Talk:Star Wars in other media/Archive 2

Requested move 9 May 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

No consensus. Don't see general agreement to rename this article as proposed. Do see some agreement that the present title needs to be changed; therefore, this article will be moved to Star Wars expanded to other media. As is usual when this happens, any editor at any time can open a new RM to attempt to garner consensus for a better name. Have a Great Day and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover)  Painius   put'r there  18:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Star Wars expanded universe → Star Wars Legends – Back when Walt Disney Company purchased Lucasfilm, all "expanded universe" media was deemed non-canon so as to free up restrictions that a multitude of media would have placed on possible film options for the franchise. In addition to this change, the studio re-labelled all said media to Star Wars Legends. This page is out-of-date and incorrect in keeping the old fanbased blanket term for the media, and ignoring the official title of the information. In the leading paragraph of the page, we can state that the label was created for these provided reasons, and used to be known as the expanded universe. Furthermore, we can add a link to redirect all Wikipedia searches to this page, as has been done before on other articles. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 16:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dekimasu よ! 22:22, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Oppose. As stated, numerous times before, this page refers to expanded universe of Star Wars, as in the franchise beyond the main thrust of the franchise. Expanded Universe, capitals, is different from expanded universe, lowercase. The page is located at the lowercase. This page is supposed to deal with items beyond Legends. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  16:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * And yet, the page states that it is in relation to the Legends banner. It even has the image for the branding. The Legends branding covers all media outside of the Star Wars canon -which you just reaffirmed in your statement by suggesting that this page was made to cover all additional Star Wars media. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 16:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Supposed to. It's my opinion that the change that needs to be made is to rewrite the page to fit it's original intended scope when the Star Wars canon and Star Wars Legends pages were merged. And, the expanded universe of Star Wars isn't "all the things beyond the canon" but "all the things beyond the main installments of the franchise, which are the numbered films" ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  16:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose per TenTonParasol (quite the name), but will keep watch on the discussion to see if overriding points occur. Has the Star Wars WikiProject been alerted on its talk page to this RM? Randy Kryn (talk) 15:39, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries! I posted an alert to the WikiProject Talk this morning. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  15:53, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - the current name is an explicit misnomer implying something that is no longer true. "Universe" (as in fictional universe) does not simply mean "ALL products outside of the movies"... it means those things which adhere to an established continuity. Its especially disheartening that Star Wars canon redirects here, despite that clearly no longer being the case. As such, this page should be moved per the 2014 restructure as suggested, that "Star Wars expanded universe" be deprecated (because the term could be mistaken by an average reader for either the old canon (now Star Wars Legends) or the current canon universe. I suggest a new article be developed that details what IS considered current canon. -- Netoholic @ 22:39, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It's "universe" as in "expanded universe", so it is apropo for the current content. And we really shouldn't be shaping articles on a canon vs. non-canon perspective, that is an in-universe slippery slope. Luckily, there is a clean chronological divide between Legends and canon (the 2014 announcement) so we can present information from a real-world chronological perspective and still make canon vs Legends clear without focusing on continuity. The main Star Wars article and even this one are very clear about what is Legends and what is in the new canon, and we already have articles like List of Star Wars books for the detail.— TAnthonyTalk 23:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't believe expanded universe is a viable or reliable topic, and should perhaps be redirected or turned into a disambiguation page. While editors have attempted to generalize it, that phrase is really only used in regards to Star Wars (and Star Trek more as a downstream effect). Fictional universe and media franchise both have vastly more widespread use and communicate the two conflated aspects "expanded universe" tries badly to encompass. Fictional universe is the internal continuity of a franchise, while media franchise is the sum of all media produced in relation. Shared universe also tries to describe a similar notion, and is probably where expanded universe should be merged to. -- Netoholic @ 02:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Support and Oppose: The title of the article is confusing, just change the title. My opinion is that most of the info regarding the films and television shows in the main Star Wars article should be moved into List of Star Wars fims and television series and replace with more just leaving the tables and a super brief overview description of each trilogy, and this Star Wars expanded universe should be the main Star Wars article, as this article covers the whole history of the franchise including the films and tv and all. That way we could go from three articles, to two, and get rid of the problem of having this confusingly named article.Rosvel92 (talk) 06:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)Rosvel92
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Contrary to some comments above, per WP:NAMECHANGES, when a subject's name is changed, we put more weight on sources printed after the change. In this case, "Star Wars Legends" has become more common in such sources ( vs. ; both titles produce some irrelevant hits, but "Legends" does appear to be more common). Also contrary to the above, "Star Wars expanded universe" is an inadequate title if the article is meant to be a collection of all Star Wars products besides the movies, because it's extremely confusing. Most readers would expect the article to cover the topic known as the "Expanded Universe" which has now been renamed "Legends". If the idea is to have one central article for all non-movie material, it would be better to rename it entirely to a descriptive title that wouldn't be so confusing for readers. However, I see no reason that the present material couldn't be covered perfectly well at "Legends".--Cúchullain t/ c 17:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to moving it to a different descriptive title, I just don't think the Star Wars family of articles is best served by having a Star Wars Legends, which is narrower in scope that this article is trying to be and which will lead to the recreation of the Star Wars canon article, and etc. (Moving to Legends would require nixing, like, at least a quarter of the page.) A different descriptive title was brought up at the original merge discussion, but nothing satisfactory was found then——though Star Wars extended universe was suggested and iirc Star Wars in other media. Looking it over again, this article is really as it stands less about the extended media franchise or Legends or anything else and more about the evolving concept of continuity, which is a different concept from items populating the extended franchise. I personally think the article was never properly written after the merge, because the articles that were merged were both also actually more concerned with the concept of continuity than covering the items that made up both the Legends and the Canon. So, we have an article trying to be about items populating the franchise that are actually more about the concept of continuity and canonicity instead. Moving it to "Star Wars Legends" would narrow the scope, force the recreation of the "Star Wars canon" article (which would end up repeating half the information on this page anyway), when both portions would be better served by rewriting the article to adequately address the extended media franchise in a more thorough manner. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  18:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Star Wars in other media or similar would be a fine descriptive title. Star Wars extended universe isn't much better than the current due to the likelihood of confusion with the Expanded Universe. I don't see why the current content would need to change if the article was moved to "Legends", even the "canonical" material is still relevant to the history of the Legends/Expanded Universe material.--Cúchullain t/ c 18:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I wish there was a more elegant title than "Star Wars in other media" but I wouldn't be opposed to that at all. What I meant by trimming is that any discussion of canonical material like the 2008 The Clone Wars, the Rebels television series, etc etc would need to be trimmed because, by definition, they aren't Legends. Even if they're important to the development of the larger media franchise, they aren't really Legends, they're out of the scope of an article titled and about Legends. I especially believe this will be the case given the proposer's comments in the discussion section below: moving the article would mean the next step is creating a clear cut "if it's canon, it cannot be talked about on Star Wars Legends". The fact that canonical media being important to the development of the larger media franchise is precisely why I oppose moving the article to Star Wars Legends. It is better for the topic of the extended media franchise if it does not go to that title and is instead located elsewhere in a way that makes explicit that it is not an article only about Legends and has more explicit freedom to cover material related to the canonical continuity. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  23:17, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand where you're coming from, but I don't see any reason the "canon" TV shows shouldn't be included here under the name "Star Wars Legends". It's still part of the history of Legends as a part of the erstwhile Expanded Universe. The article already explains that the Clone Wars show was kept as part of the canon.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Fair, fair. I still would personally feel more comfortable if the title was more open than Star Wars Legends. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  14:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - the evidence seems to be that "Star Wars Legends" has become the new common name for what used to be called the extended or expanded universe. Presumably the canon material is still valid within Legends, so I don't necessarily buy the idea that the article would have to be trimmed down. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:04, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The thing with the canon-Legends divide in Star Wars is that canon material is considered absolutely separate, i.e. an article at Star Wars Legends can't talk about any of the current anthology films, the current run of Marvel comics, the current video games, any of the recent television series, none of the recently released novels, nor anything that would be released in the future because those would be out of scope. Those would need to be discussed at an article something like Star Wars canon. Star Wars Legends refers to a specific subset of the larger media franchise, i.e. anything published pre-2014. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  23:17, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion
I moved my original argument/comment from earlier on the talk page to here. It was as follows:

"Shouldn't this page be renamed Star Wars Legends since that is what Lucasfilm/Disney has labelled all of the non-canon media (formerly known as "expanded universe")? The page once renamed, could have a redirect link so that readers who search 'expanded universe' can be brought to the page with the correct title. As-is this page is unofficially named, and incorrect.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 15:53, 9 May 2018 (UTC)" --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 16:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed several times, but never really got any traction, in part because—to quote SMcCandlish—"Star War expanded universe" has been used by a huge pile of reliable sources for 20+ years, and the Legends brand was just a new marketing label. I'm not opposed to revisiting the topic, but as TenTonParasol reminds us, this article has also evolved, and we've never sorted out what its relationship to the main Star Wars article should be. This is basically a split off of Star Wars, representing a chronological history of material beyond the films, while the section in the main article is grouped by medium.— TAnthonyTalk 14:55, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, related to TenTonParasol's comments, the lead defines the scope of the article pretty clearly as including all elements of the expanded universe, Legends and canon. As the format of the article is the evolution of Star Wars fiction from 1977 to now, it includes Legends novels and comics, and also Star Wars Rebels and The Clone Wars. This perspective is not really covered in the same way anywhere else.— TAnthonyTalk 15:05, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Once again every comment has agreed that this page is incorrectly or misleadingly titled. To invent a page's name based off of fan-lingo and deciding that "Star Wars expanded universe" is going to mean one thing here on Wikipedia compared to what it means by the owning studio/franchise is completely incorrect and invalid for an encyclopedia. Really, the debate is ridiculous. Rather than trying to invent why this article is name as such - and includes canon and non-canon topics ("Are you freaking kidding me?!?!"), this article needs to be renamed. Star Wars is very simply divided into two sub-sections: Star Wars Saga and Star Wars Legends. One is "canonical" and the other is "unofficial/fan-media that is no longer a part of the official franchise". The studio did this for a reason, and having the two pages/topics separated really doesn't fall into the errors of creating a page purely based on canon installments. It's simply following in-line with what the studio official created back in 2014 - two lines/labels for the franchise. It's that simple.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:27, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand the nature of an encyclopedia. It doesn't matter what Disney has decided to call these works: we include facts and refect real-world nomencalture, but we do not let the subjects of articles dictate how we descibe them, or name articles. The entire concept of canonicity is in-universe because it is based on STORYLINE. And this article is not just about Legends in its current form, so your suggested name is just as incorrect as you are saying the current one is. I'm not saying that these articles may not need renaming or restructuring, but the distinction between the continuities is made perfectly clear without saying "this is an article about the material Disney says is canon" and "this is an article about all the stuff that is now part of a different continuity". We conceive articles from a real world perspective, which is: 1) they made three Star Wars films, 2) some other people wrote a bunch of licensed novels and comics, 3) Disney boiught the franchise, made some new movies and rebooted the continuity. Anyone who doesn't understand this should stick to contributing to Wookieepedia.— TAnthonyTalk 04:57, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Scope change
The name change seems to imply changing the scope of the article to that of the section Star Wars rather than strictly those branded "Expanded Universe" or "Legends". I have modified the lead to distinguish between "everything outside of the films", the Star Wars Expanded Universe/Legends, and official canon. 93 (talk) 11:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Revision of the page
I would like to propose to change the title of the page to "Star Wars canon" and rewrite it from another point of view: instead of talking just about Legends, talking about the Holocron, Star Wars canon rules and the difference between the 1976 and 2014 continuity.

--Aledownload (talk) 08:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think the article should be moved to Star Wars canon. I'm not exactly certain what the rewrite you're proposing looks like, but I agree that the article can be written to focus less exclusively on Legends content. The reason the article is written from the approach it is now is the article was moved. I am of the opinion that it needs to be rewritten to reflect its current title: to cover the attempts over the years to extend the Star Wars universe beyond that of the trilogy films and how LFL and later Disney handled those attempts. That includes the creation of the Legends and canon continuities, but I agree that the article should not be written from "this is how the continuity is" approach and more "these are things that exist outside the trilogies" approach. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  15:01, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Legends italicization
Per the official announcement, "Legends" is a banner for the old canon, not the title of a series—so it shouldn't be capitalized. This is consistent with how Star Wars Expanded Universe appears. Just because the italicized Legends has been hastily rolled out to a good number of articles is no reason to keep it. We should focus on doing things correctly, not arbritrarily italicizing something that isn't part of a title to maintain an incorrect status quo. UpdateNerd (talk) 20:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Journey to Star Wars is another example of a "banner" that appears on book covers, but only the franchise title appears italicized per our MOS. UpdateNerd (talk) 20:56, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Legends is not a generic word like novel or trilogy or Expanded Universe, it is not referring to actual "legends" but is rather a branding title. And as I mentioned in my edit summary, external sources do not dictate our style; the MOS is clear that style and punctuation for content from external sources should conform with our MOS, not the other way around. Many external sources do not italicize the names of books or films or TV series, but we do, so even in direct quotes we apply our accepted style. This is not the same thing as common name or terminology, where sources may dictate usage. The Star Wars Legends styling was decided upon in 2014 when the term originated, it has not been "hastily rolled out". I see implied consensus in the fact that no one has felt the need to challenge it in 5 years. But I encourage any discussion here that can affirm consensus one way or the other.— TAnthonyTalk 21:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding Journey to Star Wars, you say "only the franchise title appears italicized per our MOS" but is there an MOS rule or guideline I'm unaware of that covers this? That's how the program has been styled in our articles, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's the correct way.— TAnthonyTalk 21:14, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What consensus do you refer to that decided "Legends" was part of a title? As far as I'm aware, the chief person rolling this out to articles has been Rosvel92, whose edits are notoriously frought with typos (no offense to that editor).
 * On a related note, we don't even need to refer to Legends as often as we currently do. We should be referring to such works as Expanded Universe in section titles and prose related to pre-2014 content, and only refer to "Legends" when the rebranding itself is being discussed. That follows the same logic as not referring to prequel/sequel story ideas that hadn't been released at that time on articles related to older releases like the original trilogy, for example. UpdateNerd (talk) 21:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree that there was a kind of (overkill) mass-conversion of SWEU to Legends without consideration to context, and the fact that we don't have an actual article named Star Wars Legends (by consensus) is somewhat telling. And haha, as far as Rosvel92, I personally rewrote most of his entries circa 2014/2015 and I know he wasn't solely responsible for the Legends styling (and I don't think he's as detail-oriented/OCD about style as you and I are). I didn't singlehandedly make the change either, but I certainly did cleanup/enforce/conform it as necessary. I said the current styling was "decided" in 2014 because it was implemented everywhere and no one had an issues with it until now. I can't remember exactly how it came about so it's fine to debate the issue now to everyone's satisfaction, but in the meantime it's appropriate to maintain the STATUSQUO.— TAnthonyTalk 23:31, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is a tad OCD but it helps to figure out once and for all, so we know we are working off consensus, and not editing over each other with conflicting preferences. In-universe SW articles have been somewhat of a ghost town as far as quality-control until the past year or so, so the status quo in this case isn't the most stable. However, I'm perfectly willing to wait a while for a consensus discussion to take place before making more nitty-gritty changes across a large number of articles. UpdateNerd (talk) 23:47, 10 September 2019 (UTC)