Template talk:Star Wars/Archive 2

Legends?
If I understand correctly, Legends is a rebranding of the Lucas publishing. What's that got to do with the fact that there were spin-off films produced before Rogue One? It looks confusing for people who don't obsess about this stuff. Wilburycobbler (talk) 04:04, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * What exactly are you talking about? Star Wars Legends refers to a separate brand under Disney that includes all the old "Expanded Universe" content. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:54, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've seen what you were talking about now. The Legends content is separate from what Disney considers to be the Star Wars franchise now, and so it has been decided that we should reflect that real-world distinction here. If people are confused about it then they should read the articles we are linking to; it is not up to a navigation template to explain the complex branding history of a multi-media franchise such as this. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:59, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Legends is an artificial distinction that is beyond the realm of a navigation template. This is why we should reflect the real-life production history. An encyclopedia is supposed to document what is. Wilburycobbler (talk) 06:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This is real life. Disney split these works into a separate franchise with its own distinct title, in the real world. An in-universe argument on what's canon and how much that matters would be totally inappropriate, but that isn't what's happening here. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Wilburycobbler, I understand your concern that we not organize topics by anything but real-world perspective. The Legends thing (which does include all media outside the specified films, etc.) has been discussed in various places among the Star Wars articles and so far consensus has deemed that we use it as an organizational factor specifically as a means to prevent confusion moving forward. You might compare the concept to the Marvel Cinematic Universe, which is necessarily separate from the already convoluted franchise of actual comics. True, the Legends separation is most useful in individual articles where there is already contradictory in-universe plot info, and the navigation templates are probably just as effective if reorganized the way you suggest. I think the mindset, though, has been to separate Legends across all elements because not doing so in templates, for example, but then doing so in character articles (which is essential) might be even more confusing. I do think it's worth a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Wars, however, because you've hit upon a grey area that has probably never been fully discussed.— TAnthonyTalk 16:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * My issue is that this "Legends" distinction was applied retroactively. When the pre-Legends films and television series were produced, Lucasfilm didn't present them as anything other than a continuation of the franchise. In other words, changes in branding don't change the products themselves. The stories of these products may no longer be canonical, but when they were produced they most certainly were. I am not seeing consistency across the template, because if we are following the corporate branding, why are the saga films listed in real-world production order? Either everything should follow real-world production or everything should follow real-world branding. Wilburycobbler (talk) 20:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter when the distinction was made. If Disney also came out and said that all the non-film parts of the Marvel Cinematic Universe were being split off into their own separate universe with a separate name, then we would update the appropriate articles to reflect the new status quo even though all of those pages have been created with the knowledge that those parts were set in the MCU with the films. That's the point of everyone being able to edit Wikipedia: we can make changes and updates as is necessary, and a creation of a separate franchise by Disney should definitely be reflected. And there is no inconsistency, we are following the real-world production. The films are listed in real-world production order, and the Legends stuff is split off per the real-world production change announced by Disney. This isn't just about different Star Wars media being branded differently, it is about the completely separate franchises that now exist that have different names and serve different purposes. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The Legends split is not a real-world production change, nor is it a separate franchise. It is a classification system of what products are and aren't part of the canon. Within Lucasfilm, Star Wars is one franchise, Indiana Jones is another franchise, etc. Wilburycobbler (talk) 00:04, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not true, and it isn't the consensus from previous discussions either. If they had just announced that everything but the movies and Clone Wars was non-canon and then moved on from there then dividing them as we do would be completely in-universe, fanboyish and trivial. But that's not what happened. In addition to making them non-canon, they gave them a new name and pushed them into their own entity. Old EU works still get re-released now, and they are done so under the Star Wars Legends line rather than the Star Wars franchise that everything else is under. Obviously they aren't completely unrelated, hence their inclusion in this template, but there is still a real-world distinction being made here by Disney and we should reflect that. You can focus on the fact that some parts are canon and some are not, but that is irrelevant here. In the real world, the Star Wars Legends products are released as something separate from what Disney considers to be Star Wars, and we are reflecting that here. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "Legends" is a label they only put on some of the novel reprints. To the best of my knowledge, they do not use that label for any new products. It is more or less an internal classification system. You would have a point if Lucasfilm produced an ongoing line of products known as Legends, but they do not. So I maintain that the article should be changed to reflect real world production history. Wilburycobbler (talk) 06:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Legends only refers to content outside of the films and Clone Wars that was produced before Disney bought Lucasfilm. It was split off and given the new branding to differentiate it from all Disney's new Star Wars content. All the new books and comics are part of Star Wars proper, and tie-in with the films and TV shows both in terms of canon and publishing. That is why we have the distinction in the template between Star Wars books and comics, up the top with the films and TV shows, and Legends down below. And whether the line features new content or not is irrelevant: it is a separate thing, and it has been separated officially by Disney, not just by fans who care about canonicity. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:35, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That's true, but Legends is not a separate entity from Star Wars brand. It is a division within the Star Wars brand. It doesn't change the fact that these things were produced at a certain time with certain intentions. For instance, the original Star Wars film was not originally titled Episode 4 A New Hope. No matter how much Lucasfilm uses the new title, it doesn't change the fact that it was originally produced as a standalone film with a unique title. For this reason, the template presents it as it was originally produced: a film from 1977 that was the first film in a series, not as the fourth chapter. Wilburycobbler (talk) 00:09, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Like I've already said, it doesn't matter what the original intentions were. If we get new information, then we update the encyclopaedia. You can see that all the Legends stuff is still here on the Star Wars template. We're not trying to get rid of it. But Disney has split it off from the rest, so we are making that distinction as well. I see where you are coming from and understand that you may want to have it a certain way, but this is the official division made by Disney. The Episode IV analogue is irrelevant, because it is still the first Star Wars film. That has never changed and so we still present it as such. All that has happened is that we now have an alternate title which indicated its in-universe chronological status. But we aren't concerned with the in-universe here, only the real world facts. The real world facts are: Episode IV was the first film, released under the name Star Wars; and Disney has split a section of Star Wars content off to its own thing under the title Legends. Those are facts, and we are simply reflecting them. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I still don't understand why this template makes a distinction based on a branding decision. The purpose of these templates is to be as straightforward as possible. It should simply communicate "these are Star Wars films, these are Star Wars TV shows, these are Star Wars books" etc. The Legends distinction is a relatively trivial aspect that can be learned from the relevant individual articles. 07:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilburycobbler (talk • contribs)
 * That is all your opinion. I feel that splitting off the Legends content here makes it simpler, so we don't confuse readers learning about the topic by listing together articles that themselves state should be separate. And consensus is that the distinction is not trivial, which I think is mostly to do with the coverage and response to the change, and the lengths Disney and Lucasfilm are going to, to approach all Star Wars media now in a different way to how the old EU was handled. You are focusing on the change in canon and the branding, but there is more to it than that, which is why every one of these discussions has always ended with the decision to keep the Legends separate. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Wilburycobbler, you will love Star Wars comics, which I overhauled in August to eliminate in-universe perspective. It does not specify Legends, but of course there is a natural separation because of Marvel cleanly taking over the licensing in 2015. The need for separation becomes more obvious when you look at novels; Star Wars Legends novels is already huge (but will not grow), and Star Wars canon novels is only going to grow exponentially (and note, "canon" is not used within the template itself, only as an identifier for us). Both are arranged in as close to a real-world publication order as is possible, and again, technically these templates can be looked at as "Before 2014/Disney" and "After 2014/Disney". Perhaps that can be clarified. It's counter-productive to have them combined though.


 * I've been thinking about your argument and obviously I see the validity as much as I believe the older works shouldn't necessarily be mixed haphazardly with the new, for the various reasons we've discussed. Along those lines, what about a compromise in which we separate them in a different way, by taking your last version, with the following adjustments:


 * Rogue One and future spinoff films as Anthology
 * Clone Wars (2008) as Animated or Other
 * The bulk of TV series as Series (1986–2005)
 * Clone Wars (2008–14) and Rebels as Series (2008–present)


 * The Disney acquisition and 2014 announcement are notable enough real-world milestones, and I think something like this addresses both sides of this discussion.— TAnthonyTalk 19:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I would be against that proposal TAnthony. This navbox exists only to give readers easy navigation to other related pages. Having some complicated sorting system that is not all that obvious as to its intentions is just not helpful. Disney considers the Legends content to be separate from the rest of the Star Wars content, and so should we. It's that simple, and we shouldn't be trying to push personal views over how it actually is. When readers come here who know nothing of Star Wars, they will see all the media that Disney considers to be Star Wars, which they can navigate through if they wish. They will also see more products under the separate Legends heading, and can click on that link to find out what Legends means. If they find that other content interesting, then they can easily navigate through all the media considered to be Legends. We need to focus on the real world distinction made by Disney, and what will be best for the navigation of our readers, and not worry about canonicity, branding, and confusing compromises. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * How can you get any simpler than saying "here are the movies Lucasfilm has produced, here are the TV shows Lucasfilm has produced, here are the books Lucasfilm has produced, etc." Wilburycobbler (talk) 20:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Adamstom97, I don't entirely disagree with you either, but I'm becoming convincingly convinced of the opposing argument. To my knowledge the announcement designated the novels as Legends but only made the other media non-canon. It's not a "personal view", it is an interpretation of Wikipedia policy vs an external company's branding. We must admit, Legends is a storyline-based concept. There will be no new Legends material so I don't see how my proposal is confusing moving forward.— TAnthonyTalk 22:44, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Let me try be clearer with my argument, so that you guys can hopefully understand what I am trying to say. Sorry in advance for the length, but my shorter comments don't seem to be getting the point across:


 * Disney bought Lucasfilm in October 2012. Over the next few years, they established their intentions for the Star Wars franchise, and in April 2014 (see the link that TAnthony provided), announced that, moving forward, the Star Wars films, The Clone Wars, and all future Star Wars content would be "connected". This is an increasingly common practice that is often referred to as shared universe building, and is notable for Wikipedia due to the large amount of extra-ordinary production issues this requires, as well as the large amount of public and popular reception such undertakings receive. That is why we have such articles as Marvel Cinematic Universe, DC Extended Universe, and Arrowverse, which all detail (with varying degrees of quality) the significant production effort made to connect and cross-promote various projects across different media. This is obviously not a trivial process, so the fact that it is happening with Star Wars across two different film series, an animated series, several comic series, and more, is definitely notable enough for Wikipedia.


 * As part of this step towards a shared universe format, Disney announced (again in April 2014) that all previously released Star Wars media outside of the feature films and The Clone Wars animated series would be treated separately from the rest of previous Star Wars products. Future Star Wars creatives would not have to try to work into them, but could use them as inspiration for their projects, similarly to how many franchises treat source material such as adapting novels, or the influence of Marvel Comics on constructing the MCU. Also, due to their popularity, these older works would continue to be published (it is not specified to be just novels, but "past tales of the Expanded Universe"), but under a new Legends banner to separate them from Disney's new interconnected Star Wars franchise. See how this is not a trivial fan issue about canon, but instead a real world production issue that can and should be detailed by Wikipedia? In fact, I noticed that Disney's release on the EU/Legends change only uses the word "canon" twice, once to state that Lucas only considered the movies and The Clone Wars to be canon, which is irrelevant to our discussion, and once to refer to the first Star Wars product released by Disney as "the first new canon", which is clearly using the word in a different way. So I stand by my claim that this is not just an issue of continuity and canon, but of the real world status of the franchise: Disney and Lucasfilm have made a real world distinction that affects canon, as you have pointed out, but also affects much more; it is the latter that we are interested in for Wikipedia.


 * Now, how does this all apply to the navbox? The shared universe status is something that should be covered in the articles themselves, while this template is simply for navigation, right? Yes, but we still need to ensure that we aren't causing a divide between the two, since they have to work together. It's all well and good just heaping a list of links together in a template and telling our readers that they should read the articles to figure out how everything works, but is that really being helpful? As far as I am concerned, navboxes should be as organised and clear as possible so a reader can move easily between related articles and not get surprised or confused when they end up at an article that was implied to be different by the navbox. For instance, if we listed all the films here together, we wouldn't technically be doing anything wrong as far as this navbox is concerned, but for a new reader who doesn't understand how Star Wars works, they are likely to get confused by what each page is saying. Sure, after reading through each film page and maybe some others they may figure out what the different types of films are and how they work together, but that shouldn't be up to them when we are supposed to be providing helpful navigation. So, we have split up the films into the main series—which a new reader could look through, see the number of the film in the lead, and understand straight away—and other films—which state to a reader where they fit in with the other films, making it easy for them to understand—and it just makes it all easier for readers who aren't mega-nerd-fans like most of us.


 * So, Disney has made a distinction between its interconnected Star Wars franchise and what it considers to be Legends, works that are not connected but do provide inspiration. This distinction does create a canon vs. non-canon divide that is important to some people, but more notably for Wikipedia it raises many real world production concerns that can and should be covered by articles here. Since the articles are making this distinction, we must also make that distinction here so as not to confuse casual readers who do not understand the ins-and-outs of Star Wars. Therefore, the Legends content should be kept separate from all of Disney's interconnected Star Wars media in this template.


 * To more directly address your proposal TAnthony in the context of my reply here, you are suggesting listing all the Legends series, and then all the Star Wars series, but only distinguishing them in the template with date ranges. Surely you must see how that is problematic for a reader trying to figure out why there is a distinction being made there, as even reading the articles will likely not give them clear reasoning on the significance of the date ranges. What your proposing is putting the two different series together, but still sort of differentiating them based on the Legends status, but then not explaining that to our readers either. That really does not sound like an option to me. We either list all the media together, or we split off the Legends. The only way you guys can justify mixing the Legends in with the rest is if you continue to insist that the Legends distinction is merely a canon/story divide, and that any real world implications are irrelevant. I feel that I have made a very strong case for the importance and notability of shared universe production on Wikipedia, but if you have a specific case against my reasoning then I would be happy to hear it.


 * Again, apologies about the length. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The big question is: should Wikipedia follow the branding whims of a corporation, or should it document things as they actually are? Given that this is a media template and not a corporate template, it seems that media type would be the most logical dividing line. The only other grouping I can see making real-world sense would be to divide things into Lucas-era Star Wars and Disney-era Star Wars. For example, in the 1980s George Lucas made the Ewok movies. They're television productions that were made under the Lucasfilm banner. The fact that Lucasfilm was bought by Disney, then made these 25-year-old productions non-canon is relatively trivial compared to the fact that they were produced in the first place. I maintain that such details belong in the articles for the individual productions (and not on the template), so that the reader can get clarity on each product's place in the franchise. Anything else seems awkward and confusing for a template to attempt to cover. Wilburycobbler (talk) 02:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I just put a lot of effort into an argument that is sourced, and backed by Wikipedia policy and precedence, and you have just ignored it completely! You may disagree with me when I say that this about more than just canon and branding, or that a navbox shouldn't be confusingly different to the articles it links to, but that doesn't give you the right to pretend that I haven't said anything at all! How about you be mature about this and give me a proper response? If not, you should leave this template to editors who want to take it seriously. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I apologize if I came across that way, but I was attempting to genuinely respond to your last post. I think the bottom line is that I disagree that there is precedent or notability to the approach you are suggesting. I believe it only serves to confuse readers rather than help them navigate logically through the articles they are looking for. Wilburycobbler (talk) 21:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

If the consensus was that this distinction is notable and something to be covered in the linked articles, do you agree that this template should reflect that? Or are saying that no matter what is in the articles, we should be listing all the projects together? - adamstom97 (talk) 21:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If there is a consensus, of course it should reflect that. But I don't see where there was ever a true consensus. Wilburycobbler (talk) 00:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * But what I asked is, if the consensus was that this distinction is notable and something to be covered in the linked articles, do you agree that this template should reflect that? If you do agree with this specific statement, then our discussion only has to be about the notability of the distinction, and nothing else. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No. It's notable for the linked articles, because they are able to cover all angles of a topic, but I don't think it's notable enough for this template to cover. Wilburycobbler (talk) 05:50, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright, so you are saying that an article may be able to cover this distinction in a notable way, but we shouldn't reflect that here because this template cannot explain that distinction itself. I can understand where you are coming from with that, but I think it would be more confusing to not reflect the distinction if it is covered in the articles. For people learning about Star Wars and reading all the articles, they will learn of this distinction, which is notably covered in the articles, and then use the template to find other articles with this new knowledge. If the template doesn't reflect what they have been learning, then we will be confusing them unnecessarily. As an outside example, if someone is reading about Aegean cats and learns that they are a specific type of cat (a landrace cat), it would be helpful for them to have these different types of cats separated in the navigation at the bottom of the page: Domestic cat rightly does this.


 * For someone new to Star Wars who doesn't know what Legends is, they will be confused when they see the template. But if they click on Legends and read about this distinction, then they will no longer be confused and will be able to use the template to navigate the topic knowing what fits under the Legends banner and what doesn't. Likewise, someone who doesn't know what a landrace cat is will be confused when they come across that name in the domestic cat template. So, they can click on that link, find out what it means, and then use the template to navigate through cat articles while easily seeing what is a landrace and what is not. We don't expect new readers to instantly understand everything—this is an encyclopaedia, people come here to learn stuff. But that doesn't mean that templates like this should not acknowledge things that can only be understood after reading certain articles. If the most logical way to organise Star Wars articles is to separate out the Legends content as the articles describe, then we should do that, and make sure that new readers have easy access to links that explain why.


 * If the problem that a few people are having with this is that they feel the Legends distinction is just a matter of canon, then I think the articles need to be changed to better explain and discuss this issue. I have already provided some stuff above that I might get around to adding to article(s) to help clarify why the distinction is notable. My point is that, yes, this template is just for navigation. So we should set it up in the best way to navigate based on the article's content, and then leave it for those articles to explain why the template is the way it is. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Characters and organizations
I think Sith, Jedi & Stormtroopers should go under organizations while individual characters of high importance can go in the characters section. --NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 21:27, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * It's already a cluttered infobox, and without other adjustments adding a row with "high importance" characters -- probably a dozen+: Luke, Leia, Han, C-3PO, R2-D2, Vader, Palpatine, Rey, Finn, Kylo, Obi-Wan, Yoda, Padme, and then maybe Qui-Gon, Lando, Jabba, ... -- just adds to it. I agree with the underlying idea that it would be nice to make those characters more discoverable, but the broader busy context of this infobox doesn't lend itself to that. I wonder what we might trim out or truncate to give it more breathing room. --EEMIV (talk) 16:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

what I meant was if there's a section on characters, then we should put characters there. Jedi and Sith are not characters, but organizations.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 09:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Legends television
adamstom97: Our last discussion was different in that I wanted to merge all television without distinction. In my latest edits, I retain a clear distinction between canon and legends television. This new distinction consolidates the media types while helping to clean up a scattered and bloated template. Wilburycobbler (talk) 15:25, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * adamstom97 is referring to the "canon" discussion itself, which has been had multiple times. Basically, the concept of canon is in-universe and we should not be categorizing or organizing Wikipedia articles around it. We've agreed that Legends material should be separated/designated to make better sense of the material, but for the most part there should never be "canon" sections in articles, lists or templates. Canon material is the default for Star Wars material, it does not need to be separately identified. The canon vs. non-canon situation is described as necessary in relevant articles, and the non-canon material is separated or otherwise designated where not doing so would be confusing to readers.— TAnthonyTalk 15:37, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There needs to be a way of grouping the various media types together while letting the reader know what they are classified as. Otherwise the template is in a messy and confusing state. If there is an objection to using the "canon" classification, then perhaps just label legends as a subheading of television. Same goes for the films: if the Clone Wars movie isn't a spin-off, we simply need a new label that will fit all non-episodic films. I am at a loss as to why this seems to be such an issue. The current template is a headache and eyesore. I will do another revision attempting to address the objections. Wilburycobbler (talk) 18:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with some of your ideas, and yet part of your latest edit was a repeat of the Other vs Anthology setup that has already been objected to by other editors. And I also don't think Production belongs under Cultural Impact. Can you try one change at a time, and try to address editor concerns? I actually prefer your breakup of the Legends section.— TAnthonyTalk 18:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I've restored your change of the Legends section, which is an acceptable bold change that no one has specifically objected to as yet.— TAnthonyTalk 18:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * With the production section in mind, I wonder if the films should be separated into their own template? Or maybe one template devoted to the films, one to television, and one to books, comics and games. Or something like that. As it is, there are a lot of topics covered in this template. Wilburycobbler (talk) 18:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If we were to split this template off into smaller templates, then we lose the connections between the different media which I think are reasonably important. If someone is reading about Rogue One, for instance, it would be reasonable to assume that they also may be interested in Rebels and it would be good to give them an easy link for that. At this point, I think Star Wars as a whole is still considered to be Star Wars, not a collection of Star Warsy things that would indicate separate topics. Yes, this is a pretty big and crowded navbox, but as long as we keep it clearly organised then there shouldn't be a problem.


 * On that note, there should not be a Legends subsection of Television here. I have explained numerous times why the Legends vs. non-Legends issue is not a problem of canon (I agree that canon is trivial as far as an encyclopaedia is concerned), but of Disney creating two distinct entities that we should be keeping distinct as well. And that becomes even more important here, where you are trying to say that Legends is some sort of child of the Star Wars TV shows, which is just wrong and confusing. Legends is its whole own thing that happens to have TV shows as part of it, along with lots of other things. That is why it should have its own section, with its TV shows as a subsection of that.


 * You say there "needs to be a way of grouping the various media types together". Why? Because that's what want? If Disney considers the "Star Wars TV shows" and the "Star Wars Legends TV shows" to be separate things, then so should we. That distinction is not made on media types, so why should we be deciding to make our own distinction based on some other criteria?  would be unencyclopaedic. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I know that we typically designate every newly non-canon work as Legends, but have any of the official announcements actually branded any media other than novels as Legends? I'm definitely an advocate of separating Legends material within articles and lists, which mitigates story confusion. It also sort of reinforces real-world chronology since canon works were/are produced in specific time spans. But I don't know that this argument is still valid when talking about navigation templates. They are for navigation, not for presenting information, organization of a topic, or establishing hierarchy, like a table in an article might be. We only organize topics in a nav template to aid in making sense of its entries, and the sophistication of this organization only increases as the number of entries do. I kind of think that in the case of the TV entries, they should simply be mixed together, by date. There is really no value in designating which are canon and which are not in this context, which is essentially what we are doing by separating the Legends brand. Navboxes are not the same as articles.— TAnthonyTalk 00:31, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * RE: adamstom97 No, as I have explained before, the real world yielded certain productions, and our job as Wikipedians is to document that in the context of our articles and templates. Many of these projects existed for decades before Disney created their new canon system. If anyone, it is you who are insisting on a certain classification. I've compromised by making the Legends TV projects as a clearly-labeled subset of the overall TV section (not a "child" of the TV shows) yet you still insist on a confusing and bloated system of organizing this stuff. As for dividing the template, I was thinking along the lines of how Wikipedians have handled certain other cultural juggernauts, where the films/TV/other media are on one template and the setting/cultural impact/production are on another. Wilburycobbler (talk) 00:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * TAnthony, the Legends banner will only have been physically applied to anything that has been re-released since the change, and I'm not sure if that has been the case with anything other than the novels. But, the announcement groups all the old EU stuff together, so even if we decide that this stuff is technically not Legends, it is still part of the separated EU which we have been labeling Legends and should all be kept together. Regardless, that seems to me to be a discussion for another place. Like you say, the navbox is just for making things easier for people to navigate around the various articles. To do that, we can group things together and do a bit of organising to make things clearer and simpler. We could have all the films and TV shows lumped together, but it is easier for readers to navigate if we make that obvious division there. Likewise, we could have all the Star Wars and Legends stuff mixed together, but again we would be mixing together separate things that are clearer when kept apart. We shouldn't be implying that the old EU stuff "goes together with" what we know as actual Star Wars when we keep them separate everywhere else.


 * Wilburycobbler, the production of all these projects happened in the real world, yes. The division and classification by Disney also happened in the real world. You want us to ignore the latter because you don't like it, but it isn't up to us to make those decisions. We need to reflect that they were made (by including them in the navbox) that they were later re-classified (by dividing them appropriately). Take Template:Batman in popular media as another example: all of the films with Batman are just films about that character. Ignoring in-universe, canonical issues, they should all be listed together. But they have been officially classified as separate franchises, and so are rightfully separated into those. You could argue, "Batman & Robin and Batman Begins were only put in different franchises because they have different continuities. Wikipedia doesn't like talking about canon, so we should ignore that and lump them all together!" But we shouldn't be thinking like that. The decision was made to create different "sub"-franchises, and we reflect that there. So, the same should apply here—Disney segregated off the EU content, so we should do so as well. It doesn't matter what their criteria was for doing it was, what matters is that they did it, whether you like it or not. Also, this template is nowhere near what those crazy big music ones are. I think splitting this one up would be premature. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:53, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Adam, I have no problem with Disney's decision, and by starting this discussion in the first place I made concessions to our last discussion on this subject. I don't see what the problem is with having all the films together, TV together, etc. but designating what is legends. Putting the legends stuff into its own section is bizarre, because it comes across as if it is some brand new product that can't be classified as a film, TV, book product, etc. and of course inflates and muddies up the template. The Batman example is irrelevant to this particular discussion, because unlike our last discussion, I am not arguing that everything be listed together without distinction. But just for the sake of argument, those projects were made from the get-go with the intention of being different. In contrast, the Legends continuity was a re-branding of pre-existing content. Wilburycobbler (talk) 03:09, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I have a lot of different reasons based on feelings and implications for why I personally feel that your format is just unnecessarily confusing, particularly for people who don't actually know how all this stuff works (i.e. the people we should be catering for), but I am going to try and keep this logical. As we have already discussed numerous times, officially there are two separate things: Star Wars and the EU/Legends/[whatever]. So we have articles that make up the entity that is Star Wars. We have articles about the making/details of the entity that is Star Wars. We have articles that make up the entity that is Legends. And we have article about the cultural impact of Star Wars, in this case referring to both the entity that is Star Wars and the things that were once considered part of Star Wars and so also had a part in the cultural impact. The most logical order for those four sections to then be presented is to have the entity that is Star Wars (arguably what people will be using the navbox for the most), and then the making/details of that, and then the cultural impact that it has had. And then, with the entity that is Legends, it should come before the cultural impact since the latter applies to it as well. And that ordering is this one here.

As for this making it sound like Legends is some sort of medium akin to film and TV ... no. For one, there are more sections with non-medium titles than there are medium-titles. Do we think people are going to get confused because they think "Setting" is some new medium they hadn't heard about? Also, the title is clearly in italics to note that it is the name of something, and it is linked to a whole article explaining what it means. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:57, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand what you're saying and agree that a distinction has to be made. But we also must have things logically categorized according to what they actually are. So, for example, the Droids series is a TV series and it is categorized as Legends, so it would go under a Legends subset of Television. This satisfies both your and my concerns.
 * However, you are incorrect in asserting that Legends is a wholly separate entity from the Star Wars franchise. It is, as my idea for the template reflects, a subset of the Star Wars franchise. To quote the 2014 announcement: "While the universe that readers knew is changing, it is not being discarded. Creators of new Star Wars entertainment have full access to the rich content of the Expanded Universe. For example, elements of the EU are included in Star Wars Rebels. The Inquisitor, the Imperial Security Bureau, and Sienar Fleet Systems are story elements in the new animated series, and all these ideas find their origins in roleplaying game material published in the 1980s." Wilburycobbler (talk) 19:47, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Droids is still under a "Television series" header though. As for that quote from the announcement, that just says that new creators will be borrowing elements from the old EU but are not beholden to it, sort of like how the Marvel Cinematic Universe freely borrows characters and concepts from the comics, but is not beholden to them and really tells its own stories. Speaking of the MCU, Template:Marvel Cinematic Universe is another example that I would compare this to. It could be completely ordered by media type (without the MCU-inspired heading at the bottom) and it would be technically correct, but for a subject where the creators (not just the fans) but so much weight behind what is canon/in-continuity/connected—for real world production issues rather than just fanboy fantasy stuff—it was agreed that we should note to readers which things are considered to be sort of separate. So we list everything that is considered to be part of the MCU by media, and then the things that are considered to be sort of separate by media. We still have everything there—we aren't removing things from the template because of canon. But we are indicating to the readers which things go together and which things are sort of something else, based on what the creators have told us. That is why this template should list all the Star Wars links together, by media, and then the things that are sort of something different (but still fit into the template), by media as well. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:23, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The big difference is that Legends is not a separate franchise. In fact, it's the complete opposite of the Marvel situation; Rather than media being inspired by the Marvel films, the current Star Wars EU is inspired by the success of the old Star Wars EU. Even the prequels were partly inspired by the success of the early EU novels. It is intellectually dishonest to claim that Legends is something separate when it has served such an important role in the overall franchise. Wilburycobbler (talk) 15:13, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It is alright to have an appreciation for the old EU and what you think it means in terms of the grand scope of Star Wars, but as far as Disney is concerned they are still separate things. Not separate enough that I think the Legends stuff shouldn't be included here at all, but still enough to give them their own subsection within the wider franchise. The reason I brought up the MCU example is that Marvel made a big deal of what is canon to the MCU and what is not, which we followed due to the real-world production implications. Here, Disney made a big deal of what is true Star Wars and what is not, which again has real-world production implications, so we should again follow that decision. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:30, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Your concept for the template has no basis in real-world production implications. As I have noted before, you are refusing to see this outside of an in-universe perspective and corporate branding. Those things are certainly important to note in the template (again, my intention with this discussion was to make a compromise), but in no way do they justify an entirely separate section. I linked you the article in which Disney made its position clear, yet you continue to insist they are saying something they are not. Wilburycobbler (talk) 02:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Corporate branding is from the real-world, and should at least be considered. The creative and production-implications of how Disney's Star Wars interacts with the EU and discards its influence or uses it as source material is also very much from the real-world, and should more-than be considered. All of that is laid out pretty clearly in the article that you have helpfully linked to. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:24, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Let me put it this way: you are trying to say that Legends is a subsection of the Star Wars TV shows, but it is a subsection of the franchise as a whole—there is Star Wars, and within that overall franchise there is a group of projects (not just TV shows) that have been identified as Legends. In translating that to the navbox, we have the overall template (the overall franchise) and then within that a section on Legends (a section of the franchise, as identified by that official source we have). - adamstom97 (talk) 05:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You and I are in agreement that a division should be noted, but your idea of how to go about it only serves to confuse readers and make the template larger and more complicated than it need be. No one is saying that Legends is a subsection of the TV shows. In our previous discussion, I proposed putting all media together in their various categories and letting the individual articles specify canon or legends, but you insisted Legends be a part of the template. That's fine. Let's just go with the compromise I have proposed in this discussion (by specifying Legends in appropriate subsections if need be) and then drop it. Wilburycobbler (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You are the one that is confusing readers. You say "No one is saying that Legends is a subsection of the TV shows", but have a look at the template now: Legends is literally a subsection of the TV section. This is why I think this is so important—if this template is how casual readers find information about Star Wars, then the way we organise will have a big effect on that. Hypothetically, if we were to decide as a community that we didn't think the prequels should be listed alongside the originals, and hid the links to those films at the bottom of the tempate away from the film section, then that could have a massive effect on readers, at least causing quite a bit of confusion.


 * That is why I feel Legends should be noted here, to make everything clear to the readers before they go reading through all the articles trying to figure it out. And what is Legends to the wider franchise? A "sub-section" created based on several creative and corporate decisions. So how should a sub-section of Star Wars be represented in the Star Wars navbox? As a sub-section of the Star Wars TV shows? No, it should be a sub-section of the Star Wars franchise. I don't think that is too much to ask. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a way of both specifying Legends and grouping media types into their respective categories. It's a much clearer way of presenting the information than putting all the Legends stuff off in its own section. Wilburycobbler (talk) 17:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As soon as you say that Legends is a sub-section of the TV shows you are just making everything more confusing. Legends is not a sub-section of the Star Wars TV series, and so should not be used as a sub-section of them in the navbox as you have done. That seems pretty logical and straight-forward for me to say. Honestly, if you can't give me a good reason for being so clearly wrong and confusing then I'm going to have to assume that you just don't like my way and aren't going to be reasonable at all. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Disney and their branding should not necessarily be dictating how we organize our content, and again, nav boxes are different than articles. Let's face it, when we separate Legends material out we are defining what is canon and what is not, no matter how we are otherwise justifying it. It's an extra, unnecessary layer of complication in a navigation tool. I just took Wilburycobbler's edit to the next level and bundled all the TV links together to see how it plays. It doesn't seem like a big deal to me.— TAnthonyTalk 02:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "Let's face it..." um, no, I have explained many times already why this is not the case, and I am happy to do so again. But I think we should keep the discussion to a single place, so can we just stick to the newest section rather than starting another thread on essentially the same thing? - adamstom97 (talk) 10:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I inadvertently added my comment to a previous section. But this is no longer a "discussion", it is an endless back and forth between two editors who will never agree. Hopefully someone else will chime in. In any case, I know you've explained why Legends needs to be separated in this navbox, and that's fine, but I'm saying that the layout and organization of a Wikipedia navigation tool does not necessarily have anything to do with how Disney brands the franchise. I think the current Legends-separated version is fine, but I don't see how it helps navigation, since it is basically a collection of pre-2014 works in varying media. If the average reader is looking to navigate to one of the Ewok movies, they go to Television and ... it's not there. Does that reader even know what Legends is to know to look there? Do we really need to add that layer of sophistication? I know you think it's important that we designate this material separately, but why? "Because Disney does" is not a good enough reason when we are talking about a template, considering it is a handful of links that fit well into other sections based on real-world media and chronology. And the company's rebranding was predicated on their desire to create new storylines. We can harp on the "main franchise" and "the Legends works" as if it's some important distinction, but we're really saying "the canon material" and "the newly non-canon stuff". We don't usually concern ourselves with story or canonicity in navboxes unless we have a real necessity to break up giant sections of links. I'm sure other franchise navboxes do get into this sort of thing, but then I doubt they have been noticed by any mainstream editors outside of the fanbase.— TAnthonyTalk 14:25, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The navigation should reflect the articles that it links to; you wouldn't put a link to Rebels in the film section, that would just be wrong and confusing. Likewise, we shouldn't be placing links in such a way that they are still "correct" but imply something else, or are not the clearest. If we accept that the Legends distinction is noteworthy for Wikipedia and should be discussed in the articles (which it is, due to the real world production implications rather than canon or anything like that), then we need to make sure that we don't contradict that anywhere, and we do our best to help clarify the difference anywhere we can. Legends is not the equivalent of "non-canon", it is a separate entity within the franchise. Saying that this is just about canon is yet another disingenuous attempt to ignore all the policy-based reasons I have given for making this distinction. One more time: this has nothing to do with canon, and is not just about Disney's branding. I don't know how much clearer I can make that, especially when you refuse to accept the examples of similar situations I have given, on the basis that you don't want me to be right. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * What exactly are we "implying" that is so incorrect by ignoring Legends in a navbox? We are separating links by real world media and other classifications, there is no confusion. The separation in a nav box is more likely to create confusion. Legends may be notable in the context of production or story but I don't see its value here at all. None of the justifications above seem particularly valid to me. In my mind you aren't seeing the difference between articles and navigation templates in this regard, and that's fine, I had no delusions that I'd be able to convince you of anything. And which of us is it that wants to be right so badly?— TAnthonyTalk 00:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * And where is it established that the old TV and multimedia are actually branded as Legends? It would help to know that.— TAnthonyTalk 00:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, no one is saying we should put a TV show link in a film section or any such nonsense. How does the current Legends navigation "reflect the articles that it links to" if those articles are not in a specific Legends category? You're grasping at straws. Navboxes are not meant to provide information or even context, they are mreant to navigate among articles. So we need not use them to "clarify" content. Especially something like why Droids is different than Rebels. But I suppose there's no use in us going back and forth until some others stop by.— TAnthonyTalk 03:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * When we put things together, we are implying that they go together. Given the fact that navboxes are meant to show people similar articles that they may want to read, we need to at least get that right. The reason I brought up the "nonsense" TV example is because we can't just ignore what the articles are. Why do we sort the TV shows and films out? Because they are different things and we need to reflect that. Since the Legends are different things, the same logic applies. And as I have already explained, I do not know if the TV shows and multimedia have been officially referred to as Legends yet, but even if they have not they are still part of the old EU, and as long as we are using the terms EU and Legends interchangeably (which is the case at the moment), then we should to. Like you say, it isn't up to us to get into all those details.


 * Now, you guys need to put yourselves in the shoes of somebody who doesn't know all of this stuff like us, because again, that it really the point here. Perhaps someone has seen one of the films and is reading the Wikipedia article on it, and in the navbox sees that there are Star Wars TV shows and wants to learn a bit about them. They click on the first series, Droids, and learn all about it. What have we, by labeling that show as a Star Wars TV show and associating it with the films, just done? We have misled and potentially confused a reader by making them think that they are learning about a TV series that is connected to the Star Wars films when that is actually not the case at all. Now, think of the same situation but with the Legends shows separated out. The reader will read about the connected TV shows (The Clone Wars and Rebels). So far so good. They then see this other section called Legends, which has some more TV shows in it. "That's funny, why are some of the TV shows in a different section down here?" The reader will then click on the title of that section, Legends, and be taken to an article that explains exactly why that is. With the confusion cleared up, they can choose whether they want to navigate through the Legends TV shows as well, or not. In doing this, we have successfully directed a reader to articles they want to read, and helped them decide about a group of others. In short, we have improved the reader's ability to navigate the topic and reach the articles they want to reach.


 * I'm not trying to say that this navbox should be providing extra details or context, I know full well that this is just for navigating between the articles. But we also need to make that navigation easier for the reader. That is why we separate the links into logical sections with helpful headers, so we can help them find articles they may want to find. Otherwise we should just lump all of them together and make the reader go through each article until they find the one they want. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I think that's the crux of our difference of opinion: you think that separating six TV series into two separate sections helps navigation, and I don't. I honestly, totally do understand your point of view. But ... so we have led the reader to believe that Droids is "connected to the Star Wars films"? Well, it is. It features characters from the films, occurs in the seemingly same universe, and more. Oh wait, it occurs in a different continuity? Disney sells it with a different color stripe on the DVD? Oh no. I'm so confused. I can learn about those nuances in the articles themselves, which we've filled with explanations of what Legends is. To me it's more confusing to see a nav box and wonder why the TV shows aren't all together. Yes, anyone will see Legends and immediately get that it's some separate product line, but why are we assuming that a reader who is interested in reading about these shows needs to be hit over the head with what is "associated with" or "connected to" what at that level? That's storyline thinking. And there are six links. Navigation templates provide navigation between related articles. Droids and Rebels are related; they are animated TV series featuring Star Wars characters.


 * Hahaha I think we can go back and forth forever adamstom97 ;) In any case, I don't think either way is particularly detrimental.— TAnthonyTalk 05:16, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we both agree that either way would work, and just have different opinions on which one is going to be most useful to readers. I'm going to go ahead and merge the Legends content back in with the rest of the stuff and withdraw from this debate for now, but with the intention of revisiting this in the future, as I still feel quite strongly about having them separate. Just to be clear, I absolutely do not support making Legends a sub-section of the television series, which is so obviously wrong I find it hard to believe that our colleague Wilburycobbler was being serious when arguing for it. Other than that, I wish you all the best. Until next time, adamstom97 (talk) 11:50, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * TAnthony, that is exactly what I was arguing in a previous discussion! It makes so much sense that I find it hard to believe that our colleague adamstom97 is being serious in arguing against it. ;) Wilburycobbler (talk) 15:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Ordering of films, series etc
I see someone's already tackled a recent re-ordering edit (thank you), but I thought I'd just mention the WP Manual of Style on this one - according to MOS:REALWORLD, "ordering works by their fictional chronology, rather than the actual order they were published" is discouraged. Wikipedia has a "real-world perspective", rather than an "in-universe" perspective, so films such as the Star Wars Saga should be ordered by date of production (1977, 1980, 1983... etc) not by fictional sequence (Episode I, Episode II.... etc). Cnbrb (talk) 17:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2017
I suggest changing the "Other" film category to make it more clear. There should be a Sage tab (like there already is), and then an Anthology tab (separate), and then and Other tab with the Clone wars with it. 68.33.17.129 (talk) 15:34, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 15:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2018
Xavier0300 (talk) 19:15, 11 February 2018 (UTC) Not done: as you have not requested a change. Please request your change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also explain the reason for your request, or it cannot be considered. - Arjayay (talk) 19:34, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Forthcoming films
I probably should have opened this discussion before I reverted you just now regarding whether to use future dates or the word "forthcoming" next to upcoming saga films. The TV and Book WikiProjects follow WP:CRYSTAL pretty strictly, mentioning upcoming release dates in articles but (in my experience) not categorizing works as "2017 British drama series" or "2018 American novels" until they have premiered or been published. It is also commonplace to use "upcoming" or "forthcoming" in related navigation templates. I just looked, and The Last Jedi is in Category:2017 films and the untitled Han Solo film is in Category:2018 films. I'm not sure if this is because the Film Project is a little more relaxed, or the Star Wars fanboys are just pushing the envelope (you know how excited we get LOL). Anyway, I thought this was a no-brainer, but if others chime in that we should have the dates in this template then fine. I am going to bring this topic up at the Project level though regarding the articles themselves, please join in that discussion as well. Thanks.— TAnthonyTalk 16:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * From my experience, the Film Project just seems to be more relaxed on this issue than TV is: MOS:TV has WP:TVUPCOMING that talks about not adding years until a show begins airing, but I don't know if Film has an equivalent. If the decision is to not include dates for upcoming films in the template, then they should just have nothing beside them. Either say what date it was released, or don't say anything at all. Listing a film here as "forthcoming" just seems silly to me. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "Forthcoming" does not look good at all; I would suggest reverting back to prior to this new grouping of the three trilogies and the removal of the scheduled release dates. "Saga" does the trick nicely and like what Adamstom.97 stated, either have the tentative dates or nothing at all. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 07:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

== Other films ==

I don't see the point in having an extra category for one film. I believe it gives more clarity to the reader by grouping all the spin offs together. Wilburycobbler (talk) 12:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for opening this discussion. I tend to agree and am fine with this change. The "Anthology" moniker is also basically branding, and should necessarily warrant its own sectioning separate from the animated film when we're talking about a total of three films. — TAnthonyTalk 14:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Other is stupid, since you cannot quantify other, so I changed Other to Animation as you can quantify animation and what animation is. Since you never know if they decide to do another animated feature based Star Wars. DoctorHver (talk) 22:24, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Planets and moons
There are only 11 entries on the Star Wars planets and moons template, so I'll propose moving those items here under 'Settings' with a section 'Planets and moons' (with a section break after 'Planets'). The planets and moons template isn't even on the main Star Wars page. Seem okay? Randy Kryn (talk) 15:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Moved per no objections. Looks fine and adds quite a bit of information to the template. Maybe the Planets and Moons template can be deleted per other templates being merged, or left as is for its condensed information usefulness. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Combining all fictional universe articles into a new template
I've realized that many of the current Star Wars templates overlap each other and are quite short. So, I propose that Star Wars characters, Star Wars planets and moons, Star Wars species, Star Wars vehicles and the entries in the "Setting" section of this template be combined/split into a new Star Wars universe template. This way, Star Wars would focus solely on the franchise media and the all the others fictional universe items would be grouped together for easier use. Thoughts? And please be free to make changes to the proposed templates below. - Brojam (talk) 23:34, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Proposed new template


 * Proposed modified Star Wars franchise template

Discussion

 * Great idea, (December 29, 2017 EDIT: but Oppose for now, see below, until the use of both templates on the film articles is agreed to) except I'd change the names to simply "Star Wars Universe" and "Star Wars franchise". The universe template seems well done with maybe a few tweaks (can you please flip the 'Organizations' and 'Character' sections, for both topic relevance and priority sectioning as well as it would make 'The Force' the first entry, which is cool). Nice work. The major problem is that if this passes then it should mean that both templates should be almost every major Star Wars page (such as the films, for sure the films should have both templates). Some editors may object to that under that biolocation guideline, or whatever they call it, and if it would separate the templates that much I personally would have to be against a split. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Since Star Wars is a franchise, there's no need to add it to the title. While I would love for the new template to be simply called "Star Wars Universe" (should be with a lowercase 'u' for universe), I don't think Wikipedia allows it since it's essentially a name we would be creating. Similarly why "Harry Potter universe" was changed to "Fictional universe of Harry Potter". I'm going to wait before making the switch between "Organizations" and "Characters" sections because I don't quite agree with you in terms of their priority and importance. In the current template, "Characters" is first and "Organizations" is in fact much lower so maybe it should to be placed lower. I'll let other editors give their opinions.
 * The only pages that would have both of these templates are the main Star Wars article and the four list of characters articles (Star Wars, Legends, The Clone Wars, and Rebels). In fact this would greatly reduce the number of templates on many pages, such as Wookiee that has three templates when it really only needs one. Why does the films need the new template as well? They currently don't have the characters template so why would they need species, planets, moons, etc. The terms used in each film's article are all properly linked in the plot and cast sections for the readers, which is more than enough. The template at the bottom of the films' article should not include the items of the fictional universe, but instead the media articles related to the films. - Brojam (talk) 07:45, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Then (EDIT: still) opposed for now if the Star Wars films won't have the universe template on them. The two-template idea thus greatly reduces the amount of information that the films template-section will contain. This is also the wrong time of year to be doing this, as many editors will miss it due to the December holidays, so this discussion should go well into January if any action is to be taken. One but not the primary reason I suggest moving 'Organizations' before 'Characters' is to reduce the clutter at the top of the template that the 'Characters' section brings. And although three templates on a page is fine and far from clutter, the species template will probably be deleted soon because of the merge, leaving only two templates on 'Wookiee'. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:27, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The films should not have in-universe items in their template. The only thing I could see being worth having in the main template is the characters, so maybe we should add them (those from the films and tv series)? There are many of them, but it doesn't look too bad. And yes, this discussion should go well into January. I figured that since TLJ was just released many will be looking at the Star Wars wiki articles. - Brojam (talk) 06:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I just suggest that the section "Other" under characters be possibly changed to "Lists"? ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  02:15, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Good point, done. This made me think, should we be separating the Legends characters like that or should they be all together? We don't separate the Legends content in the main template. - Brojam (talk) 07:45, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I like this idea, because this template is very large ... but I'm also hesitant about, for example, the film articles not having a template with the characters, etc. Obviously relevant topics are linked within the articles, but this is one of those templates I actually use to navigate the various articles in this franchise.— TAnthonyTalk 17:34, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * BTW, thanks Brojam and Randy Kryn for the improvements you've been making to this template, including margining in content from the small ones. Brojam I also really like your layout for "Species" in the universe template above, very clever.— TAnthonyTalk 17:39, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * But currently, the films do not have a template with the characters in them. They used to have one, but those individual film templates that included the characters were just deleted. Maybe we should add the film and tv characters in the main template? - Brojam (talk) 06:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. As for having both templates on the film and other pages, that's just common sense, and should be done and expressly written into this proposal by ignoring all rules (esp. that guideline on biodiversity or whatever its name is). Randy Kryn (talk) 19:22, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Although I don't really like the idea, I'm not completely opposed to making a rule to have both templates on the films and tv series articles. Just not sure many others will want that since the new template is pretty much all in-universe items. - Brojam (talk) 06:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Support - nice idea. Wikipedia does take a real-world perspective, so the emphasis should be on the production of the films and the franchise. There will naturally be demand for an in-universe navbox of course, but it mustn't get out of control. Perhaps it would be neater to have a link in the top section of each navbox to allow the user to switch between real world and fictional universe navboxes. Cnbrb (talk) 01:54, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: another method worth considering could be the Template:Navbox with collapsible groups, if you wanted to combine real-world and in-universe links into one tempalte. Cnbrb (talk) 18:00, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Suggestion: in the top bar of each navbox, cross-link the templates to allow the user to switch between real-world and fictional navboxes, thus:


 * Just an idea anyway. Happy new year everyone. Cnbrb (talk) 16:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We should definitely NOT be doing this. We should never take the reader out of main article space and into template space from a navbox.  -- wooden  superman  09:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Chbrb, that's a very good idea, although impractical to get past the guards-at-the-gate. The most logical and common-sense thing to do if the template is split in two is use both templates on the film pages, and pages like George Lucas. Bidirectional is a guideline, not a policy, and it has exceptions - the Star Wars films containing the in-universe template would certainly be a clear exception. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Randy for your feedback. It's a pity "we should NOT be doing this" - I only suggested it because I have seen it used on several other navbox templates, so assumed that it was acceptable practice. But with this in mind, I refer back to my suggestion of using Template:Navbox with collapsible groups:

The Real-world or Fictional Universe groups can be shown/collapsed as appropriate to the article, it condenses all SW content into one navbox reducing proflieration of templates, and nobody gets taken out of the main article space. Cnbrb (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support the idea of a single template for in-universe articles as proposed, and one for the real-world articles. No issue with the fact that the in-universe navbox won't be on the film articles.  This is correct per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, and we lose nothing from the current situation, where the different navboxes aren't on the individual film articles anyway.  If a character (for example) is in a certain film, then this should ordinarily be linked to from the article, so navbox navigation would be unnecessary.  One thing though, links to George Lucas and Lucasfilm should not be given prominence in the "above" section, as it wouldn't be common practice to include these in other navboxes of this type and are only included here as an exception.  -- wooden  superman  09:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixed the George Lucas and LucasFilm links. - Brojam (talk) 02:44, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This does show the inherent weakness of the bidirectional guideline, as including both proposed templates on the film pages is an obvious exception, and would likely be on the film articles. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:16, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No, there's no exception needed. Any concept that is included in a film would most likely be linked to from the article.  We don't need to include both navboxes, which exist to cover gaps in navigation which isn't ordinarily covered through normal linking.  WP:BIDIRECTIONAL is a robust and sensible guideline, not inherently weak as you claim. -- wooden  superman  11:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Support per nom, a great improvement over the current situation.— TAnthonyTalk 16:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The Force is not an organization, it's a concept. If this idea "passes" and two templates are formed, then according to some editors (cough woodensuperman cough) The Force cannot be linked within the template stack of any of the Star Wars films. They point to the biolocation (or whatever it's name translates to) guideline, and insist on compliance. This is The Force, the center, the core, the heart of the Star Wars films. To exclude the proposed template containing its link shows there is something wrong with the obviously flawed concept of "bidirectional", and we should really draw some kind of spacetime line here to say "this shall not stand (in other words, an exception to the guideline is obvious)". And may The Force be with all in the New Year! Randy Kryn (talk) 23:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The force is an in-universe concept, and therefore belongs on the in-universe template, not the real world one. The in-universe navbox should not be placed on real-world articles.   If that's the point you're trying to make?  -- wooden  superman  11:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, and no, my concern is that at present, in the proposed template, The Force is listed as an organization. It of course isn't an organization but a concept. Since I don't think "we" are supposed to change the templates until or if they are exchanged for the present template I was hoping the creator of the proposed templates would change it (probably by re-adding a 'Concepts' section). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've re-added the "Concepts" section. - Brojam (talk) 04:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Pinging top editors of this template for their opinions on this proposal. - Brojam (talk) 02:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This sounds like an excellent idea to me. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed, this seems like an improvement on the current set-up. If no problems arise it should also provide a good precedent for bloated franchise navboxes in general. —Flax5 16:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the nudge. I support the general notion of pulling a bunch of disparate nav templates together. I've been kind of a Wiki Force ghost long enough that I'm vague on best practices around structure and flow within templates. Caught glimpse a few lines up about where The Force fits in this. Although it shouldn't matter, that particular article is in very good shape in terms of offering up a real-world perspective on the subject (it's really one of only a couple of articles that bring me back to Wikipedia regularly... I need all these damn movies to stop coming out; all this interest in Star Wars is gumming up my Watchlist activity....), and it'd be a shame for it to get lost in the shuffle. --EEMIV (talk) 17:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Since there has been no further discussion for several days and a pretty clear consensus has been formed, I'm going to go ahead and make the changes. - Brojam (talk) 05:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2018
I am offering the suggestion to change the displayed title on the template for Episode IV from "Star Wars" to "A New Hope". While I know that "Star Wars" was it's original given name in 1977, it's extremely jarring to see the official subtitles for every other film on the template except this single film. I also find it redundant to find the title of the film as "Star Wars", when the template already displays the entire franchise as "Star Wars" itself. I really do feel like it will fit the mood of the entire template better if this simple change were made. Thank you for your consideration, and may the Force be with you! 72.49.222.71 (talk) 10:32, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * And also with you (amen?). I would oppose your good faith suggestion, and I'm assuming this has been discussed at length on several talk pages with the consensus being to keep the name as it, because it is the name of the original film. It's where 'Star Wars' came from. As an encyclopedia Wikipedia should, I usually advocate, stick to real-world names of artworks, and this film was released and became notable under the name Star Wars. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:37, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, this was a much-discussed issue that resulted in, as you can see, the article for the film being named Star Wars (film). I do prefer years to be included in templates like this to eliminate any confusion (as is commonly done in TV templates), but WP Film tends to avoid this.— TAnthonyTalk 17:28, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I am closing this request as Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: per the discussion above. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 14:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Anthology vs Story
Regarding this: I've restored the template to its "original" state since two editors have objected to the change (myself included), pending further discussion here. When I first saw the change from "Anthology" to "Story", I didn't get that it was a truncated version of A Star Wars Story (it should probably have been italicized Story). It's proper that we not repeat Star Wars in the template, but "Story" alone is so generic that it invites confusion (my first thought was story vs screenplay when crediting writers). We have a perfectly apt real-world classification for the spin-off films, "Anthology", which is well-sourced, and seems more navbox-appropriate than Story, which feels like branding. I know at least one editor agrees with me, but I'm interested to see how the community feels. Thanks.— TAnthonyTalk 14:12, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that "Story" should definitely not be used, but I think we should have both analogy films and the TCW animated film grouped together as "Other" since for now there are only two analogy films. - Brojam (talk) 14:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If there be a change, then I would support Brojam's idea of just having one "Other" section, but I do not feel that there is a strong for the change. As for issue in the heading here, the series of films are an anthology, even if they don't have that word in the title. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:41, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The films are still largely talked about in sources as anthology films, and I agree that "Story" feels like branding. The fact that they share a subtitle arguable collects them as... an anthology of stories. Though, I think for now Brojam has the way of it. Put the two in with The Clone Wars under other, at least until (if at all) there are enough anthology films to warrant a section out. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol
 * Have any of you actually looked at the anthology or Anthology film, appearently not because the two films are "apt real-world classification", "the series of films are an anthology", "an anthology of stories" are all false statements. An anthology is "a book or other collection of selected writings by various authors, usually in the same literary form, of the same period, or on the same subject" or "a collection of selected writings by one author." The collection would be appropriate to the media, a book, film or record." Rogue One and Solo whould have more than one story, which they do not. Anthology was the original branding given by Lucasfilms to the standalone films and why some still use the term, so if you don't like using Story as branding then you should have problems with "Anthology". Anthology series is for (radio, TV) casting media to fill a specify time slot. While the article states books, that seems a little bit forces as there is no need/necessity to fill such a slot from the basic media's need (a book or film company could release mulitple movies all on one day). Both movies would actually fit the term prequel even better as Rogue One directly leads into Star Wars: A New Hope, such that there is a joke that it did so well that there is a sequel called Rogue Two: A New Hope. And with Solos being about Solo's early backstory and a main character in the original trilogy thus a prequel (never minding any corporate statements that the main saga is about the Skywalkers).
 * Google News search brings up "About 35,500 results" for Star Wars Anthology films, "About 32,200,000 results" for A Star Wars Story films, 'About 58,900 results" for "star wars standalone films". Spshu (talk) 18:09, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * When you made this change, did it not occur to you that a kajillion editors watch and edit the main Star Wars article, and perhaps some discussion has taken place regarding our use of "Star Wars Anthology films" across many articles? Some of the sources the rest of us have been talking about in this discussion are included in the Anthology section of that article:
 * "In April 2015, Lucasfilm and Kennedy announced that the standalone films would be referred to as the Star Wars Anthology films (albeit the word anthology has never been used on any of the films titles, instead choosing to carry the "A Star Wars Story" subtitle below the film's main title.)"


 * We should not be going off on tangents deciding for ourseves what anthology means or how it may apply. And I should note that the parentetical "comment" above regarding A Star Wars Story appears to be unsourced editor commentary, no matter how true it is.— TAnthonyTalk 18:44, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you. There was a previous discussion that I was in here just as Lucasfilms was abandoning the term and subtitle "anthology". Since it had been basic dropped in everything I read since. Yes, I did check them to see that I was not completely correct in a complete drop of "anthology". And your snotty remark there to actually check to see that it was made (22:44, 19 July 2018) before discussion started here (14:12, 20 July 2018) 16 hours later. Just because editors cherry and/or randomly picked sources for "anthology" doesn't mean they are the end all and be all for correct common usage. Since they shifted from Anthology to Story, sources announcing the first movie under the Anthology Series doesn't hold water. As per common name 's subsection WP:NAMECHANGES, "When this occurs, we give extra weight to reliable sources written after the name change is announced." So going and quoting the original name for the series and providing sources for the announcement is meaningless.
 * "We should not be going off on tangents deciding for ourseves what anthology means or how it may apply." You did stating that it is "perfectly apt real-world classification". I have show that you and your supporters done so, not I.Spshu (talk) 21:13, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I can appreciate bold edits like yours, and I'm sorry for my assumptions regarding the Star Wars article change, but you restored the edit here after two editors objected to it, instead of starting a discussion. That said, if "Story" is the direction we end up going in, we have to suck it up and use "A Star Wars Story". "Story" alone is confusing, and to me looks idiotic in this template and in the TOC of Star Wars. Plus, are there sources that refer to them as "the Story films"?
 * All the sources that I have seen, including all the sites discussing the recent rumors of cancelling or not cancelling since the release of Solo, still refer to them as anthology films (as they should). The fact that they do not say the word "anthology" in their titles is irrelevant. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC)