of whether or not he more prominently appeared in a non-canonical work (e.g. the commercial)?--Scrooge MacDuck (talk) 17:37, May 13, 2019 (UTC)