Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Wars/Archive 11

Language in anticipation of upcoming "conflicts"
Hey, all. Two or three times now, I've responded to talk-page comments along the lines of, "We're going to have to delete a lot of this stuff because now a lot of this stuff isn't canon any more." Now, in a lot of instances, a lot of the content should be deleted or truncated for more compelling reasons, e.g. WP:WAF, WP:RS, etc. But, setting those aside: I've pasted below my most-recent response to such a post and thought I'd share it here. It's been a year since the last edit to this semi-active Wikiproject's style guide, and I'm inclined to add something like the below to it. For those all still keeping a loose eye here: your thoughts? This useful to keep on the talk page to link back to, to flesh out the notions and/or foment broader discussion for all, rather than piecemeal on individual talk pages?

"Canon status is pretty much immaterial at Wikipedia; it isn't a threshold for inclusion or exclusion for Star Wars, Star Trek, or any other expansive genre. Wikipedia is instead considered with verifiability by citations to reliable sources. Furthermore, conflicts like the ones we're all anticipating will arise in the in-universe *plot* of these Star Wars franchise: but, Wikipedia is predominantly concerned with the *real-world* aspects of elements of fiction. Where we cover plot, we do so with summary style, which is rarely so granular for it to be appropriate to zoom in on where fine, conflicting details arise. Where they do bubble up on a big scale, it is sufficiently simply to say, "In work X, this thing happens; in work Y, this thing is true" -- this is what's worked well for a few years in Star Trek articles, where e.g. James T. Kirk ha[s] had to cover major conflicts in the character's depiction in the two most recent films. More often than not, though, conflicting details are really just trivial and better relegated to franchise-specific Wikia projects. Boba Fett already has had tons of conflicting information portrayed about the character, but the article doesn't dwell on the minutiae: mainly because the conflicts are on so trivial as to not pass the summary style expectations. One final thought: often, recognizing a "conflict" is an act of inference, another behavior we shy away from at Wikipedia."

My two credits, at least. --EEMIV (talk) 05:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Still, differentiation should be made. Should we use a system similar to that used by Wookieepedia? In my opinion, canon status should be stated to avoid confusion. Godisgood737 (talk) 20:07, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet for Wikiproject Star Wars at Wikimania 2014
Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014 For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to: Project leaflets Adikhajuria (talk) 11:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Additional input
Would appreciate additional input re. this edit at the template talk page. Thanks! --EEMIV (talk) 14:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Star Wars marathon


The article Star Wars marathon has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * This article is about a subject with no assertion of notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jesse Viviano (talk) 21:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Star Wars Expanded Universe
I have opened a RM at Star Wars Expanded Universe so it can be renamed to Star Wars Legends, its current title.  Konveyor   Belt   01:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Star Wars Rebels Importance is Low?
I'm an editor on Wikiproject Animation and WikiProject Disney and edit quite a bit on the Star Wars Rebels article. That being said, I'm a bit surprised it's low importance within this wikiproject since it has immediate significance within the Star Wars universe as the first canon storytelling Disney has produced since the Lucasfilm purchase. I realize the article isn't exactly Episode VII important, but shouldn't it be mid? Am I missing something? Luthien22 (talk) 04:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Project page cleanup?
Hi all. I'm thinking that that we should give the project page a major cleanup, especially with the announcements and news section as well as the members section. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not a project member as of right now (I'm on WP: Animation and WP Disney, so a bit of overlap), but a little cleanup here couldn't hurt. Luthien22 (talk) 23:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Let's help foreign-languages Star Wars wikis!
You know whatthe Wikia is. If you are SW fan, you probably know Wookieepedia or another wikis. The wikis from USA, Spain, Germany, Poland and few other wikis have the highest number of articles. I'm also a SW fan. I want all the SW wikis to be connected together, but this post is not about this. I'd like to ask, if any user knows a language, in which the wiki has not many articles. I was talking about this at spanish chat and they linked this project. What do you think? We can: write articles there/link those wikis to Wikipedia articles/make a list/or do anything to help them. -XQV- (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!


Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Split Page

 * Given the new Star Wars canon makes only characters from the 6 movies, Star Wars The Clone Wars and Star Wars Rebels canon, I propose that The "List of Star Wars Characters" page be split into 3 sections, Canon, Legends and Infinities, based off the three stages of canon. Someone must make these changes, as this article makes little sense without them.


 * For more information, see The Holocron Database and Wookieepedia.

This unsigned comment was originally placed on the project page instead of the talk page. Moved it here. No comment on actual proposal
 * Canon status is pretty immaterial at Wikipedia; we're more preoccupied with what is verifiable. This may be a useful proposal/notion at e.g. Wookieepedia, but it doesn't really have an impact here. --EEMIV (talk) 02:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Possible solution to naming conflict.
Opinions, go.

I say, either of these ways will do. OR
 * 1) Move all pages to Star Wars Episode X: Subtitle
 * 1) Move Star Wars (film) to A New Hope, Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace to The Phantom Menace, Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones to Attack of the Clones, and Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith to Revenge of the Sith. Then, make the opening lines for the pages something like this:

The reason I came up with this idea is because we clearly have done this sort of thing with other pages such as The Avengers (2012 film) where the actual name, Marvel's The Avengers is followed by its other common name The Avengers. In this Star Wars case, people who believe the common name is not with the episode title are satisfied, and the people who believe the full title is the common name are satisfied because the articles introduce the topic by the official name (which again, people would argue is also the common name) and says the shorter "common" names in the same introduction sentence. This third choice I have suggested would also eliminate the recent discussion about whether using Star Wars: Episode X – Subtitle or Star Wars Episode X: Subtitle for the prequels since articles would now just link to the subtitle and they wouldn't have to worry about writing the episode name correctly in the pipe linking or whatever. And face, you know damn well these titles (baring Episode VII, which who the hell knows if Abrams is going to be like "oh yeah, let's call it Star Wars: Episode VII – The Force Awakens officially) are officially titled and sold under the title written as Star Wars: Episode X – Subtitle. (Unless you want to write it as Star Wars: Episode X: Subtitle or Star Wars, Episode X: Subtitle, but we can all agree these alternate ways looks really odd as $h!+, commas look odd in this case and two colons looks like just no.)

So, I personally would agree strongly with the third suggestion.

Any opinions about this suggestion? Let me know. Thanks, I look forward to seeing everyone have a say about this potential final solution to the titles. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 00:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

RfC: How should we name the film articles if we rename them?
Should we rename all current six Star Wars films to Star Wars Episode X: Subtitle form (i.e Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi) or move them all to just the subtitle form (i.e. The Phantom Menace) and make the opening lines for the pages something such as the way I have proposed below? Thank you for your time!

This request for comment is not brief, sorry. It happens.

Anyways- opinions, go.

I say, either of these ways will do. OR
 * 1) Move all pages to Star Wars Episode X: Subtitle
 * 1) Move Star Wars (film) to A New Hope, Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace to The Phantom Menace, Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones to Attack of the Clones, and Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith to Revenge of the Sith. Then, make the opening lines for the pages something like this:

The reason I came up with this idea is because we clearly have done this sort of thing with other pages such as The Avengers (2012 film) where the actual name, Marvel's The Avengers is followed by its other common name The Avengers. In this Star Wars case, people who believe the common name is not with the episode title are satisfied, and the people who believe the full title is the common name are satisfied because the articles introduce the topic by the official name (which again, people would argue is also the common name) and says the shorter "common" names in the same introduction sentence. This third choice I have suggested would also eliminate the recent discussion about whether using Star Wars: Episode X – Subtitle or Star Wars Episode X: Subtitle for the prequels since articles would now just link to the subtitle and they wouldn't have to worry about writing the episode name correctly in the pipe linking or whatever. And face, you know damn well these titles (baring Episode VII, which who the hell knows if Abrams is going to be like "oh yeah, let's call it Star Wars: Episode VII – The Force Awakens" officially) are officially titled and sold under the title written as Star Wars: Episode X – Subtitle. (Unless you want to write it as Star Wars: Episode X: Subtitle or Star Wars, Episode X: Subtitle, but we can all agree these alternate ways looks really odd as $h!+, commas look odd in this case and two colons looks like just no.) Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 21:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep 'em Separated History tells us that each Star Wars film came out independently and on its own. The first film came out as simply Star Wars, without subtitles or anything else. Therefore, is has its own place in History as such. Packaging the films differently than how they came out is perhaps a task for Star Wars aficionados; not for Wikipedia. The criterion of notability rules supreme in Wikipedia. Each film is notable in its own right, and, therefore, it merits its own entry, carrying the title under which it came out and became known, some having subtitles, and others not. The main article on the subject of the series of films (the entry titled simply Star Wars) is about the whole franchise. There, each film is rightfully treated and listed as an "episode", subtitles and all. -The Gnome (talk) 09:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point,, but per COMMONNAME, though, we can see that both the original titles and the Episode listing is extremely popular in all the movies' cases. Star Wars (the first one) hasn't been just "Star Wars" since 1979 (I believe it was about that year). Many people from then may call it Star Wars, while others from the younger generation will call it most likely A New Hope or Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope.  I personally think if we do keep them separated, then Star Wars would need to be at least moved to a A New Hope. I'm not convinced that simply because they were originally released under these names, that they need be article titled that. You make a good point though. You can see my argument for possibly renaming the articles of the originals to the current official titles as they are the "real" common name based on ngram stats found here. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 20:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It's not terribly important, but I would get rid of the "Episode X" thing. As someone else said, Star Wars is a perfectly valid name for the first film.  That's how it was released, and that's how I imagine most people would identify it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

May the Force be with you
Please see this discussion, on whether the phrase "May the Force be with you" still needs to have its own article or not. Thanks! Fortdj33 (talk) 20:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Clone Wars (Star Wars) listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Clone Wars (Star Wars) to be moved to Clone Wars. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Star Wars: Battlefront listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Star Wars: Battlefront to be moved to Star Wars: Battlefront (2004 video game). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Thrawn image
I've started a discussion on Thrawn's infobox image. Think the current one should be replaced, but also not sure what to replace it with. Any comments would be welcome. – The Millionth One (talk) (contribs) 01:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Space Western cat. for characters?
NB this, ditto [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Han_Solo&oldid=prev&diff=671366351 re. Han Solo]. I think I'm correct, but that doesn't mean anything ;-). Thoughts on this cat re. the characters? --EEMIV (talk) 15:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking through the category, it does seem very work-focused. That could be changed -- it could be taken as a general category on the subject of "Space westerns", where maybe specific westerny-characters could be included, and that'd be supported by the subcategories, but that doesn't seem what it is now. Certainly, Han Solo and Boba Fett are not, themselves, space westerns.
 * Side note: Category:Star Wars is actually currently a subcategory, which it probably shouldn't be. There may be characters with westerny feels, and full-out space western works (almost definitely considering the old EU), but Star Wars probably isn't a space western by itself. – The Millionth One (talk) (contribs) 16:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Kreia GAN
There's a pretty big GAN backlog and I'm told patience is a virtue, so I'm in no immediate rush, but since the project's a bit... empty right now, if anyone's interested I put Kreia up for GA-status. Be warned, hefty spoilers for Knights of the Old Republic II, of course. – The Millionth One (talk) (contribs) 01:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Anthology? Stories?
While Rogue One is called "Rogue One: A Star Wars Story", the news piece is still categorized under "Anthology Series". Should we keep everything under the "Anthology films" subcategory on most everything? D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 06:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Awkward move
The restoring editor of the X-wing => X-Wing Fighter move is correct in that I didn't respond to a talk-page prompt. That said, it's a goofy move, e.g. none of the media references capitalize the "W," and "Fighter" seems an unnecessary complication/addition to the article name. I am on the road and AFK most of the day -- can someone make a more deliberate and better-communicated restoration? --EEMIV (talk) 13:46, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I posted a response to the article talk page and would appreciate additional input. --EEMIV (talk) 04:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

List of Star Wars planets and moons
This list page needs to merge from all articles about fictional planets and moons, including Alderaan. --George Ho (talk) 09:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Place a link to it in List of fictional planets and moons and also add a category of fictional planets and moons. That should be good enough.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 01:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Jedi template
Hi everybody,

The bulk of my edits concern video games, and through Star Wars: Jedi Starfighter, I stumbled upon. I'm not sure if the current layout is a good one. It lists all the films, but that won't be bidirectional. The couple of games listed are of course connected to the Jedi and Sith concepts, but aren't most Star Wars game to a certain degree? I mean, in a lot of Star Wars games the player can control Luke or Anakin. Maybe somebody of WP:SW can take a glance at it? --Soetermans. T / C 16:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Comparison of Star Trek and Star Wars
Help on editing Comparison of Star Trek and Star Wars would be appreciated. There are questions over the neutrality, e.g. it may be too pro-Trek. The quality of the sourcing has also been questioned. See the talk page for more on this debate. Finding additional sources that directly compare the two and/or better working in the existing sources would be welcome. Fences &amp;  Windows  20:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Darth Vader
Hi, all. There is an ongoing debate on the Darth Vader article at Talk:Darth Vader. Input from project members would be appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect Commons category?
Commons now has a category called "clone troopers", which includes images of all kinds of imperial troopers, from the original trilogy up to Force Awakens. Yet isn't this factually incorrect? Don't they cease to be clones after the prequels, meaning we should have a separate "storm troopers" category? FunkMonk (talk) 03:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Jakku Spy
I am not really any good at editing wikipedia or writing wikipedia articles at this point, however I noticed that Jakku Spy was missing from the canon page and from Wikipedia in general. I've gone ahead and created a stub for it, but it is in need of even slightly more TLC than I can provide it. Navarr (talk) 05:04, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

First Order (Star Wars)
Editors here may want to review First Order (Star Wars) to address its in-universe tone and the lack of real-world coverage from reliable third-party sources. It seems likely that the article can be stand-alone, but I think the content needs to be cut down to the basics and built back up only with the right coverage. Thanks, Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 22:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the whole thing is going to need to be completely rewritten in a week, anyway. Certainly not a major rush, but yes, needs more real-world perspective. Though it simply may be that the real-world perspective is "Empire 2.0". oknazevad (talk) 23:06, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I gave this article a rewrite last night.&mdash; TAnthonyTalk 15:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Character categories
I don't want to stir anything up, but it seems to me that subcategories like Category:Jedi characters are a bit in-universe?&mdash; TAnthonyTalk 15:44, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

List of Star Wars films and television series
Regarding List of Star Wars films and television series, there is an ongoing discussion about two versions and the level of detail between them. Please see the discussion here. Thanks, Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 04:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Regarding this list again, an editor is removing a "Story Order" sortable column for the feature films. I think this is useful as an alternative to the release order because it shows how each film fits the in-universe chronology, especially to clarify the placement of The Force Awakens with the other films, not to mention the spin-off Rogue One that will be inserted between trilogies. Do others support or oppose this column's inclusion? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 02:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

State of the canon
Now that the EU has been torpedoed and George Lucas is not really that involved with the movies, how will "Word of God" canon be determined? Back in the day, what Lucas said was considered Word, but since he had nothing really to do with The Force Awakens, I feel this situation is a little muddled. Thoughts? (I posted this in the Star Wars canon page, too).-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   22:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Template: Star Wars Databank
I've noticed that Star Wars Databank is currently designed to direct to the old URL style on StarWars.com. In some cases, this is no problem (http://www.starwars.com/explore/encyclopedia/groups/clonetroopers/ automatically redirects to the new location at http://www.starwars.com/databank/clone-troopers), but in other cases, it returns a broken link (the documentation example http://www.starwars.com/explore/encyclopedia/character/darthmaul/ does NOT redirect to the new URL, http://www.starwars.com/databank/darth-maul, and returns the site's 404 error). My concern is also that the template is difficult to use in the future as one can no longer break the URL down according to the template documentation.

The fix in the template seems to be a simple one. The template currently breaks the URL down as starwars.com/explore/encyclopedia/CATEGORY/SUBJECT/. The new URL style is simply starwars.com/databank/FIRSTWORD-SECONDWORD-ETC. I would make the change myself, but the template is transcluded onto 45 pages and I'd have to manually alter each one. I'm not even sure how many of these links are broken.

Personally, I'm not even sure the exact merit of having a specific template for this purpose, likely to create a uniformity in the external link considering the number of pages it's on. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  15:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Princess Leia
There is a request to move Princess Leia to Leia. The discussion can be seen here. Thanks, Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

FN-2199
What do you guys think of this article: FN-2199? Is it necessary? 85.196.121.142 (talk) 20:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Entertainment Weekly and The Wall Street Journal have written about the character, so I think there are grounds for inclusion. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 21:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the internet popularity of the character, and the coverage of it, lean me towards thinking there's some potential for the article. That said, as is it could use some rewriting, since right now it's too close to Wookieepedia for my comfort and could use a fair bit of expansion and sourcing. I might also suggest moving it to "TR-8R", even with the reveal of his actual identity. – The Millionth One (talk) (contribs) 21:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Before I saw this, I redirected the "article" and added a sourced (Star Wars.com) sentence to Stormtrooper (Star Wars). This is a one-line (one word) role that does not warrant its own article. I agree that the "character" has been made notable by the press, but all that means is perhaps the mention can be expanded to a couple of sentences. I'll take a look at the citations above and see what I can do.— TAnthonyTalk 23:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not really the character, per se, that's notable, but more the general fan response. That he only has a single word of dialogue doesn't matter that much. To draw a comparison, "Figwit" is a character who only appeared on-screen for all of three seconds, yet is still probably worthy of an article because of their inexplicable popularity and the coverage of that. Not that TR-8R has really reached that level, and if enough content could be put to justify a standalone article remains to be seen, but I think his minor appearance doesn't really rule him out for one. – The Millionth One (talk) (contribs) 23:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes perhaps in the future if more material becomes available and the hype continues, but for now the Rucka backstory is something for Wookieepedia. The WSJ and EW articles are basically reporting on the StarWars.com post, but there is enough about the fan interest/memes, I believe, to warrant what I just added to Stormtrooper (Star Wars).— TAnthonyTalk 00:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I should note—because I like trivia as much as anyone—that a sourced article about the Star Wars: Before the Awakening book itself would be a way to employ some of the plot info that was in the redirected FN-2199 article.00:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Template:Jedi
I've started a discussion at Template talk:Jedi. I feel that the basis for this nav box is very in-universe, in that it is based on the appearances of a fictional concept in the franchise. All of its links are already, or can be, covered in other Star Wars navigation boxes, more appropriately arranged from a real world perspective.— TAnthonyTalk 00:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:Young Jedi Knights has been nominated for discussion
Category:Young Jedi Knights, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Interview request
Hey everyone! I My user name is Gen. Quon, and I'm a user pretty active in the X-Files, The Office, and Adventure Time fandoms. Anyway, I have a request. I'm currently in grad school working on an MA thesis that focuses on Wikipedia, fandom, and canon. I'm particularly interested in how fan editors aggregate and define 'canon'. Are there any editors here that would be willing to partake in a short (roughly 10) question interview via email or talk page? Thanks so much!-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   22:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I consider myself to have an extensive knowledge of Star Wars and what is and isn't canon. I'm busy at the moment and I will be tomorrow, but I would be willing to answer any questions you have sometime on Sunday (14 February). If you message me any questions you have, I will answer them as soon as I can. DarkKnight2149 00:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not that active in WikiProjects, but I'd also be willing to answer any questions on my talk page for whatever. Hell, any chance to talk someone's ear off, right? – The Millionth One (talk) (contribs) 18:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

New category
Kcorilol has created Category:Star Wars canon and has begun adding pages and subcategories to it. I believe this category is redundant of Category:Star Wars. I think the intention is to separate canon information from Legends, but I believe the proper way to do this is to use the existing Category:Star Wars Legends and its subcategories for Legends-specific works, and leave the rest in their appropriate existing categories. The use of characters, places and concepts in both canon and Legends works makes a "canon" category system impossible and confusing. There are existing lists which convey canon vs Legends info to readers, and more can be created as appropriate.— TAnthonyTalk 16:46, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Upon further examination: Kcorilol has made categories like Category:Star Wars species (which includes lists of items not all from canon works) subordinate to this one. I am boldly removing such improperly categorized subcategories, which is effectively depopulating this one. As I don't foresee any objections, I will have this unused category speedily deleted.— TAnthonyTalk 17:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

unnecessary duplication?
Can some of you take a look at List of Star Wars characters and List of Star Wars cast members. Both are basically identical. One is a table and list, the other just a longer table. Both have a great deal of overlap and duplicate info. While they serve a purpose, I'm thinking with some reduction, re-writing and merging, a single comprehensive article/list would serve much better. - the WOLF  child  15:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Also consider List of Star Wars Legends characters - the WOLF  child  16:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Factions in navboxes
I removed a non-character, First Order (Star Wars), from the Episode VII navbox, as it's not only not a character, but factions like the Jedi, Sith, CIS, etc. have never been included in the film navboxes. PrimeHunter immediately reverted my edit, figuring that the First Order needs to be in the navbox, even if it's not a character. While my first instinct is to revert them in a fit, edit-warring's never been my style and I figured that it would be a good opportunity for us to either reaffirm our position with Star Wars navboxes, or else make changes. By my reckoning, we shouldn't give any faction article special treatment, so if one navbox has the factions listed, maybe all of them should? Or else, maybe none should, including the Episode VII one? If we are to include factions, should we have a new Factions group in the film navboxes? My personal inclination is to not have any factions included in these navboxes, including the First Order, with relation to The Force Awakens. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 10:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * First Order (Star Wars) is so far specific to The Force Awakens so it seems natural to include it under "Characters" in Star Wars: The Force Awakens. The article has info on Snoke and Hux who don't have their own articles so they aren't listed in the navbox. It's common for fiction navboxes to include organizations under "Characters". See e.g. Harry Potter. A one-article group in a navbox would look bad when an organization is a reasonable fit for an existing "Characters" group. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Ongoing overhaul of List of Star Wars planets and moons
Hello all. Just wanted to share that several editors, myself included, are currently working on an overhaul of List of Star Wars planets and moons. We are focused on determining which of these minor planets are suitable for inclusion, as well as adding planets (both canon and Legends) to the article. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion here on the talk page. If you have any questions for me, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, and MTFBWY. Amccann421 (talk) 16:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Input needed at The Force (Star Wars)
Hiya. A few of us are having difficulty with some content and structure issues at The Force. The talk page is laden with several discussions lengthy discussions. Would be nice to have some eyeballs on the page (which has over the last couple of days flip-flopped between a pretty needy revision and a tighter but admittedly incomplete restructure). Anyway. Thanks for your time! --EEMIV (talk) 18:51, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Thoughts about merchandising info
Hiya. I've been thinking about our various articles' impact sections' coverage of merchandising. Perhaps you might not be aware that there's really lots of SW swag out there ;-). We have a few articles that give seemingly exhaustive lists of various toy and collectible items -- I should know, having compiled a bunch myself for TIE fighter, Millennium Falcon, X-wing, and a bunch of other vehicles several years ago. The long lists, though, and dense forest of footnotes verges on the unreadable (to say nothing of difficult to edit using the basic editor). And the more those lists grow with specific item call-outs, the more a) we verge toward being indiscriminate and b) the article implies that it's an exhaustive list.

I've most recently been updating the A-wing article and deliberately left just a broad overview of merchandising. I am curious as to y'all's thoughts and whether we can derive some boilerplate language/framework that articulates the breadth of products without trying to enumerate them all. My general thoughts are we should have
 * 1) The first verifiable product or merch associated with the article subject
 * 2) A broad statement that asserts (because this is almost always the case) that the article's subject has been merchandized as various toys, models, and collectibles (and it might also be appropriate to mention it has likewise appeared in games and books) by companies that include...
 * 3) ... a verifiable list of five or six different companies that have produced merch (e.g. toys, models, collectibles, film-accurate replicas, costumes) - this I think is reader and reflist friendly because a cite like e.g. A-wing covers a pretty broad swath.
 * 4) Limit any specific product call-outs to those that have garnered significant third-party commentary and/or any that are verifiably superlative within the broader category of toy (e.g. at the time, one of the Falcon Lego models was the largest set Lego produced; or, it'd be worth mentioning whether a particular Rey costume is the best Halloween outfit seller -- relative to all customes, not just in SW -- this year ... that kind of thing).

What do you think? ("P".S.: feedback at A-wing is appreciated. The second photo has been released under CC-BY-SA 4.0 if any of you want to drop it in at Episode VIII -- I'm 95% certain the person who released actually took it or at least has the a-ok to do so :-]). --EEMIV (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think A-wing has the perfect balance between reliably sourced descriptions of its merchandizing without devolving into a collectors' guide, which would be a clear violation of the WP:NOTGUIDEBOOK policy. Well done! oknazevad (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Name consistency
Please start this playing in the background on loop and continue to read
 * A-wing
 * B-wing
 * X-wing fighter
 * Y-wing

I opposed moving X-wing a while ago, but lost sight of it/forgot about it when my restore was undone. The initial move edit summary is a bit vague, and the re-move apparently missed the talk page prompt. There wasn't any additional commentary at the article talk page one way or the other about the article name. Having recently butted heads with this editor at other articles, and the X-wing article staying put for several months now, I'm disinclined to just shift it again. And maybe I'm just wrong and we need to move the other three starfighter articles.

Dropping it here for you to chime in! --EEMIV (talk) 17:25, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * What would you say are the common names for these ships per the sources? I see that "fighter" or "starfighter" is used for all of these ships (and for TIE fighter) in the StarWars.com entries (A, B, TIE, X, Y), and "X-wing fighter" sounds right to me, but colloquially the terms may have evolved. Although I feel like calling the ship an "A-wing" rather than "A-wing fighter" is sort of nicknamey, like calling a Stealth bomber a "Stealth".— TAnthonyTalk 17:49, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I think A-wing, B-wing, etc. is the common name. Is there by any chance a tool to show whether e.g. Google referrals more often have the "fighter" appended? Hmm. I tend to think the "fighter" bit for these is unnecessarily cluttery, but I'd rather just be consistent. --EEMIV (talk) 18:34, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge-and-redirects
I'm having trouble finding significant third-party commentary on Nebulon-B frigate, Slave I, and Mon Calamari cruiser. Plenty of merchandising items (although, actually, not a relative whole lot for the first and last), but not so much with, ya know, the *words* and *thoughts*. I propose merge-and-redirecting Slave I to Boba Fett], the other two to [[List of Star Wars spacecraft.

Yay? Nay? --EEMIV (talk) 16:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Just remember/saw the Mon Cal cruiser is a GA. (Wow, and it was nine years ago I mostly rewrote these articles ... time flies.) Anyway. GA-ness gave me pause on this for a second. But let's still talk it through. --EEMIV (talk) 16:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The Mon Cal article shouldn't be a GA because it relies almost entirely on primary sources. I would also say that none of these topics are notable enough to have their own article on Wikipedia (they belong on Wookiepedia, not here IMO). Slave I can easily be merged with the Boba Fett article. I'm not sure about the other two. DarkKnight2149 00:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a "Spaceships of Star Wars" article would do well. It would include development of the ships and then branch to any articles that could stand on their own (Death Star). Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes ... I created a Star Trek version of that, and along the way/afterward struggled with overall WP:GNG. I suspect with both franchises, there's a lot of third-party behind the scenes coverage, but the overall notion of "spacecraft in the franchise" is short on commentary; much of the commentary is instead on, ya know, the usual suspects.
 * Darkknight, as at least a stopgap the development and even merchandise components of the frigate and cruiser can be shoe-horned into the List of ships. There are a couple of items there (Lambda-class shuttle stands out) that had similarly once been articles but very clearly fell short of WP:GNG; they were m&r'ed. --EEMIV (talk) 01:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know, your starships article looks excellent a first glance, I think that one could be a Good article and so could a ships of Star Wars. The trouble is that I have never seen any wholly fictional content meet either GA or Featured List status, they are just too much prose for a list, and they can't be lists and be GA. I would personally suggest doing a mockup of a Star Wars ships/vehicles article, we recently combined several articles related to gameplay at Wikiproject Square Enix and have a much better article that will probably be a GA in a month or two. It would seem to me that an article about such a famous series must have some serious third party coverage and influence and legacy. Just a suggestion Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I think that a Star Wars ship article would be perhaps the best decision, rather than deletion. And even if one isn't created, the Slave I article can easily be merged with Boba Fett (as previously mentioned). In the mean time, I'm going to see if the Mon Cal article can be reassessed for its GA status. DarkKnight2149 02:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * UPDATE: I have just added a GAR Request on the Mon Cal article, as I am too busy to reassess it myself at the moment. DarkKnight2149 02:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Darkknight2149. --EEMIV (talk) 23:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I was about to fire up a draft in userspace for a Star Wars spacecraft article, but non-digital life has bit me in the butt and I'll probably be out of commission the rest of this week. Next week, hopefully I can lay some groundwork -- alas, my free time is about to evaporate and that "semi-retired" banner about to be a bit more accurate soon. But hopefully I can make some headway. --EEMIV (talk) 23:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Slave I is done. I sent it to List of Star Wars spacecraft instead of Boba Fett because a) there wasn't a clear good target section in the Boba article for the redirect or to shift the production information (i.e. I was too lazy to carve it out to do it right), but the list was easy and b) both Jango and Boba use the ship.
 * Will wait for GA re-assessment for the Mon Cal cruiser. Will do Nebulon-B redirect in a little bit (I hope) is also done and soon/this weekend I'll get working on a skeleton, at least, for a Ship in SW article. --EEMIV (talk) 16:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Excellent work. DarkKnight2149 02:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Star Wars Holiday Special
I started another RM, so I invite you in. -- This is George Ho actually (Talk) 23:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

TfD relevant to Star Wars
Please see this TfD, where the deletion of Clone Wars was suggested. ~ Rob 13 Talk 03:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Overhaul of Mandalorian
I did a quick, much needed overhaul of the Mandalorian article--though, there are still some elements I'm working on in my userspace before throwing them onto the article, and there's still some work to be done on what's there now. Simply notifying the Project since I noticed it was listed as mid-importance. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  21:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Canon language
One of the various reasons I slapped the semi-retired banner on my user page was all the hemming and hedging that wended its way into articles (or that I imagined would/did wend its way in) when Disney shook up the canon with the whole Legends bit and then TFA actually shaking up all our characters' "futures". Since becoming active again, on the one hand I don't see too many articles ripped asunder by the change, but I've also been part of three or four talk-page exchanges across several articles about how and whether canon matters. A couple of times, I've gone scrambling other to WikiProject Star Trek, where they've had a stable articulation of canon vis-a-vis Wikipedia for, I dunno, 10 years now?:

"Since articles about fictional characters, places, events and objects should be written in an out-of-universe perspective, most of the issues regarding "canon vs non-canon" simply fall away, as no information should be presented as fact, and it all should be sourced. Canon status can, however, inform the prominence and relevance of information."

How would you feel about adding that language to our own MOS at WikiProject_Star_Wars/Manual_of_style -- maybe even a sub-sub-head about Canon? (Maybe even some additional language, e.g. "After all, verifiability is far less fickle than a studio's decision about what "is" or "is not" true within a fictional universe.")

Need to re-add to my to-do list: finish User:EEMIV/Canon. --EEMIV (talk) 02:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * There are some insightful discussions at Talk:List_of_Star_Wars_planets_and_moons about that list's inclusion criteria. At a list like that, a verifiable-only criterion could lead to e.g. another set of 10 articles just about Star Wars planets; a "provide evidence of third-party commentary" would cull perhaps too much. So, I see how canon-ness can be an effective gatekeeper against WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Perhaps (and this may be a tangential discussion) we steer our developing lists toward a secondary gatekeeper for inclusion, like merchandising: we didn't have 10 pages worth of planets turned into playsets and cardgame locales, but plenty did. Anyway. Something else I just thought of. I'll stop talking to myself now. --EEMIV (talk) 02:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Stuff to do with canonicity is probably worth adding in WP:MOSWAF.... Anyway, the language at Star Trek seems okay. It might do to review how the comics project handles it. Video games don't usually have the issue, except for the occasional retcon. I doubt also that the books project discusses it in great detail. --Izno (talk) 11:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, User:Izno. I'll take a look at the generic MOSWAF. Comics kind of does what we also did for e.g. James T. Kirk and the Star Trek reboot, i.e. sets out a separate header for the new universe. In that case, actually, the list of planets and moons is a useful exemplar: verifiability for inclusion, but organized around era/type of media. User:TAnthony did a nice summary of the canon-> Legends transition for Grand Moff Tarkin that might make a nice summary blurb to include at the beginning of other Legends material. It articulates the canon distinction without diving into problematic phrases that suggest "truthiness" to the in-universe content. --EEMIV (talk) 14:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I came up with that when creating Start articles for A New Dawn, Tarkin, Heir to the Jedi, and Lords of the Sith, and obviously it's been handy to add to related articles when introducing the topic of the "new canon". Most of the recent uptick in Star Wars editing seems to be directly Force Awakens-related so we haven't seen much implementation of the new Legends vs canon distinction, so you're right that it's a good time to establish a style/tone/set of "rules" in that regard. I think we can all agree that the whole concept of canon is in-universe, and for the purposes of WP articles it is usually only useful as a means to organize (or differentiate) the many derivative Star Wars works. But I kind of hate even having to use the word "Canon" for sections, as in Grand Moff Tarkin, there just isn't always another way. In Luke Skywalker actually, the existing layout allowed me to just tack a "canon novels" section on after the films without using the word "canon", as the Legends stuff was nicely separated.— TAnthonyTalk 15:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Would it be possible to outline "problematic phrases that suggest "truthiness"", as in a things to avoid or words to watch, sort of thing. Like, while I think I get the general idea based on what's been outlined here, it'd still be helpful maybe to have those kinds of examples? It's a difficult concept. Especially since, because of the way LucasFilm and Disney set it out as canon/Legends, if separating it out for organization per media (that's so awkwardly phrased), "canon" is difficult to avoid and that does suggest "truthiness". And if this question is making no sense, let me know and I'll try to reword it. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  15:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm, seeing more and more implementation of "Canon" sections in articles and infoboxes, which to me looks so unencyclopedic/fanboyish and too like Wookieepedia for my taste (Wookieepedia is a well-maintained, great resource but it obviously has different standards than we do). As we come up with language to guide article format, we definitely need to be specific about the presentation of this material (assuming we all agree).— TAnthonyTalk 14:45, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily have a problem with canon/Legends section divisions, depending on the article and case. It is not wrong, per se, to deal with fictional concepts and constructs like canon -- so long as they are discussed from a real-world perspective. Perhaps consider the old EU and the new one less like continuities and more like different publishing eras. Division can, depending on article and section length, be beneficial to the reader's understanding, in same way that dividing between different series (e.g. Thrawn trilogy and Hand of Thrawn) can be. Depending on the case, this change between Legends and the new canon may be met with large differences in characterisation or role, and if we are to provide a complete view -- even a real-world one -- it's best not to dance around it.
 * I prefer to detail things semi-chronologically so in general, I'd structure articles like "Appearances in the films", "Appearances in Legends", and "Appearances in the newer canon". As far as infoboxes go, I'm against specifically mentioning (Canon) or (Legends) in things like "first appearance". A character does not make their debut twice, after all. When it comes to in-universe information, clarifying whether it's Legends or not might be useful, but I don't think we really need in-depth family lists and the like for the most part. This might be how I'd structure Thrawn's article, for instance. – The Millionth One (talk) (contribs) 22:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Obviously I'm with you on the real-world chronological aspect, and you are exactly right that we're essentially talking about publishing eras, which may be a good way of explaining it in any MOS language we devise. Your Thrawn example, though, touches on something that I've been having trouble articulating as far as canon vs. Legends. In your heading examples above, "films" and "new canon" are the same thing, so the jumping back and forth bothers me even though I fully get the real-world chronology. I think the way we should think about the franchise is this: what we call "canon" is the source material, and Legends is adaptation. Canon works are the "book", and the derivative stuff like Legends and video games are the "TV movie". And in any article about an original work, you would cover the work first, with a subsequent section and perhaps spinoff article covering the adaptation. That's how I structured Thrawn. IMO, a strictly chronological approach might work fine for lists or list-oriented articles, but I think less so for most character articles. One issue is simply that, though our approach shouldn't be plot-centric, it seems confusing to cover plot from the 80s in section 1, then 90s and 2000s in section 2, then go to current material in section 3 with plot that follows section 1 but likely contradicts the previous section. It may sort of work for Thrawn because he was SWEU only until now, but not so much with any original trilogy characters. And perhaps if these characters had as many incarnations as comic superheroes it would be the only way to go, but right now the current format for all the major SW character articles works for me.— TAnthonyTalk 23:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Notability of List of changes in Star Wars re-releases
I have given some thought into proposing List of changes in Star Wars re-releases for deletion. How does this have any encyclopedic merit? It feels very much like WP:FANCRUFT. Keep in mind that I am a Star Wars fan myself and I consider myself fairly knowledgeable on the subject, but I don't see how this has any place on Wikipedia. I could completely live with this article if it was consistently sourced or at the very least was written in an encyclopedia manner, but it's not. The article is poorly written and is barely sourced, consisting mainly of unsourced assertions and possible original research that forces the reader to take everything written in the article with a grain of salt. For these reasons and the possibility that the list is a bit too trivial for Wikipedia, is there any reason it shouldn't be considered for deletion? Darkknight2149 (talk) 03:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Should I interpret the lack of response as a go-ahead to nominate the article for deletion? It doesn't really seem like any other editors care, which tells me that it probably isn't notable at all. DarkKnight2149 00:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I can see why the article might be worth having: the Star Wars re-releases have contained some pretty controversial changes, from the addition of CGI, to changing Boba Fett's voice, to the the whole "Han shot first" debacle (which has its own page), and I'd argue that these are notable due to drawing a lot of actual criticism. So, I'm a bit hesitant to endorse outright deletion of the page. Still, the page itself doesn't really justify that position, being sprawling and unsourced, and full of trivial detail that might be better served on Wookieepedia. – The Millionth One (talk) (contribs) 00:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If there is consensus to keep the page, then I definitely feel that it needs to be heavily edited with reliable sources. I still think that the majority of it isn't notable. Is it possible to mention any of the major changes/controversies on the articles of each film? If properly written and sourced, I don't think it would take up much space since it wouldn't be mentioning every single change made. DarkKnight2149 01:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Might be better if converted into a prose article. FunkMonk (talk) 04:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I think it's time to close this discussion, since it's been open for a while now. But before that happens, one final thing needs to be clarified. Can we all agree with converting the article into a prose instead of a list? DarkKnight2149 14:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I can see that there are no further objections. I will begin turning the article into a prose when I get the chance. DarkKnight2149 21:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I belive, we should write, the changes into each respective film, article, rather than into an article for all films. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosvel92 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Help locating something in Bantha Tracks
I'm trying to work Languages in Star Wars into shape, and I removed a quote from the article sourced to Bantha Tracks #17: "For the Ewoks, I was inspired by a recording on a BBC documentary of an elderly woman speaking Tibetan. It was very high-pitched and sounded like a good basis for Ewokese to me. Eventually then, what evolved was a pidgin, or double talk version of words from Tibetan, Nepali and other Mongolian languages. Huttese was created by the same process." I'm having immense difficulty reading the Ben Burtt interview due to focus problems over the past couple of days, and scanning the interview, I cannot find the quote at all. While I'm willing to believe it's not in that issue of the newsletters, I'm growing doubtful of myself. I'm wondering if anyone s willing to humor me (I'm a mess) and do a double check and see if they can find it in there? ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  02:56, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Also to this end, does anyone happen to have or have access to a copy of Star Wars: Galactic Phrase Book & Travel Guide and can help out with any development and language/sound building information that's (apparently) in there? ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  19:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Clone characters
Category:Clone characters has been nominated for. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. This category was created this morning, should you find it wholly unfamiliar. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  15:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

The Rebel Legion
Would someone from WP:STARWARS mind taking a look at The Rebel Legion? The article survived an AfD and the group does appear to be involved in quite a bit of charity work, but most of the article seems to be written in too much detail and directed towards a small specific audience for a Wikipedia article. The article is listed as being under the scope of this WikiProject so perhaps someone here is more familiar with it than I and can help advise on how it should best be cleaned up. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Ooo. I'll start looking for third party coverage before pruning all that so there's something to replace it with. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  01:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look and cleaning things up . The article looks much better now IMHO. The group seems to being doing some good things with it's charitable activities, etc., but that was all getting buried under the excessive details about its structure, etc. The focus is now where it should be. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:01, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to split Star Wars
There is a proposal to split the "Theatrical films" section of the Star Wars article into its own article. Input is welcomed at Talk: Star Wars. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  14:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion about inclusion criteria for character lists
I've opened up a discussion on inclusion criteria for List of Star Wars characters and List of Star Wars Legends characters at. I haven't been able to come up with a solid proposal for said criteria, though I think the lists need some. Input is welcomed. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  02:23, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

"Jedi Order" family tree
created something of a master-apprentice family tree for a variety of characters, and I've removed it from the articles where he well-intentionally included it: it seems simply to visualize trivial connections between characters (where meaningful connections are already articulated as prose in the article), and the placement has just been awkward. I suggested he initiate a talk-page discussion, and he asked me in turn to go ahead and start it. So ... started. --EEMIV (talk) 12:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:WAF. This is trivia for an encyclopedia writing about real-world impacts. --Izno (talk) 12:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Jedi Order
{| class="navbox collapsible " style="width: ; " ! class="navbox-title" style="background: ;" | Jedi Order Master-Apprentice Relationship

Sith
{| class="navbox collapsible " style="width: ; " ! class="navbox-title" style="background: ;" | Sith Master-Apprentice Relationship

This are the Tree's in question. The Sith one is perfect because there's not many characters trained by Sith, the Jedi Tree definitely would need more work, since there's many characters. I suggest to at leat keep them in the Jedi Order and Sith, respective articles although he Jedi One needs to be improved. Rosvel92 (talk) 12:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Grevious isn't Firce-sensitive and doesn't belong in the tree, regardless. But I agree with the above, that it lacks real world perspective. oknazevad (talk) 14:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * None of the bottom characters are Sith except for Savage Opress. The table needs to be revised. Also, Darth Bane and Darth Plagueis should be on it. DarkKnight2149 21:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Added both Darth Plageuis and Bane they are disconnected from everyone because we don't know their padawans, it hasn't been revealed if Plagueis was palpatine master in Legends, but in Canon it hasn't been revealed yet. I wanted to have them on each characters respective article, but now I'm thinking we should at least have them in the articles, for the sith and the Jedi Order respectively.Rosvel92 (talk) 00:24, 8 September 2016 (UTC)Rosvel92
 * The General Grievous, is not a Sith could be resolved by adding a note but is important to mention he was trained by Dooku, and Ventress too.


 * This is all very nice, but EEMIV and Izno's original statements that this is all in-universe trivia still hold true. You're welcome to put this on your user page, but I don't see any acceptable use in any Star Wars articles, including Jedi. I would think these relationships are already addressed in the plot summaries of appropriate works.— TAnthonyTalk 01:02, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Plagueis is confirmed to be Darth Sidious' master in the canon (even though the films themselves don't specify). And as I mentioned earlier, Asajj Ventress, General Grievous and the canon version of the Inquisitors are not Sith. DarkKnight2149 01:09, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Infobox colors
I don't think there has been a recent discussion about this, but obviously at some point all of the character articles were brought to the default infobox color (grey) as with most franchises. Qäsee has just colorized a few (Darth Maul/red, Kylo Ren/black, Chewbacca/brown) apparently based on their physical appearance. Obviously if we're going to implement a color scheme for infoboxes, it should be discussed/planned with consideration of the characters as a whole, and should be implemented globally across all characters.20:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't think the colors are necessary. --EEMIV (talk) 20:07, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The appropriate guideline is WP:DEVIATIONS. I removed the colors added, along with the black at Darth Vader, which had been there for a long time. oknazevad (talk) 16:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Great interview/source
[http://www.starwars.com/news/dave-filoni-interview-star-wars-rebels-season-two-part-1 Dave Filoni re. season 2 of Rebels ] - but also a ton more, touching on Matt Lanter in Clone Wars/Rebels, borrowing ideas from TFA & West End Games & The Last Crusade, working with Lucas, and CW/Rebels connections & production. I've pulled a little bit for the Ahsoka article, but there're some good nuggets in here that'd be useful at several other articles ... which, alas, I just don't have the capacity for right now. So, here ya go. --EEMIV (talk) 15:07, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll try to read it sometime in the next few days and determine where to put the information. I would do it right now, but I'm busy at this second. I also have to open a sock investigation on a user who is vandalising supervillain articles. DarkKnight2149 19:23, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I might not be able to, after all. It turns out that I now have to juggle more than one sock case. I'll get to reading the interview if I can. DarkKnight2149 05:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Additional input
Feedback would be appreciated here: Talk:Star_Wars:_From_the_Adventures_of_Luke_Skywalker. Please and thank you. --EEMIV (talk) 17:36, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Darth Vader
While I'm trying to get the Darth Vader article up to GA status and nominated it for a peer review here, I've opened up a few discussions on the talk page. Some of these can be found at Talk:Darth Vader, Talk:Darth Vader, Talk:Darth Vader and Talk:Darth Vader. Input from project members would be appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:46, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

RfC on Star Wars expanded universe
There's an ongoing WP:RFC at Star Wars expanded universe regarding the issue of the non-canon material before April 2014. The discussion can be found at Talk:Star Wars expanded universe. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:55, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

CT-5555 page needs help
I am a new member of Wikipedia and I made a page about CT-5555. I asked few questions in the teahouse, 5 minutes later page is already proposed for deletion. Can an experienced user help?FriyMan (talk) 12:40, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia, and welcome to the Star Wars WikiProject! I'm afraid the article should be deleted because CT-5555 doesn't meet the notability guidelines here at Wikipedia, so it's not eligible for an article. In-depth lore articles like this should go on Wookieepedia. Before creating a new article on Wikipedia, I'd recommend asking the relevant WikiProject for assistance. You'll want someone to check over the sources you are using, and make sure the topic is notable so it doesn't get deleted. Also you can use a userspace draft to start the article and solicit feedback before it goes live on Wikipedia. Basically it puts the article in your sandbox so you can work on it and people can help with it before it becomes a full article. --Odie5533 (talk) 13:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Feedback requested
I've gone and made a mess of things again. Feedback appreciated. --EEMIV (talk) 20:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!
We would like to wish everyone on the project a very happy holiday season! Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:06, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Happy Life Day! --Odie5533 (talk) 03:09, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * :) Thank you and back atcha! --EEMIV (talk) 20:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Character categories
I've just reverted the addition of newly-created Category:Rebel Alliance and New Republic characters to multiple articles for the reason that it is blatantly in-universe and unnecessary, especially as a replacement for Category:Star Wars characters or Category:Star Wars Legends characters. To this end, I'd also like to discuss Category:Jedi characters, Category:Sith characters and even Category:Star Wars droid characters. Articles should be categorized by real-world attributes, which Jedi, Sith and droids are not.— TAnthonyTalk 16:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Canon/Legends separations in lists
I've started a discussion over here Talk:List of Star Wars video games, seems that over the past couple of years there's been some back and forth over whether or not legends and canon items should be segregated into separate tables on list pages. It'd be nice to get a consensus on this from more experienced editors. Thanks! BadWiidTino (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

File: Star Wars The Last Jedi.jpg
Can someone extract the text from File:Star Wars The Last Jedi.jpg to create a text-only file? This would become a PD-textlogo image suitable for uploading to COMMONS and usable on other Wikipedia languages that do not support fair-use (due to the starfield) -- 65.94.168.229 (talk) 06:17, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

In-Universe Chronology on Star Wars canon
I recently removed the BBY/ABY dating from Star Wars canon, and there is currently a discussion on whether or not the dating should be restored, and if so, in what form and the logistics of such. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  17:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * This issue is still not resolved, and will also affect List of Star Wars books, List of Star Wars comic books, and to some degree other articles, if anyone would like to participate in the discussion. Thanks.— TAnthonyTalk 17:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)