Talk:List of Star Wars films/Archive 1

Archive 1

Simple list

I created List of Star Wars films to provide a simple list that would show the release years and the story order with notes as applicable. I recognize that the article Star Wars has a similar list in one of its sections, but I thought a stand-alone list separate from franchise content (thus making the list of films more visible) would be appropriate for direct information and navigation. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Future Star Wars films

Hi Eric, please point me to the policy that says that we don't add future films to tables. Orser67 (talk) 14:33, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Orser67, hello! There is not a specific policy that states this, but in actors and filmmakers' filmographies, we only add films once filming has begun. This is because for them, they can be attached to multiple films that will not get past the development stage. I think that logic can apply here as well. For example, the Boba Fett film appears to have been delayed and perhaps may not made. How about a different approach to identifying such films in development, perhaps list them in bullet form right below the table? A sentence above the bullets can state that these films are in development. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:45, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Orser67, the "See also" link I added was just one approach, but we can include more detail in the approach I suggested above. I only prefer to make a distinction between films that are very certain to come out (those that started filming) and those that may not. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:05, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Erik, thank you for your response, and what you say makes sense. I will create a new section that lists "planned films" and make a note that they have not started filming yet. I was also thinking that it might make sense to change the name of the article to "list of Star Wars films and television series" so that it covers all Star Wars works on the screen. List of Star Wars books, List of Star Wars comic books, and List of Star Wars video games already exist, so I think it would make sense to have an article for movie and tv series and it seems like it would make sense to combine the two. Would that work for you? Orser67 (talk) 17:15, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe the "Planned films" section can be a subsection under the "List of feature films" section? As for the TV shows, I had been thinking about creating a separate list article for these (especially to list the canon ones as well as older non-canon ones). Why do you think combining films and TV shows is better? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Good idea about the subsections. A separate article about the tv series would be fine but combining them could make sense given that there aren't that many movies and tv series, and that the line between tv and film isn't always clear. E.g. Star Wars Rebels has released two longer episodes, Spark of the Rebellion and Siege of Lothal, that were described as tv movies. Orser67 (talk) 18:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Order

@Erik: The organisation of the list it's your opinion, please submit on this page before a sense change, considering the amount of users that has been contributed to this list.OscarFercho (talk) 03:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Orser67, can you compare the versions? I find OscarFercho's version to be extremely bloated. It is faulty in a number of ways:

1. "List of feature films" has an extraneous column that provides very little useful information; one could easily say in a sentence above it that one studio distributed the first two trilogies and that another started with the latest trilogy.
2. Poor merging of planned films into the main list of films, because trying to sort by "Story Order" screws up the table badly
3. "Reception" was stolen wholesale from Star Wars; this redundancy is unnecessary, and the section can be linked to in the "See also" section

Overall, the version suffers from scope creep. Most Star Wars articles are prose-heavy. This list should be a way to simply list the films for readers, especially with the start of anthology films. They shouldn't be left to go through prose or table bloat to figure that out. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 03:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

In addition, in regard to table size, please consider mobile views. I've notified WT:STARWARS about these two versions. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 04:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that the second column in "list of feature films" is probably unnecessary bloat, at least in its most current state. I don't have a particularly strong opinion about the other things. Orser67 (talk) 04:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Story order

The cell of Story Order it's seems some confussing. We can fix on another form? The cell that i retitled "Appearance" might be use for those notes.OscarFercho (talk) 13:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I switched it to Episode order as a bold attempt to use the existing built in numbering system. Thus additional films would be given arbitrary fractional Episode numbers based on when that movie occurs. I gave Rogue One episode number 3.9 as in directly proceeds Star Wars Episode IV (A New Hope), Clone Wars film 2.5 since it general takes place between episodes 2 & 3 and the Han Solo movie 3.5. With out clear guidance like with Rogue One most Anthology/Story movies should probably use #.5 to show which episodes the movie is between (0.5 if anytime before The Phantom Menace).

@Godwin1996: changed Rogue One to 3.5 (2) and the Han Solo movie to 3.5 (1) with out a reason. Godwin1996, care to explain as it doesn't make sense in the Episode numbering as Anthology/Story movies are not suppose have their own numbering system given it isn't the main saga. Spshu (talk) 14:41, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Clearly it's to indicate which one takes place first, based on what we know. That said, the .5 desig agora are cheesy and fanboyish. Just use direct numbering. oknazevad (talk) 15:08, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Episodes are factual and direct numbering having to do with Star Wars. What do you mean by ".5 desi agora"? Since you reject episode numbering then what do you mean by "direct" numbering. While the story order numbering was clear at some point the movies particularly the anthology/story films may occur at overlapping or partially overlapping times or unclear to each other but clearly exist between one Episode and another. Spshu (talk) 15:59, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I blame autocorrect. That's supposed to read ".5 designations". Iindicating the placement of the anthology films in regard to the main series episodes is what the note column is for. Regardless, ".5" numbers, which are indeed made up, and therefore WP:OR, look amateurish and cheesy. Really, thinking in it, we don't need a separate column for the story order. If anything, the distinction between main series films and anthology films, which is a distinction made by both producers and press, should be recognized by putting them is separate charts, with the placement of the anthology films in the timeline covered by the notes column. It's pretty straightforward and objective. oknazevad (talk) 16:17, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

If the .5 or .9 designations is made up then the same would hold for the Story order number used before which according to you is WP:OR. While Episode numbers are not made up thus not OR. Rogue One is objective directly before Episode IV thus objectively 3.9 (which I original used). .5 is "between" number and the Clone War objective occurs between Episode 2 and 3 and objectively 2.5 is between 2.0 and 3.0. So with a list of Star Wars movies and TV shows that you prefer at the Star Wars franchise page, perhaps we are better off filling a AfD for this article as this is just a fork. Spshu (talk) 18:23, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I could agree to that as it is just an unneeded fork. Unlike the novels video games and comics, which are legion. There's only been 7 movies and a few TV projects, not really enough for a separate page. oknazevad (talk) 20:34, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Third Anthology Film

currently the thrid anthology film is listed as boba fett. this is only rumored not officially confirmed by disney or lucasfilm. this should be removed. JJsCat (talk) 15:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Revert

Re: this edit, "The individual articles contain that info." Sure, but per WP:Summary style, I would expect an article about Star Wars films also to contain information about the release dates, producers and distributors. I came to this article hoping to find out who had directed each film, and was really surprised/disappointed that this article didn't contain any of that information – how Wikipedia can have an article about Star Wars films that doesn't even mention George Lucas is beyond me. I see no policy-based reason not to have the information that I included. 81.145.40.245 (talk) 08:53, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

No discussion, I'm making the change back. 81.145.40.245 (talk) 10:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Pointless random highlighting

Somebody added bright yellow highlighting to exactly two data items on this page: the canon status of two TV series. I cannot understand why. There's no other color used elsewhere in the charts on the page. There are several other items on the page which are also canon, but they aren't flagged in bright yellow to highlight this fact... because they don't need to be. Items that aren't canon don't have color added to draw attention to that fact, either. Because it's unnecessary. Anyone literate enough to read the charts can see from the word "Yes" that these two items are canon; they don't need color added to make it clear. It makes those two data cells the hey-look-at-me most-conspicuous items in the whole article, and they should not be. It's poor data presentation and should be removed. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 04:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

As is said in my edit summary, no other section of the article has need for such contrast. A small use of color to aid readers unfamiliar with the subject in quickly identifying which series have that attribute is a valid use of color. Maybe make it lighter, but no need to remove it, as it AIDS the reader. That's our goal as always. oknazevad (talk) 04:21, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

But it doesn't aid the reader. It distracts. And it isn't needed there, any more than it's needed elsewhere in the article. Seriously: It Is Not Needed. The word "Yes" conveys the information quite well by itself. By the logic you seem to be using, we should add some special color to the word "No" as well. And maybe we should add color to the status "Released" on some of the films (because that's important to some people), and maybe an additional color to indicate which films were distributed by Fox vs. Disney (because some people might care), and add colors to highlight the TV networks (ditto), and.... no. No, we shouldn't. Maybe the canon status is so specially super important to you personally that you feel it needs this kind of super special attention-seeking treatment. But is isn't. It's just one more piece of data, and should be presented as such, without any subjective emphasis. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 04:40, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Adding to the discussion I suggest for the Table of Films on this article to be exactly the same as the one in the main Star Wars article something user Oknazevad hasn't allowed me to do as he keeps reverting the article back. Also should we re-title the article List of Star Wars Films, Television and Home Media Releases and merge the whole info on the List of changes in Star Wars re-releases at the bottom of this article? Rosvel92 (talk) 05:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)Rosvel92

Create a decent table for animated television series

Use this as a start.Rosvel92 (talk) 09:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)Rosvel92

Ep.#	Series	Release date	End date	Creator(s)	Producer(s)	Production Company	Distributor(s)	Notes
121	Star Wars: The Clone Wars	October 3, 2008 (2008-10-03)	March 7, 2014 (2014-03-07)	George Lucas & Dave Filoni	Executive Producers: George Lucas, Catherine Winder, Producer: Cary Silver	Lucasfilm Animation	Cartoon Network, Netflix	After Attack of the Clones.
37	Star Wars: Rebels	October 3, 2008 (2008-10-03)		George Lucas, Dave Filoni, Simon Kinberg, Carrie Beck	Executive Producers: Dave Filoni, Simon Kinberg, Greg Weisman, Producers: Kiri Hart, Athena Yvette Portillo		Disney XD	5 years before A New Hope.
Legends
13	Star Wars: Droids	September 7, 1985 (1985-09-07)	June 7, 1986 (1986-06-07)	George Lucas, Ben Burtt, Raymond Jafelice, Clive A. Smith, Ken Stephenson	George Lucas, Miki Herman, Peter Sauder	Nelvana, Lucasfilm	ABC	Before A New Hope.
35	Star Wars: Ewoks	September 7, 1985 (1985-09-07)	December 13, 1986 (1986-12-13)	George Lucas, Raymond Jafelice, Dale Schott, Writers: Bob Carrau, Paul Dini	George Lucas, Miki Herman (1985), Cliff Ruby (1986), Elana Lesser (1986)			Before Return of the Jedi.
25 (20 Shorts)	Star Wars: Clone Wars	November 7, 2003 (2003-11-07)	March 25, 2005 (2005-03-25)	Genndy Tartakovsky	Executive producers: George Lucas, Sam Register, Producer: Genndy Tartakovsky, Shareena Carlson	Lucasfilm Animation	Cartoon Network	After Attack of the Clones.
39	Star Wars Detours	Unreleased		Seth Green, Brendan Hay, George Lucas	Executive producers: Seth Green, Matthew Senreich, Producers: Seth Green, Matthew Senreich	Lucasfilm Animation, Stoopid Monkey		Parody

Nothing in the article should be organized via a canon/Legends divide. That doesn't serve any useful purpose on this page, and I know that the reasons why it shouldn't be have been explained several times to you, specifically, Rosvel. I threw together some example tables about how I propose the tables should be laid out and how the overall page should be organized, located here. I think anything that would be in the notes section in any other proposals should instead be outlined in a prose section lead before each table. The article needs prose anyway to better contextualize the tabled information. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 18:29, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok, ignore the Legends separation, but let's write the other technical information into the table.Rosvel92 (talk) 22:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC)Rosvel92

My question is, how much technical information is necessary to be listed here, if the table will then link to the subarticles? Is production company really necessary when it's all effectively Lucasfilm? And if producers are listed, is that just straight "producer" or does that include "executive producer" (they're different roles)? How much is necessary? We shouldn't overburden this article. I'm not sure about the producer column, but I do think production company should go. Distributor should be network because that's more appropriate for television series. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed. It's the same thing with the movies. Too much information. It's supposed to be a simple list of movies and shows, not a detailed breakdown and comparison. There's individual articles for each film and series where the information is available a single click away. It should not be here. oknazevad (talk) 13:53, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I think the tables should have: title, first aired, last aired, creators, network. That's it. That, in my opinion, encompasses all the basic facts of a television series. The tables I threw together in the subpage I linked above is more a compromise position. And as far as the film table, I think the status column can go too. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 15:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Detours and parody

I'll admit that I know very little about Detours, but is it really considered a parody series? There's nothing on its article to suggest that it is, so why is it organized under a parody heading rather than under television series? ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 15:34, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

It was intended as a parodic look at the franchise. It was canceled before completion due to the sale to Disney. Frankly, I don't think it even needs to be mentioned. At the least, the header should just be "unfinished series", with no comment on its content; that's what the separate article is for. oknazevad (talk) 16:42, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Better integration needed

Now that material has been moved over as part of the reworking of the main Star Wars article, we really need to do a better job integrating the first two charts, as there's a lot of redundancy between the two. Frankly, many of the credits in the moved over chart are unneeded in an overview article and probably shouldn't have been in the chart to begin with. The ones that are important are actually already in the chart that was already here, so I'm thinking we can just get rid of the second chart, but I'd like some input as to which, if any, positions should be integrated into the top chart from the crew chart. oknazevad (talk) 04:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I think the "status" column can flat out go. I also am in support of removing "executive producer(s)". I think that "writer(s)" and "screenwriter(s)" can be merged. I wouldn't miss "distributor" if it was gone, but I wouldn't necessarily advocate for its removal; I'm ambivalent about it. It's probably worth mentioning the chart at Harry Potter (film series)#Production lists only Director, Writer, Producer, Composer. Our own Music ought to be renamed Composer as well. I think the "Release date" column should be simplified to the year. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 04:10, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I largely followed your suggestions, as they mirrored my ideas pretty well. I left the full release dates, though, as they don't take up much room, and, since not all films have been released, are of current interest. While I was at it, I also removed the almost completely empty line for the third anthology film, as there's nothing to report there, what with the original plans (Josh Trank directing) have been scuttled. oknazevad (talk) 11:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Star Wars films and television series. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101013001327/http://www.starwars.com/fans/media/newseries_announcement to http://www.starwars.com/fans/media/newseries_announcement/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 12:14, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Inflation

All Star Wars films should be adjusted to 2005 prices or else it it inconsistent. I made the changes P+T reasonpe B4 making changes thanks92.232.119.244 (talk) 15:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely not. That's not how inflation works at all. I have reverted your changes. Please do not make them again, as they introduce blatant factual errors in the article. oknazevad (talk) 18:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

then how do james Bond films do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.238.252 (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The word you're looking for is "why", not "how". The answer to that question belongs at that talk page. And it's one I'm going to ask. oknazevad (talk) 23:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Box office performance Error

Two of the films are listed as #7 all time in North America - The Last Jedi, And Rogue One — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.90.127.254 (talk) 06:46, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Phil Lord and Christopher Miller

Just a thought - should we include Phil Lord and Christopher Miller on the film chart, as they filmed a large portion of a film, before being fired? It could even be listed with an "< hr >" break and be written in subscript. If not that, at leas an "efn" note acknowledging their original roles would be nice.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Non-Canon or Legends

Is it really accurate to list some of the shows are Non-canon? Legends should be the term used because there are two Star Wars canons: Legends canon and the current canon. The three shows listed as non-canon are part of the Legends canon and thus are canon within that universe, but are not confirmed as canon within the current canon. Emperor001 (talk) 03:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

My understanding is that "Legends" is essentially a branding label used for all non-canon material, and Legends doesn't represent a unified, alternative canon. I think it's probably simpler and less confusing for the average reader to say "non-canon" instead of "Legends." But I can see how using Legends instead would have the advantage of sticking with Lucasfilm's terminology, so long as we explained what Legends means on the page. Orser67 (talk) 04:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Legends is essentially an alternate universe. Before Lucasfilm/Disney chose to dump the EU Lucasfilm did try to keep everything in the EU consistent with a hierarchy of canon: level one being the movies and statements by Lucas, level 2 being the Clone Wars, level 3 being almost everything else, level 4 being canonical aspects of otherwise non-canon media, and level 5 being non-canon "what if" stories". Wookiepedia treats Canon and Legends as two separate universes. There are now basically two universes, Legends and the current Canon. One interview about the re-branding as Legends someone from Lucasfilm even said that Legends could be just considered an alternate universe. Emperor001 (talk) 05:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

The former attempts at unified continuity in "Legends" have been tossed out, though, following the canon reboot, and any non-canon item is labeled as "Legends" regardless of its former level of canon status. So, whereas what you say about the G- T- C- etc canon levels used to be true, it no longer is, and the "Legends" banner does not represent a single, unified alternate universe. (The same is also true in the inverse, as there's no distinction in canon level made between the films and computer animated TV series anymore, either. Rebels is just as much canon as A New Hope.) oknazevad (talk) 17:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Legends is an alternate universe as evidenced by a statement from someone from Lucasfilm. Wookiepedia treats most Legends material (admittedly including stories not canon with either canon) as an alternate universe, with many subjects such as main characters getting two articles, one for the current canon and one for Legends. I am well aware that the former canon hierarchy does not apply to current media and that Rebels is on par with the movies and The Clone Wars and anything else made after 4/25/14, but Legends is an alternate story as the Legends material was worked together as a continuing story. Emperor001 (talk) 03:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@Emperor001:, and @Oknazevad: --- I know I'm late to this discussion...but Lucasfilm has never stated that Legends is anything but non-canon now. It is not 'alternate universe' but perhaps literally Legends within the galaxies of the Star Wars universe. Regardless - anything Legends has been rendered non-canon, in order to free up the complex timelines and interactions so that the studio can make movies without getting tangled in the pre-Lucasfilm merger 'extended universe' materials.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:33, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that a Lucasfilm executive once said Legends could be seen as an alternative universe. As a practical matter that is how if functions. Emperor001 (talk) 14:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Not really. Outside of the fan-created Wookieepedia and similar projects, there's no current attempt to keep a coherent "Legends universe", especially within Lucasfilm themselves (they have their hands full with the canon universe). "Legends" is a marketing banner giving them a way to keep in print older material without having to fit it in with new works that it inherently conflicts. oknazevad (talk) 16:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Not quite correct. Prior to 4/25/14 Lucasfilm did keep the EU (now Legends) pretty coherent. They had procedures to maintain continuity with only George Lucas being able to override prior material. Emperor001 (talk) 17:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Of whichrhey were only modestly successful, a factor in choosing to drop it for the new canon. But the core point remains that stating "the EU (now Legends)" is incorrect. The "Legends" banner includes material that was never considered canon under the old system of hierarchies of canons, so it was not part of the EU, and stating that the two terms are equal is incorrect. That's the point you keep missing. "Legends" is a marketing banner that means, explicitly, not-part-of-the-current-canon material, not that they form a coherent alternate continuity. oknazevad (talk) 19:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

They were more than "modestly successful." I've noticed almost as many minor continuity errors in the new canon material as in the old EU. I have not seen the Legends banner printed on any non-EU work. Every time I've seen it it was on a reprint of a novel or comic that was part of the EU. In fact the interior of reprinted Legends novels states, "Timeline of Legends Novels" indicating that they are a coherent continuity with each other. Emperor001 (talk) 15:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

It's currently unclear to me what the goal of this discussion is. Does this thread have an ultimate goal of making a change to the page, which is just a straight listing of all films and television series in the franchise, with only minor notes to the canon continuity, or is it just a discussion of what exactly Legends is and its continuity without some sort of goal of articulating a change? In the former case, what changes are being suggested? In the latter case, this isn't a forum for general discussion. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 15:51, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I believe the purpose is to have the term "Legends" used instead of "non-canon" in the charts. I disagree, as the term is a) a marketing label, and b) not really a cohesive thing; the former "what if"-type comic stories originally released under the "Infinities" banner have also been reprinted under the "Legends" banner, clearly marking it as not a single continuity. oknazevad (talk) 18:09, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Oknazevad is correct as to my purpose. However I respectfully disagree with his position. 1. it is not a marketing label so much as a classification used by the company itself, so I think it would be beneficial for Wikipedia to use the official classification label rather than say "non-canon", especially since Lucasfilm indicated that there is a bit of truth in Legends (referencing how aspects of Legends have been brought back into the canon). 2. While I concede that previous non-canon stories also are branded under Legends, most Legends material did in fact form a coherent story (hence the previous canon hierarchy) and Lucasfilm did an excellent job keeping it consistent. 3. I believe it is irrelevant that Legends also includes previous non-canon works given that Legends is the official classification for such material (not to mention to the best of my knowledge none of the Legends movies and TV shows were regarded as non-canon prior to the Legends rebrand). Emperor001 (talk) 12:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The yes/no canon is simply "is it part of what Lucasfilm has called canon"? If it isn't, then the column says "No". It isn't a judgement commentary as to whether or not there's "truth" to canon, and things in Legends being brought back into canon nor whether or not Legends forms a coherent story have any bearing as to whether or not they're canon. The official news item about the creation of the canon-Legends divide is pretty clear: there is canon and there is Legends. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 19:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Legends revisited

In my opinion we should list it like this, because this way acknowledges that Lucasfilm does not consider them canon. I mean George Lucas, deeply hates the Holiday Special, and I mean is not to much of a unholy wikipedia guidelines deviation, the legends tv things, would be still under the tv section. But this way is better because it explains their place in the universe.Rosvel92 (talk) 05:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)rosvel92

Extended content

-==Television and internet== Animated series Title Sea­sons Epi­sodes Release year Supervising Director Production company Network Setting Canon Star Wars: The Clone Wars 6 121 2008–14 Dave Filoni Lucasfilm Animation Cartoon Network (Season 1-5) & Netflix (Season 6) Between Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith Yes Star Wars Rebels 4 68 2014–present Dave Filoni (Season 1-2) & Justin Ridge (Season 3-4) Disney XD Between Revenge of the Sith and A New Hope Star Wars Forces of Destiny 2 16 2017 Youtube Across all eras Legends With the 2012 acquisition of Lucasfilm by The Walt Disney Company, most of the licensed Star Wars works, including television films, animated series, videogames, novels and comics produced since the originating 1977 film Star Wars were rebranded as Star Wars Legends and declared non-canon to the franchise in April 2014. Legends animated series Title Sea­sons Epi­sodes Release year Supervising Director Production company Network Setting Canon Star Wars: Droids 1 13 1985–86 Nelvana ABC Between Revenge of the Sith and A New Hope No Star Wars: Ewoks 2 35 1985–86 Before Return of the Jedi Star Wars: Clone Wars 3 25 2003–05 Genndy Tartakovsky Cartoon Network Studios Cartoon Network Between Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith Legends television films and specials Film Release date Director(s) Screen­writer(s) Network Setting Canon Holiday Special Star Wars: Holiday Special November 17, 1978 David Acomba & Steve Binder Bruce Vilanch CBS Between A New Hope and The Empire Strikes Back No Ewok television films Caravan of Courage: An Ewok Adventure November 25, 1984 John Korty Bob Carrau Story by: George Lucas ABC Between The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi No Ewoks The Battle for Endor November 24, 1985 Jim Wheat & Ken Wheat Jim Wheat & Ken Wheat Story by: George Lucas Critical and public response Film Rotten Tomatoes Metacritic CinemaScore Star Wars Holiday Special 43% (7 reviews) Caravan of Courage: An Ewok Adventure 25% (12 reviews) Ewoks The Battle for Endor List indicator(s) A dark grey cell indicates the information is not available for the film. No critical consensus has been reached for either film. References

Please create new sections instead of inserting into old ones, especially those that are two years old. Also, it has been explained to you dozens of times: no article should organize information based on canonicity. Lucas himself can come and comment on this page to tell us he doesn't want the Holiday Special lumped in with the rest of the films, but it does not change that we cannot and should not change how we organize information. The article should not separate things based on what's canon and what isn't. This has been explained numerous times. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 05:44, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

So if the creator of the franchise told us what he wants - we would ignore it? Nah, that sounds like ignorance to me. Legends vs Saga can just be labels as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Dividing the materials into the two divisions as has been done by the owners of the franchise - would be correct, constructive, and insightful to any and all readers of the article. There really is no guidelines anywhere stating that this cannot be done. In my opinion, @TenTonParasol: is off-base here, @Rosvel92:, and completely agree with the argument you brought up months ago.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:41, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Since is clearly a two against one for separating between canon and legends on television series, I edited the article, to reflect this. Is the way author and owner of the intelectual property, Lucasfilm, categorizes the works, and it reflects how it wants the works to be interpreted. Not reflecting the authors intended interpretation of the works leads to an incomplete article, from my point of view.Rosvel92 (talk) 03:33, 9 June 2018 (UTC)rosvel92

It is consensus across the entire family of articles that items are NOT separated by continuity because that violates WP:INUNIVERSE and prioritizes in-universe continuity. The articles are organized in publication order, which is a more straightforward and less retroactive organization than the application of largely marketing and continuity based terms like Legends. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 04:10, 9 June 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)

Re-releases section

Is it really appropriate to have the re-releases section? It's currently just an empty section with a {{main}} link to Changes in Star Wars re-releases. This article is a list of entries in Star Wars films and television installments. I don't really see how a list of changes in subsequent re-releases, which isn't even a timeline of re-releases anyway, is appropriate to have linked here. It's present in the navbox at the bottom anyway. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 01:04, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

@TenTonParasol: no, it's not. It should be removed immediately. We need to start coming to the talk page for weird edits like this. This article has alot of views and if there are hundreds of edits with no communication, it's going to get worse. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 01:21, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I mean, lmao, if it's self-evidently not fitting in with the scope of the list and is "pointless" as you point out in your edit summary, it's not necessarily a "weird" edit, is it? Also, the WP:BRD process exists and is the reason I came here to discuss it. But, I do agree about discussing making changes to established style first. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 01:50, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Television Series Separate Page

I feel like the television series should be on a separate page. This should be "List of Star Wars films" and there should be a "List of Star Wars television series". This article is currently pretty crowded. Just a thought. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 20:23, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

As it currently stands, I think they belong together. There's too much similarity between TV specials and series to justify splitting articles. One way to shorten the article would be to better incorporate data, e.g. the critical response percentages in the film tables. UpdateNerd (talk) 05:59, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

There are 3 additional editors who support this over at Talk:Star Wars, and I don't see any opposers, although they may not have read through the lengthy discussion. (I now also support the split, as the article is too long). Note my suggested titles no longer refer to the new articles as lists. UpdateNerd (talk) 01:16, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I support spliting this into two articles, films and television.Rosvel92 (talk) 18:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC)rosvel92

Split discussion

• Oppose - the article seems fine as it is, no need to split. The headings do their job, surely? I see no benefit from a split. As a comment I would add that if you did split the article, the logical article names would then be List of Star Wars films and List of Star Wars television series (both of which exist as redirects anyway). Cnbrb (talk) 23:51, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

An alternative is to merge all TV back into the Star Wars article, as most of the information exists there already. UpdateNerd (talk) 02:41, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support as evidenced by the clear confusion of scope pertaining to all top level Star Wars articles, none of which are even close to GA level, and for good reason. Agree with Cnbrb that the names should be List of. --Gonnym (talk) 10:10, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 28 September 2018

With some consensus for a split both here and Talk:Star Wars, this article should be moved. Afterwards, a new one should be made for Star Wars in television and the appropriate content migrated. UpdateNerd (talk) 21:26, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't oppose what you are mean (I think), as I'm all in favor as previously discussed, but I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to do now. Do you want to move List of Star Wars films and television series to Star Wars in television? --Gonnym (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

No, "Star Wars in television" should be an entirely new article, and the content migrated there. UpdateNerd (talk) 21:41, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

But this is a move request. This is for when you want to move the article title, from one title to a new title. --Gonnym (talk) 21:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

The proposed split would require this article to no longer be titled "List of Star Wars films and television series". UpdateNerd (talk) 21:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

• Worth clarifying that the proposal includes incorporating the majority of Star Wars#Theatrical films to this article on film, and replacing that section with an overview of the development of the films (i.e. less plot summaries). Same thing for Star Wars#Television. UpdateNerd (talk) 21:59, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
• To address some confusion about whether this is a move requiring a split, or a rename, I've modified the request to only be a rename. The split discussion should be handled separately. UpdateNerd (talk) 00:27, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
• I'll support move to Star Wars in film and television (ignoring the separate WP:Split discussion, which should wait until after this RM). This is more than a list article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:25, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
• Since this is moving on I'll officially oppose - this is really putting the Cart before the horse. This article is in the midst of both a scope change and a re-write. Changing a name now and then again in a short while just causes unnecessary disrupt. --Gonnym (talk) 15:58, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Why is keeping "List" in the title at all necessary, since this is becoming the main article for all things SW in film? This is more than a list, as it includes prose overviews, and is self-evidently more than a list. UpdateNerd (talk) 22:55, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Because 3 Featured List articles - List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films, List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series and List of James Bond films are exactly like that. I think it's a misconception that a list article is a pure list. That's more of an index. A list of stuff will contain prose, but the scope of the article (i.e. List of) means that each time is given a very short paragraph in the larger picture. --Gonnym (talk) 23:40, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose right now per Gonnym. It's very cart before horse, UpdateNerd is radically changing the article while the discussion is going on and cart before horse is exactly what comes to mind. For example, like, the article should not BE more than a list, but right now, because of mass migration of information from Star Wars after this discussion was opened, it went from a list article to something very different. That very state of flux and how the article looks very different between every not!vote is making it very unclear about how best to handle the article. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 00:16, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Merging Lego section

This has been discussed at Talk:Star Wars#Drafts. The appropriate home for these productions is Lego Star Wars. —UpdateNerd (talk) 22:06, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't oppose but like... This isn't a split request. This is a merge request. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:43, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I've made the change to the template and this talk section. UpdateNerd (talk) 23:02, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

• Somewhat oppose - after reviewing the article, I think the whole "parody" section (which is just amazingly mistitled) should be split of, as it doesn't fit the scope of the article(s). --Gonnym (talk) 10:12, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Are you proposing a separate List of Star Wars parodies? While there are enough works to justify such a list, I'm not sure they all have Wikipedia pages or that such a list meets Wikipedia notability requirements. There is a category to auto-create such a collection. UpdateNerd (talk) 22:50, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

The notability level for an article and for an item in a list article are different. Also, categories are pretty useless for this. It's good for things that aren't really related, like "action films" or "best film academy award winners", but when you want to read an article that talks about the history of parody, homages, tributes, etc. of Star Wars, that is something you cannot read from a category. --Gonnym (talk) 23:43, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I oppose too, how about just moving all the parodies section in-depth coverage into Cultural Impact of Star Wars, I feel it would work out without requiring a new article, and could easilly be done right now.Rosvel92 (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2018 (UTC)Rosvel92

It makes sense in general to sort out and deprecate this section, as it's not really what the article is about. The Robot Chicken/Family Guy specials are already mentioned at Star Wars#Cultural impact, but I really think anyone looking for the Lego series would go to Lego Star Wars. In fact, most of them are already on that page; this is just a redundancy. UpdateNerd (talk) 05:59, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Inclusion of canonicity in tables

I'm actually fine with this if done the right way. The wrong way is to include any designation of canon for the episodic films. As far as older TV productions, it adds more context to designate pre-Legends canon. You can see a version of this here. The only title listed with two levels is The Clone Wars, since it's been explicitly defined as such by official sources, before and after 2014. We could remove the unnecessary "(Legends continuity)" description from pre-2014 works. I'd further suggest linking to the holocron & displaying full names of the levels as below:
Canonicity
——————
Continuity canon
——————
Television canon
—————...etc.
UpdateNerd (talk) 15:46, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Rosvel92, one solution might be to label the Legends content 'Expanded Universe', since that's closer to what it was at the time released. I think we should include the holocron continuity levels to avoid making it appear that the Holiday Special and Detours are in the same category as everything else. UpdateNerd (talk) 02:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I think we shouldn't include it at all in the charts, as this isn't a fan site and it's a not a critical detail. In other words, let's stop obsessing over canon, per WP:INUNIVERSE, and keep it to the real-world production perspective. The only important detail is that, after the Disney purchase, only the main works (the then-six films and The Clone Wars series) were still canon. Anything else is just fanboy obsession that does not belong in a general interest encyclopedia. I vociferously oppose any mention of the old levels of canon at all. oknazevad (talk) 03:00, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I actually agree, I should clarify my above comment is just concerning how it should be done if the tables were to be included. Their removal seems to be preferred, but we should wait for more responses to clarify that before reverting/rereverting again. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Timeline

I restored the table as a status quo placeholder, but it helps to keep it there because we can also improve the content intead of removing the whole section. Yes, it discusses in-universe material, but is clearly labelled so, and is justifiably of interest to those reading about a list of fictional films which, though set in the same universe, were released anachronistically.

One way to improve the table, other than providing references, would be to remove the 'Canon' column and replace it with a color code legend. A simple color for "Yes" or "No" would be more in line with Lucasfilm's views. But as a compromise, I'm not entirely opposed to removing the non-canon content. Although they all belong at specific points on the timeline, no newcomer to the franchise will miss them (with the exception of the worthwhile 2D Clone Wars). The important thing is to discuss, try to make it work, and see what consensus dictates after the appropriate duration. UpdateNerd (talk) 02:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's useful is justifiable grounds, particularly because the timeline itself isn't even that complicated. It's just one era, a prequel era of things set before that, and a sequel era of things set after that. And, frankly, the ABY/BBY dating format isn't even consistently used across works—or even consistently within the works themselves. I also have a concern that such granular dating details crosses into WP:JARGON territory. Could not this be communicated effectively within the summaries of each work on the page explaining where the work comes relative to other titles, i.e. "set between The Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones to properly ground the work? Pinging Brojam, Oknazevad, and Gadjetc for comments as they've made reversions related to this topic. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

ABY/BBY is fan jargon based on in-universe material. It is inappropriate, period. This is Wikipedia, not Wookiepedia. Plus, it's not what Lucasfilm uses, anyway, as they now date relative to The Phantom Menace, but even that is somewhat in-universe, as is any timeline organized by in-universe years. This article is not the place for such a timeline. Mention the relative placement, such as saying the Clone Wars series is set between Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith, but keep it about real-world production order. oknazevad (talk) 15:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

ABY/BBY comes from within Lucasfilm publishing/story group, not fans. Where have the dates ever been tracked from TPM? UpdateNerd (talk) 18:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The timeline is complicated outside of the episodic films, not helped by the inconsistent naming of specific Wikipedia articles. The placement of multiple stand-alone films and TV series aren't self-evident from their titles, and it feels like digging to read paragraphs of prose scattered across multiple sections when a simple table communicates that much more efficiently in one place. The dating format is pretty straight-forward and explained in a note upon the first occurence of both BBY/ABY. The fact that these dates aren't used by characters in-universe is irrelevant from the fact that they are used by Lucasfilm to date the works in relationship to each other. UpdateNerd (talk) 18:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Completely agree with TenTonParasol and Oknazevad. Simply stating This is set between so and so. OR The film/series is set several months before/after the events of so and so. is more than enough. In regards to the fact that the MCU has a similar section since it was mentioned in a revert, despite WP:OTHER. The difference is the MCU section is talking more about the major inconsistency with their timeline and has reliably sourced details and commentary from people working on the films about the subject. This is not the case with the current SW timeline section, nor does it warrant such in depth commentary. - Brojam (talk) 01:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Although I disagree with much of the reasoning that's been used, I do think removing the table and including clear relational data in the description of the titles would suffice. Peace UpdateNerd (talk) 02:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Note that I have removed the lower level of canon to simplify the table, as I suggested as a compromise. This removes a column and also causes the section to no longer be named "in-universe", as this is simply the "Canon timeline", not unlike the MCU timeline. UpdateNerd (talk) 18:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Vader at Dragoncon 2010.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

The "Skywalker saga"

This and other Star Wars pages (but the redirect comes here) name the 9 main films as the "Skywalker saga" which is the current marketing label as applied by Disney. But, it is done in such a way as to imply that this was always the name of the series of films. An encyclopedia should not be a mirror of marketing. "...referred to as the 'Skywalker saga' or, colloquially, the 'Star Wars saga'" this is not really a true statement as "colloquially" does not mean "the only thing used for almost 40 years before some marketing guy re-branded it." Just so it's clear, I don't object to it being called the "Skywalker saga" (it's nice that it now has a name to distinguish it from the other works in the universe), but an encyclopedic article should include when it took on that name, and should not imply that any naming before this particular branding is a colloquialism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.156.172.186 (talk) 23:25, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I've made a change to handle this better. UpdateNerd (talk) 00:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Split Films and TV Shows into Separate Pages

I think the page (and the TOC) looks disorganized trying to combine both films and TV shows. Since both sections have enough content to deserve their own pages, I propose separating them. This page would become "List of Star Wars films" and a new page for "List of Star Wars television series" created. I don't see any real advantage of keeping everything in one page. It just creates clutter and lack of order. This format makes some movies like "Rogue One" lose TOC visibility. MCU pages are much cleaner because they're not mixing things with completely different formats. Starforce13 (talk) 21:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. This was discussed back when it was a simple list but didn't have enough support then. Now that it's a much more dense article I'd imagine the split would be more strongly favored. UpdateNerd (talk) 21:37, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support in principal; the article is rather long and splitting by medium is a natural and logical way to organize the material. That said, the one caveat I have is regarding the Ewok films, as they were cinematically released in some countries, so although the were produced as TV movies, they are films and do belong here. They're currently listed under the television header. If a split is carried out, they should remain in this page. The Holiday Special, however, is strictly television (and an atrocity on the level of the destruction of Alderan, but that's besides the point). oknazevad (talk) 03:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

The Ewok movies had crossed my mind. I think a passing mention in prose is enough on the film page (which is how they're mentioned in that section currently). UpdateNerd (talk) 04:01, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support: How about, instead of splitting between movies and TV, the article is split between live-action and animated projects? (The Clone wars film would sort of have to be mentioned in both articles I suppose, though.) I support either kind of split.Rosvel92 (talk) 17:02, 22 June 2019 (UTC)Rosvel92

Also I gotta add, I only support the split as long as the articles for the prequel trilogy, original trilogy, and sequel trilogy were to be merged back into the film article.Rosvel92 (talk) 17:07, 22 June 2019 (UTC)rosvel92

I agree. The trilogy pages don’t really add much value besides repeating what’s already included in the list of films page and in the individual films pages. They can be merged into the movies article. TV films can go to the TV article. It would be nice if we found a structure that puts all live action films together without live-action TV shows or animated films. Starforce¹³ 17:31, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

The trilogy articles allow for more detailed overviews of those specific groups of films. E.g. the sequel trilogy has a long production history that wouldn't be appropriate for a 'List' article. UpdateNerd (talk) 02:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support proposed at the top. Oppose splitting further by live action vs animated. There is no reason for that and feels like splitting for style reasons rather than an organization or need reason. Merging the trilogy articles is a different conversation, I think, because the sequel article is definitely better separated. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:13, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Merging the original trilogy, prequel trilogy, and sequel trilogy articles back in

Now that the tv section was split, it should be discussed to merge the prequel, original, and sequel articles back here, when they were split was because of the tv content, but now all articles are a repeat of portions of this one (the sequel trilogy may be better split but the original and prequel articles should definitely be added again is just a paragraph of difference). But even if they get re-split, it should be within a Skywalker Saga article, rather each trilogy on it's own. I can see the sequel trilogy article not being merged back, but the original and prequel don't have enough content to justify not being merged back in (unless someone expanded those articles).

IMO we should focus on expanding those articles, rather than merging pointlessly. UpdateNerd (talk) 00:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Maybe the novelization articles and the special edition articles can be merged into the trilogy articles?Rosvel92 (talk) 01:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)rosvel92

Perhaps we should make a separate article for the novelizations, and then merge those articles into it. They're rather short, and I think we only have them for the original trilogy. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:59, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Another solution that has been proposed is a "Star Wars production history" article, which would include all the extra content from the ST page and other extraneous details. That would be a better way to consolidate the redundancy of articles IMO. UpdateNerd (talk) 04:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Rosvel92's preemptive merge attempt

@Rosvel92: You just made two large edits which supposedly 'merge' the prequel and original trilogy contents. I don't wish to edit war, but normally we wait for discussions to conclude before acting on such proposals. Since the only other editor to respond to your proposal has been myself, against your proposal, you don't have the proper consensus. I strongly recommend that you revert your additions until other editors state their support. Otherwise, you put the cart before the horse and make a mess of a previously well-organized article. Thanks, UpdateNerd (talk) 06:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I've undone those edits. I believe it's time to cut bait and have Rosvel92 topic banned from Star Wars articles. His failure to abide by consensus, plus the gross incompetence of many of his edits, make working with him impossible and create too much of a mess for other editors to clean up. In short, he's a time sink and actively making the articles worse. oknazevad (talk) 07:55, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Destination for novelizations

I think we should make an article for the novelizations, and then merge all of those individual articles into it. I think they would fit together easily once the unsourced fat is trimmed. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:25, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I just realized Star Wars expanded to other media would be a more natural place for this. UpdateNerd (talk) 05:12, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Skywalker Saga

I find this quote "The sequel trilogy features Kylo Ren (Ben Solo), a major antagonist and eventual Supreme Leader of the First Order, and son of Leia, nephew of Luke, and grandson of Anakin" quite appalling as the third trilogy most of all features Rey "Skywalker", a daughter of the same family. Maybe this particular phrase was not updated after the launch of the most recent movie "The Rise of Skywalker"? Simon Grönlund (talk) 01:58, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Watch the film. Spoiler: She is not in the Skywalker family but just adopts the name at the end. The paragraph is about the Skywalker family and also omits Han Solo. Rey is mentioned elsewhere in the article, including: "The sequel trilogy focuses on the journey of the orphaned scavenger Rey following in the footsteps of the Jedi with the guidance of Luke Skywalker." PrimeHunter (talk) 16:20, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

"Star Wars saga" or "Skywalker saga"

The Star Wars film seried has, in recent time, also become fairly widely known as the "Skywalker saga" though for most of its history it was predominantly known as the "Star Wars saga" or the "Star Wars series" and those wordings still predominate. https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=GB&q=skywalker%20saga,star%20wars%20saga,star%20wars%20series

I hope that the history of this series can be presented and that names that have more recently become a WP:official name can also be regarded in historical context.

GregKaye 09:52, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

They refer to two different things. "Star Wars saga" is the entire story within the Star Wars universe. "Skywalker saga" is the part of the Star Wars saga that just concluded which revolves around the Skywalker clan. Future films will still be about the Star Wars story but not part of the Skywalker saga, if that makes sense.Starforce¹³ 10:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, I've amended my edit above to include the "Star Wars series" and have edited the opening of the article section to read, "The Star Wars film series, which developed into a trilogy of trilogies and which has been rebranded as the "Skywalker saga", ..." previously: "The Star Wars film series consists of a trilogy of trilogies, colloquially known as the "Skywalker saga", ..." There's also a redirect for Star Wars series which I think should arrive at List_of_Star_Wars_films#Skywalker_saga on the view that there's the series/Skywalker saga and spin-offs. ping Starforce 13. GregKaye 12:58, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Then again perhaps it should be a navigation page also referencing The Mandalorian. GregKaye 13:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Only is it also include The Clone Wars, Rebels, and Resistance, all of which are also Star Wars series. The main thrust though is that "Star Wars series" refers to the franchise as a whole, not any one particular subset of it, even the main number films. I think you're overthinking it. oknazevad (talk) 13:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Star Wars series could provide links to the original film series, the Skywalker saga, to the List of Star Wars television series, to any listing related to games and anything else. GregKaye 13:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Skywalker saga logo

Can someone please add the Skywalker Saga logo? I don't know how to do it properly. It's here (from here). --H8149 (talk) 17:04, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion of Skywalker saga films

User Brojam has removed the main films from the article. I get it, there's a lot to cover on this page—but this needs more discussion/consensus. The article's title, List of Star Wars films, really demands a significant amount of prose related to the primary nine films. Otherwise, it's more of a List of Star Wars spin-off films. I'm not totally opposed to splitting up the article somehow, but it needs to be discussed. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:22, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Lego movies

I know a lot of people think these are stupid, but I really think they should be mentioned somewhere since they are officialy licenced products.★Trekker (talk) 10:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

These are listed at the Lego Star Wars article, which is linked from List of Star Wars television series. UpdateNerd (talk) 17:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Where is the Mandalorian?

Literally the only completely good Star Wars film series and it's not in the list. Warlightyahoo (talk) 01:47, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Warlightyahoo: It's not a film series but a TV series. It's at List of Star Wars television series#The Mandalorian (2019–present). PrimeHunter (talk) 02:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Rian Johnson's trilogy/Rogue Squadron being scrapped

There's been mulitple sources recently claiming that Rian's trilogy and Rogue Squadron have been scrapped. While Screen Rant and IGN are not the most reliable sources, I do think this is a development to keep a close eye on. Second(if we're keeping Rogue Squadron), with production and the release date of Rogue Squadron being pushed back, would it make more sense to move Rogue Squadron under unspecified standalone movies? The movie isn't in active development at the moment. JDA 78 (talk) 04:36, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Highly doubt the status of Johnson's trilogy has changed; this has been repeatedly rumored before and debunked. Since it has a title, Rogue Squadron isn't "unspecified" and there's been no announcement as yet from Lucasfilm as to any change regarding its development. I'm sure more will be announced soon. Also related is the recent buzz around Kathleen Kennedy's renewal at Lucasfilm, which I think was leaked (since it also lacks high quality sources) to counteract any perceived blame on her for RS's delay. There are countless SW projects in the works, so what gets announced gets announced. Thanks BTW for pointing out the lack of reliability regarding Screen Rant and IGN on occasion; their articles can be clickbait-y and have to be considered on a case-by-case basis. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Legacy trilogy

I just watched a Mike Zeroh video on YouTube that says the three upcoming films of the Skywalker saga, episodes X, XI and XII, are currently in development and will be announced at Star Wars Celebration next year. The video mentioned something about Darth Talon, the One Sith and the new Jedi Order on the planet Tatooine. AdamDeanHall (talk) 15:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

And a YouTube video about claimed leaks and rumours is pretty much the opposite of a reliable source. Canterbury Tail talk 16:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Even for YouTube, Mike Zeroh is an especially horrendous source of information. Ignoring Mike Zeroh is good rule of thumb. Nemov (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)