Talk:Star Wars/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Community reassessment

Star Wars

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · 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)

Title	U.S. release date	Director
Saga
A New Hope	May 25, 1977	George Lucas
The Empire Strikes Back	May 21, 1980	Irvin Kershner
Return of the Jedi	May 25, 1983	Richard Marquand
The Phantom Menace	May 19, 1999	George Lucas
Attack of the Clones	May 16, 2002
Revenge of the Sith	May 19, 2005
The Force Awakens	December 18, 2015	JJ Abrams
The Last Jedi	December 15, 2017	Rian Johnson
IX	May 24, 2019	Colin Trevorrow

Title	U.S. release date	Director
Other
The Clone Wars	August 15, 2008	Dave Filoni
Rogue One	December 16, 2016	Gareth Edwards
Untitled Han Solo film	May 25, 2018	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)

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)

Way too big

Am I the only one who thinks this article should be majorly pared down? For instance, there is way too much overage of each film that should be split off into its own article. Wilburycobbler (talk) 17:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

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 wants to do the split.Rosvel92 (talk) 06:08, 2 July 2017 (UTC)Rosvel92

It's because THIS article is "Star Wars (franchise)" and it doesn't make sense to split off everything into basically separate franchise articles. And the film series is the main thrust and the centerpiece of the Star Wars franchise. They're going to have the most coverage in this article because they're the most high profile, the seminal works, the most influential. If anything, I personally think information should be pared down and smaller pieces of the franchise shouldn't be given undue weight. Do we actually need to put that much sectioning and information on theme park attractions? Do we really need that much focus on video games? Personally, I've been saying pare down plot summary a little more and some development on individual films, possibly merge the sections into trilogy overviews—but that suggestion doesn't have consensus either, and I can understand why. And, frankly, I'm not sure the article is actually that long (there are plenty of other articles of similar length), the article is just poorly structured and difficulty to navigate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TenTonParasol (talk • contribs)

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) 17:26, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Let's just discuss this entirely at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Star Wars/1. There isn't much use duplicating the argument exactly in both places. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 18:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Wilburycobbler making a split and my immediate reversion: neither here nor at the Good article reassessment page has there been a consensus to split this article, so I reverted it. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 23:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion for splitting the Star Wars (film series) as it's own article

Made the other discussion, which was basically this same discussion. A subtopic within this same discussion. I also saw the table about the Oscar wins & nominations converted into prose. And I feel no one is going to bother or understand how to read that as prose, everyone will get lost in that paragraph. It was better of as a table. *Honestly the solution is that film series, should be split into it's own article with all the info remaining as it is without further expansion. In the franchise article, only the current main table of all the films would, and each trilogy would be reduced to a brief two sentence description of the timeline for it. *Also I suggest merging the current sequel trilogy article with the proposed Star Wars (film series) article. Rosvel92 (talk) 17:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)Rosvel92

I had brought up the conversion of the table into prose at the GAR and nobody had anything against it for two weeks. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 17:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the article should be split. Firstly, there's already a list of Star Wars films and television series, so it'd be completely redundant. Secondly, there's already a ton of sub-articles about video games, about theme park rides, about, frankly, everything. It's one of the most extensively covered pop culture topics on Wikipedia. We do not need more articles at all!
What should happen is a paring down of details here. Let all those tons of articles do their job instead of over stuffing this overview. oknazevad (talk) 18:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
To restate my position, this is the same position I've taken the multiple times this split discussion has come up. I absolutely agree this article is bloated. But I do not think splitting it is the solution. It needs to be pared down some and leave some of the more specific detail at the existing sub-articles. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 18:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
If we split the Star Wars (film series) into it's own article, then the article List of Star Wars films and television series could be easily incorporated into the article for the Star Wars (franchise) article, which would work better than having the list as it's own article.Rosvel92 (talk) 19:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)Rosvel92
How is a franchise article different from this article and different from the list of television and films? This article is effectively a franchise article, how does paring down information and distributing it amongst the subarticles and rebalancing this article not solve the navigation issues? If "Star Wars (franchise)" exists, what is the primary topic of this "Star Wars" article? ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 20:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

My slightly uninformed suggestion to be ignored at will (apologies but I found these discussions a little hard to follow as to exactly who wanted what).

Star Wars (with or without franchise in the title). Contains a brief outline of all SW content, main focus on films, also covering the existence of books, video games, TV, merchandise etc etc. Much less detail than at the moment. I would suggest that the trilogies are clubbed together, with links to the individual film articles and a 'brief' outline of the plot arcs and notable info re the reception and impact. I'd also maybe think about pruning some of the tables, certainly the crew one. The objective of the franchise article is to describe the scope and impact of the Star Wars across all media types.
Individual film articles. No articles in between. However, I'd be open to having intermediate articles on the individual trilogies or possibly a film series article 'if and only if' it doesn't end up replicating the content either here and at the film articles, creating a content fork.

Just a suggestion.Scribolt (talk) 14:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I would say, that we should create a draft-template for Star Wars (film series) and then edit the article there.
Then when it's properly edited, rename the main Star Wars article into Star Wars (franchise) and re-arrange it to have less info about the film series, and re-order while trying to mirror the way the article of The Simpsons (franchise) is organized, ie:
Background (creation (just how Lucas, created Star Wars in the briefest way and a brief description as to what's canon and what' not canon), themes, main characters (film only, ))
then (films (keeping a table for the films, but a simpler table than the one that would be featured in the main article for the film series), television (with tables too, from the list of Star Wars films and television series that would be merged in), video-games , print works(novels, comics), theme parks), then merchandise. Then Parody works, Then Cultural impact.

The only major difference would be that in the case of Star Wars, the films are more important than the television, and also the video-games are more important.But definitely create a draft article, for the film series to agree on how to edit it. Also the article for the sequel trilogy would definitely be merged into the proposed article for the Star Wars (film series) article, someone should star a discussion there.

Also in an unrelated topic, check the discussion I added to the talk page, of the article about Star Wars Legends, my point is that the introductory paragraph to that article is wrong. Rosvel92 (talk) 14:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)Rosvel92

Comment I don't think a new article is needed, especially when List of Star Wars films and television series already exists. Part of the problem is that this article regurgitates too much of what exists at the individual film articles and could be tightened up. The statistical data about the films could be moved over to List of Star Wars films and television series so that the list would be similar in structure to List of James Bond films. That would solve most of the bloat issues here at this article. Betty Logan (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

You are right about not needing a new article, when it would be easier to move the excess of information, into an article that already exists. Such as List of Star Wars films and television series article, that could work and solve the issues.Rosvel92 (talk) 16:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)rosvel92

I think it's misleading to lump television in with the films. Even the Star Trek article doesn't do that. I propose that List of Star Wars films and television series be renamed to Star Wars (film series). Wilburycobbler (talk) 14:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Why would it be misleading? The article clearly declares that it also has television series. And, really, the Star Wars films and Star wars series lists are shorter than the Star Trek ones. Frankly, I'd propose moving it to List of Star Wars films and series so that things like web series are less out of place. Television and film are related forms anyway. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 15:03, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
What I mean is that the article implies that they are of the same level of importance, which is clearly not the case. Also, the film series is important enough for its own article, whereas the TV series are best summarized alongside books and games in the main Star Wars article. Wilburycobbler (talk) 18:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with what you are saying, but to make it more easy, here's how I think we should do it:

I would say the article for sequel trilogy, is the article that needs to be renamed into Star Wars (film series). Given that it already is an article that only concerns about the film series.

And I would say everything in List of Star Wars films and television series should be moved. The tables concerning the films into the films series article, and the tables about the television shows directly into Star Wars which now would be a franchise article.

Then with all info of the List of Star Wars films and television series article, distributed on other articles, we could delete the List of Star Wars films and television series article itself.Rosvel92 (talk) 15:31, 18 July 2017 (UTC)rosvel92

The sequel trilogy article is about the history of the concept of the sequel trilogy. It's about the sequel trilogy specifically, not Star Wars films as a whole. It would just create an issue where we have "Star Wars", "Star Wars (film series)", and then "Star Wars sequel trilogy". You're missing the point that this article, Star Wars, is already a franchise article. There's no way to make this article into a franchise article because it already is. Moving everything from "List of Star Wars films and television series" onto the main franchise article would only further bloat the main article. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 15:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

_____ You got confused, TenTonParasol. It would only be two articles:

The franchise article Star Wars (it will cease to be bloat, once most of the content regarding the film series gets split)
Star Wars (film series) (where all of the current sequel trilogy article would be merged inside, so just renaming the current article makes sense).

Once the two articles exist neither would be bloat, so it would definitely be feasible to move everything from "List of Star Wars films and television series" and distribute it across those two articles, in a fit way, without bloating either of them. And then deleting the list article, in order to have only two articles instead of the current three articles.Rosvel92 (talk) 16:17, 18 July 2017 (UTC)rosvel92

Why can't we just excise overdetail in this article, move things like crew and box office tables to the list article, and leave the sequel trilogy article to detail the (admittedly long) development process of that trilogy. No matter what, the sequel trilogy is going to end up at its own article because it has its own long development history. The bloat can be cut down simply by removing overprecise detail that is already currently covered elsewhere in this article. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 16:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I think this discussion is losing its focus. Its aim is to tighten up this article and scale down the content a little. There is an underdeveloped article at List of Star Wars films and television series which can easily accommodate the extra content. What happens thereafter at List of Star Wars films and television series is for the editors at that article to decide—they may well agree splitting the film and TV content is a good idea or they may oppose it—but the primary objective of cutting this article down in size will have been accomplished. Betty Logan (talk) 19:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

-- I think that for the meanwhile it would be okay, to move the extra information into the List of Star Wars films and television series article. *However part of the reason I want to push for the Star Wars (film series) article is to mention in more detail the controversy and enhancements surrounding the Special Editions VHS, DVD, and Blue-ray there. Also having all the info about the film series into the franchise article doesn't even allow to mention necessary simple things like how the main saga films feature an opening crawl, while the anthology films don't have opening crawl. Also the original trilogy is way far more deserving of it's own article than the sequel trilogy, even if the the sequel trilogy also deserves a whole explanation onto itself. But I would argue all the anticipation surrounding the sequel trilogy is mostly because how much we all love the original trilogy, because I'm completely angry at J.J.Abrams for retreading to A New Hope, and ruining The Force Awakens by making it the only un-original film in the series, so far. The whole reason, I want to see The Last Jedi is Luke Skywalker, a character that I'm fan of because of the original trilogy. I think it would be better to create an article for the Star Wars (film series) and just expand there on info about all the films, there's more than enough information to justify it's creation.Rosvel92 (talk) 07:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)rosvel92

We most CERTAINLY don't create or write articles based on a personal assessment of "deserving" or out of personal opinions of a work or personal feelings toward members of the crew. I suggest you read WP:SOAPBOX. The sequel trilogy has its own article because it has its own specific and lengthy information. It was explained to you before, the re-release changes are covered in the individual articles and in its own article, and it's undue to add the information anywhere else. If you really want to make a separate film series article to expand on details you personally think important or to push the important of certain members of the franchise over others, I ask you reconsider. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 12:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

List of Star Wars films and television series should definitely have some of the material from here move there. A good comparison would be with Marvel Cinematic Universe and List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films. Once that's done we can see what else (if at all) should be done. Two side notes. Star Wars sequel trilogy - I see no reason why this trilogy should have its own article, while the original one doesn't. The development of the original one was added here, the sequel should have also been added here (unless we go the other route and split each trilogy's development into its own article, which I'm sure this isn't what we want). Second, I'm also not liking the awards as prose (also just noticed its only showing Academy Awards, which I'm sure this can't be the only one to nominate them). --Gonnym (talk) 20:34, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

___________So far, the idea is to:

Move the excess of information about the films into List of Star Wars films and television series, so I say we should move the excess of info into that article (and also make sure Star Wars (film series) re-directs there).

The following reasons to do it are that:

The franchise article as it is right now, because of lack of space doesn't even mention or explain that there was three Special Editions, the 1997, the 2004 DVD, and the 2011 Blu-Ray (which to me is unacceptable, specially when this is supposedly, the article about the films). Nor does it have space to explain how the Main Saga films include an opening crawl, while the anthology films don't among other differences (moving most of the films info to List of Star Wars films and television series would give us space to explain those things). And, I also oppose to each trilogy having it's own article, moving all the films in the series into same article would work better. Everything in the sequel trilogy article could easily be moved into the List of Star Wars films and television series article, and it would work better than as a stand-alone article with lots of repeated info..
The whole cast and crew, awards sections, they mess the flow of the franchise article, but if they were instead only on the List of Star Wars films and television series article, they would not mess any flow (that's why it should be split).

Rosvel92 (talk) 20:33, 29 July 2017 (UTC)Rosvel92

Why is it of utmost important to mention the Special Edition releases? ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 20:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

@User:TenTonParasol, that's really not the main point of this conversation, don't derail it. Whether the special editions should or shouldn't be added, if that's a point of argument, it should be raised when its relevant. Its not relevant now.--Gonnym (talk) 21:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Alright, I'm just asking as an aside because it was mentioned as a rationale for why we should proceed. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 22:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

At any rate, as I said before, I support moving the crew lists off here and generally trimming the article overall. The whole business about the sequel trilogy article and whether or not an original trilogy article ought to exist is beyond the scope of this. I generally think the box office and awards information could also go into a revised List of Star Wars films and television series article. This would cut down a lot of the bloat by distributing it to the other article—and it doesn't require creating a redundant new article. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 22:32, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

___The main reason I insist so much with the Special Editions, is that if you were to ask George Lucas what's the best or the most canonical version of Star Wars, he would answer the Special Editions are the best and that the Special Editions are the versions he wants people to remember, even if not all fans agree with him. Given the consensus I'll rename the discussion into what everybody seems to agree upon.02:44, 30 July 2017 (UTC)Rosvel92 (talk)Rosvel92

Moving content to List of Star Wars films and television series

Has the consensus been reached. Can we start moving content?Rosvel92 (talk) 02:44, 30 July 2017 (UTC)rosvel92

I generally remind you about advocacy editing, soapboxing, and editing to achieve a particular aim or right great wrongs: WP:ADVOCACY, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:TENDENTIOUS. We don't need a new section, so I removed the heading. I think there's a consensus to move things over to the list, but I think we should do so a little at a time so we can assess it as it's going out. The list article can be restructured and discussed about a restructure over there. What should be moved first? The crew table? ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 03:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I lied! I realized how long the section actually was. Reinstating Rosvel's split, but with a shorter header title. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 03:13, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Regarding this, I imagine that will have to be separately discussed at that article, seeing as there isn't much of a consensus here for what to do about it. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 05:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I've gone over the articles touched about in this discussion and compared them with other similar franchises and their articles. My opinion for the articles would be as follows:

Main Franchise article (Star Wars):
- Development: A development of the franchise section - including movies, TV series, publishing, sale to Disney. This will also include the development process of the sequel trilogy. Note: This is -not- the development process of each film. But a high-level overview of how this whole thing came to be. Each film will deal with its own development process (including production, casting, etc). (Reference: Marvel Cinematic Universe#Development vs parts of Star Wars#Theatrical films that deal with the development of it & parts of Star Wars sequel trilogy#Production)
- Film/TV list - Have only the table from the top of Star Wars#Theatrical films and one for the shows which doesn't even exist. This should be similar to how Marvel Cinematic Universe#Feature films did it, with it actually being transcluded from tables in the film/TV articles. There is no need to talk about the films here as the link will lead them to the List of Star Wars films where they get an overview of the films in the franchise and if they want an even more in-depth article, they can go to the specific film's article.
- Cast & Crew: The table is redundant to the one found in Star Wars#Theatrical films. If the missing fields are really important they should be added to the table and this one should be removed.
- All other sections should stay.
- There are other sections which can be and should be created but that is for a different talk.
Film list/TV list (List of Star Wars films / List of Star Wars television series):
- Split the list to a TV and Film list (Similar to List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films and List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series) as there are enough content for each one and they are both different enough in scope (the following sections should be in both articles).
- Short film synopsis: Take the parts of Star Wars#Theatrical films that have the film synopsis and added them to this article. Split by sub-header for series (original trilogy, sequel, prequel, anthology, etc).
- Recurring cast and characters: Maybe take the main characters from the series (from List of Star Wars cast members for a Recurring cast and characters section (Similar reference: List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films#Recurring cast and characters
- Reception: Take the Reception (including sub-headers) section from Star Wars#Reception (Similar reference: List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films#Reception
- Special Editions: These can be included here (but should be short and explained much more in depth in the specific film's article).
Delete Star Wars sequel trilogy

While other articles might do this a bit different, please note that the articles I've references have received Good Article and Featured List ratings. Take that however you wish. --Gonnym (talk) 12:38, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

First I will start by moving everything under the sup-topics cast and crew and reception into the List of Star Wars films and television series exactly as it is, as those are the main things that disrupt the flow of the article by giving an excessive weight to the films.Rosvel92 (talk) 13:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)rosvel

I don't have time to respond more to Gonnym, but I do think that perhaps some summary of reception not in this level but incorporated into cultural impact? And, as usual, I protestthe idea that there's excessive weight in the films. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 14:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

There is no excessive weight in the films, they are just deserving of their own article. If they stay here, they would have to be cut down, since then they would have excessive weight compared to the subject of the article, which is about the whole franchise and not about the films themselves (hence the move). --Gonnym (talk) 15:57, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

That's a good first move. Such charts are exactly the sort of too-specific-for-a-general-overview that should be moved. And the destination of the right one. That said, I agree with TTP that it is first and foremost a film franchise (multi-billion dollar box office in the last two years alone and all that), so let's not be too eager to strip out film material from here. And I'm still not sure about splitting TV and film, if only because of the edge cases. For example, the Ewok spin off films were shown as TV films in the US, but were released theatrically overseas, so would they go on the TV or film article? What about Star Wars: The Clone Wars (film)? It was released theatrically, but is actually the pilot for the animated series, and not having those on the same article would be strange. Just things to think about. oknazevad (talk) 14:37, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

We can put them all in the same page and see how it looks but IMO, it will be too much information for one page. And while I understand why it might look strange, its not very different from being on a page for Episode IV and having a link to Episode V. Same thing could be here with something similar to "The animated series was based on the Star Wars: The Clone Wars (film) that served as its pilot". And while the Star Wars franchise is based on the film series, and no one here doubts it, its just way bigger. Having a separate article for the film is actually serving the propose you are advocating for, its giving more weight to them, compared to the other subjects which don't get their own article and are all in this one. If the films would have stayed here, their material would have to cut to make the article readable. --Gonnym (talk) 15:57, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I think. I think like splitting off the television and films is a good Idea, obviously still summarizing them here, but the article is a film and television series article, together, and I think that lier should remain such, perhaps renamed to "film and series" article, but the exact structuring of that ought to be discussed over there, I think. What I mean about reweighing the article, I'm worried that expansions are going to make things like the television series, theme parks, print media on the same level as the films, but they're not. And, general, yes, this discussion is about cutting down the article in GENERAL, not about reducing film information. Moving everything about the films off this page while INCREASING coverage of other aspects is indeed making the films less weight. At any rate, I do oppose expanding anything at all at this time. I think personally, any discussion of canonicity of elements ought to be taken out, or reduced greatly, if it's still there. I'm mobile and checking is hard. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 16:48, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean. Are you in favor of moving the film and tv info or keeping them here? If you are in favor of the move, why do you want them also being here? A very short summary should be enough, with a link for further reading in list article (similar to what I've just done with the theme park section). In that article they will have all the info relevant to the film series (and TV if thats the idea). Also, this article - Star Wars really isn't about the films, its about the franchise in whole, with the films being the major playing in it, but not the only - it including television series (which under Disney gain a much bigger role), comics and books, attractions, toys, culture phenomenon (to the franchise, not the films), and yes, even what is cannon and how it changed (which effects every aspect of the franchise). --Gonnym (talk) 17:18, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

In the process of this move and incorporating information, again as usual, I don't see why we NEED to mention the special editions here since this article doesn't even have a home release section, which I mention because it's coming up, avoid adding information without references. That doesn't help. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 16:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Please note that the move of material from this article needs to follow the guidelines at WP:Copying within Wikipedia to avoid any copy violations. I know that some of you will be aware of this but thought it worth mentioning anyway. There are several editors and admins who can help you with this if needed. MarnetteD|Talk 16:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

In regards to the expansions and table additions, there's nothing in the above discussion about EXPANDING the article or adding tables. The entire discussion, from the GAR to the above, has been about reducing the article. We don't need new tables, we especially don't need tables for theme parks because that's giving them undue weight. The article is too long as is, and we're discussing how to reduce that. Cutting down on some parts and removing some tables only to expand others and add NEW tables is not helping toward that. Frankly, if anything, the addition of the theme parks table should've been discussed here first. But it wasn't. Ditto with the major expansion to thay section which was later split off immediately after. Any expansion ought to be discussed as the main concern here is reduction of the article overall. NOT just reduction of film related elements. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 17:11, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that isn't how wikipedia works or even the purpose of this discussion. The current discussion is about dealing with the film and tv sections. The GAR is a different one (which in my opinion is still a long way a head). As for adding data that you don't like, explain why? Am I giving undue weight by adding a table with 10 lines in this article? You complained before that giving them a VERY short description was too much (even though other GA articles similar in nature have done that), so I very shortened it to a table. If you want to cut something, I believe the prose section should be cut, or at least edited down. The franchise page, how I view it, should be a top level summary of all things that make it a faction, be it films, tv, comics, and yes, attractions --Gonnym (talk) 17:25, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll answer both comments here. I am absolutely for having the film tables taken out. I don't think they ought to be here. I think that film sections ought to be reduced so that there's less film-specific production info. I'm just clarifying I don't think we should do something like reduce everything under the current "Theatrical films" section into one really bare bones section. That I think should never happen. The films are the primary thrust of the franchise, so to reduce them essentially to a minuscule section and a see also link definitely does not adhere to WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Even if in recent years the theme parts and print media and toy have become bigger, in the franchise's history as a whole, they have never had the exposure and attention that was given to the films. At the same time, no the GAR isn't actually separate, we should be addressing all issues at one time, and it's my understanding that this discussion came out of long-standing opinion that the article is way too long—which was also brought up at the GAR—and long-standing belief that the article has too many tables—which was also brought up at the GAR. Why do we need a table with the debut dates of the theme parks and attractions? Why are the themes parks so important that we need to put in a table, when the article was felt to have too many tables? The theme parks aren't that important in the grand scheme of the franchise's history. And this was not a "short" description of the theme parks. That's devoting whole sections to each attraction, which isn't what this article needs. I agree the this article should be a top level summary of all things, however, we need to consider WP:WEIGHT. Why are we making the theme parks more important? Making a table listing every single debut date, especially when there's now a separate article for that list, and main article for each attraction, just isn't doing top level summary. It's the same exact problem as having the crew list here! What I'm seeing here is that you understand that the film and television stuff can be dealt with more in detail at other articles, but you aren't understanding that the same goes for other parts of the franchise. Everything about this discussion has been splitting, so I think it's inappropriate to take advantage of it to expand. I have approached this entire discussion as about reducing the article as a whole, but it just happens that much of the bloat is in the film section—never at any point did I believe it was about film and television specifically. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 17:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

About the theme park tables. My 5 cents is that the main issue was never that there was too much tables within the article. The problem was that -there was too much tables about the films within the article- and that disrupted the flow of the article. The tables about the theme park, don't disrupt the flow of the article in the way the tables about the films did, so it's okay to keep them. That's my opinion. However I think that the table should distinct between the cancelled attractions, and the still running attractions.Rosvel92 (talk) 05:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)rosvel92

The original comment from Moxy at the GAR is "there is also chart spam over proposed text", which isn't a comment about the tables being only about the films, but rather that there are too many charts in general. I have no idea where you're getting the idea that the issue is that all the tables were film related. The initial issue is that there were too many tables, period. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 12:02, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Sources

Going to take some time to add and replace fan sources this weekend. Would love some help in this regard.....going to set up a star wars sandbox later today.....will link it up here.--Moxy (talk) 17:32, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

In other media section

I overhauled Star Wars expanded universe earlier this year, trimming and citing the equivalent subsections of Star Wars#In other media as overviews/intros to the redundant but slightly more robust sections under Star Wars expanded universe#Works. My plan was to eventually trim the "In other media" section here further (all the existing info should already be in the Star Wars expanded universe article), which should help with the size issues of this article. Perhaps even down to a single overview paragraph/section, but we can discuss. Connected to this, I've opened discussion at Talk:Star Wars expanded universe#Refine format and possible rename. There have been ongoing discussions about the possible confusion between "Star Wars expanded universe" and "Star Wars Expanded Universe", and a rename may also be in order due to the article's evolved scope.— TAnthony^Talk 17:35, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I've commented over there but I'll just summarize a few notes - this article should be the top level Star Wars article with a top-level, detailed-view about all things Star Wars and which leads to other sub-articles about the relevant topics - films, tv, comics, etc. Your current plane makes the other article somewhat the same as this one in that regard. --Gonnym (talk) 20:47, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Except that if this article went into detail about every media category, it would be pretty ungainly. But I could see trying it and then splitting off topics only as necessary.— TAnthony^Talk 16:18, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

High level detail, not specifics. Like I've given before as an example, Marvel Cinematic Universe has done a pretty good job with that, and they too have a franchise composed of a lot of different parts. --Gonnym (talk) 17:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Obi-Wan film

As of today, it is official that the studio is developing an Obi-Wan Kenobi centered film. This needs to be added to the page.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 19:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

So why is this film listed under 'potential projects' when it is a film that is in development?--50.232.205.246 (talk) 23:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

It's still in its development phase. Nobody is actually signed to it yet. Until it's announced to be certainly in pre-production, it's a developing project. The development phase is a perilous stage, indeed. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 23:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Film chart

I am coming to this talk page to discuss the incorrect wording that the chart currently uses. We have the Trilogies listed on one chart, while 'standalone' films are listed on a second chart. To the average reader, this appears to imply that they are separate continuities or part of another series altogether. Simply by watching Rogue One: A Star Wars Story one can understand that this is not true, and that Rogue One connects to A New Hope in a HUGE way. All in all, Rogue One improves the franchise as a whole, closing up plot holes and goofy logic that was once a blinding weakness in the films.^[1]^[2] The issue with using "Standalone" as a way to describe the Anthology films is that standalone the definition of such a word is "able to operate independently of other parts". Anyone can see that this is not true both with the Prequel Trilogy and the Original Trilogy. The events of Rogue One are the effects of Revenge of the Sith, referencing scenes from said film,^[3]Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). and leads right into A New Hope directly.^[4] The director has even stated that the film is a part of the "Star Wars Saga". Where the films directly connect the chart organization needs to be reorganized -- possibly in a "Live action" and "Animation" divisional manner, perhaps? This has been done on other pages and has proven effective. User:TenTonParasol - what do you have to say?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'm not TenTonParasol, but I disagree that putting the anthology films in a separate section of the chart from the main saga films that include an episode number in their titles implies in any way that they're in a separate continuity. I would also note that continuity/canon is irrelevant here, as that's an WP:INUNIVERSE issue, while the fact that the anthology films and the main saga films are different in production and purpose is a verifiable real-world aspect that should be noted. So, no, I think the chart is fine as is. oknazevad (talk) 10:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

References

Other Star Wars Films

So why exactly are the other Star Wars films, such as Ewok Adventure and Christmas Special, not listed in the article? They are specifically why I came to view the page as I needed info on them. As they are real films in the Star Wars franchise, they should be listed HERE.

65.79.128.12 (talk) 20:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Jus

They are covered in the Television section of the article. Reach Out to the Truth 20:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Ampersand

I've noticed that there seems to be an issue over whether or not to use an ampersand or and in the tables. Both @Oknazevad and Cubs Fan: have pointed out that in WGA credits, "and" means something different from "&" and they are indeed correct: Screen Credits Manual, Section I.B, "When credit is accorded to a team of writers, an ampersand (&) shall be used between the writers’ names in the credit to denote a writing team. Use of the word “and” between writers’ names in a credit indicates that the writers did their work separately, one usually rewriting the other. This distinction is well established in the industry through custom and practice." This fact is acknowledged by at least WP:TV ([5], [6]), though I couldn't find anything at WP:FILM. @AdamDeanHall: has reconverted the ampersands to and twice. It's worth noting that WP:& does allow for ampersands: "Elsewhere, ampersands may be used with consistency and discretion where space is extremely limited (e.g. tables and infoboxes)." Though, it doesn't say anything about this particular case.

I don't particularly have any sort of opinion on the matter at this time, but I'm sort of fearing it'll be a back and forth. But it is correct that "&" means something very different from "and" in this context. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 14:58, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, I've learned something new today. That being the case then its a no-brainer that the distinction should be retained in the infobox, and indeed anywhere we present the formal credits. Betty Logan (talk) 15:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Standalone vs. Saga

@DisneyMetalhead: There was earlier an expressed issue with the term "saga" exactly is what's going on with the infobox. In many usages, "saga" refers only to the trilogy films and the Skywalker storyline. In just as many usages, "saga" refers to all the live theatrical film releases. This is why the stable version of the page, including the tables, uses the less ambiguous terms "trilogies" and "standalone" releases. And, "standalone" isn't a fan term. It's an actual term used by the industry and by the production to constantly describe the anthology films to denote that they are NOT part of a trilogy and they aren't sequels and they're self-contained films. It's most straight-forward and least ambiguous to use "trilogies" and "standalone" ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 04:49, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Why are standalone films still being called "Anthology films" on this article?

The branding was changed two years ago due to the lack of clarity. The official Star Wars website has referred to these standalone films as "new standalone Star Wars stories series" or "Star Wars standalone films" since the change was announced at D23 in 2015.

All mentions of "Anthology films" should be updated to "Standalone films" for clarity, accuracy, and consistency.

Drmarmu (talk) 10:10, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Lucasfilm and retention of the characters

Before Disney bought Lucasfilm it appears that Lucasfilm retained the rights to the characters for sequels. Is this correct or mentioned somewhere? --RAN (talk) 00:21, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Could you rephrase the question, please? oknazevad (talk) 02:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

For instance Marvel lost control of the X-Men characters to Twentieth Century Fox for the movies. Lucas appears to have retained control of the Star Wars Universe, how did he manage that? --RAN (talk) 13:07, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Explained here at An Architect Of Hollywood’s Greatest Deal Recalls How George Lucas Won Sequel Rights

His lawyer was very good: "So in the negotiations that were going on, we drew up a contract with Fox’s head of business affairs Bill Immerman, and me. We came to an agreement that George would retain the sequel rights. Not all the rest of the stuff that came later, mind you; just the sequel rights. And Fox would get a first opportunity and last refusal right to make the movie." A combination of a good lawyer and the studios eagerness to quickly follow up on American Graffiti, and no expectation of a blockbuster sci-fi movie, since the most recent sci-fi was 2001, which was not a big hit. --RAN (talk) 13:16, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, very different circumstances. That the film rights for some Marvel properties are at other studios is actually the unusual situation (which stems from Marvel auctioning off those rights in the 90s to get out of bankruptcy, a decade-plus before Marvel movies were reliable blockbusters).

Now, that said, that Lucas retained sequel and merchandising rights instead of Fox is one of those oft-commented on things about the franchise, as it made Lucas a very wealthy man even before he sold his company to Disney for $4 billion. It's mentioned in passing, but I agree that it should be more thoroughly covered. It's a major aspect of the real-world background of a single film becoming not only a series, but a marketing juggernaut, which in turn became the model for subsequent media franchises. It certainly has more long-term impact than whether or not something is canon

Typo regarding Thrawn Trilogy

Thrawn Trilogy is mentioned under the section Prequel Trilogy, but there must be a typo which renders the link improperly. I suggest someone with access to edit the page should fix this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.57.179.210 (talk) 15:53, November 2, 2017‎

Fixed, Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 16:36, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Theatrical films section getting too big

This article is meant to be about the franchise, there's too much info about the development of the films in this article. Most of the info within the Theatrical films section should be moved into the list of Star Wars films and television series article as that's supposed to be the article focused on the development on Star Wars as film series.Rosvel92 (talk) 04:52, 10 November 2017 (UTC)Rosvel92

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Star Wars. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:21, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Star Wars#Combining all fictional universe articles into a new template

You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Star Wars#Combining all fictional universe articles into a new template. - Brojam (talk) 23:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

spoiler

When you type star wars into the search a major spoiler for last jedi is listed under main star wars page. Fix that — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.235.107 (talk) 03:11, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

That hasn't got anything to do with Wikipedia, possibly not even this particular article. And we can't really do anything about it, most of which is that it's Google and not least of which is WP:SPOILER. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 05:22, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2017

This edit request to Star Wars has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Star Wars: Episode IX (9) now as an officialy leaked title of "An Incoming Order." I suggested putting a section for it's leaked name so people know that this the possible title of the movie. Chewy0623 (talk) 18:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. General Ization ^Talk 19:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2017

This edit request to Star Wars has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Tyler Soccamanno was a role in Star Wars: A New Hope and should be added into the cast list Chewy0623 (talk) 19:09, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. General Ization ^Talk 19:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

The articles Star Wars video games and list of Star Wars video games shoud be merged

Both are almost the same thing, there is no sense in having two articles.Rosvel92 (talk) 16:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)Rosvel92

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2018

This edit request to Star Wars has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Maul Lockdown was not the last book published under the legends line. Honor Among Thieves by James S.A. Corey was the last book published in March 2014. As shown in the article bellow the Legends Brand was created on 25th April making its debut after the release of "Honor Among Thieves". This makes the statement incorrect. This is coupled with the unsatisfactory citations, which do not prove the statement sufficiently as it is false would, in my mind, be cause enough for a correction of the article. http://www.starwars.com/news/the-legendary-star-wars-expanded-universe-turns-a-new-page (Date of Legends Brand Creation)

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Honor-Among-Thieves-Star-Legends/dp/0345546857 (Date of Release of Honor Among Thieves)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_S._A._Corey (James S. A. Corey being two people)

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Star-Wars-Lockdown-Joe-Schreiber/dp/009954296X (Date of Release of Maul: Lockdown)

The first is source cited is the official Star Wars Website. The second is the amazon page with the appropriate date on it for Honor Among Thieves. The final one is the release date of Maul: Lockdown which can be seen to be before Honor Among Thieves and the announcement of the Legends banner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.50.184.135 (talk) 21:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

137.52.20.242 (talk) 14:47, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:02, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

NOT RESOLVED — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.50.184.135 (talk) 10:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Film chart

I have tried to correct this multiple times, but it is reverted right away. First of all, why are the Anthology films listed as standalone movies? That takes away from their importance to the overarching Star Wars Saga story. The entire live action theatrical films are canon to each other. In a larger sense anything deemed canon by Disney/Lucasfilm is likewise important. The wording just doesn't sit right. Additionally the infobox is misleading as it has the Anthology film separate from the Saga. Dividing films in 'main series' and 'anthology series' is not official nor correct. The studio considers the films the "Star Wars Saga" and should be set up this way. Along those lines any of the holiday specials are all deemed non-canon and now fall into the 'Star Wars Legends' banner that Lucasfilm gave all the expanded universe media upon their purchase by Disney. Needless to say this needs to be corrected and I'm bringing it here as no official consensus has been reached -though the consensus should be what the studio declared months ago. No fanboy unofficial titles, and sub-divisional headings needed.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:44, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

While I agree the main series wording shouldn't be used, a general "trilogies" title is what was in the table earlier, the table, as explained before, is divided into trilogies and standalone theatrical releases. The table doesn't give a damn about canon and it isn't making a statement on how important to the canon each film is. It was also divided that way to avoid leaving an awkward single-entry animated section—an animated film that's just as important to the canon as the other films, by the way. But, again, canonicity doesn't matter to that table at all. As explained before, Anthology films ARE standalone films, as in they are films released as isolated stories as opposed to films released as part of a trilogy. It is standard, industry language employed when third party sources talk about these films. It isn't a statement on their importance to the canon, only a statement to their real world release. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 04:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Also, the consensus on the article is to leave it in the trilogies, standalone releases. And the studio declaring things as "canon" has no bearing on the fact that the table is organized by the nature of release. See an archived discussion. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 04:46, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with TenTonParasol. The layout reflects the real-world development of the films, not the in-universe canon, which is in line with the guidelines for writing about narrative works such as film, television, books, comics, etc. You're the one reading canon into it, when it is not the purpose of principal on which it is organized. oknazevad (talk) 12:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with DisneyMetalhead: Why are we allowing fan-based declarative classifications on this page? It's not acceptable elsewhere, but on this one we can use words like "Main series" and separate them from the Anthology films; even though they're all in on continuity officially titled the Star Wars Saga. Editors are over-complicating things. Simplistically the live action movies are divided up into trilogies and into the anthology films. The animated film was indeed just the pilot episode of Clone Wars released in theaters....--206.81.136.61 (talk) 18:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The table currently does NOT use the phrase "main series", the table is currently split between trilogies and single releases, and I am arguing also that the main series phrase NOT be used (for precisely this reason!!). The separation isn't fan-based, it is inherent in the way that these films are talked about in the industry at large and inherent to the nature of their production. The table is not remotely separating things based in continuity, but based in the question of release: was it released as part of a trilogy or as a single film? And anyway, it makes no sense to say all the OTHER films need to go together on the basis of canonicity but separate TCW on the basis of real world production attributes. (Although it IS indeed a pilot, the TCW film is JUST as canon as the other films, so even if we WERE dividing based in relationship to canon, which we are not, the TCW is just as canon as Rogue One and ANH.) That is inconsistent and not the way information on Wikipedia is to be organized. And for the benefit of other editors so the line of discussion is most clear, the IP is quoting DisneyMetalHead from a comment made my talk page. Again, the division of the table into trilogy and standalone releases is NOT rooted in relationship to canon and it is not saying about whether or not the film is canon or belongs to the saga, it's simply saying that some films were trilogies and others were single releases. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 19:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

User:TenTonParasol, I first kindly ask you to stop shouting per WP:SHOUTING. You are in violation of Wikipedia practices while you lecture me about your personal understanding and interpretation of debatable information. The word standalone outside of Star Wars as a whole is indeed used often. However, it has never been used by any of the studios involved - therefore, if it can be avoided, why use it? It complicates things and begins to step into over-usage of sub-formatting making the page messy. The Clone Wars is canon. I'm not debating that. I'm stating that it should be placed in a section regarding the television series as it was/is the pilot episode for the series (see: Inhumans in the Marvel Cinematic Universe for a similar comparison - hopefully you don't need my example there, to be further explained). Regardless - the page is bloated and has too much information currently. It would be beneficial for Wikipedia and readers to have less sub-sections and merely a page regarding the films and TV series which are canon (which most of this page already is), and then one page that includes all of the non-canon Legends stuff. You further misquote me by saying that I'm simply arguing to get rid of the "Main Series" debate. This is false. What I am stating is that 'standalone films' is not official verbage used by the studio. Nor is 'trilogies', just as much as fanboy classifications of 'main series' would be. There is simply Star Wars Saga and Star Wars Legends. It's that simple. The franchise was incredibly complicated, until Disney bought out Lucasfilm and simplified it for all of us. I am merely stating that the articles should reflect the studio's official stance/formatting.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 08:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Further stated, to argue that Wikipedia can't divide the page purely based on canonicity-sake has nothing to do with my end of the discussion. My argument is that all this muffed up confusion can be avoided by sticking to what the official stance of the studio is. The moniker "Star Wars Saga" is only ever used with the films, though it could be used to specify canon media (including tv series). "Star Wars Legends" is only used for the non-canon stuff. It's that simple. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 09:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I find the accusation that I'm shouting ridiculous, as I've said at my talk page. Removing non-canon material from this page—the general franchise article—is separating things based on canonicity, and articles cannot be formatted that way. I don't agree that fixing the article's bloating problem lies in removing Legends material just because Legends isn't canon. There is no justification in policy and guideline to separate things based on whether its canon or not. I also bring it up because organizing things based on whether it's part of the saga or not—it's still organizing information based on their relationship to the in-universe continuity. I'm not saying that "trilogies" and "standalone" are official verbiage, but they are real facts about how the films were developed, produced, and released and how the films are talked about in the larger world: some of the films are part of trilogies, others are not, all Star Wars theatrical releases are one of those two. Wikipedia articles are not organized based on how a studio wants to brand things in this current moment. I'm not finding anything new to say here. To see if there are other opinions on this, I'm placing a neutral notice at WP:STARWARS and WP:FILM. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 16:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

The tables as they are appear to reflect the status of the films pretty accurately to me. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

User: TenTonParasol, regardless of your 'find'ings - you are indeed WP:SHOUTing - by definition. My argument is to use official studio-declared labels/banners. It's much simpler and less confusing. As the page is, the structure throws around varying information, while I believe there is a much more straight-forward structure which could/should be used. Deciding the studio's organization of the movies, when they already have -by indidividual episodic Trilogy format, and Anthology installments- is stepping into 'fan-fiction' territory. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and should use official names/classifications; not unofficial production "facts" to organize them.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

/* Film chart */ I don't know where else to ask this, but why does the article's first paragraph say "All seven films were nominated for Academy Awards"? It talks of three trilogies, so how are we to know which 7 of those 9? Will-o-the-west (talk) 18:03, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

That's outdated, as far as I know all of them were, and slightly inaccurate, there was also the Holiday Special, two Ewok movies (I know, those are Legends, but they are official Star Wars movies), and The Clone Wars pilot movie. - ZLEA _Talk ^Contribs 20:58, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I myself don't know at times whats canon and whats not canon. In my personal opinion, Star Wars is just a franchise consisting of various Movie Trilogies (the anthology movies will count eventually as Rogue One and Solo are both part of an Anthology Trilogy still in the canon Star Wars universe but separate from the traditional Episodes 1-9 with music by John Williams) and various television shows. This is not a fact. It is just my own personal opinion on movie franchises. I personally only consider a movie franchise and actual franchise if there are 4 or more movies in the franchise, except if any of the movies the franchise has made after the third movie is received a lot of hate from fans. Same away I feel for Trilogies, as all 3 movies in a trilogy are loved by most of its fans would I consider a trilogy. Itdosen't really matter if a movie series is either a trilogy or a movie franchise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.203.137.242 (talk) 18:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Star Wars Day/"May the Fourth Be With You"

Under cultural impact, would it be valuable to add a reference to Star Wars Day, May the 4th, and the saying "May the Fourth be with you?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:8600:7DFB:CCC5:5C80:BA28:B77B (talk) 16:03, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't have an objection if you cite a reliable source, but Star Wars Day is linked in Template:Star Wars, which is at the bottom of the article.— TAnthony^Talk 16:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

speculative material

Sure is alot of guess work sourced to clickbait tabloids and fan sites in the "Potential future Anthology films" and "Untitled Boba Fett film" sections WP:NOTSPECULATION.--Moxy (talk) 12:53, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Film table transclusion

I'm not sure when it happened, but please note that the table of films is now transcluded onto this page from List of Star Wars films and television series. See that page's history for any changes to the table. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 18:48, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Editing patterns as of late

I have noticed many people adding content or changing the article style without an edit summary or a post on the talk page. This needs to be done so we don't have the chaos of different people continually changing the style of tables, etc. Also, addition of "Untitled Boba Fett Film." is WP:OR and I will remove it at every instance and issue a warning. The film has not been officially announced. We should start reverting edits without an edit summary, as well. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 00:26, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, it's been going in retrograde circles as of late. There's no need to worry if we occasionally zig-zag to improve the article, but when old sections of the article that have been refined over many consensus edits suddenly get revived, they need to be reverted. If anyone feels strongly about making a change, explain your reasoning in the summary, or discuss here on the talk page first. Also, for anyone doing a revert, try to see if anything constructive got added so everybody's effort is respected. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:27, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I've manually restored the common-sense work done over the past few weeks that I was aware of, which got hastily changed, and then rolled back by hundreds of edits. Please, if you don't like the consensus edits, discuss it first before reformatting entire sections. UpdateNerd (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

'Setting' section

The setting section opens the article in a strongly in-universe tone, which we should seek to avoid. I don't think it contains anything that couldn't easily be integrated to the rest of the article, therefore removing the need for such a section altogether. UpdateNerd (talk) 19:12, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Sandwiching image

How can we get User:CapLiber to stop WP:Sandwich problem? Hes also setting fixed image sizes.....need more cleanup again--Moxy (talk) 11:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I feel like there's generally a growing issue where people want to include more and more images when they aren't necessary. There's just so many images for the sake of having images. Also, the captions are generally a mess and tend to be the longest captions ever. On top of that, the captions really need to stop using {{small}} because that makes the already tiny text even tinier, and it's bad form to use small text like that. Also {{double image}} is depreciated. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 14:46, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes notice lots of image and fan crap spammed all over as of late......not the same type of people that edit Wikipedia as many years ago.....long gone is the academic editor replaced with a new click bait generation growing up with horrible headline news.--Moxy (talk) 17:53, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I've noticed this comment a few times; perhaps you can add a better source tag to the specific areas you're noticing the issue. Cheers UpdateNerd (talk) 23:13, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2018

This edit request to Star Wars has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Added 1 (one) external link to the website with the article named "25 Best Star Wars Quotes".

I would like to suggest adding this external link as the website is topical and contains the article closely related to the existing article on Wiki. AndriiZip (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Clarification needed

A reader (ticket:2018091710012245 ) observed a potential source of confusion in the paragraph which starts as follows:

The sequel trilogy began with Episode VII: The Force Awakens, released on December 18, 2015. It was followed by Episode VIII: The Last Jedi, released on December 15, 2017. Episode IX is due to be released on December 20, 2019. It focuses on the journey of the orphaned scavenger Rey following in the footsteps of the Jedi with the guidance of the reluctant last Jedi, Luke Skywalker.

The reader mentioned one issue but I will add another one.

The second sentence starts with "it". When a sentence starts with that word, it typically refers to the subject of the prior sentence but the subject is "trilogy". Not likely to mislead the reader as it they may correct the error in context but if there are corrections to me made, this one could be addressed at the same time.

The fourth sentence also starts with "it". The subject of the preceding sentence is "Episode IX" but the reader thinks the word is referring back to Episode VIII. I don't know the subject matter well enough to know whether this is correct, but it seems difficult to believe that the reference, using present tense could be referring to a future release.

Could someone check the facts, and improve the wording?--S Philbrick (Talk) 13:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

GA Nom

@UpdateNerd: In my honest opinion, nominating this article for GA when there is still an open discussion with a possible pending overhaul is unwise. Especially when there is some sense of a consensus for this overhaul, and none of the recent edits have addressed concerns brought up either in the open discussion or the GA review in which the article was delisted. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 23:03, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I asked in that discussion how said overhaul to "subpages" would affect this main page, and no clear answer was given. If it meets the criteria, then it should be a GA. UpdateNerd (talk) 23:07, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Ignoring the multiple answers you got, is not "no clear answer was given", as can be evidenced by 4 people agreeing on the direction to take. Also, if you don't understand an answer, either re-ask the question, or try harder to understand. This article does not meet the GA criteria: Under "Immediate failures" it fails #3 (you removing the split tag because you didn't like it, does not mean the issue is gone) and #4. Under "The six good article criteria" it fails #1, #2, #3b and #5. You can save yourself and the person going to answer your request and withdraw it, as what I said here, I'll will repeat there and it will fail. --Gonnym (talk) 23:15, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

UpdateNerd, did you see Talk:Star Wars#Drafts? Brojam has offered a clear direction for this specific page. I agree with Gonnym's specific points as well as to why this would fail a nomination. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 23:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

The drafts also have to do with splitting out List of Star Wars films and television series, which hasn't reached consensus on that page. Other than links to Brojam's drafts, I haven't seen anyone state simply why those changes would be an improvement to the Star Wars article (copy and paste below please). UpdateNerd (talk) 23:35, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Keep up WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Re-read the discussion, and if you can't understand it, well maybe it's just not for you. --Gonnym (talk) 23:46, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

In my understanding, the proposal is to make this article focus more on Star Wars as a "film and media franchise" by making the film/TV sections more concise. Please give an example of each of those GA criteria failures, if you don't mind. UpdateNerd (talk) 00:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

3b.

To repeat what Gonnym literally said already: It also fails 3b for unnecessary details in a lot of subsections. I would say it also fails 3a because I believe coverage of several sections under "Television" and "In other media" is absolutely inadequate. It also fails 1,as Gonnym said, because the prose is generally atrocious. It also fails 5, because the fact that there is an ongoing discussion about whether or not to split with a possible consensus for a massive overhaul means it isn't currently stable. There is an ongoing dispute about the structure and content of this article. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 00:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Retracting for now; I agree the details should be trimmed down and added to other articles before nominating again. UpdateNerd (talk) 00:43, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Stop mentioning canonicity unnecessarily

@Rosvel92: for the billionth time, stop adding in sentences regarding canonicity status of works when it just is absolutely irrelevant. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 19:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure Rosvel's edit was in good faith, but the 2014 announcement of the Legends brand is in no way a validation of other TV projects being rebranded. It affirms the nine episodes and TCW as the "immovable" chapters of the canon, but it's not our job as editors to induct generalizations from that. The announcement was about the EU; in other words, novels, comics and video games. Cheers UpdateNerd (talk) 20:34, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

No, like, please understand, Rosvel has been told repeatedly over the past two years about this. And the announcement was pretty clear that anything that wasn't specifically named in-announcement as canon was non-canon. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 20:49, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Theme park attraction table

The same table can be viewed by clicking List of Star Wars theme parks attractions. It is a rather lengthy table for this more general Star Wars article; an overview is given in prose, so I think the table should be removed here. UpdateNerd (talk) 22:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Until you stop ignoring the split discussion and actually respond to the draft in some way, I'll oppose everything that comes from you. You cannot force your way by ignoring a discussion. --Gonnym (talk) 22:47, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Ignore the split discussion? I added the split template to the "List" page. Not every future discussion for a change to this article has to be in response to a user's draft. Separate issue, separate topic. UpdateNerd (talk) 23:20, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

All the charts should be removed ..and written up...if GA is the long term intent WP:PROSE.--Moxy (talk) 00:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Moxy, that is just not true. Most film and TV articles have more than a few tables and are GA and FA. And to UpdateNerd, it's not a seperate issue. This whole article needs a cleanup, but instead of replying to the draft proposal you are just editing this article regardless of other people's opinions, but when someone else does it (like the latest edit by Rosvel92) you just revert it. That's called WP:OWN. If your multiple edits don't need to be discussed, then neither do his (just by the numbers, you've removed more stuff in the last few days then he did). --Gonnym (talk) 19:19, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Other GA articles definitely do not have have unsourced charts spread all over them. Sourcing and charts will be the biggest obstacles for GA status.--Moxy (talk) 14:30, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

You were talking about tables in general All the charts should be removed, so yes, you are wrong and FA articles do exsist with multiple tables (no idea why you call them charts, but that's besides the point). I agree that they should be sourced, but then again, doesn't prose need to be sourced also? So that's a moot point to raise for one specific issue... --Gonnym (talk) 16:00, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

My edits, while also in favor of trimming the sections as agreed, were clearly defined by edit summaries. Rosvel92's was not, and had to do with an unfinished discussion. UpdateNerd (talk) 19:32, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Characters not included under "Star Wars the Clone Wars" Column

The flowing characters were in the television series, but are not under the column "Clone Wars" like they should be -Grand Moff Wilhuff Tarkin -Chewbacca -Greedo -Boba Fett -Qui-Gon Jinn (voice only, and a vision seen by Yoda) -Admiral Ackbar -Gunray -Jar-Jar -Binks -Darth Maul -Shmi Skywalker (as a ghost like figure) -Velorum -Ki-Adi-Mundi -typho -Bail Organa

I might be missing some, but these struck me the most. I can get the appearances in episodes at a later date.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.76.255 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 6 August 2014‎ (UTC)

[1] [1]

[2] [2]

[3] [3]

[4] [4]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]