Talk:Star Wars/Archive 5

Original Theatrical Editions
The first film in the series, Star Wars, was released on May 25, 1977. This was followed by two sequels: The Empire Strikes Back, released on May 21, 1980, and Return of the Jedi, released on May 25, 1983. The opening crawl of the sequels disclosed that they were numbered as "Episode V" and "Episode VI" respectively, though the films were generally advertised solely under their subtitles. Though the first film in the series was simply titled Star Wars, with its 1981 re-release it had the subtitle Episode IV: A New Hope added to remain consistent with its sequel, and to establish it as the middle chapter of a continuing saga.

More than two decades after the release of the original film, the series continued with a prequel trilogy; consisting of Episode I: The Phantom Menace, released on May 19, 1999; Episode II: Attack of the Clones, released on May 16, 2002; and Episode III: Revenge of the Sith, released on May 19, 2005. On August 15, 2008, Star Wars: The Clone Wars was released theatrically as a lead-in to the animated TV series of the same name. Star Wars: The Force Awakens was released on December 18, 2015.

On January 26, 2016, Variety reported that Disney executives were meeting with cable outlets Turner, FX Networks, Viacom, NBCUniversal, A&E Networks and AMC Networks to have a discussion on purchasing the free-TV rights to the first six Star Wars movies.

Re-releases
Lucas has re-released the Star Wars films, multiple times. Every major re-release release since the "1997 Special Editions" has continued to make changes to the films for subsequent releases. Reception of the Special Edition was mixed, prompting petitions and fan edits to produce restored copies of the original trilogy.

Special Editions (1997)
In 1997, to correspond with the 20th anniversary of the original film, Lucas released a "Special Edition" of the Star Wars trilogy to theaters. The re-release featured alterations to the three films, primarily motivated by the improvement of CGI and other special effects technologies, which allowed visuals that were not possible to achieve at the time of the original filmmaking. The most controversial alteration is a scene of "A New Hope" where Han Solo shoots Greedo, being altered so Greedo would shoot first.

DVD Editions (2004)
The first ever DVD release of the original trilogy on September 21, 2004. The most controversial alteration is the final scene of "Return of the Jedi" where the Ghost of Anakin Skywalker was played by Sebastian Shaw in the original release, but in this release is played by Hayden Christensen (whom played Anakin in the prequels).

Blu-Ray Editions / 3D Re-releases (2011)
The first ever Blu-ray release of all six films on September 16, 2011. It contained more minor alterations than the previous re-releases but it still proved controversial. At a ShoWest convention in 2005, Lucas demonstrated new technology and stated that he planned to release the six films in a new 3D film format, beginning with A New Hope in 2007. However, by January 2007, Lucasfilm stated on StarWars.com that "there are no definitive plans or dates for releasing the Star Wars saga in 3-D." At Celebration Europe in July 2007, Rick McCallum confirmed that Lucasfilm was "planning to take all six films and turn them into 3-D", but they are "waiting for the companies out there that are developing this technology to bring it down to a cost level that makes it worthwhile for everybody". In July 2008, Jeffrey Katzenberg, the CEO of DreamWorks Animation, revealed that Lucas planned to redo all six of the movies in 3D. In late September 2010, The Phantom Menace was theatrically re-released in 3-D on February 10, 2012, it was edited exactly as the Blue-Ray.. The plan was to re-release all six films in order, with the 3-D conversion process taking up to a year to complete for each film. However, the 3D re-releases of episodes II and III were postponed to enable Lucasfilm to concentrate on Episode VII.

Rosvel92 (talk) 23:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)Rosvel92
 * Should we add it?
 * Maybe instead of subtopic list them in the same way the TV Series are listed.
 * I dont see a benefit here for our readers ...in the new text or new source(s). This type of trivia stuff is covered in subarticles.--Moxy (talk) 20:07, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I had said in my edit summary reverting the addition of the content: "Tbh, detailing that sort of thing is for the individual articles (and for the subarticle), the 3d rereleases is a different case (I think?). And, the article is really bloated as is." I was hesitant then about the inclusion of the 3D rereleases, and I think the article won't lose anything by losing them and doesn't gain much by having then, so I'm effectively neutral. But the different edits and changes among the home releases I firmly believe should not be detailed here. That is something for the articles on the films and whatever other subarticles there are, and they don't really warrant inclusion here. And, as I've said a lot of times before, the article is getting more and more bloated because these smaller details are getting more and more added to this article when they're better off covered in the subarticles. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  20:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Maybe instead of addressing the details of the Special Editions, we could at least mention them in the main table of the Films, I was thinking something like this.Specially since the special editions are currently the only ones available for purchase. I believe they should be mentioned with their own column on the table. Something like this, maybe rather or along the changes described above.Rosvel92 (talk) 18:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Rosvel92

Saga
 Re-releases on this table only include those whom significantly alter the way a film is edited, excluding editions whose only change is in the title crawls. Since 2015, the 20th Century Fox logo is absent at the beginning of all digital releases of Episodes I–III and V–VI, but other than that the films are edited exactly the same as the 2011 Blu-ray edition.

I really don't see the need for detailing the special editions. Any such information should be detailed in the individual articles, and it's best taken care of there. The existing tables are already crowded. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  20:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

As I said before, even with the simpler version, I don't see a reason to include the release dates for the special releases. The table doesn't really have a context for it, or even room to detail what special release means or why it's being noted or why there are so many, and that's best left to the individual articles. It's best to note the original, theatrical release and leave any home release dates for the other articles. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  02:02, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2016 - Punctuation
Under Cultural Impact, the caption for the image should be changed from "Just like the franchise, its fictional weapons contained in it, such as the lightsaber and the blaster, have been used in popular culture and have been an iconic part of the franchise.." to "Just like the franchise, its fictional weapons contained in it, such as the lightsaber and the blaster, have been used in popular culture and have been an iconic part of the franchise." The two periods on the end of the sentence are simply improper punctuation. 3nails4you (talk) 15:53, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done  JTP ( talk • contribs) 16:14, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Infoboxes for trilogies
I had recently removed three Infoboxes dedicated to the individual trilogies, feeling that they were repeating information that's already in the article elsewhere and so do not add much in the way of value. , as you've readded them, I assume you disagree. What is the value of having these Infoboxes? ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  14:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I have remove these junk boxes... sandwiches images regurgitating the same text just not what we're looking for in a GA article.... let alone any article. We need to slow down the changes and additions made by editord unaware of our policies.--Moxy (talk) 15:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Grammatical error: who vs whom
Most of the places where "whom" is used, at least in the top of the article describing the basic plot line of each episode, should use "who" instead. Someone who knows how to edit and knows the difference between "who" and "whom" (or who knows an English major who knows), please edit this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:144:4100:E770:389D:A529:C8E4:5221 (talk) 05:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  18:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Rogue One (2016) is a prequel to Episode 4 (1977)
Please add the note :

Rogue One (2016) is a prequel to Episode 4 (1977)


 * It's not produced as such. To say so is inappropriate. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  16:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Reception Organisation
Speaking as someone who wants to view this page themselves and gain information, I've found that the tables for the box office gross and critical reception are a mess. Something must be done to either separate it out (more clearly) into the original trilogy, prequel trilogy, sequel trilogy, anthology and animated films to allow viewers to this page to properly and easily distinguish what is what without more effort (which is how it should be). Each series must be treated as one (obviously, since it's all Star Wars) but also be separated into the above sections - as they are in other sections of the page. Hope somebody can help or people can work to improve this! 109.145.35.179 (talk) 18:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Critical and public response
Obviously the colours can be altered, but you get the idea. Like this? 109.145.35.179 (talk) 13:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The box office table might be useful, but we would need to include the rows for original and prequel trilogy totals, as we do now. I don't think we need any discerning between series for the critical reception table: those numbers don't need comparison to each other, they need only be represented clearly in a table. -RM (talk) 16:36, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine. Although I'd say we should have it in the reception table to easily compare what the critical response to the original trilogy and prequel trilogy (as one was much lower than the other). 109.145.35.179 (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I generally agree with this layout of the tables. (I was actually trying to figure it out myself the other day, but this one is a much more elegant solution than the ones I was trying.) I do agree that the trilogy box office totals should be in the tables, and I think instead of having all the different colors, all the dividers should be a single color, they're simply dividers. The color used in the divider right above TPM, is a nice gentle color, so I think that one would be most appropriate. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  16:57, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "easily compare the critical response between the first two trilogies..." That's not really our job, though. Our intentions are to present the information in a clear and concise way. The difference between the tables is that isolating the trilogies (or individual series in general) can be useful for box office performance, to see the total amount of money made by a distinct series; whereas in the critical reception table, figures aren't added together. The reception of any one film is distinct from the reception of every other film and shouldn't be compared (we really shouldn't even have the "average" row). Does that make sense?-RM (talk) 20:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Was just about to bring up the fact all theses charts are not what we want in GA and FA articles. Was going to work on just this section to make it propose text that is readable in mobile view. Will wait and start on some other chart first.-- Moxy (talk) 08:35, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Recent expansions and reorganization
, I advise you stop making major expansions, adding headers, or general major reorganization of the article. The article is bloated and confusingly organized as is. Sidebar, "television films and radio adaptations should be merged into the Legends article", the Legends article ALREADY contains that information. But mostly, the article does not need an expansion or more headings. The article needs to be consolidated. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  15:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Logo image
you've replaced the logo in the Infobox to the black version without explanation, and you've been reverted several times on the grounds that the yellow version is the most iconic, I ask, please don't change it again to the black without discussion? At this point, may I ask, why do you think the black version is more suitable? ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  18:02, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This article represents the whole franchise actually, not only a saga or movies set in a Star Wars universe. This yellow "iconic" logo has never appeared in a spin-off movies, the other logo is used on toys and other Star Wars merchandise. So the black version can generalize all this. CapLiber  18:09, 12.20.2016 (UTC)
 * The infobox image is for easy identification for the article. The yellow-on-black is the original logo, and the most famous and remembered version of it. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Need help understanding
Can anyone help me understand the structure of this article? We have a one-paragraph "early development" subsection, and then for each of the film entries there's a one-paragraph in-universe plot summary followed by several paragraphs of real-world perspective production/development info. (To say nothing of the oddball, way up at the top, incomplete bulleted history of re-release changes --, I think you were right to remove it.) Other than "Star Wars has become popular again and consequently the main article's become something of a big hot mess," is there a reason we've gone with this structure? --EEMIV (talk) 13:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what's going on? I haven't been paying attention to the page, and I looked just now, and I also have a question about the necessity of the quote boxes and info box boxes. The page seems to have become very bloated, generally speaking, and I don't remember nor see any discussions to make major structural changes and expansions. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  01:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Since we're on the topic of structure, I still very much suggest that the article move toward a more condensed format, dealing with the plots and developments of each trilogy as a single unit, and then addressing the anthology films in a single section. I'm still not necessarily sure where it says that the anthology films are part of the saga,, can you please point out where that has been discussed? And, I still very much think that this article does not need to in-depth address the rereleases and changes. That is what the subarticle is for. The assertion, that "[no] mention of it would allow revisionist history win" seems flimsy at best. Like, I'm not saying remove it totally from the article, I'm just saying that to give it such weight is probably undue, and that such a topic can be better addressed in context on the subarticle rather than contextless dates in a table and list of changes. In general, this article is an overview article and it shouldn't be spending as much time as it is on details that are much better handled in the subarticles. ~Cheers,  Ten  Ton  Parasol  23:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure! Let me find it in one of my previous edits within the page. I included the article where director Gareth Edwards says how the film is different 'from the rest of the Star Wars Saga'.... that very simply states its a part of the saga. It's an in-between-quel, not a whole completely different film series.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:32, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Generally, this brings up the question though of how to organize the tables. Like, as it currently is, the tables will have all films put together but have one separate for the animated and that just seems odd. And I'm wondering if there's even a point in the way it is now. Maybe instead of having the two tables, with one labeled Saga and the other animated, just collapse them into one table. It avoids having to constantly reexplain the saga term (this is a confusion not only in editors here but the fan community at large, if I recall correctly), and it makes having a single row table unnecessary. It would also cut down the number of headings and maybe make organization clearer. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  15:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I disagree! At no point in time has The Clone Wars film been called a part of the Saga, though it is a Star Wars movie. I would say that until referenced as such, it needs to be listed separately. --50.232.205.246 (talk) 19:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I wasn't suggesting it be added to the table because it's under the saga heading but rather the saga heading be removed from the table entirely and the article instead have a single "theatrical releases" Table. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  21:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I never said the anthologies weren't part of the "Saga", I just said now the Saga is divided into 2 kinds of instalaments:
 * Main Saga: Every title with a numeber at the end.
 * "Outside of Main Saga": Which are part of the Saga, which includes both the Anthology Series and the Animated The Clone Wars film as separate categories. Can I move my suggested film box here? to discuss it?

Also about the article List of Star Wars films and television series:
 * I suggest renaming it List of Star Wars home media releases and perhaps fusing the article with the List of changes in Star Wars re-releases. That way we can further detail the Special Editions there.Rosvel92 (talk) 02:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)rosvel92
 * The rhetoric "Main Saga" sounds too fan-created and unofficial. I suggest the section listing the films as Star Wars Saga (just like "Alien franchise", or "Fast and Furious film series"), and then divide the table up as was optioned below with table division into trilogies, anthology films, and stand-alone films.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 01:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The thing is, at this point, it seems like saying "main saga" is near original research, or OR adjacent. I'm also not sure what suggested film box yours talking about? Generally, I'm still not sure the value of the table itself, but I do think that the word "saga" has to go for most clarify. If there's going to be two tables, organizing them under, perhaps, "trilogies" and other theatrical releases will make things most clear. The general issue, also, as it seems to me is making massive organizational changes without consensus, and these organizational changes are making the article more difficult to navigate and clutter it up. Additionally, the merge you're suggesting of those two articles makes no sense (that list is a list of titles, not home releases?) and I generally don't understand this fixation to discuss the changes made in re-released across every single article. I don't think discussing them in detail as you have here is appropriate, I don't think including them in the table is appropriate, they should be mentioned as existing and then properly detailed in its subarticle. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  13:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * To get a better sense of what I'm suggesting for the tables, I've thrown together two versions, depending on whether there should be two tables or one larger table: (though, maybe also move running time to this table and cut both distribution and running time from the crew table, so that the crew table can be exclusively about crew). Generally, I still suggest straight out cutting the section on the page titled "Re-releases and Special Edition director cuts" and "George Lucas' departure from Star Wars". I also still feel like the page should not talk about the production of each and every film individually. More in-depth production information is better left to the main articles of each film. ~Cheers,  Ten  Ton  Parasol  18:52, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I really like your one table design!!^ shows that the whole bunch of movies are a part of the Star Wars Saga; a.k.a.: canon Star Wars franchise.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 01:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

The Star Wars Saga confusion EXPLAINED
| Here's the link where Edwards states that the open-crawl sequence will be omitted from Rogue One so as to set it apart from "the rest of the Saga"; meaning that yes it's a 'stand-alone installment' in the franchise and the film series (meaning it can stand on its own two legs), but it is indeed a part of the film series as a whole, the "Star Wars Saga". 'Saga' is the word used in place of 'film series' or 'franchise' or 'trilogy', etc. The word "saga" does not mean 'the Skywalker family story' like some editors seem to think on here.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 06:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This isn't definitive, as in a separate interview that we have over at the Rogue One page Edwards says that the crawl was omitted to separate the standalone film from "the saga films". Rogue One is part of the Star Wars franchise, but it is obviously separate from the core films (isn't Star Wars: Episode..., doesn't have a crawl, etc.). We just need to agree on wording for that. I feel the clearest way to approach this is that we have the Star Wars franchise (which this article is about), and within that franchise we have the Star Wars Saga films, the Star Wars Anthology films, Star Wars: The Clone Wars, Star Wars Rebels, and the tie-in books and comics. And then there is the Star Wars Legends franchise, within which is all the Expanded Universe content that Disney split off when it bought Lucasfilm. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make much sense. Star Wars Saga, is the name of the film series. Not the TV shows and animated films. Franchise is an entirely different beast as you could classify that into canon, and non-canon Legend stuff now. "Main Saga" is a terrible word-choice if we're going that route. Because of the fact that Rogue One alone itself is so intregal to film series as a whole now (affects the whole A New Hope film). Maybe a better division choice would be "episodes" and "anthology"? Because that's what they are. One is the episodic form, while the other is anthological. It could just be divided into Live action and Animated sections as well. Animated would included the canon TV serieses. Also where have you seen that Edwards has said Rogue One is not a part of the Saga? Reference please.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 01:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Perhaps this is a good and logical explaination. Star Wars franchise includes everything canon and non-canon (similar to how the Alien franchise includes the original series, the prequel series, and non-canon AVP spin-offs/comics/etc. Star Wars Saga is a classication for all works that are canon to the series. The three trilogies are broken into "Original", "Prequel", and "Sequel" trilogies, with the "Anthology films", and stand-alone instalments. Doesn't that make sense?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 01:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Han Solo movie
Since filming on the Han Solo movie started today, we need to create the film article. See WT:STARWARS for a discussion about two drafts and merging them and putting an article in the mainspace. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:08, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2017
Hello I would like to request to edit this page as you have missed out one of the star wars cartoon series Star wars clone wars bare in mind I am not referring to Star wars the clone wars (2008-2014). I am referring to the 2003-2005 clone wars series

Yours sincerely Critical Carrot CriticalCarrot (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2017 (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. Seems to already be listed under the infobox and in the Star Wars section Cannolis (talk) 16:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Star Wars. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150311190755/http://thewaltdisneycompany.com/sites/default/files/reports/fy13-form-10k.pdf to http://thewaltdisneycompany.com/sites/default/files/reports/fy13-form-10k.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120813015853/https://www.ign.com/star-wars-characters/1.html to http://www.ign.com/star-wars-characters/1.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080106130045/https://www.starwars.com/episode-ii/bts/profile/f20020618/index.html to http://www.starwars.com/episode-ii/bts/profile/f20020618/index.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/entertainment/jan-june05/star_wars_5-19.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sources checked. All's good. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  03:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

And... they're dead again
for that it's worth, I checked those sources you just took out yesterday (see above), and they were working fine then. I looked at the Wayback and it seems that Archive.org is having serious internal issues, both noted on the specific URLs and the home page (for me) being stuck in a loading loop. I just wanted to mention it? I guess we should check on those sources again in a little while? ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol
 * Wayback seems to have resolved its issues. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  22:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Ravian (Valérian et Laureline)
It amazes me there is nothing written here about Valérian et Laureling or the english translated name: Ravian..

Star wars looks a lot like Ravian. You can even say that star wars is a cheap knockoff of this older comic.

https://nothingbutcomics.net/2015/12/14/valerian/ http://www.popularmechanics.com/culture/movies/a15532/heres-what-star-wars-took-from-valerian/ http://www.europecomics.com/a-model-for-star-wars/

And it is even on the wikipedia of the Valerian and Laureline topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valérian_and_Laureline

Garnhami (talk) 08:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Star Wars. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130806094914/http://www.shadowlocked.com/201308033120/news/john-williams-confirmed-to-score-star-wars-episodes-vii-ix.html to http://www.shadowlocked.com/201308033120/news/john-williams-confirmed-to-score-star-wars-episodes-vii-ix.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080324132025/http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/anamorphic/aspectratios/widescreenorama.html to http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/anamorphic/aspectratios/widescreenorama.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080407013616/http://news.teamxbox.com/xbox/16122/Star-Wars-The-Force-Unleashed-Dated/ to http://news.teamxbox.com/xbox/16122/Star-Wars-The-Force-Unleashed-Dated
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160602020715/https://collectibles.starwars.com/ to https://collectibles.starwars.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:53, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Anthology films
I recommend that the "Anthology films" section be rewritten to have more of a summary style. The main paragraph engages in proseline and does not really outline anthology films in general. For example, Rogue One is not anyone's origin story. Also, the "Rogue One" sub-section fails to summarize adequately. Frankly it sounds like text left over from when the film was first in development but never revisited to summarize that film as a whole. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

the animated movie should be added to Films
The animated movie is not mentioned in Films. it should be added.User:ANDREWs13
 * I see it both under "Films" in the infobox, under Star Wars in the second paragraph and second table, and at "Feature films" in the first navbox. Please be more specific if you miss something, for example saying "I think Star Wars: The Clone Wars (film) should have its own section under Star Wars". PrimeHunter (talk) 17:01, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Structure
Reorganizing the article to move reception etc. under theatrical films isn't really streamlined, and it doesn't seem an intuitive manner of organizing the article. If anything, reception should be expanded to include beyond the films and such, be a better reflection of the franchise as a whole—though, they'll always be weighed more in favor of the films. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  00:46, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2017
Disney have just announced that a Star Wars hotel will be built at Walt Disney World. Source: http://weloveorlandofl.com/confirmed-immersive-star-wars-hotel-announced-for-walt-disney-world Jmhare (talk) 00:33, 16 July 2017 (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.  JTP (talk • contribs) 00:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Setting section
We don't need headings for everything, the section isn't that long. And, also, like, even if we do reduce the plot section out in the other sections, we do not need to devote THAT much description to the setting. There is no reason to go on and on about parts of the galaxy "being governed instead by the Hutt gangster clans, professional bounty hunters and crimes such as slavery exist on such planets" because it's not important to the understanding of the franchise and the setting as a whole. We don't need to go into detail here about the mechanics of Order 66 because that's what the Revenge of the Sith and Clone Wars (Star Wars) are for. We don't need to go into detail about the rule of two because that's covered at Sith. I agree we need to cut down on plot in the "theatrical films" section, but we can achieve that without having a massive bloat of the setting section. The actual plot details are covered at the respective film articles, which are linked well throughout the article. I suggested a reduction down to what was really necessary, and linked to other articles where things could be more described in detail. It's too much plot. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  19:30, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm with TenTonParaso on this one. I'd even trim it more than he did just offering the basic setting of what Star Wars is and not the setting for each film, as if you go down that road, its not only the 3 trilogies, but the stand alone films and the TV series (and this is without touching on the cannon books and comics). Instead, the basic setting which is the first 2 paragraphs is really enough. Each film/TV/Comic article will later give their plot. --Gonnym (talk) 19:33, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no objection with restoring down to the original two paragraphs. I was afraid cutting it back down to those two would be overly aggressive of me, so I opted to jump to compromise position with cutting down the addition of the trilogy political settings. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  19:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * at the moment, per the above, it's likely the setting section will need to be cut down again. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  21:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I'll take the chance here to also say that we don't need three (unsourced!) paragraphs detailing the intricacies of the canonicity of works. That can be detailed at Star Wars canon, and it's been explained to you multiple times, Rosvel, across articles to avoid undue emphasis on the canon-Legends split. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  20:19, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I do see your point there was too much about the fictional eras there. However I wanted to suggest to left the setting as it is, plus this added text explaining the Skywalker focus of the saga, and replacing how the canon is explained. And emphasizing George Lucas contributions to the saga, the current canon, how the Star Wars Legends were discontinued and how the films work in relation to all other media. Feel free to change it if you disagree. But I would the introductory to early on explain what is canon, and what is not.05:01, 2 August 2017 (UTC)Rosvel92 (talk)Rosvel92
 * I'm removing your pasting the content of the section here for ease of discussion. First of all, seriously, it's not "Setting" so it makes no sense to put it up there. Frankly, we... don't really need to emphasize Lucas' contributions to the saga since, well, the section detailing the films and everything else already makes it clear. And it's an overemphasis, again, on in-universe status of individual pieces of media. And, from a grand scheme of things, as far as summarizing the franchise goes, the canon-Legends divide isn't actually all that important, so it doesn't really need to be explained in such great detail. It's all covered in the separate article anyway. Additionally, this is a summary page, so devoting a whole section to explaining the Skywalker saga is... well, not exactly summary. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  12:00, 2 August 2017 (UTC)