Talk:Star Wars/Archive 4

Original trilogy films title issues
Since this matter concerns three films, I decided to bring it up here instead of the talk pages of each individual film. I don't believe the claim that the movies were simply known as "The Empire Strikes Back" and "Return of the Jedi" and the later simply 'renamed'. I can understand the claim for the first film, but the next two were always known as episode V and VI. I have the original theatrical editions of all three films on DVD and both the Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi are titled Episode V and VI respectively. There was no "later retitled" as far as I can tell. I think they need to be changed back to Star Wars Episode V:The Empire Strikes Back and Star Wars Episode VI:Return of the Jedi. Otherwise it'll be misinforming readers.

As for 'Star Wars (film)' a more appropriate title would be be 'Star Wars (Episode IV: A New Hope).' Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 19:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I was fairly young when the second two films came out but I can recall hearing them referred to as their word titles (Jedi, Empire) significantly more often than their episode numbers. That said, I do remember the marquis at the theatre I saw them at having the full title (Star Wars Episode 5, Empire Strikes Back).  SO I think you're right in that they weren't renamed but their episode numbers didn't seen to be the common nomenclature, which may be where that claim comes from.  I realize that's purely unsourced anecdata but perhaps it can serve as a jumping off point for what to look for in sources regarding the matter.  Millahnna (talk) 03:55, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I still don't see anything proving this claim. Is this fan-motivated statement? I mean I also think the prequels were awful, but these movies are still Episode IV, V and VI respectively. Informally they may be known as their individual titles but that's it.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 23:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The original films were pretty much universally referred to as "Star Wars", "The Empire Strikes Back" and "Return of the Jedi" prior to the release of the prequels. They are best known by these titles which is why they are used on Wikipedia. Betty Logan (talk) 00:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Is there any source to support these claims? To my knowledge they were never officially known as these. IMBD refers to them by their episode names save for the first film.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 19:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about their common names or their original official names? Different concept. --Neil N  talk to me 20:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:COMMONNAME applies when naming articles, which isn't always the WP:Official name. As for sources, we follow the same approach as the American Film Institute: Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi, Episode 1, Episode II, Episode III. The New York Times also do it this way too. Betty Logan (talk) 20:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Commonly they are still known as episode IV, V and VI. The movies were released by their long titles. What if we keep the title names, but mention in the articles that they are known as episode IV, V, VI in long form.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 23:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No, they're not. Please read WP:COMMONNAME. I very much doubt newspapers, magazines, etc., use Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back instead of just The Empire Strikes Back. --Neil N  talk to me 00:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * If I may, the introductions on the current articles on The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi suggest that they originally were released without the full Episodic titles. If that is the case, then both WP:COMMONNAME and its full title should apply anyway. I just question what were the original titles at the time of release. -- Tærkast (Discuss) 17:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

They were released theatrically as Star Wars Episode V:The Empire Strikes Back and Star Wars Episode VI:Return of the Jedi. I have the theatrical editions on DVD. As for Episode IV, it was only known as "Star Wars" until 1979.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 22:23, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I also want to add, isn't there a difference between what is was known as and what it was released as?--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 22:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for those answers and you are indeed right, there is a difference. Now, since those two films were originally released with the Episodes in the tittles, then their articles' introductions ought not to imply that their common names were the originally released titles.-- Tærkast (Discuss) 13:25, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

What's more is there is no source that they were ever "renamed." --Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 20:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I think they should be titled as their official titles.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 20:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I support use of the full titles for these reasons: 1. They are the official titles. V and VI were released under their full titles and IV was soon edited to have a full title. People just tended to ignore the episode numbers and in the case of IV ignored "A New Hope" as they had come to know it as simply Star Wars. Younger generations however are familiar with the full titles. 2. Today the full titles are the most commonly known titles and used in all current marketing material and official sources such as Star Wars encyclopedias and websites, thus WP:Commonname supports the use of the full titles. I will admit to a bit of a generational gap. Older generations know these films by their short titles, but younger fans such as myself who grew up with the prequels know them by their full titles. 3. On talk pages for the Episodes V and VI people kept citing to original marketing materials which only said "The Empire Strikes Back" and "Return of the Jedi," but marketing material can be deceiving. The official name for the second X-men movie (as stated in the opening credits and the copyright section of the DVD booklet) is X2 despite the marketing material that called it X2: X-Men United.  In this case it is logical that Lucas intended for the episode numbers to be part of the title as they were in the crawl, but he probably did not put them in the marketing material as it would be odd to market the second movie as V and the third as VI until he started releasing prequels. 4. In the case of Episode IV it was renamed and that is what it is now known as. Star Trek: The Original Series is at the full title despite being initially called Star Trek because that is it's current common name. Everyone calls it The Original Series to distinguish it from later series and movies. In both cases Lucas and Rodenberry respectively did not know if their creations would succeed or flop so they were released with short titles and later re-titled to distinguish from the franchise as a whole and fans adapted. Emperor001 (talk) 03:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I was also going to bring up the Star Trek comparison. Since A New Hope was the only film in the Star Wars franchise at the time, it was known as Star Wars, however following the release of the other episodes, which were equally as Star Wars as a New Hope, we refer to it as a New Hope. It also cannot be known as simply 'Star Wars' to even the older generation as it was known officially by that titles for only four years.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 20:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2014
Ash20882 (talk) 20:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC) can I edit star wars I know true facts about the story
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Stickee (talk) 04:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Interwiki
Add please mn:Оддын дайн. — Preceding unsigned comment added by -XQV- (talk • contribs) 18:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Box Office Table empty
Why is it empty? Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 21:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The numbers were removed by this edit over a month ago. It was slipped in with some other edits which added content which is probably why nobody noticed it. Good spot. Betty Logan (talk) 22:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Split of episodes and stand-alones
The saga films (the Episodes) clearly are different than the spin off films (Rouge One, The Clone Wars). I think that they should be separated in the infobox. If you have any objections, let me know. If not, I'll go ahead and split :) YodaFan67 (talk) 00:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I just made the edit. If you have any objections, let me know, but please state your reason first- don't just revert. YodaFan67 (talk) 00:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: transfer list of species named to Cultural impact of Star Wars
I recently added a few organisms to Star_Wars, but i think the better spot for such a paragraph/list would be Cultural impact of Star Wars, as the true number of organisms is likely to be larger, and although pop culture species names gets perennial press coverage (e.g., and many Buzzfeed-esque "listicles" that just rehash known info), I haven't found any reliable sources that solely focus on Star Wars names (aside from the non independent Star Wars.com) so I don't think the topic warrants any more than a section within an existing article. There might conceivably also be other real elements named for Star Wars, such as asteroids, craters, or other extraterrestrial geographic terms, but I think that any additional expansion in this main article would lend undue weight keeping in mind the scientific publications that name a Star Wars inspired organism are primary sources in this respect, no matter how many there are. Thoughts? --Animalparty-- (talk) 00:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2015
I would like you to edit this line on the Star Wars page "Reactions to the original trilogy were positive, with the last film being considered the weakest,". I request that you remove the final part of the line "with the last film being considered the weakest" because that is a matter of opinion rather than a matter of fact. I think it's wrong to specifically say which film is the weakest, which in turn might make a common fan think it's the worse. I believe the whole line should just leave it at "Reactions to the original trilogy were very positive" because ALL three are remembered fondly equally.

Incrediblefulk1 (talk) 08:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

❌ - The Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic aggregates both support that statement - it is only your PoV that "ALL three are remembered fondly equally" - Arjayay (talk) 08:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2015
I would like the line "Reactions to the original trilogy were positive, with the last film being considered the weakest," to be changed. Remove "with the last film being considered the weakest," because it is a matter of opinion than fact. I think it's wrong to point to which film is considered the weakest on a page that has nothing to do with a critique. Just say that "Reactions to the original trilogy are very positive." Let the reader decide for himself which one he thinks is weak.

Incrediblefulk1 (talk) 10:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

❌ As above, Wikipedia works with reliable sources- reliable sources support the claim you dispute, you have not provided any reliable sources to support your claim. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2015
I would like for the line "with the last film being considered the weakest" to be removed. I think it's very opinionated. If all three films are positively received, why should it matter if the last film is considered weak. If fans want to find out how it's received, they should go to the films page or scroll down at the critical score at the bottom.

Incrediblefulk1 (talk) 11:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Betty Logan (talk) 11:34, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Anthology series + Spin-offs
Hello

Could someone please add the following in the film table (the top) at Anthology series :

-2018 2nd anthology film

-2020 3rd anthology film

And at Spin-Offs:

-Star Wars Rebels

thanks --Gehirnstein (talk) 10:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello! I added the 2nd Anthology Film, but not the 3rd one since details on that one are too fuzzy for it to merit inclusion in the infobox as of now.  Star Wars Rebels is already under "TV shows", though I did add Spark of Rebellion under TV specials. YodaFan67 (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Second anthology film
Could someone please change "In May 2015, Lucasfilm announced that Trank was no longer directing the film due to his unruly behavior on the reboot of the Fantastic Four." to "In May 2015, Lucasfilm and Trank jointly announced that Trank was no longer directing the film." Lucasfilm HAS NOT announced that Trank's behavior was the cause. It was reported (anonymously) that his behavior was responsible, but that's a far different matter. Thanks! 38.100.17.149 (talk) 15:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Stickee (talk) 23:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2015
i have noticed that some of the dates are not correct and i would like to change them

Nubins (talk) 16:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

❌ This is not the place to request additional rights, Requests for permissions/Confirmed is correct place. Also, you need to provide reliable sources to support any changes. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2015
77.96.13.20 (talk) 03:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC) If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 07:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a change.

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2015
Would someone attempt to add the listing of the Auralnauts' Star Wars prequel parodies (Jedi Party, The Friend Zone, Revenge of Middle Management) under the "Legacy" section? Although they wouldn't be considered film or television, these are arguably the most popular Star Wars parodies on YouTube, with over 1 million combined views. Due to popular demand, Auralnauts is now making parodies of the original trilogy as well.

66.64.109.154 (talk) 14:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Would need some sort of source noting their popularity or significance - e.g. a news piece. Cannolis (talk) 14:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Videogame Canon
There is not anything about the new Canon for Star Wars videogames, and nothing about announced canonical games: Star Wars: Uprising, Star Wars: Battlefront or Star Wars: Galaxy of Heroes. Could someone mention the new state of Canon in this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.192.2 (talk) 14:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Star Wars to Screen in China for First Time Ever
All six films will be shown for the first time at the 18th Shanghai International Film Festival. Not quite sure where and how this could fit into any of the articles about Star Wars, or if it should be included at all. Or it might be something for the "In the news section" since it is happening right now. I'm sure one of all the editors who are watching these articles would now what to do with it. w.carter -Talk  10:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Star Wars Rogue One - cast
Ben Medelsohn is rumored to starr in this 2016 spinoff movie. He was offered a role but there is not confirmation yet. In the article, he is listed as cast, citing three sources (hStar_Wars. None of them affirm his cast,, just rumours. I suggest waiting after offical confirmation until a cast member is listed as cast itself. Saemikneu (talk) 22:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Give Rogue One its own page
It has enough info. 128.95.223.222 (talk) 16:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Typically, a movie isn't given its own page on Wikipedia until it starts filming. Rogue One is set to film some time this summer, so I would imagine within a month or so, we will be able to create a page for it. That is, of course, just an estimate. It really all depends on when there is some sort of official announcement made about the start of filming. --rmaynardjr 17:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I Created it - Star Wars Anthology - Rogue One, Please help edit. --Warner REBORN (talk) 16:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have uncreated it. Articles about future films should not be created until it is confirmed filming has commenced per WP:NFF. The article can be recreated once Lucasfilm confirms filming has begun. Betty Logan (talk) 16:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Movies
Hello

Can someone please add in the first/main box at the section Anthology, behind Untitled Boba Fett Anthology Film, 2020 not TBA. And in the Movie Box (one box below) please add "Untitled Boba Fett Anthology Film" to the Anthology series section.

Ps: My English is not the best, please understand.

Thanks --Gehirnstein (talk) 21:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok it´s done --Gehirnstein (talk) 10:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Star Wars. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130605223717/http://www.utc.edu/Academic/FirstYearStudies/seminars/starwars.php to http://www.utc.edu/Academic/FirstYearStudies/seminars/starwars.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Star Wars Anthology or A Star Wars Story???
It seems that Disney has confirmed that the first spin-off film will indeed be titled Rogue One: A Star Wars Story but this seems to have caused a bit of confusion. Some believe that the spin-off films will no longer be refereed to as Star War Anthology but rather Stories. While there is official confirmation that the first spin-off film's title is officially Rogue One: A Star Wars Story, there is no official confirmation from Disney or Lucasfilm stating that the spin-off series are no longer titled Star Wars Anthology. I think A Star Wars Story is just a subtitle that will be given to future Anthology films and with that being said, I think the article's section dedicated to the Anthology films should be reverted from Stories back to Anthology, at least until Disney or Lucasfilm officially clears the air because someone is bound to ask them if the spin-off films are "Star Wars Anthology or A Star Wars Story?" But like I said, A Star Wars Story is more than likely just a subtitle for the film but not the title for the spin-off series. Armegon (talk) 22:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Return of the Jedi Box Office
Hey guys if you notice on the Return of the Jedi page it lists the box office total 572 million dollars. I did not change it but this is what the website The Numbers has it at. I wondering if we should change the gross of Jedi on this page in order to end any confusion. Broncosman12 (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Movie Infobox
Can we merge certain cells on the table? For example, George Lucas as writer/director for Star Wars and Rian Johnson as writer/director for Episode VIII?

Also can we archive some of the discussions on the talk page?

Rmaynardjr (talk) 18:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Journey to The Force Awakens
There are about two dozen products being released by Disney that is a part of the Journey to The Force Awakens tie-in series. Would anyone be up for creating articles for the already-released content? D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 07:04, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

"The original film"
Where is the discussion? How does it apply in this case? Why was an article naming policy used to attempt to make this change?

Solid formal writing makes it clear what the subject and object are. "The original film" does not perform this, whereas A New Hope or similar does. --Izno (talk) 16:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Quite the opposite is the case. There was no such film as A New Hope in 1977, so this article should not contain sentences that make it sound like there was. Solid formal writing requires accuracy. There was and is only one original film, so using that term in context is perfectly clear. Multiple discussions were at the original film's Talk page, as well as that of The Empire Strikes Back, most of which have now been archived. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

New Star Wars canon
Since everything in the Expanded Universe (EU) is now published under the banner of Star Wars Legends, and is no longer canon, should we start updating related pages to remove the Legends content and place in anything canon? ReddyRedCP (talk) 23:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC).

I belive that should happen, but no one seems to know how to do it.

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Star Wars (film) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 07:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Status
Does this article have the qualifications of good article?JerrySa1 (talk) 21:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Prequels
"Nevertheless, the prequels, which were only still a series of basic ideas partially pulled from his original drafts of "The Star Wars", continued to fascinate him with the possibilities of technical advances would make it possible to revisit his 20-year-old material."

That is not a good sentence.

81.104.234.59 (talk) 04:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Reworded it. -Rmaynardjr (talk) 05:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

This article made the Top 25 Report
This article was the fourth most popular on Wikipedia according to the Top 25 Report with 693,512 views for the week December 6 to 12, 2015. This was the week before the release of Star Wars: The Force Awakens. Congratulations to the editors of this article for the exposure of their work. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨  00:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * For the week December 13 to 19, 2015, this article was the second most popular on Wikipedia with 2,643,442 views. Ten other franchise related articles made the Top 25 during the week Star Wars: The Force Awakens was released. Congratulations again to the editors of this article. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨   17:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2015
The six films have become this week the seven films.

Leydorn (talk) 19:39, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Information.svg The phrase "six films" appears 10 times in the article - I'm not sure which one you want to change but AFAIK the new film has yet to be nominated for a major prize, so uses such as "All six films were nominated for or won Academy Awards" would need changing to "the first six of the seven films were nominated for or won Academy Awards" and every other use of "six films" modified accordingly - perhaps you could suggest appropriate wording for each instance? - Arjayay (talk) 21:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. sst✈(discuss) 05:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Article Hatnote
Not being that familiar with the subject, I found the following confusing:

This article is about the film series and media franchise. For the 1977 film, see Star Wars (film).

and would suggest the following:

This article is about the film series and media franchise. For the 1977 film (the first film in the series), see Star Wars (film).

MB (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


 * "For the 1977 film" could sound like an unrelated film but I think the suggested text is too long for a hatnote which also links to a disambiguation page. I have changed it to "For the original 1977 film, see Star Wars (film)." [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Wars&diff=697030318&oldid=697026136] PrimeHunter (talk) 19:24, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Should there be a section on the (original?) plan for four trilogies?
(I am new to Wikipedia; this is my very first posting, so please forgive me if I inadvertently violate any guidelines.)

I was wondering if there should be a section on, or at least a discussion of, the (original?) plan for four trilogies. Some backstory: I've attended two Westercons in my life. They were either the 1978 one in Los Angeles and the 1979 one in San Francisco, or the 1979 one in San Francisco and the 1980 one in Los Angeles.

At the first one I attended there was a panel/presentation about Star Wars. The representative from Lucasfilm said that they had plot outlines four trilogies, and had decided the first movie should be about the first story in the second trilogy.

At the second one I attended there was again a panel/presentation about Star Wars. This time the representative from Lucasfilm said that the plan was for three trilogies; there was no mention of it being changed from four trilogies.

(At one of those two Westercons, probably the one that took place in 1979, they showed some previews of "The Empire Strikes Back.")

I recently did a web search on the phrase "star wars four trilogies" and found these articles that are supportive of the "there were going to be four trilogies" idea: http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/george-lucas-once-envisioned-four-star-wars-trilogies-20121219

http://www.starwars.com/news/the-long-winding-and-shapeshifting-trail-to-episodes-vii-viii-ix (Contains the text '“You know, when I first did this, it was four trilogies,” Mark Hamill recalled in 2004, speaking of their conversation in 1976.'

There are of course other articles that contradict the above, such as this one: http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/watch-what-mark-hamill-said-about-luke-skywalker-in-star-wars-episode-7-29-years-ago-20121103 that contains the text: "in 1983, Mark Hamill was under the impression that there were going to be three trilogies." (Although that might not be a contradiction, but rather an affirmation that the plan had changed from four trilogies envisioned in 1976 to three in 1983.)

Anyway, I thought the article on Star Wars should contain some reference to the (original?) plan for four trilogies, but I'm not sure how to make that happen.

SteveChessin (talk) 17:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Disney did NOT use Lucas's ideas
In the section on the development of the sequels it says that Lucas wrote the outline of the story in 2011, and that Disney went on to use it. This is not true. VII is not based much on Lucas's ideas at all. See http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2015/05/star-wars-vanity-fair-the-force-awakens/392669/ for instance. They ran with his ideas initially and then did their own thing. 98.247.93.88 (talk) 04:06, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

American?
Should the Star Wars franchise be called American, given that the first and best film in the series was a British film?Royalcourtier (talk) 10:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No all the films have been funded by US film companies and the convention is (I stand to be corrected) that it is the funding company 'nationality' that is used Robynthehode (talk) 10:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * We don't apply "conventions" on Wikipedia because this would constitute WP:Original research. We use sources to substantiate claims and the highly respected American Film Institute classify the first film as a British-American production. This could well be anomalous though, so it would depend on what the WP:WEIGHT of sources have to say on this matter, and also what the other films are classified as. Betty Logan (talk) 11:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, yes that is what I meant to say. My use of the term 'convention' was that was what the sources said - their convention was to categorise films on the basis of the funding organisation. I may be wrong but Star Wars is certainly not a 'British' film despite being the live studio action being filmed in a British studio. Robynthehode (talk) 12:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If I may re-open this discussion, the UK Government invested £25m into The Force Awakens - even though this is just 1/8 of the budget, would this be viewed as the same as a funding company? If so, I feel that would qualify Ep VII at least to be classed as American-British. Cooltrainer Hugh (talk) 01:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, The Force Awakens qualified for a rebate under the British Film Tax Relief scheme. For Disney to access the scheme the film must qualify as a British film under the culture test or as an official co-production under one of the UK's film production treaties (you can read about the scheme here). I doubt The Force Awakens qualified under the culture test, so it was likely produced under a co-production treaty. If this is the case it will be mentioned on the copyright notice after the end credits on the film. Betty Logan (talk) 01:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2016 of Star Wars by EvanB4fun
I request to edit the Star Wars Wikipedia page to add a sentence to the plot overview of the prequel trilogy.

This is the part I wish to edit:

"While Palpatine re-organizes the Republic into the tyrannical Empire, Vader participates in the extermination of the Jedi Order, culminating in a lightsaber duel between himself and Obi-Wan on the volcanic planet Mustafar. Obi-Wan defeats his former apprentice and friend, severing his limbs and leaving him to burn to death on the shores of a lava flow."

This is what I will edit it to be:

While Palpatine re-organizes the Republic into the tyrannical Empire, Vader participates in the extermination of the Jedi Order, also known as Order 66, culminating in a lightsaber duel between himself and Obi-Wan on the volcanic planet Mustafar, where Vader is sent to eliminate the Trade Federation. Obi-Wan defeats his former apprentice and friend, severing his limbs and leaving him to burn to death on the shores of a lava flow."

As you can see, I added the two parts "also known as Order 66" and, "where Vader is sent to eliminate the Trade Federation."

I source the movie, in the scene where Darth Sidious sends a hologram to servant clones with the command to "Execute Order 66," who attack and wipe out most of the Jedi Order. One other source I use for my second addition is the scene where Darth Sidious tells his new-found apprentice, Darth Vader (previously Anakin Skywalker), to go to Mustafar to wipe out the Separatists. He closes all of the doors shut with the force and starts attacking Viceroy Nute Gunray and all of the other Separatists in the room.

Thank you for your time.

EvanB4fun (talk) 03:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)EvanB4fun

EvanB4fun (talk) 03:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think "also known as Order 66" is ambiguous in the proposed sentence—does it refer to the Jedi Order, the extermination, or Vader's participation in the extermination? (I know what Order 66 is, but that sentence is ambiguous, and wouldn't help readers who don't know what it is.) /wiae   /tlk  01:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * - The proposed changes are more ambiguous, and not clear for people un-familiar with the Star Wars universe. I strongly believe that the current wording is better than the proposed version. In addition, the details added are likely not worth noting in a plot summary. --allthefoxes (Talk) 05:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2016
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2488496/?ref_=nv_sr_1 for external sources

206.87.19.217 (talk) 21:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Datbubblegumdoe[talk – contribs] 23:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Star Wars
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Star Wars's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Dreams": From Star Wars (film): Empire of Dreams: The Story of the Star Wars Trilogy. Star Wars Trilogy Box Set DVD documentary. [2005] From Star Wars sources and analogues: </li> <li>From Comparison of Star Trek and Star Wars: Empire of Dreams: The Story of the Star Wars Trilogy. Star Wars Trilogy Box Set DVD documentary. [2005]</li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Episode ordering in infobox
Alright, to avoid this becoming an edit war,, I'll take it here. So should the episode order in the infobox be by chronological order from I-VII, or by production order so it'd be IV-VI, then I-III?  Zappa  24  Mati   04:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Obviously, the episode order should be by chronological order from I to IX for the release year order is no relevant!!! Indeed, each film's release year is specified in brackets...! HurluGumene (talk) 04:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Per WP:Real world we deal with the out of universe facts, not the narrative, which means we use the physical production order (which is chronological for us) not the episode setting order (which is chronological for the characters). This has been discussed before, and the result is always the same. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:34, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I still totally disagree with this irrelevant physical release order in the infobox... HurluGumene (talk) 04:50, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well I am afraid that Wikipedia's guidelines trump your personal opinion. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment I agree with Adam. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a fan wiki so it should adopt a real-world perspective. The production order should take precedence over a fictional narrative. Betty Logan (talk) 19:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC) Comment – I agree with Betty and Adam. There is no advantage to changing this to episode order. The production year is in parenthesis, so the way it was ordered is clearly evident to anyone visiting the page. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * IV-VI, I-III, VII-IX listing the years in parentheses afterwards. This is the real world. We don't live a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment - I agree that the films should be listed in the order of their release, so IV-VI, then I-III, then VII and onward. However, I do understand why the order is disputed... it is really odd to see a list ordered as 4,5,6,1,2,3,7,8,9. Perhaps the order would be less confusing if we removed the episode numbers. The Wikipedia pages for the prequel trilogy films are the only pages titled with the Episode numbers (the original trilogy pages are titled "Star Wars (film)," "The Empire Strikes Back," and "Return of the Jedi."). Also, the recent digital release of the films refers to each film as "Star Wars: [Subtitle]." And as soon as the subtitle for "The Force Awakens" was revealed, Disney and Lucasfilm stopped referring to it as Episode VII. It seems as if the current trend is not to use the episode numbers, only the subtitles. This might avoid confusion and a tendency for people to try to change it.-Rmaynardjr (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment - I agree that the films should be listed in their production order per the reason given by adamstom97. Unfortunately an editor HurluGumene is letting their opinion lead their argument rather guidelines and consensus. There is nothing 'obvious' about what the order should be you have to refer to Wikipedia guidelines and consensus. Robynthehode (talk) 08:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion we could separate them into two sections. One for episode order and one for historic order as they were released.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 00:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment - Another user changed the order again to reflect the chronological order of the series... I made a suggestion awhile back in this topic about removing the episode numbers from the film titles in the infobox. I feel as though people may be less likely to change the order of the list if that list doesn't appear out of order. If we change the titles to simply be "Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith," for example, then the list won't seem to be incorrectly ordered. And while this idea would mean no episode numbers in the infobox, I would like to point out that Lucasfilm's most recent release of the films, the digital release back in April 2015, only referred to each film by its subtitle, and the official title of the most recent release is "Star Wars: The Force Awakens," so there is a precedent set by Lucasfilm to drop the episode numbers. -Rmaynardjr (talk) 14:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure that idea will fly or not, but if it is considered, I would further suggest dropping "Star Wars" from each title as well and just list the subtitle (Revenge of the Sith, Return of the Jedi, etc.). --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2016
James121202 (talk) 01:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC) James121202 (talk) 01:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Betty Logan (talk) 01:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Star killer base needs it's own article
I propose somebody write the article on Starkiller Base. I would have done it myself, but as people probably know, I'm currently too busy working on other Star Wars pages to be creating this.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 23:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose the creation of an article for Starkiller Base. It is not notable enough for its own article and would be real overkill for Wikipedia. This is not a Star Wars fansite Robynthehode (talk) 23:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

This is not a proposal in the sense there is vote process on weather the article should or should not be created. I am proposing in the sense that I need someone else to create it instead of me as I'm busy working on other pages. The rest of the comment is irrelevant.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 03:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2016
Change the picture of the X-wing in the Legacy section to one that shows it from a better perspective (like ) and change the caption to "A full-scale X-wing fighter mockup at the SM Mall of Asia."--Quarax (talk) 17:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

How should information be handled regarding the "new" Star Wars continuity?
With most of the expanded universe now considered "non-canon," and also taking into consideration that lots of information regarding the Star Wars franchise on Wikipedia is derived from the "Legends expanded universe," how should we proceed? For example, it may confuse readers to learn of Han and Leia's twin children, which is now non-canon, while The Force Awakens, canon, contradicts this by having Kylo Ren as the sole child of the two (or at least, as far as we know). Should non-canon information be pushed into a new "non-canon" section and be cut down? I'm not quite sure what the policies are on these matters, if there are any. ReddyRedCP (talk) 20:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't be focusing on canon vs. non-canon in-universe trivia at Wikipedia, but we do need to make sure that readers understand when we are talking about Star Wars and when we are talking about Star Wars Legends, as those are two separate real world entities. The end result should be similar to how comics do it: the primary topic of the articles is the main continuity (Star Wars), with an other continuity section near the bottom (Star Wars Legends), unless of course the entire article is focused on a Star Wars Legends property, in which case it needs to be made absolutely clear to readers that that is what they are reading about. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Novelizations
So am I to understand that while the seven films are obviously canon, the original novelizations of the first six are not? Please comment at Talk:Star Wars canon.— TAnthonyTalk 22:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Crew table
I'm thinking ahead, but, the Crew and other table seems to be a little unwieldy. As it is, it has a slight overflow off the page on my screen, and (currently hypothetical) future installments would only worsen that? Also, the table is a little odd because the columns are pretty narrow causing things like a crewmember's first and last names being on different lines, which makes reading a little odd. Is there another way to represent this information? It does already replicate some of the information available in the tables toward the top of the article. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  17:37, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Han Solo trilogy?
Considering I've done it twice, I thought I should open up a discussion, or at least make a statement at length, regarding my removal of referenced sentences stating that Alden Ehrenreich reportedly has a contract to star in three films, added by. For reference: diff 1 and diff 2. I'm not doing so with bad faith, it's just, as I stated in my two edit summaries, these articles are sourcing their information to New York Daily News gossip column Confidential (link to column's front page, link to the story itself). The nature of the column, as a gossip column, and the statement of an exclusive "insider" and "quietly signed" make me hesitate over including the information at this time. We are not in a hurry, and we do not need to be by-the-minute updated. We can wait to see how this information pans out, and if Ehrenreich really is to star in three films (all Han Solo anthology or otherwise), we can add that when a more solid-looking source arises. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  18:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * has added the same sentence. Rather than undo, I am pinging them to this section. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  20:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for including me in the edits and doing so respectfully. I am certain that the 'announcement' will either happen soon or after the release of the first Han Solo movie. Thanks!

Burningblue52 (talk)

It's too early, wait a couple of years and see if it gets confirmed or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosvel92 (talk • contribs) 09:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Separate articles for "Original Trilogy" and "Prequel Trilogy?
It appears the Sequel trilogy has been given its own separate article, it seems strange the other two well establishes trilogies don't have there own, and it would make the Star Wars page (as in the franchise) less long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dazeezes (talk • contribs) 23:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree, Star Wars films, should be it's own article, so the the main Star Wars Saga article can be more basic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosvel92 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Should we rename the "Other media" subtitle into the more accurate and encompasing "Media Franchise"?
Since the Disney, acquisition of Lucasfilm. The books and comics, now have the same weight as the movies, so I think it makes sense to calling that part of the article Media Franchise, makes more sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosvel92 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Really, the comics and the novels don't actually have the same weight as the movies. The films are much more high-profile pieces, and they're also the "mainline" pieces of the franchise, and they are the ones that originated the franchise. The books and comics have "equal weight" in terms of canonicity, which is something the project is (slowly) trying to steer from. (See: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Wars) And, largely, the article itself is about the media franchise, so having a subsection titled "Media franchise" would seem a little odd? It's effectively the same, I think. And "In other media" is a widely used and accepted title for the heading. ~Cheers,  Ten  Ton  Parasol  17:18, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Introduction of the Star Wars Article, edited so it describes Star Wars as whole, rather than only the films series
Hard to explain. But I edited the introduction of the Star Wars article. So it describes Star Wars as Media Franchise, instead of only the films series. And the Canon / Legends debate, in a simple way. Could be more polished, maybe. Rosvel92 (talk) 21:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC) rosvel92

I oganized better the TV Animated series
I feel this reflects better the History of Star Wars Animation, now TV Series, are organized according to same Animation Studio or series creator:

Nelvana's animated series(the studio that animated them): -Droids -Ewoks

Gendy Tartakovsky: -Clone Wars

Dave Filoni's animated series: -The Clone Wars -Rebels

LEGO Micro series: - LEGO 1 - LEGO 2

Aditionally, the I renamed the Other films subtopic into Television Films, since THe Holiday Special & The Ewok films, are exactly that TV Films. and it's a more accuarate description, than just writing other Films. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosvel92 (talk • contribs) 08:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I've undone this edit because while I understand the intention and reasoning behind it, I believe the previous way better reflects the history of Star Wars television series because it lists in the order produced. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  16:03, 29 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, although I do believe that my order was better because it was still in order, But the main reason is that I feel it reflects better, the ERAS of the Star Wars animation, and gives more importance to the animated series, which are becoming more and more important to Star Wars as a whole, especially with the introduction of an animated character into the Live-action films, and because it made Thrawn canon. Also I feel the LEGO micro-series should be less important, than the Main cartoons.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosvel92 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That sort of change should probably be discussed more widely. But this article isn't about the canonicity of Star Wars or the importance of these works in that history, which is a whole different discussion regarding canonicity language, but rather the history of the media franchise. In that case, approaching it as a chronological ordering is likely better. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  17:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree, that changes should be discussed more, the way I edit, is I make my edits as suggestions. If the changes are denied, we just revert it. If the changes need discussion then it gets reverted in the meantime, but if gets approval, the edit will always be there to be reverted. Rosvel92 (talk) 21:16, 30 July 2016 (UTC) Rosvel92

Tables
I asked this in regards to the crew table a little farther up on this page, but are any of the tables necessary? Whether the more numerous but smaller tables currently on the page, or the fewer but massive tables there were before. Are tables really necessary to express any of this information, and it is actually necessary for the information these tables contain to be on the page, i.e. listing running times, producers, director of cinematography, etc., when that information is available on the linked pages themselves? Please note that also the films and series are also listed in the infobox. I also am not sure about how WP:ACCESSIBLE these tables are, and someone more knowledgable than I will have to speak to that. But at any rate, are the tables necessary? ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  00:30, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It is useful to be able to compare who worked on which film at a glance without having to go to lots of different articles, but I am at a loss to explain why this information needs to be tabulated twice. The "crew" table at tar_Wars should suffice; I don't think the smaller tables that precede it are necessary. As for your other question the tables do have accessibility issues caused by excessive row and column spans. Betty Logan (talk) 01:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The current table under cast and crew is unsustainable as is. The current set-up (movies along the top, crew along the left), it will keep growing sideways, and it should be rotated (movies along the left, crew along the top) so that it grows downward. Before the current numerous small tables set up, the article already did tabulate everything twice sorta (random oldid). But do we really need something like running time? And, my concern about accessibility was regarding screen-readers and other such things, and whether that will be a problem. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  02:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There is now also a Recurring character tables on the page added by . Like the current crew table, I think it's unsustainable. It'll eventually only grow wider, and the page can't support that. I know this sort of thing appears to not be well-liked at WP:TV and that WP:TVCAST lists only two acceptable ways to list cast members, neither of which supports a table format. It's regarding television, but I'm not overly sure the new cast table should stay for those reasons. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  03:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It is redundant as well, since a more complete version of the same table exists at List of Star Wars characters. Betty Logan (talk) 15:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I personally think the table shouldn't be on that page either, because that information is just better presented in prose and the table is ten columns off the page (on my screen), but that's a discussion for that page, really. I think I'll just remove the table on this one. (I'm not a fan of the table format at List of Star Wars cast members either, to be honest, and it feels redundant to a character list to me.) The cast section needs some sort of paragraph rather than an empty section with a hatnote to a main article, but a table isn't the best way to do it. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  15:53, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If you want a comparative overview of who was in which film the table is clearly a superior means of conveying that information because you can absorb it with a single glance. It doesn't really matter if it goes off the side or the bottom of the screen since browsers are fitted with scroll bars to overcome this problem. I agree that the tables would be structured better if the films went down the page but the real issue here is the redundancy in replicating the tables, so I second removing the new cast table from this article. Betty Logan (talk) 16:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Whether or not the table is useful on the characters page is better discussed at that article's talk page (I had actually posted something on the talk page about it there a week ago), and maybe with larger input from the Project since we're just two. But, we're in agreement about the cast table not being here and at least rotating the crew table, so yeah. I'll try to convert the crew table. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  17:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2016
Date of release for Star Wars Rogue Episode 8 is incorrect - It says December 15, 2017

173.200.186.134 (talk) 18:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * X mark.svg Not done Rogue One and Episode 8 are different films. Episode 8 is in fact coming out on December 15, 2017.  NFL  is  Awesome   (ZappaOMati) 18:53, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

There's lots of Star Wars books articles that are like a a sentence long
My suggestion is for someone to fuse the articles that are too short within a single article for each book series, consisting on articles that are too short. Of course someone would need to change all the links redirecting to the books to the link in their newly fused article. Just a suggestion.
 * You might get more response at the WikiProject or at List of Star Wars books. Though, I'm not sure exactly if that would actually yield any results; I have no clue how many people actually look at the WikiProject page or that list. Category:Books based on Star Wars currently has 152 pages, plus all the subcats of Category:Star Wars Legends novels. I'm sure there are notable books in there, but wading through that and figuring that out is a long haul project. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  13:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

We should split this article in 2 articles
Also we should split Star Wars into 2 articles: -Star Wars (franchise) -Star Wars (film series)
 * I oppose. It's unnecessary, and it makes it seem like the films and the rest of the franchise are separate. Yes, this article has the potential to get long and unwieldy, if it isn't already. But, that can be solved with a firm trimming: mention here only what is strictly necessary. We don't have to mention things that are sufficiently covered in subarticles. For example, I think the film summaries can trimmed more, and production info that is strictly necessary to understanding the development of the franchise as a whole should be mentioned. A lot of these sections can be just merged into each other—this isn't meant to be a catch-all list of every piece of Star Wars licensed material and, even if it warrants a mention on this article, it may not warrant a section. If anything, a split isn't needed, a pruning is needed. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  12:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

-- The problem is the article already makes the Star Wars film series seem separate from the TV shows, comics, etc; and that's the reason I think we should split it, all the info about the development of the films into a new article focused solely on the films. I was thinking of doing something similar to what is done in the article of The Simpsons (franchise) in contrast to the main article of the TV show, look at how it mentions the TV Show very briefly, in a short paragraph among the other Simpsons things, compared to how it is on the Star Wars article. I think the Star Wars article already is beyond trimming, and it will only get longer. So we should send all the detailed info about the movies, and the development of the films into it's own article, fused with the Star Wars Sequel Trilogy article. And the main Star Wars franchise article looks like The Simpsons franchise article, with the table of the films and super short brief info on each film.--Rosvel92 (talk) 06:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)Rosvel92
 * That problem could be solved by rearranging the page a little, adjusting the levels of the headings; the article organization is a little wonky right now, in my opinion. And the page is not beyond trimming. It just needs to be somewhat aggressively done. The article right now is trying to include way too much, especially smaller items of the franchise. (Also, letting the WikiProject know so that this isn't just between us two.) ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  14:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Star Wars is first and foremost a film series. There is no franchise without it. Can the section be trimmed? Sure. It's not like these films don't have their own very detailed articles. But to split off the film section would be pointless, as it is the franchise. All other parts are ultimately merchandizing, even the animated tv series, as good as they are. oknazevad (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Well the fact we reverted the article is more evidence we need to make the split.

Moving information to page from Star Wars expanded universe
Discuss portion of the BOLD, Revert, Discuss cycle; adding as a subheading to this because I think they're related. See this diff for reference. I don't think detailed merchandising information on the action figures and board games and RPGs and etc. should be moved here from the EU article. This is what I'm referring to above when I said that the article is trying to contain too much information and that it needs a semi-aggressive pruning. I don't see why these smaller items of the franchise should be included on this article. The franchise is primarily composed of theatrical films, then by the television series, and then the rest of the expanded universe (novels, and then other media and merchandising), in order of high profile-ness, for lack of a better word. It's not necessarily creating two articles about the same topic; the information should be at the Star Wars expanded universe article as more minor and less remarkable parts of the franchise and then described in summary style here. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  17:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This addition has been removed.....from a page with many problem....like sources etc.--Moxy (talk) 18:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * it's been already re-removed by Moxy, but to respond to your edit summary here. It isn't only that the information was unsourced, Moxy stated that there were many problems including the sourcing issue, but my issue with it is that it's adding information that doesn't strictly necessary for coverage in this article. You and I both agree that the article is too unwieldy the way that it is but disagree on how best to make it wieldy again, and until the discussion above runs its course, I think that any large expansions to the article should be held off from for now. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  19:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

--- Sorry about the mess, I'll ask next time before making any major changesRosvel92 (talk) 03:17, 19 August 2016 (UTC)Rosvel92

Collectables in the external links section
It does not seem appropriate to me and appears more of an advertisement. I think there should be another article for Star Wars merchandise. And even if not, I don't think this is appropriate either way.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 03:52, 2 September 2016 (UTC) -I didn't liked the LEGO series, mentioned besides The Clone Wars and Rebels, the LEGO ones are toy commercials amazing toy commercials, but placing them together felt incorrect to me, because the whole reason the LEGO Star Wars cartoons is merchandise. -The videogames which have contributed many stories to the Star Wars Saga were also mixed with the Table Games, which also lead me to separate more info. So I didn't wanted to get rid of the Info that's why I separated it into the Merchandise sub-article. That being said, merchandise should still be mentioned in the main article but in a much shorter text indeed, but it should remain like this until someone makes a merchandise article.
 * I believe it should be it's own article too, the way I separated it into the Merchandize subarticle is because:

Rosvel92 (talk) 14:09, 6 September 2016 (UTC)Rosvel92

Cultural impact is too long, permission to make it shorter
I already moved most of the information in the Cultural Impact section, into the main Cultural impact of Star Wars article, permission to shorter the description in the main article. So it's shorter lead-in to the other article. Rosvel92 (talk) 14:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)Rosvel92 Rosvel92 (talk) 23:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)Rosvel92
 * Already made it more focused and shorter removed like 2000 words, and still added enough info to make it into a better lead in article.

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2016
82.219.205.237 (talk) 14:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC) star wars really happened and the planets are far away. Ewoks and Wookies are bears and Jedis have evolved into humans. space ships are cars
 * Clearly. --Izno (talk) 14:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah and Battlestar Galactica is all true and Star trek's author was instructed by future spock(who "exists") and came back to tell his story.

❌ SeriouslyDaiyusha (talk) 06:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

StarWars.com references
Really, the article should use references that are not from StarWars.com whenever possible. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  01:57, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September2016
Update to the Crew and Other table. Rouge One : A Star Wars Story - Music Please change

Alexandre Desplat Themes: John Williams

to

Michael Giacchino (link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Giacchino) Themes: John Williams

Reference: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/star-wars-rogue-one-replaces-929387

Drscifi (talk) 19:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done  Paine   u/ c  03:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

A timeline with the release years of the films
I was thinking maybe we should have a table like this on the article reflecting the release dates of the films, or maybe someone could do a table reflecting the fictional timeline of the Saga. I'll leave it here on the discussion to not create a mess.Rosvel92 (talk) 03:17, 19 August 2016 (UTC) Rosvel92
 * A fictional timeline is a very unwise idea, because it is in-universe, i.e. it presented information from a fictional perspective rather than a real-world one. I also don't think the timeline is particularly useful. It doesn't contribute anything particularly new to the article. How exactly does this increase understanding of the subject? I do also worry for the length of it: it just doesn't seem like a practical addition to the article. As it is, it's already long and it's missing six elements (TCW film, Rogue One, VIII, IX, Han Solo anthology, Untitled anthology). ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  03:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

, your table is wrong. The title should be The Phantom Menace and The Empire Strikes Back. Please ensure that you make those changes before adding it into the article.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 03:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I think the timeline is very selective in what it chooses to include. Where is the Ewoks TV series and the two Ewok films, for example? Where is Droids (which featured two major characters from the films? Where is the earlier Clone Wars TV series, which won three Emmys? Where is the Star Wars Holiday Special? It should include everything or shouldn't be there at all. Betty Logan (talk) 07:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If the table were to be approved it would include everything, this table was just a beta to give an idea of how it would look.Rosvel92 (talk) 13:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)Rosvel92
 * Even if it listed all of the pieces of filmed media, I still think it doesn't add enough value-wise to the article. The media is already organized chronologically. I'm not sure what this adds to the article other than "it's nice to look at" ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  14:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Just trimmed the table so it can use less space.Rosvel92 (talk) 19:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Rosvel 92

Removing the plot summaries
Is it wise to remove the plot summaries altogether, seeing as they're covered in the main articles for the films, and partially in setting, and anything relevant to the production history is summarized there too? The article is massive and seeing as this information is more effectively dealt with elsewhere, it could be a good thing to cut.

Or, perhaps we could have a very, very small summary of the entire thing, very brief, and reincorporate that into the setting section. Or something. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  20:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:SUMMARY says no regarding your first query. --Izno (talk) 11:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought something might. So, that leaves condensing. The question at this point is how? Is it possible to condense each, say, "era" into a paragraph? Or, would that be a little too concise? ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  13:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I was the one who posted the template saying that the summaries are too long, so I completely agree, the thing will become specially confusing once the timeline displaced Anthology films start releasing. My opinion is that each film and it's production should be covered individually from the other films as it's own subtopic. Each film should have a 3 sentences description, as bare bones as possible, and then it's respective development. Rosvel92 (talk) 20:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)Rosvel92
 * I've felt the plots were too long for a long time. But, at any rate, I don't think each film being covered individually in a subtopic that covers both plot and development is the best way? And I don't think the anthology films will necessarily make covering plot harder, they don't change the overarching plotlines. The setting topic could be easily converted into a subtopic that covers both. With small paragraphs describing each "era", and the major plot that goes through there: general paragraphs explaining the setting, paragraph or sentences describing the Clone Wars, paragraph or sentences describing the Civil War, paragraph or sentences describing the First Order stuff. I'm not sure if the in-universe chronological is wise, per INUNIVERSE. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  21:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The plots definitely should be reduced. The films shouldn't be ordered the films in in-universe chronological order, at all. The thing is the anthology films will make you split each of them into a subtopic, so it will eventually look odd if each film in the main series is not it's own subtopic.Rosvel92 (talk) 00:18, 25 October 2016 (UTC)Rosvel92
 * Then, what's the best way to order the plot summary? My suggestion for ordering per in-universe was a plot summary section, in which all of the plot was in a single section. I would agree, when listing films or ordering sections, they should be per release order. Per real-world order is probably better though, for a plot summary. However, I don't even think the anthology films should be divided subtopics, in the way that the page is now, in anything. The anthology films should be collapsed into a single section. (This article, I think, has too many sections trying to cover what is best left to a subarticle.) I don't think there's a detriment to having the entirety of the plot summary condensed into its own section, and basic production info of each "set" of films in their own sections. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  00:38, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd rather have each film treated as it's own individual entity but maybe that's just me. I'l suggest an edit latter. I also believe the special editions should be on the Main table of the films, as they are more than trivia, and are an integral yet controversial part of the history of the development of the saga. Rosvel92 (talk) 03:49, 30 October 2016 (UTC)Rosvel92

Please help improve these drafts before publishing
Draft:Star Wars Anthology 3--Taeyebar 23:53, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Star Wars Anthology: Untitled Han Solo film--Taeyebar 23:50, 4 November 2016 (UTC)