Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Star Wars/1

Star Wars

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Star_Wars/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result: I agree with the clear community consensus on this matter and will delist based on unresolved concerns over article size, sourcing, and scope.Challenger.rebecca (talk) 13:50, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


 * To my dismay I am nominating this article for reassessment. Sourcing is the main concern. As can be seen huge amount of sourcing is needed. Other sourcing problems includes lots of primary and fan sources. There is also chart spam over proposed text and other maintenance tags such as "too long" . Also looks as if leads from sub-articles  are just pasted here......lots to fix. --Moxy (talk) 15:55, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree- This article has obviously grown a lot since 2008 when it was named a good article. Movies have come out since then and a lot of attention was drawn to the series. It's grown too fast to the point where it was not all quality work. Plus there are too many sub-sections. Why are all the movies described in detail when each has its own substantial article? And since there are multiple maintenance tags, I do not believe it should remain a good article. El cid, el campeador (talk) 13:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree-The thing is that this article focuses solely in the film franchise, instead of focusing on Star Wars as the multi-media franchise it is. The only solution is that this article should be renamed into Star Wars (franchise) and the films should be split into an article called Star Wars (film series) to receive the focus they deserve, and allow the other media (animated series, video-games, comics, novels) to be properly described in the franchise article. We would keep the film tables at the top of the Star Wars (franchise) article and an additional super brief additional paragraph (or two paragraphs maximum) about the films plot overview, but split most of the info regarding the films and their developments into the new article Star Wars (film series), we could also merge the whole sequel trilogy article there instead of as stands right now, having two articles saying the same things about the sequel trilogy in different words, and also explain there the Holiday Special and the Ewoks films as non-canon Star Wars Legends films. I think that's the way it should be solved but no-one listens to my split suggestion, despite how the article here is the one of a film series, instead of the one of a multi-media franchise, the split would also make easier to keep both articles in good status, since both having less information is easier to manage. The article for the The Simpsons (franchise) of how the final Star Wars (franchise) article should look albeit, the SW franchise would have more tables for the media.Rosvel92 (talk) 06:39, 2 July 2017 (UTC)Rosvel92
 * The suggestion to split the article hasn't gained any consensus, in part because this article is the franchise article and the films having more coverage makes sense per WP:DUE. They're the seminal, most high profile, most influential pieces of the franchise, the part of the franchise that most are familiar with. Yes, it's a multimedia franchise, but to pretend that the other pieces of media carry the same weight as the films is silly. A solution is to reorganize the article, expand reception to cover more than the films. I personally believe that paring down on individual film plots. I'm the past, I proposed to merge the individual film sections into larger trilogy sections, perhaps pare down on film specific development information and leave that for the film articles to streamline the structure—but that also has not gained consensus, per SUMMARYSTYLE, so I doubt it will be wise to implement. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  14:04, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree. Rosvel92 - I agree with everything you said except the film tables. I think they too should be merged, with a much smaller film table replacing them that merely lists the basics on each film. TenTonParasol - The films are certainly the centerpiece, which is why they should indeed be given the most weight. BUT they should not be given the ungodly amount of coverage that they currently receive in the article. A good franchise article is that for the Star Trek franchise; there is a main page which goes through the films, tv series, EU etc., but each of these links to an article covering them in more detail. I believe this style should be applied to the Star Wars franchise as well. Wilburycobbler (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


 * {| class="wikitable" style="font-size:97%; text-align:left; width:50%;"

!Title !U.S. release date !Director ! colspan="3" style="background-color:#FFFF00;" | Saga
 * A New Hope
 * style="text-align:center;"| May 25, 1977
 * style="text-align:center;"| George Lucas
 * The Empire Strikes Back
 * style="text-align:center;"| May 21, 1980
 * style="text-align:center;"| Irvin Kershner
 * Return of the Jedi
 * style="text-align:center;"| May 25, 1983
 * style="text-align:center;"| Richard Marquand
 * The Phantom Menace
 * style="text-align:center;"| May 19, 1999
 * style="text-align:center;" rowspan="3"| George Lucas
 * Attack of the Clones
 * style="text-align:center;"| May 16, 2002
 * Revenge of the Sith
 * style="text-align:center;"| May 19, 2005
 * The Force Awakens
 * style="text-align:center;"| December 18, 2015
 * style="text-align:center;"| JJ Abrams
 * The Last Jedi
 * style="text-align:center;"| December 15, 2017
 * style="text-align:center;"| Rian Johnson
 * IX
 * style="text-align:center;"| May 24, 2019
 * style="text-align:center;"| Colin Trevorrow
 * }
 * The Last Jedi
 * style="text-align:center;"| December 15, 2017
 * style="text-align:center;"| Rian Johnson
 * IX
 * style="text-align:center;"| May 24, 2019
 * style="text-align:center;"| Colin Trevorrow
 * }
 * style="text-align:center;"| Colin Trevorrow
 * }


 * {| class="wikitable" style="font-size:97%; text-align:left; width:50%;"

!Title !U.S. release date !Director ! colspan="3" style="background-color:#FFFF00;" | Other
 * The Clone Wars
 * style="text-align:center;"| August 15, 2008
 * style="text-align:center;"| Dave Filoni
 * Rogue One
 * style="text-align:center;"| December 16, 2016
 * style="text-align:center;"| Gareth Edwards
 * Untitled Han Solo film
 * style="text-align:center;"| May 25, 2018
 * style="text-align:center;"| Ron Howard
 * }
 * I think we're in agreement that some things needs to be pared out of the films—like specific film development. But we're disagreeing about the methods. I don't think a split is the way to do that. I personally believe you just figure out what's necessary for an overview and leave it here, send the rest to be covered at the individual film articles. I personally agree the level of detail is too much, and should be covered in more summary, but there is no consensus on how much is too much. Even my own proposal, which simply involves cutting things out without a split, has been considered to be insufficient wrt the level of detail.~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  18:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I'm not sure exactly what you're proposing with the table example. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  18:55, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * }
 * I think we're in agreement that some things needs to be pared out of the films—like specific film development. But we're disagreeing about the methods. I don't think a split is the way to do that. I personally believe you just figure out what's necessary for an overview and leave it here, send the rest to be covered at the individual film articles. I personally agree the level of detail is too much, and should be covered in more summary, but there is no consensus on how much is too much. Even my own proposal, which simply involves cutting things out without a split, has been considered to be insufficient wrt the level of detail.~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  18:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I'm not sure exactly what you're proposing with the table example. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  18:55, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The only films table, I meant keeping on the franchise article was the one at the top. The tables of cast, crew, reception, oscars, etc, should be solely on the Star Wars films article (which would mostly be just most of the films section as it stands right now). The Franchise article would be the films table a small overview, and the in other media section merged with the Star Wars expanded universe (but ditching the in other media subtitle)Rosvel92 (talk) 22:23, 2 July 2017 (UTC)Rosvel92
 * I was referring to the table Wilburycobbler constructed above. I was going to start a separate section about it, but Moxy mentioned there are too many tables. I think the Oscar table should definitely be converted to prose. And I feel like the RT and MC table should go entirely, and that section be turned into a prose summary of reception of the franchise. I think I formerly proposed that the crew table be merged with the first table if possible, seeing as they duplicate information. This would reduce the number of tables from six to three (trilogies, standlone films, box office totals). ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  23:06, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I've merged all applicable content into the Star Wars (film series) template. The Star Wars article is now much more succinct and to the pointWilburycobbler (talk) 23:19, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I've reverted it because there's no consensus! ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  23:19, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This thing is like the US health care bill, in that there will never be a consensus on exactly what should be in or out, so I merged all applicable content to the film series article. At the end of the day our only consensus can be between either cutting the crap out, or retaining a bloated article, and we have clearly chose the former. So I decided to be bold. Wilburycobbler (talk) 23:26, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * We've barely had a discussion on it. We could always agree on what information to pare out exactly without splitting it into another article. We've agreed the article is bloated, but we haven't agreed on how to deal with it. There's more than two options. And since I felt the bold move wasn't a good one, I reverted it.~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  23:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * A franchise article is supposed to be an overview, not an in-depth analysis. As it is, the article contains waaay too much information about each film in the form of both prose and infoboxes. And it shouldn't even be covering individual films in the first place! That's what the film series articles are for! Again, see Star Trek. Wilburycobbler (talk) 23:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * And I've said I agree. I just don't think splitting the content off into "Star Wars (film series)" is the way to do it. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  00:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't we add the split discussion suggestion at the top of the films topic and at the top of the article? Since I suppose, now is clearly been discussed? Rosvel92 (talk) 01:29, 4 July 2017 (UTC)Rosvel92

Regarding the table bloat, I've just converted the Academy Awards table into prose. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  02:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)