Talk:List of Star Wars characters/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

This list doesn't meet the list selection criteria

This list has hundreds of entries, which fails the WP:CSC: "if a complete list would include hundreds or thousands of entries, then you should use the notability standard to provide focus to the list." Hence it should only include notable Star Wars characters. Another option would be to split it into a list of lists, such as List of Pokémon. Bright☀ 11:22, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

This is known, see above. I don't think anyone has actually gone through the list and trimmed it down to properly notable characters. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 14:47, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I have split the list into sub-lists by work, which are short enough to split into their own articles without failing WP:CSC. Bright☀ 13:11, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Your reorganization of this list was too bold. If this list is to be split up, I for one would prefer alphabetical lists, along the lines of List of Star Wars species (A–E), which would be more useful considering the way I believe the lists are currently used. Plus, splitting the characters by work is confusing considering many appear in multiple works. This list is also the redirect destination of many character links. Any major reorganization needs to be discussed.— TAnthony^Talk 15:20, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

And by the way, WP:CSC doesn't actually specify what is "too long", and though the portion quoted above does suggest trimming using notability, it does not actually prohibit long lists. The practical next step here is to be more stringent with notability; most entries are cited, but perhaps, for example, more obscure characters sourced only to StarWars.com can be removed. Once the list has been trimmed, we can decide if and how best to split it.— TAnthony^Talk 15:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Something else to think about. This list seems to have a few functions which make it useful: as the "main article" for various notable characters that do not warrant individual articles, as a central navigation tool for other characters with or without individual articles, and as a general resource for brief character overviews. Any improvement to the list should keep these in mind. Also, though List of Star Wars Rebels characters and related lists are fine, I don't think every single film needs a standalone list; a potential List of Rogue One characters is somewhat redundant of Rogue One#Cast, which is where readers would start anyway if interested in characters specific to that film. I think readers use this list when they come across characters and do not necessarily know what work(s) they may have appeared in or how they relate to other characters. Also, a List of Star Wars prequel trilogy characters is more efficient than three separate and redundant lists by film, if we decide to go in that direction.— TAnthony^Talk 17:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:CSC doesn't actually specify what is "too long" - yes it does, 32K characters. as a central navigation tool - navigational lists are for articles only. If you wish this list to be navigational, remove all characters without articles (this is in WP:CSC too, if you wish to read it again). as the "main article" for various notable characters that do not warrant individual articles - if you mean "notable", then it's only for characters that merit an article, and every other character should be removed. If you mean "non-notable", it is too long for that. See List of Pokemon for the correct way to handle such long lists. if we decide to go in that direction - nothing is stopping you from creating those articles if you wish. This article, however, cannot remain in its current abysmal state. Bright☀ 19:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Are you out of your mind? It is petulant and inappropriate for you to make such a mess without any real discussion, especially when your idea of how to break the list up has been challenged. And since you were obviously in a huge hurry to do this to make it that much more complicated to challenge or restore, are you planning to do any cleanup, like article title formatting, fixing broken citations, or the many redirects which you have now broken? You have completely ignored the actual functionality of this list and basically created a dozen useless ones. I'll try to wait until others chime in before I attempt to overhaul your obnoxious and misguided mess.— TAnthony^Talk 21:58, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

make such a mess - there is no mess. without any real discussion - there is years of discussion about trimming the list. Nobody did anything about it. There is clear consensus for trimming the list from years of discussion. There are two ways to do this: either by notability, which means removing all characters which do not have an article, or by splitting the list. are you planning to do any cleanup, like article title formatting, fixing broken citations, or the many redirects which you have now broken? If you were less panicky you'd see the answer to all of that is yes. Bright☀ 22:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

There's a space in between notable to have a standalone article and not notable enough to mention at all. And splitting this off into individual works is ludicrous because now there's DOZENS of unnecessary lists. Additionally, some of your lists aren't even accurate, like List of Star Wars Clone Wars characters (that's a title for a completely different series) or are plain silly List of Star Wars Forces of Destiny characters. The first step would be weed out extremely minor characters, and THEN see what's left over and if a split is still necessary. I agree with TAnthony that a split alphabetically or by ERA INTRODUCED is more appropriate, not by work. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

You are misusing the word notable. A list of notable characters would include only characters with an article or characters mentioned descriptively enough in reliable sources to merit an article. Either this is a list of notable characters or all characters. The first step would be weed out extremely minor characters, and THEN see what's left over and if a split is still necessary. No. If you weed out non-notable characters, then you weed out all non-notable characters. If you don't, then it's a list of all characters. See WP:CSC. You can't have "sort-of-notable" character lists. split alphabetically or by ERA INTRODUCED is more appropriate, not by work - do you have a single source that splits Star Wars characters by "era introduced"? And can you show a single Wikipedia list of characters article that is split into multiple articles alphabetically and not by work? I think the backlash here is entirely panicky without actually considering Wikipedia policies and guidelines and consensus, and years of discussion on this talk page. Finally someone does something and the people who have bloated the list panic and revert. Bright☀ 22:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

You can be 100% right about every point you're making, but that still doesn't grant you the power to unilaterally reorganize a list so drastically while ignoring the input other editors. You now have two editors saying that your specific manner of breaking this up is not the right one. No one is panicking, but you can't make such a huge overhaul of a longstanding article and not expect a strong reaction. I don't think anyone has disagreed that this list should be improved/split, and I can appreciate your being bold about it, but at the same time I think it was rash and obnoxious to execute it the way you just did. — TAnthony^Talk 22:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

You can be 100% right about every point you're making Thank you. you can't make such a huge overhaul of a longstanding article and not expect a strong reaction That is called article ownership. Try to match your statements with these statements that may be part of ownership behavior. Here's what I see:

• The list is too long according to WP:CSC (hundreds of thousands of characters over 32K characters, many hundreds of entries)
• There are years of discussion with clear consensus for trimming the list. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, the two discussions above, and of course mine) About half the discussions suggested a split, the other suggested removing characters that aren't notable.
• Since no one was taking the notability plunge and I didn't feel like scouring many hundreds of random Star Wars character names for references, I split the article, as has been suggested time and again before.
• This was "too bold."

Don't say there isn't consensus or that I'm ignoring input. I made guideline-backed edits with years of discussion (both fresh and stale) prior, and neither you nor other editors raise policy or guideline backed reasons to revert; "too bold" is not a valid reason; alphabetical splits or "by era" is actually the non-standard and non-helpful way to do this, while character lists by work is the most common way to split character lists. Bright☀ 22:48, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "Era introduced" is something i only suggested because you keep pointing at List of Pokemon, which splits based on Generation introduced—I was simply searching for an adjacent structure. Personally, I prefer alphabetical splits. Also, if you read the CSC you keep linking to:

Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles: for example, List of Dilbert characters or List of paracetamol brand names

At a list of characters, not EVERY single entry on the list needs to meet individual article notability criteria, but generally, character lists require that a character meet a LESSER threshold of notability for inclusion on the list. This is how character lists are written across Wikipedia, including those that are recognized quality content. There IS a concept of "sort-of-notable" with regard to character lists. Not every character at List of Uncharted characters, List of The Last of Us characters, Characters of Final Fantasy VIII, List of Naruto characters are notable enough for their own article, but they are included because they are significant and notable enough to warrant inclusion on a list covering the fictional characters topic.

The only reason we're getting upset is because you made a MASSIVE change that required the creation of ELEVEN new pages without consulting anyone. If you simply started taking minor characters off this list, trust me, I wouldn't have said a thing. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:32, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Generally, I hope very strongly to the "there is no deadline" principle—especially given there isn't a pressing need to have this particular list in shape. But, genuinely, if it is felt something needs to be done now, I'll start going through the list (and List of Star Wars Legends characters) and trimming it tomorrow. And once that's done, what's to be down about anything else can be looked at. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

splits based on Generation introduced—I was simply searching for an adjacent structure. You'll note that Pokemon generations are split by works, which is how I split this list, which is how most long character lists are split on Wikipedia. generally, character lists require that a character meet a LESSER threshold of notability for inclusion on the list No. No. No. You keep misusing the term "notability". There is no "lesser threshold of notability". Please read WP:N. The selection criteria in the lists you linked is not given and most of those articles are not properly sourced; see how they have "other characters" sections that entirely lack third-party sources and there is no inclusion criteria for them; whoever promoted those articles to featured articles was doing so against Wikipedia guidelines. without consulting anyone you mean besides the many prior discussions that all agreed the article needs to be split? I'm detecting a lot of WP:OWN behavior here. Bright☀ 23:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

No one is objecting to the fact that the list should be somehow split, we are objecting to the way you think it should be done. One problem with bluntly splitting the list by film, for example, is that List of Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace characters, List of Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones characters, and List of Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith characters are basically all the same list. List of Star Wars Forces of Destiny characters is redundant and unnecessary because every character in that series originated elsewhere, and the show article itself lists the most notable ones. And again, that kind of split ignores the way the list is most likely to be used, which is to learn something about specific characters, not specific films. Entries like Nute Gunray or Dengar are characters who appear in multiple works and are linked in multiple articles, but may not have another logical redirect destination. I won't argue the fact that the scope of this list is now too broad, but there have to be other ways to split this list that would be more useful. No one needs three prequel film lists with most of the same characters.— TAnthony^Talk 23:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)My point here is that the Pokemon list isn't split into List of Pokemon Sapphire Pokemon, List of Pokemon Ruby Pokemon, List of Pokemon Mystery Dungeon Pokemon, etc etc. I don't actually care for the era thing, as stated before, there's no reason to harp on it. The reason I oppose splitting by work here is that many of these articles are going to end up the same. Why is there a need for separate articles for ANH, ESB, and ROTJ when they repeat most of the same cast? Ditto for TPM, AOTC, ROTS. Ditto for TFA, TLJ, XI.

Also, like, you just aren't listening to what I'm saying and you're the one misusing notability as it applies to lists. It's a different ballgame. The lists I gave are currently standing as Featured Content, and not every list needs to spell out on its main page what the selection criteria is. Some lists, due to the massive size of the cast implement more stringent inclusion criteria. All past discussion on this page have agreed that due to how large Star Wars is, this list should have a much stricter inclusion criteria than is common for character lists.

Also, the archives of discussion talk about trimming this article down based on stricter inclusion criteria, not about splitting it, so claiming that your decision to split is backed by years of unimplemented discussion is false. I agree that a split may be needed, I just believe the HOW of the split will become clearer when the article is trimmed down first.

And we're not trying to own the article. We're saying that your split was malformed and ill-advised, and we're pointing out that it is best practice on Wikipedia to discuss massive changes first. Which you have not done. Also, since we're going on circles, I've posted neutral notices of this discussion at WikiProjects Star Wars, Film, and Television. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:16, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@TAnthony: No one needs three prequel film lists with most of the same characters Now that's an actual reason that's backed by Wikipedia policies or guidelines. However, it's not a reason to revert the edit; it's a reason to merge the nearly-identical lists. If the lists were really that similar it would have been trivial to merge them. My suggestion: merge the nearly-identical lists by topic (List of Star Wars prequel trilogy characters or whatever) instead of reverting this article to its much-too-overly-long state which was needing to be split for years. Someone finally does it and it's not perfect so it's reverted... Bright☀ 23:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@TenTonParasol: As an aside, you are removing some lists with the edit summary "list will never be lengthy enough to warrant own article" when it does, in fact, warrant its own article in its current length under WP:SPINOUT and WP:SIZESPLIT. the archives of discussion talk about trimming this article down based on stricter inclusion criteria, not about splitting it Sigh... WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT... if you search for "split" in the archive you can literally find four discussions about splitting the article in seconds. In fact you replied to my intention to split two days ago, so, uh, can you stop pretending there was no discussion about splitting the article. your split was malformed no it wasn't. it is best practice on Wikipedia to discuss massive changes first a split or notability-criteria was discussed for years. Speaking of selection criteria... not every list needs to spell out on its main page what the selection criteria is Yes, it does. See WP:SALLEAD: "A stand-alone list should begin with a lead section that [...] makes direct statements about the criteria by which members of the list were selected, unless inclusion criteria are unambiguously clear from the article title." Unless every character is included (per the title), the inclusion criteria needs to be stated. So yeah, those articles explicitly violate Wikipedia guidelines, in addition to being poorly-referenced. They got promoted to featured lists against Wikipedia guidelines. And again, please don't confuse notability with selection criteria. Bright☀ 23:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

The context of that sentence is for lists like List of films considered the best or List of best-selling books. I meant that a character list doesn't need to explicitly state in the lead, "This is a list of characters from this work that have appeared in a title in a significant manner and is considered important to the narrative and thematic arcs." or "This is a list of characters who have appeared in three works in a significant manner and have been mentioned in three reviews in a non-trivial way." This entire conversation is you splitting hairs on semantics.

And I'm sorry, when I ran the search before I made that statement, Chrome didn't ping it. At any rate, the discussions don't exactly support a list by individual works, at smallest it's by trilogies. And don't dare present what I responded to as a fully formed intention to split. And I basically replied to that saying: trim first. You did not lay out in that first statement a full plan of action to split, and you presented a choice: split or trim. You making a statement and me pointing out the list hasn't been trimmed is not remotely a discussion agreeing to split. I maintain that your structure is malformed, as pointed out by TAnthony above. It was not well-thought out, it created redundant and unhelpful lists, it increased clutter overall.

Overall, you appear to me to be following the letter of the law rather than the spirit and pulling things out of context and common practices regarding character lists and how large scale changes that involve over a dozen articles are made. Especially given you're harping on notability as a word. Demonstration of some level of notability can be used as a selection criteria. You're presented it as if it's a binary choice: every character needs to have the notability for a standalone article or it needs to list every single named character in the franchise existence. I'm saying that is never how character lists are constructed. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 00:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

You did not lay out in that first statement a full plan of action Enough of this WP:OWN behavior. Or, if you want to have it your way, please submit a fully laid out plan of action before any further edits to Wikipedia.

You still don't understand notability, and you still don't understand selection criteria. Do you have any references that any of the characters in the "other characters" sections in those lists you linked are "considered important to the narrative and thematic arcs"? No? Then there's no selection criteria. This is not semantics, this is you not understanding what selection criteria is, and making absurd demands to run everything by you.

You're claiming lists don't meed the split criteria when they do; that's not semantics, that's ignorance of guidelines and policy. You're claiming lists don't need to explicitly state the selection criteria when they do; that's not semantics, that's ignorance of guidelines and policy. And, you keep misusing the term notability. That's not semantics, that's ignorance of policy. Bright☀ 00:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

It's not ownership, it's basic editing practice when making changes that large to tell the community about a large-scale change. Specific selection criteria for character lists is generally dependent on the local consensus and is generally beholden to Wikipedia best practices for writing about fiction. Which broadly speaking includes that the fictional element is significant to the arcs of the film in some way. It is standard practice when writing anything about fiction. You're asking that all entries on every character list exhibit standalone notability, which is ludicrous. I maintain they don't meet split criteria. The Rogue One article can adequately cover every significant character in that film, once you trim out all the cameos. That is genuinely what I didn't say. We're going in circles, so to prevent my silence from being seen as uncooperativeness, I'm noting: I'm not replying anymore unless something new is said or in the event that new editors join the discussion. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 00:33, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

it's basic editing practice when making changes that large to tell the community about a large-scale change This large-scale change was discussed for years. Your insistence that there was no discussion despite there being discussion, and the very peculiar implied demand to "lay out a full plan of action" have nothing to do with best practices.

You're asking that all entries on every character list exhibit standalone notability No, I am explaining to you, for the fourth time I believe, that either the selection criteria is notability, or the selection criteria is the title, or there needs to be an explicit selection criteria. This is stated in the guideline and I have linked several times to the specific section that says it. should I quote it in its entirety, with emphasis, so there's no more confusion?I maintain they don't meet split criteria. The Rogue One article can adequately cover every significant character in that film, once you trim out all the cameos.Okay, I guess I do have to quote it verbatim and bold the appropriate sections because you. did. not. read. it. Otherwise you wouldn't keep repeating this nonsense.

A stand-alone list should begin with a lead section that summarizes its content, provides any necessary background information, gives encyclopedic context, links to other relevant articles, and makes direct statements about the criteria by which members of the list were selected, unless inclusion criteria are unambiguously clear from the article title. Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed (for example, lists of unusual things or terrorist incidents), it is especially important that inclusion be based on reliable sources given with inline citations for each item.
— Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists

Your featured-list examples (List of Uncharted characters, List of The Last of Us characters, Characters of Final Fantasy VIII, and List of Naruto characters) fail this guideline, and in particular their selection is subjective, ambiguous, and most importantly not cited to reliable sources. When a selection criteria is not specified, it is either an all-inclusive list (in this case, all Star Wars characters) or a notability-only list. That is:

• Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia. Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future. This standard prevents Wikipedia from becoming an indiscriminate list, and prevents individual lists from being too large to be useful to readers.
• Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles: for example, List of Dilbert characters or List of paracetamol brand names. Such lists are almost always better placed within the context of an article on their "parent" topic. Before creating a stand-alone list consider carefully whether such lists would be better placed within a parent article. (Note that this criterion is never used for living people.)
• Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group. These should only be created if a complete list is reasonably short (less than 32K) and could be useful (e.g., for navigation) or interesting to readers. The inclusion of items must be supported by reliable sources. For example, if reliable sources indicate that a complete list would include the names of ten notable businesses and two non-notable businesses, then you are not required to omit the two non-notable businesses. However, if a complete list would include hundreds or thousands of entries, then you should use the notability standard to provide focus to the list.
  — Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists

That is, if the list is not all-inclusive, and if it does not have an explicit selection criteria backed by reliable sources, then every item has to be notable, that is, it has to qualify for its own article on Wikipedia. This is not semantics, this is "best practices", this is how stand-alone lists on Wikipedia should be made. And finally, regarding the list you claimed "will never be lengthy enough to warrant own article":

Some useful rules of thumb for splitting articles, and combining small pages:

> 100 kB • Almost certainly should be divided

> 60 kB • Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material)

> 50 kB • May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)

< 40 kB • Length alone does not justify division

< 1 kB • If an article or list has remained this size for over a couple of months, consider combining it with a related page. Alternatively, the article could be expanded, see Wikipedia:Stub.

— Wikipedia:Article size

As Rogue One is over 100kB, and the list was about 18kB, it is completely appropriate to split it into its own article.

TL;DR: Either trim the list to only notable (capable-of-having-their-own-article) items, or provide reliable third party sources for each item that support an explicit non-subjective list criteria, or include all items that match the title. Bright☀ 01:25, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

BrightR, you make some great points and I appreciate boldness. But you seriously cannot be shocked to get pushback on an edit like this.— TAnthony^Talk 00:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@TenTonParasol: I'm kind of over getting lectured on ownership and such by this condescending genius. We should start hashing out a strategy that would make us more comfortable but address his valid issues. The easiest way to start is probably an alphabetical listing, which despite comments to the contrary, is a perfectly acceptable format, as in the FLs List of Victoria Cross recipients (A–F), List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (Ba–Bm), List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: T–V, etc. For this franchise and considering the manner in which the characters are used in many works, breaking it up by film will just create too many redundancies, in my opinion. That said, List of Star Wars Rebels characters seems to work, but this was presumably split out of the main article as the list lengthened over time. It also helps that most of its characters are unique to that series. Is List of Star Wars theatrical film characters too broad? And equivalents for novels and comics? I myself have used this list as a starting point when looking for info on a character, and it helped that the list was comprehensive. But I suppose in most cases the reader would know at least one work/medium in which the character appeared and could navigate to the appropriate derivative list.— TAnthony^Talk 01:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Alphabetical is objective and suitable. Splitting by film is not, as there are far too many characters that appear in multiple films, resulting in far too many redundant entries across lists. In other words, what an utterly stupid, pointless way to split this list. As for inclusion criteria, the standards are no where near as black-and-white as this guy claims. Frankly, I agree hat the condescending tone is rude, uncollegial, and unacceptable for a collaboratibe project. oknazevad (talk) 02:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Did you notice those are lists of people, not lists of fictional characters? I'm sure you'll keep doing a swell job on this article as you have been doing for the years you've been editing it. Bright☀ 02:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

It being lists of persons doesn't have bearing on whether or not it's a legitimate way to organize information. We do what is best for the article. @TAnthony: I think that alphabetical is best, if we're splitting, which I'm ambivalent about. (I don't care either way.) Though I still am not sure if having three (#-J, K-R, S-Z, to throw out some letters, I'm not beholden to these) or two (A-M, N-Z) lists is better. I think trimming the characters first and seeing how big the remaining list is a better way to go about it. I think above you mentioned an inclusion criteria of basically "is discussed in a non-trivial manner in a third-party source"? I think that's a place to start. Because, again, inclusion criteria for character lists does not demand that a character have enough notability for a standalone article, again, as covered by bullet point two of CSC. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 02:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment IMO Star Wars is an excellent example of what happens when Wikipedia has entire pages devoted to in-universe concepts, characters, etc. The vast majority of Star Wars "canon" from 1977 to the early 2010s (2014 I think it was?) was retroactively declared not to exist, and virtually none of it will ever be discussed in this light in reliable secondary sources, so we can't discuss such either, so we have a choice between mixing "canon" characters in with "non-canon" ones (even though even the primary sources don't do that) and removing or splitting based on some arbitrary in-universe criterion that will probably be reverted again in another decade or so. Seriously, the sequel trilogy is basically ignoring the prequel trilogy, which in turn largely ignored the expanded universe, and the only three works that have been basically constant are the original three films -- even if they blatantly contradicted each other, and were in turn contradicted by both the prequel and sequel trilogy (Yoda was "the Jedi master who instructed [Obi-Wan]" and yet we see him under the tutelage of a completely different one; Luke, Han and Leia were in a love triangle that got resolved because Lucas decided to finish the series with Jedi and needed a character to retroactively make into Luke's sister; the Empire was soundly defeated in Jedi and the New Republic established in its place, yet somehow the First Order is still a thing...) I know I'm in the distinct minority here, but I think keeping in-universe information that contradicts each other and is unlikely ever to be discussed/analyzed in reliable secondary sources to an absolute minimum would always be best. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• I will repeat some of my statement on notability from earlier:

Trim some of the characters who'd appear in a few lines in a book, a scene or two in a game or a comic; but great care or discussion should be taken when determining notability of a character. A lot of minor characters that appear briefly in the main movie saga could be considered notable, as many have entered pop culture through the 40+ years of memorabilia, books, comics and toys produced. Removing a character only named in a reference book with almost no other media supporting them? Sure. Remove them and place them in the talk section for discussion. But just as an example, I see full pages of many Transformers or comic book characters that I would consider far less known in the main stream than most Star Wars characters (such as Ponda Baba or Dengar). The sheer number of action figures sold of some of the minor characters (easily in the millions), would make many well known as well. Decades of stories now relegated to the Legends canon, doesn't erase the wider notability of a character, who may now only appear briefly in the new canon. It was after all a corporate decision, and doesn't negate public consciousness of the characters. I would also stand by any important new characters added in novels, comics, Rebels, etc, as long as they are integral characters appearing through-out the novel in question (for books), or making multiple notable appearances in multiple comics, games or television episodes. It is not just for one person to decide on the notability of a character if they are not familiar with the larger Star Wars canon as a whole (although sources should be obtained of course). It is a long process to clean up the article, as many notable characters have been added by people over time without proper references; but that does not mean those characters are not notable and that those references cannot be found/added. I vote to keep the page as is, just alphabetical, as far too many characters appear in many different Star Wars media sources and will continue to do so with each passing movie, novel, comic and game released. RamshackleMan (talk) 07:33, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• As for dividing characters by movie/media, I see the thought behind the idea, but it just will not work for Star Wars. Again using the example of the character 'Ponda Baba / Walrus Man', he would be likely placed in Rogue One characters and/or Star Wars: A New Hope Characters (but he also appears in new canon novels and could appear in a comic, Rebels episode or video game at any time). He is also no longer listed in the Legends character page, but appears in a lot of media there as well, so that would have to be taken into account on the main list section too. So which list would someone searching for Ponda Baba be directed to? Perhaps he warrants his own page, but until someone takes the time to create one, this list is where his information belongs. The character should not be absent from wikipedia, as he is definitely notable to Star Wars fans and has appeared repeatedly in decades of Star wars media. A quick online search on the character would reflect this, as it would many of the characters on the list. Search out and cite the character listing rather than delete it, if possible. Thought and effort should be put into any deletions and not done on a personal whim or ignorance towards a specific character. Hence why I agree with others on here that major changes should definitely be discussed first and not based on one opinion or interpretation of 'the law'. RamshackleMan (talk) 08:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I see no problem with a kajillion pages about fictional characters as long as they are backed up by reliable sources that assert their notability, or I should say, establish that they meet the criteria for inclusion. Franchises like Star Wars and Lord of the Rings have been around so long and are so popular that much has permeated the mainstream consciousness, and the sources exist. I don't agree with Hijiri88 that the expanded universe material has been deemed "not to exist", because from a real-world perspective, these novels and comics exist, their stories exist, as much as the many incarnations of Dracula in various media and the constant reinvention of many superheroes. The fact that certain storylines have been eliminated from the official canon has no bearing on notability, appropriateness for an encyclopedia, or how they are documented here. Historically, reliable sources discussing non-saga works have been limited and not readily available beyond Star Wars Insider, partly because it seems like the pre-internet literary press didn't necessarily review a lot of Star Wars works. But the new films/novels/comics, and the separation of Legends, have actually been good things for sourcing. Despite what Hijiri88 suggested above, there are a lot of mainstream reliable sources that now compare, contrast, and discuss various elements and characters from Legends works in relation to the new ones. I agree that some characters of little importance, like Padme's handmaidens, probably don't belong on the list. But as RamshackleMan notes, there are certainly "minor" characters who have made an impact, either through their original appearance or later media/merchandise. Salacious Crumb anyone?— TAnthony^Talk 16:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Reogarzing article to focus on families?

I think the list should be reorganized into at least prioritizing families, just like the Game of Thrones characters article. At least the Skywalker and the Solo whom already have articles.Rosvel92 (talk) 18:06, 8 July 2019 (UTC)Rosvel92

Splitting out Droids

I support this proposal. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Seconded.--GamerAim (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Separation of "Canon" and "Legends" Characters?

I've looked at the talk page archive for this article and didn't notice a discussion - or consensus - on removing "Legends" characters from this page and moving them to their own page. Did such a discussion ever take place? I'd personally like to read what the justification was (besides one user commenting on a Star Trek page).

The fact is, the Star Wars EU was considered "canon" for decades, and in many cases EU material has been de facto canonized. At the most extreme, some characters may have alternate interpretations now. From a real-life standpoint, neither "Legends" nor "Canon" has more weight on what's real, verifiable information. They're both fictional universes that merit the same degree of encyclopedic coverage.

As it is, the article title is misleading, because it provides undue weight to a selection of characters in a rebooted universe that has existed for far smaller a time frame than the EU. Therefore, this is actually a "List of Star Wars Canon characters" (Canon - with a capital C - being the "official" and accepted term for Disney's Lucasfilm Story Group line of material). I propose - unless someone has successfully argued otherwise - that either this page be merged with the page for "Legends" characters, or the page be renamed to reflect both its actual contents and maintain consistency with the Star Wars Legends article.

I personally think that the latter alternative is preferable. Articles like this can get long enough as-is, and any opportunity to make an article shorter and more focused is a great opportunity :) --GamerAim (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't see the harm in separating them. I think it's useful in distinguishing between the two sets of canon, and in any event helps reduce the length of the "canon" list, as GamerAim said. — Hunter Kahn 21:51, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Legends characters were split out to List of Star Wars Legends characters years ago. This is the canon list, as the lead sentence explains, and any Legends characters listed here have been brought into the canon. However, the Project has long advised against organizing Star Wars articles around canonicity, or including the term "canon" in article names or section headings. Since Legends is a separate body of work and separate continuity, we do not need to be fanboy nerds and exclaim what is canon, at least not in the list name.— TAnthony^Talk 22:24, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The more immediate issue is that this list is too long. It really needs to be split out alphabetically, and probably match the Star Wars species lists (A–E  • F–J  • K–O  • P–T  • U–Z). The only reason I haven't done it myself is that the amount of redirects to this list make it a more complicated time-consuming task.— TAnthony^Talk 22:30, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

"Skor Kalpana" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Skor Kalpana. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

11-4D

Can someone edit him in this page? Jan131313 (talk) 22:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Rename article to address pending splits

I propose we rename this article to List of minor Star Wars characters and that we omit information on characters which are notable enough to have their own article. This is more of a repository for redirects from minor characters like Sio Bibble. You're not here to read a micro-biography of Han Solo. UpdateNerd (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

@Rosvel92: Perhaps you'd care to comment? You've been moving the saga's main characters to the top of the list, which would be a helpful first step for my proposal. UpdateNerd (talk) 20:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

My opinion, is that the article should be split into two articles, one article for the human characters, the other for alien humanoid human-like characters. Minor, characters can be thrown into the already existing articles about groups of characters or planets. Or the articles of their respective planets, or jobs, like the Jedi, Rebels or Empire.Rosvel92 (talk) 20:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Rosvel92 (talk)

I disagree. Now that this article has been made into so many sections, it is confusing and does not look organized. I know that you wanted this article to be more organized, and I appreciate your effort, but ultimately this page has been made more complex. I think that like before, this list should be organized alphabetically with droids at the bottom. The only way to effectively navigate this article is to use the Ctrl + F (find) command. Please think on my opinion. Dswitz10734 (talk) 13:37, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. This article looks like a complete mess. I agree that information about all characters who have their own standalone articles should be omitted from the page, and simply have a link redirecting them to the new page. I am afraid nothing short of a complete TNT might fix the problem. Haleth (talk) 15:32, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Haleth, you're right. We should post this as a to-do on the Wikiproject:Star Wars page. Dswitz10734 (talk) 19:32, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

LOL -- 12 years ago, ditching the old List of minor Star Wars characters (and List of Star Wars clone trooper commanders, List of Clone Troopers, List of Star Wars Dark Jedi, List of Star Wars Separatist characters, List of minor Star Wars Rebel characters, List of minor Star Wars droids, List of Star Wars Old Republic characters, List of New Order Jedi characters, List of Star Wars handmaidens, List of minor Star Wars villains, List of minor Star Wars Imperial characters, List of Yuuzhan Vong ... yeesh) and dropping all of them into a single repository page was a no-brainer. Thank you, LFL, for flooding the market with enough characters and action figures to balloon this up to 300K! And it looks like this big list has gone to plaid and forked out into lists of legends characters, and Rebels, and oh my.

I advise against renaming/moving this to "minor" characters, since that's a bit subjective. I do advise developing a consensus on this talk page and/or the Wikiproject page about inclusion criteria. This isn't a new idea: this topic is the entirety of the second talk-page archive from ~two years ago, and it's sprinkled in the first archive. Perhaps the project elsewhere has some dusty examples. I can't find it on the talk page, and maybe it's buried on the SW wikiproject page, but I feel like at List of Star Wars spacecraft there was a general consensus only to include ships that had some cited degree of third-party commentary or production information but didn't quite clear the notability criteria for a stand-alone article. That meant excluding a bunch of stuff, but that was okay -- there were links to the Wookieepedia lists and cats for folks wanting an exhaustive solution, which Wikipedia is not meant to be. I feel like all this character-related stuff, unfortunately, is leaning toward trying to be exhaustive in its listification, but that indiscriminate approach isn't healthy. Cleanup efforts and forking out content might help with pageloads, but it introduces other upkeep challenges (what to do about characters who straddle lists? being just one) but really doesn't address the underlying issue.

So, again: consider pinging the wikiproject talk page and agree on a consensus among more active, current participants on what warrants inclusion on this list. There's probably a whole other wikiproject focused on "lists in media" that might weigh in, too. But I think that's what this page needs now more than any rename or branching-off. --EEMIV (talk) 12:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Some thoughts, since I haven't commented in a while. I don't care what the article is called, but perhaps we could link to the major franchise groups: the Skywalkers, the Solos, Rebels characters, etc., at the very top (maybe as hatnotes), before proceeding to an A-Z list. I also think droids, clones, etc., could be split out to the main articles on those subjects, in line with separate articles for Rebels characters or members of Rogue Squadron.

I absolutely don't think splits or article organization should be done on the basis of species. The way the current article is organized is impossible to navigate, as has been pointed out, but I haven't had the energy to fix it myself. I wouldn't stand in the way of reverting to a stable version, although we may lose some of the recent changes. I think I would rather see a consensus on how the articles should be arranged, then start doing the work to address the problem. UpdateNerd (talk) 13:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

It's been a month, and no one from the Star Wars Wikiproject have commented or done any edits with regards to this issue. I am guessing that Wiki project Star Wars is either dead, or most of its active members have permanently moved on to edit only on Wookiepedia? Haleth (talk) 08:51, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

....no, I think both of those are incorrect guesses. The talk page alone has people chiming in, for example, and Star Wars article edits are humming along. Probably more likely is this particular list is just a hot mess and no one has much energy to try to do much with it. Anyone can go to the main project talk page and solicit input or contributions -- I don't think anyone has done so, though. --EEMIV (talk) 16:08, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Strong oppose On the split. Most likely anyone who doesn't have their own article should be deleted from the list. The inclusion criteria needs to be stricter than it currently is._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Slick

I don't want to edit this article because it is very long so I may have missed it somewhere, but I don't see Slick anywhere. Slick is the clone who betrays the Republic (before all the other clones did) and foiled Anakin and Obi-Wan's plan on Christophsis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrytzkalmyr (talk • contribs) 23:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Beaumont Kin

Same thing with this character played by Dominic Monaghan in Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker. Wouldn't know where to put him! JeanPaulGRingault (talk) 15:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Humans

in paragraph two New Essential Chronology is referenced, this books is not canon but now considered legend. Should this reference be used on this article or stating it is legend enough? Dobblestein 🎲 🎲 talk 21:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

"Episode _" vs. "Title:_"

I am noticing a series of discrepancies throughout this article. For some characters, there appearance(s) in the episodic installments are listed as "Episode _". Others list the name of the film, such as "The Empire Strikes Back." I think it would be worthwhile to have a consistent system for this. Characters with multiple appearances seem to already follow the pattern of "Episode_", as that is a more concise way to display this information. Does anyone have any thoughts here? TNstingray (talk) 17:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree that going with the "Episode_" route would be best as it is more concise. Please see WP:CONCISE

Dobblestein 🎲 🎲 talk 16:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

"List of Yuuzhan Vong" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect List of Yuuzhan Vong and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 15#List of Yuuzhan Vong until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TNstingray (talk) 13:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

"List of Named Yuuzhan Vong" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect List of Named Yuuzhan Vong and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 15#List of Named Yuuzhan Vong until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TNstingray (talk) 13:29, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

"Sovereign Protectors" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Sovereign Protectors and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 15#Sovereign Protectors until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TNstingray (talk) 13:31, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

"Chief Bast" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Chief Bast and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 15#Chief Bast until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TNstingray (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

"List of named Yuuzhan Vong" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect List of named Yuuzhan Vong and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 15#List of named Yuuzhan Vong until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TNstingray (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

"List of Star Wars villians" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect List of Star Wars villians and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 15#List of Star Wars villians until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TNstingray (talk) 13:34, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

"Imperial Royal Guards" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Imperial Royal Guards and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 15#Imperial Royal Guards until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TNstingray (talk) 13:34, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

"Imperial Sovereign Protectors" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Imperial Sovereign Protectors and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 15#Imperial Sovereign Protectors until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TNstingray (talk) 13:35, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

"Emperor's guard" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Emperor's guard and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 15#Emperor's guard until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TNstingray (talk) 13:35, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

"Sovereign Protector" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Sovereign Protector and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 15#Sovereign Protector until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TNstingray (talk) 13:35, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

"Yané" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Yané and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 15#Yané until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TNstingray (talk) 13:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

"Sly Moore (Star Wars minor characters)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Sly Moore (Star Wars minor characters) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 15#Sly Moore (Star Wars minor characters) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TNstingray (talk) 13:40, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

"Motté" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Motté and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 15#Motté until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TNstingray (talk) 13:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

"Imperial royal guard" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Imperial royal guard and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 15#Imperial royal guard until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TNstingray (talk) 13:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

"Imperial Sovereign Guards" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Imperial Sovereign Guards and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 15#Imperial Sovereign Guards until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TNstingray (talk) 13:43, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

"Sovereign Guards" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Sovereign Guards and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 15#Sovereign Guards until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TNstingray (talk) 13:43, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

"Royal Guardsman" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Royal Guardsman and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 15#Royal Guardsman until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TNstingray (talk) 13:43, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

"Imperial sovereign protector" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Imperial sovereign protector and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 15#Imperial sovereign protector until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TNstingray (talk) 13:44, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

"Star Wars Imperial Guards" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Star Wars Imperial Guards and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 15#Star Wars Imperial Guards until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TNstingray (talk) 13:44, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

"Myn Kyneugh" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Myn Kyneugh and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 15#Myn Kyneugh until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TNstingray (talk) 13:46, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

"Emperors Royal Guard (Star Wars)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Emperors Royal Guard (Star Wars) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 15#Emperors Royal Guard (Star Wars) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TNstingray (talk) 13:46, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

"Yane" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Yane and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 15#Yane until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TNstingray (talk) 13:48, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

"List of imperial characters" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect List of imperial characters and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 15#List of imperial characters until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TNstingray (talk) 17:31, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

"Verónica Segura" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Verónica Segura and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 15#Verónica Segura until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TNstingray (talk) 17:33, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

"Esiken" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Esiken and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 15#Esiken until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TNstingray (talk) 17:35, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

"Shae Vizla" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Shae Vizla and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 15#Shae Vizla until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TNstingray (talk) 17:40, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

"Mon Mothma (Charakter)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Mon Mothma (Charakter) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 15#Mon Mothma (Charakter) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TNstingray (talk) 17:42, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

"Black K" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Black K and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 15#Black K until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TNstingray (talk) 17:46, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

"Pharl McQuarrie" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Pharl McQuarrie and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 15#Pharl McQuarrie until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TNstingray (talk) 23:40, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

"Sly Moore" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Sly Moore and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 22#Sly Moore until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:24, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Alphabetical order?

I am considering converting this page into an alphabetical list. I think this may be the best way to present the list of characters in an objective way, and to avoid redundant overlap with articles that already exist, such as specific character pages as well as Lists of Star Wars species. It would also help to establish some sort of list criteria, such as paring this page down to just the visual medium. This would be an incredibly BOLD change, so I will just put this out there and see what attention it garners. Rather than do incremental changes on this page, I may begin working in my sandbox to see how the structure might look. For visual comparison, consider the Characters of the Marvel Cinematic Universe subpages. TNstingray (talk) 13:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Alternative options could be by installment, or when each character was introduced (original trilogy, prequel trilogy, Clone Wars, Rebels, Rogue One, Solo, sequel trilogy, Mando/Boba Fett, Kenobi, Andor, etc.). The current bulky tables are just too overwhelming, especially for the humans. TNstingray (talk) 13:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Before the Andor characters are added to this list, it would really be helpful if consensus could be established for this. TNstingray (talk) 20:01, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

"Minor Sith and dark Jedi in Star Wars" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Minor Sith and dark Jedi in Star Wars and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 28#Minor Sith and dark Jedi in Star Wars until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TNstingray (talk) 15:50, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

"Mon Mothm,a" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Mon Mothm,a and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 28#Mon Mothm,a until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TNstingray (talk) 15:54, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

"Winama Naberrie" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Winama Naberrie and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 30#Winama Naberrie until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TNstingray (talk) 17:03, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Notability

I, for one, love lists. However, due to the premise and rules of Wikipedia, lists like this are not intended to be comprehensive. They are intended to be encyclopedic. As such, this page needs to be pared down, as it has become extremely bloated. Does anyone have any suggestions or comments? TNstingray (talk) 16:43, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I have gone through and removed some obviously non-notable characters. There is a possibility we need to separate out characters from the written material, because it really can be a sub-level of canon compared to the films and shows. Thoughts? TNstingray (talk) 00:15, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Would anybody be opposed to possibly converting this page out of the table format? It doesn't necessarily have to be alphabetical, but prose sections may be better, and that would cut down on the size of the article by having the "See also" tags for characters who already have their own pages. I'm taking big changes here first, but if I don't hear anything for a while I may start making some BOLD changes. TNstingray (talk) 10:49, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for taking this on, this list had gotten very bloated over the years. I also appreciate you updating the many many character redirects to this article.— TAnthony^Talk 15:23, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

No problem! It's definitely still a work in progress. TNstingray (talk) 16:23, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

"Royal Guardsman" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Royal Guardsman and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 1#Royal Guardsman until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TNstingray (talk) 17:14, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

"List of Yuuzhan vong" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect List of Yuuzhan vong and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 1#List of Yuuzhan vong until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TNstingray (talk) 17:18, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

"List of ancient Jedi" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect List of ancient Jedi and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 16#List of ancient Jedi until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TNstingray (talk) 13:51, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

"S crumb" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect S crumb and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 1 § S crumb until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TNstingray (talk) 20:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

More references

While I understand the removal of WP:FANSITEs as references[1] I do not think this article was improved by the removal of the episodes references. I understand if editors might prefer to link to episodes or to mention them using footnotes (or some other formatting) instead of full references but without specific episode details is is more difficult to check and verify that information that has been included is still correct. I would hope that the episode references would be restored in some form. -- 109.79.162.163 (talk) 05:37, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Merge The Mandalorian

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus is not to merge. Closing discussion per WP:MERGECLOSE. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

---

{{Merge from|List of The Mandalorian characters|date=March 2023}}

UnkreativeFrog (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

@UnkreativeFrog: If you're suggesting a merge, you need to give a reason for your proposal, which you have not done. See WP:MERGEPROP and more specifically, WP:MERGEREASON. Simply applying the merge tag is not actually opening a discussion (not to mention, that the tag goes on the article, not the discussion). ButlerBlog (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I suggest that List of The Mandalorian characters should be merged into this article as it doesn't really justifies its own separate article. UnkreativeFrog (talk) 17:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - per GNG. Your stated justification for the merge ("it doesn't really justifies its own separate article") is arbitrary and without substantive reasoning based on our guidelines. I would oppose a merge on each of the 3 criteria under WP:NOTMERGE, but most specifically #3 (The topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles, with each meeting the General Notability Guidelines). It certainly qualifies it for a stand-alone list under WP:GNG as it is cited with over 300 sources, which more than exceeds the standard of "significant coverage" under GNG. Beyond that, as a space Western, the Mandalorian list is of interest to a separate wikiproject (Westerns), whereas the general list is not. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:25, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - The Mandalorian introduces a wide array of new characters each with their section on casting and character development.--TheVampire (talk) 21:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per the claims that were made by @Butlerblog: and @TheVampire:. --Rtkat3 (talk) 23:27, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per the other arguments on here. The Mandalorian has enough characters on its own, to justify being its own page. It's as simple as that.Historyday01 (talk) 16:55, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Durge back into the list

The character has appeared in the canon Marvel comics so it should best I think to put him back in here. Right? 0Detail-Attention215 (talk) 13:41, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Separating the list

I started several drafts to break up this character list. Feel free to contribute to them:

Draft:List of Star Wars Rebels characters

Each page would ideally discuss relevant information about their characters, complementing the lists that already exist for Mandalorian and Boba Fett. This page would act as a central hub similar to Characters of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. TNstingray (talk) 11:41, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Lego Star Wars Characters added to the list

There are certain characters that are only seen in the star wars lego shows which were released recently. I am not sure if we should add them or not but most of them are from after 2014 which I would assume that would make them cannon but I am just asking first. 98.124.95.46 (talk) 21:45, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Lego Star Wars is sadly not canon. TNstingray (talk) 12:06, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

We could consider it as cannon this is a list of Star Wars characters and if you ignore the lego it is Star Wars 64.53.124.103 (talk) 14:27, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

That's not how this works. Wikipedia does not determine whether or not something is canonical. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:36, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

"Jensen Corbyt" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Jensen Corbyt has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 25 § Jensen Corbyt until a consensus is reached. TNstingray (talk) 12:47, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Main articles

To whom it may concern, I think we should establish objective criteria for the usage of the "main article" template. To the reader, I don't think it is helpful to redirect from one list to another. As such, I would argue for this template only being used if a stand-alone article has been published. TNstingray (talk) 12:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Same. While on the subject, it does not actually help nor is in compliance with WP:SUMMARYSTYLE to blank an entire section leaving only a {{main}} template behind. I know those pre-exist on the page, but they are incorrect. Even if linking to a main article, a short summary should still be on this page. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 14:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't find relevant or productive in having the exact same information in two different lists, what is the point of be repetitive with the characters? For example in the general MCU some of the characters are redirected into the television characters lists. Merlyn26 (talk) 16:14, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

The MCU lists would also not be in compliance with WP:SUMMARYSTYLE as defined by TenTonParasol. There are also only two instances where this is the case: Kingpin and Jarvis. It would not surprise me if the former gets his own article soon, and the latter would be a simple fix. The main article template usage on those pages is pretty excessive in my opinion. TNstingray (talk) 21:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Videogames characters

The characters from videogames (Cal Kestis, Iden Versio, etc.) should also be included in this list despite the fact they have not appeared in any production related to the canon? Merlyn26 (talk) 23:00, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

The games they appear in is related to the canon. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Gotcha, another question, why is there no Resistance character listed? Cheers! Merlyn26 (talk) 22:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I imagine because nobody had gotten around to adding them to the list. I don't know of any other reason characters appearing in Resistance would not be listed here. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:38, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Splitting the article

To whom it may concern,

I think it is evident that this article has had a lot of issues regarding the growing size from the lack of inclusion criteria. A few months ago, I started drafts to split this article into various subarticles centered around the original trilogy, prequel trilogy, sequel trilogy, Clone Wars, Rebels, and Rogue One/Andor. These would join the existing articles for the Mandalorian and Boba Fett (Rebels used to be in mainspace, but I pulled it back to a draft because it has its own issues; the others are my own invention). Is this an avenue that we should consider pursuing? Essentially, this article would need to be renamed Lists of Star Wars characters, acting as a central hub with only the introductory paragraph (modified) and blue links to these other articles. TNstingray (talk) 19:07, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Most character redirects would likely be contained to individual lists (ex. Sio Bibble only appears in the prequel trilogy), target to the list with the most information about the character (ex. Plo Koon and others from the Jedi Council have much more characterization in the Clone Wars rather than the prequels), or retarget to the projects that do not yet qualify to have their own pages (ex. Reva Sevander would redirect to the Cast list for Obi-Wan Kenobi). TNstingray (talk) 19:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

"General jan dodonna" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect General jan dodonna has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 9 § General jan dodonna until a consensus is reached. Dicklyon (talk) 05:17, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

"Klaatu (Star Wars)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Klaatu (Star Wars) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 28 § Klaatu (Star Wars) until a consensus is reached. TNstingray (talk) 16:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

"Fat Dancer" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Fat Dancer has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 28 § Fat Dancer until a consensus is reached. TNstingray (talk) 16:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

"Gavyn Sykes" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Gavyn Sykes has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 4 § Gavyn Sykes until a consensus is reached. TNstingray (talk) 16:31, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

"Korr Sella" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Korr Sella has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 4 § Korr Sella until a consensus is reached. TNstingray (talk) 16:34, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

"Romba (Star Wars)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Romba (Star Wars) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 4 § Romba (Star Wars) until a consensus is reached. TNstingray (talk) 16:36, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

"Jaxxon" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Jaxxon has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 4 § Jaxxon until a consensus is reached. TNstingray (talk) 16:38, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

"Barada (Star Wars)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Barada (Star Wars) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 4 § Barada (Star Wars) until a consensus is reached. TNstingray (talk) 16:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

"Reeve Panzoro" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Reeve Panzoro has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 4 § Reeve Panzoro until a consensus is reached. TNstingray (talk) 16:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

"Casca Panzoro" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Casca Panzoro has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 4 § Casca Panzoro until a consensus is reached. TNstingray (talk) 16:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

"Bargwill Tomder" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Bargwill Tomder has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 16 § Bargwill Tomder until a consensus is reached. TNstingray (talk) 14:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)