Talk:Star Wars/Archive 7
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Star Wars. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
A prelude with more continuity
In the article's introduction, when there's a sequential listing of all the films that have come out, there is only mention of Episodes IV, V, VI and VII. It would be more likeable to also mention Episodes I, II, III, VIII and IX. Besides, it would be much more intuitive and clear if the films will be mentioned with their episodic names (for example, Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back instead of The Empire Strikes Back) with notes attached about their initial distribution titles. CapLiber (talk, contribs) 07:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
No longer the third highest grossing media franchise
it's the fifth now — Preceding unsigned comment added by 102.134.154.48 (talk) 23:34, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Time for a split off Anthology article?
With quite a bit of content at Star Wars#Anthology films covering the two released films and all the speculation about the future, and with those orange tags here on the main article, I'm wondering if it's time to split much of that content to a new article. I created redirects, like Star Wars Anthology Series, a few years ago figuring the time would soon enough come for it to be its own notable topic, and I think that day may be here. I won't do this if there's strong consensus against it, so let me know your thoughts. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:44, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- Seems sensible. I don't have any strong feels either way, but it seems sensible. It'd also be a good opportunity to tighten up against spec and rumor mill. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 20:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- Not yet - there is mostly speculation and excess in that section. I don't think we need that yet. Also, the prequel films section is similarly sized, yet they don't have their own article, with all of that being covered here as well. R9tgokunks ⯃ 20:58, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- That didn't occur to me. The prequel trilogy could probably use a split-off article, I think. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
- Not yet - there is mostly speculation and excess in that section. I don't think we need that yet. Also, the prequel films section is similarly sized, yet they don't have their own article, with all of that being covered here as well. R9tgokunks ⯃ 20:58, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree the film section is getting too out of scope. However, I do feel there's no need for an 'Anthology films' article of it's own, as all could perfectly fit into the already existing list of Star Wars films and television series article, I even think the current sequel trilogy article should also be moved in there (specially because there's lots of redundancy between this Star Wars article, the list of Star Wars films and television series and the sequel trilogy article. And I don't think the articles are consistent with each other at all. info that should be within a single article is akwardly split across 3 articles).Rosvel92 (talk) 09:27, 29 June 2018 (UTC)Rosvel92
In response to the proposal that "sections about Theatrical films be split out and merged into the article titled List of Star Wars films and television series", I'd have to vote against. We can make the summaries on the main page more concise without adding to a page that's just supposed to be a "list". There are already prominent links to the main film pages (and one for the sequel trilogy, so perhaps an "original trilogy" and "prequel trilogy" article should be created as well). This article should briefly summarize the history of each film production, its plot, and other specific articles can host more detailed information. UpdateNerd (talk) 12:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
-- The thing is that this article is the one that should be about the franchise. This is the article that should be just a list of the films. Curently this article is out of scope focusing too much on the films and not enough in the franchise. The current article is trying to be about the franchise and the films and I don't think it works.
- To be honest, concerning the films all this article needs, is the current intro and the film tables, and maybe a brief plot overview of each Star Wars sub-film series. The list of films article should be the one with all the details, and this should be just the tables. The semi-detailed plot overviews should be moved to the list of Star Wars films and television series, also the whole sequel trilogy article could easilly also be merged into the film series article, too. The article about the films should be more detailed about the films, currently the article about the franchise. is more detailed about the films than the one meant to be all about the films.
- Moving most of the content regarding the films there would also help reduce the trafic on this article, which would be nice, and also because honestly the film sections needs more subtopics than the ones this articles can actually afford. Moving the content there would help a lot.Rosvel92 (talk) 08:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC)rosvel92
- The films are the primary installments of the franchise, so it makes sense to spend a significant amount of time covering the films. I don't think plot summary should be moved to the lier article. I agree that trimming is warranted, I don't agree with this proposal. The most important part of the franchise is the films, so it makes sense that the films are weighed a little more in the franchise article. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 12:24, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
- As I've status elsewhere several times, this article should be the franchise overview article. A good example of how this article should be is Marvel Cinematic Universe. The main film article should be a "list of film" article and for television a "list of television series". --Gonnym (talk) 07:37, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
- Don't think the Marvel comparison is a good one. Star Wars is, first and foremost, a film franchise. The MCU is based on a pre-existing (comic) series, so it justifies a separate article. SW doesn't, at least not in the ways proposed so far. UpdateNerd (talk) 08:13, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
- That argument has been rehashed so many times, it just doesn't matter what Star Wars is "first and formost". This article is about the franchise, not the film series, that's why the film series has its own article. The only reason this article is going nowhere is because of this mindset that just doesn't want to let go of the previous primary topic. Also, if you really want to get into the semantics, for most of the franchise history, books and comics and toys were the main, with 3 films living only in memory. --Gonnym (talk) 10:37, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
- The article is about Star Wars generally, and it's a film franchise. UpdateNerd (talk) 10:48, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
- You clearly are not understanding you are using terms incorrectly. What you call "generally" is in essence the Media franchise, a "Film franchise" is an essence a Film series (go ahead, click on film franchise and see where that takes you). This article talks about the "thing" that is Star Wars, its history, development, cultural impact and the pieces that make it up - the films, television series, books and comics, toys, games and theme parks. But have fun making this article never get promoted. On a related note - if anyone does take this issue to a real RFC, please ping me. --Gonnym (talk) 11:40, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
- The article is about Star Wars generally, and it's a film franchise. UpdateNerd (talk) 10:48, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
- That argument has been rehashed so many times, it just doesn't matter what Star Wars is "first and formost". This article is about the franchise, not the film series, that's why the film series has its own article. The only reason this article is going nowhere is because of this mindset that just doesn't want to let go of the previous primary topic. Also, if you really want to get into the semantics, for most of the franchise history, books and comics and toys were the main, with 3 films living only in memory. --Gonnym (talk) 10:37, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
- Don't think the Marvel comparison is a good one. Star Wars is, first and foremost, a film franchise. The MCU is based on a pre-existing (comic) series, so it justifies a separate article. SW doesn't, at least not in the ways proposed so far. UpdateNerd (talk) 08:13, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Splitting the main Saga films, instead of an split off Anthology article?
How about instead of splitting the Anthology films into their own article, we instead move most of the information about the Main (Skywalker) Saga into the Sequel trilogy to turn the sequel article into an aticle about the whole Star Wars (Skywalker) main saga, and then getting the sequel article retitled Skywalker Saga for practical reasons, then with the additional space maybe the whole list article can be merged again into the franchise article or not, as I believe the list article is not needed unless it gets expanded with more info from this article, which no one wants to do. With a shortened film section, the television tables could also fit here, as they are supposed to belong in this article, since this article is supposed to be about the Star Wars franchise as a whole rather than only about the film series. The templates for suggesting splitting content:
 | It has been suggested that sections about Theatrical films be split out and merged into the page titled List of Star Wars films and television series, which already exists. (Discuss) (August 2018) |
| It has been suggested that sections about Theatrical films be split out and merged into the page titled Star Wars sequel trilogy, which already exists. (Discuss) (August 2018) |
Rosvel92 (talk) 00:06, 21 September 2018 (UTC)Rosvel92
- My response, personally, remains as above. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 00:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
- This article should not be the "main series" article. It's the franchise article as a whole and it's not wonder this article will never reach any good status in its current condition. Also, there I'm pretty sure there is no need in even splitting the film series from one another. So in response to your proposal, if it moves the films into a film article, I'm for it, but it really should be into a list article of all films, as I really doubt that splitting Star Wars film article into so many sub-article is really required. --Gonnym (talk) 07:34, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
- The steps in the proposal above are inadvisable. It's too complicated to edit an article with the intent of having it moved. If need be, create a 'Star Wars episodic saga' article that combines info on the three trilogies then merge the sequel trilogy article. I also advise against naming it something that's only been used in a single announcement. Keep it more general. UpdateNerd (talk) 08:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps the steps, I've suggested could be improved, but most of us seem to agree that this article will never reach a good status, unless more content from this article is moved to the articles about the Star Wars film series. Also I agree, with what you are saying that most should be moved into a film article, given that there are already two articles about the Star Wars films, I believe the content should be moved into those and that no new articles should be created, the two film related articles that already exist and on whom the content should be moved across, are Sequel trilogy and List of Star Wars films and television series.
- Maybe just rename the sequel trilogy article, into Star Wars main saga (Skywalker Saga) or Star Wars original, prequel, and sequel, trilogies (or any agreed suggested name that is fitting), and copy and paste the content regarding Episodes I to IX that's here there, and start from there.
- Or maybe for the meantime all the content regarding the films, should be copy/pasted into the list article, while this article reduced into only the introductory four paragraphs and the film tables. Rosvel92 (talk) 14:54, 21 September 2018 (UTC)rosvel92
- You need consensus before doing any big reformat edits. But I don't think a clear or logical solution has been suggested (see my above comments), so I don't think it's time to begin collecting votes yet. UpdateNerd (talk) 18:23, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Splitting to Star Wars (film series)
The user Gonnym, made a very good case about why moving the info concerning the film series. This article is about the media franchise (which is everything, including the films, videogames, comics, novels, etc) and another is the films article, which solely concerns about the films. The current super detailed level of info about the film series doesn't belong into this franchise article, it belongs in the article about the film series, which is currently empty and is called List of Star Wars films and television series. So the solution is to move most of the info regarding the films into the list of films and tv article, in order for ths article to cover the franchise more properly (not just the films), and also so the films can be covered more properly (the special editions are not even mentioned which makes the article incomplete and weird). As the article is right now it will never achieve good standing and the article about the film series will also never achieve good standing, because curently none is covering the topic it should be covering.Rosvel92 (talk) 02:15, 22 September 2018 (UTC)Rosvel92
- I'm against, because I don't think it sounds like an improvement. Would support a plan to overhaul the page that addresses concerns I've stated above. UpdateNerd (talk) 03:02, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
- As I've stated above. While I absolutely believe paring down the film section is absolutely warranted (and I've said this since the GAR that delisted the article in 2017), the fact that the franchise is most primarily a film series, it makes sense that films have more weight in the article. I do not believe splitting off information into yet another article in the article confusing morass of the topic tree and bloating the article with information about secondary parts of the franchise—and given history, it will be bloated—will help the article. Special editions, as stated multiple times before, don't actually carry that much weight, especially in terms of franchise overview.
- I've previously suggested cutting down plot summary to a handful of sentences per film (the plot summaries are just way too long for this article) and covering the films in groups rather than each individually, i.e. cover the development of the original trilogy all at once and leave granular especially very film-specific detail to individual articles (we don't need information like the specifics of the Rogue One timeline here), but there hasn't been consensus for that either.
- Also! Rosvel! Can we stop adding new talk sections with overly long titles to the middle of the talk page? I shortened the header. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 04:25, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
- Please do not make changes associated with this discussion while they are still under discussion! ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 12:39, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
- In any case, I propose that all the film and series tables get moved to List of Star Wars films and television series. Such a page is the ideal home for such charts, not this already lengthy article. UpdateNerd (talk) 18:51, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
- I agree that the tables this detailed ought to go. I opposed the theme park tables when they were added, and it's generally noteworthy that one of the concerns brought up at the GAR was "table spam". However, I see merit in a simplified film table that covers ALL the films at once (including TCW and the anthology films) at the beginning of the film section and a simplified television series article combining the live action and animated series tables at the beginning of the television series section. I see no reason to have them separated like that, it's especially absolutely stupid with TCW, and I still am not sure why the two tables were separated into five tables way back. The short of it: I wouldn't necessarily be sad to see the tables go, but I think at this stage, I'm going to advocate for simpler tables that replace currently five tables into two because I also advocate for paring down and merging all the subsections for individual titles into sections covering larger units. Simplified meaning like, using the films as an example, nix the composer and initial distributor column, I'd even say nix producer. Have just those first five columns. The television tables do not remotely need the setting and canon columns. Pare down the tables to give the most pertinent information, leave more details information to the tables in the lists and the individual articles.
- I absolutely believe the theme park attractions table needs to be nixed, though, and replaced with a prose overview. That level of detail is just unnecessary, especially when there's a list article. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 19:26, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
- I know it's hard for you to grasp what an "overview" is, but that's just it. This is an overview article about Star Wars in general. The table is just that, while its list article has more detailed information, as that's how Wikipedia works. Shocking, I know. --Gonnym (talk) 20:21, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
- I'm of the opinion that tables are more handy in a list, which already reads like a database (albeit something Wikipedia is NOT). The main article is about the franchise generally, and should introduce its conception, historical context, themes, etc. without getting lost in all the sequels, spin-offs, etc. A separate article for prequel trilogy makes sense (as well as condensing prequel/sequel sections into overviews), although a separate article is prob not needed for the original trilogy or entire "Skywalker saga". Since SW is primarily a film franchise the article doesn't need to be generalized to its mixed media marketing, which seems to be the proposal here. UpdateNerd (talk) 20:34, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Given the length of the article, I don't think removing the tables entirely would be beneficial. In a less detailed version of the table, rather than an exact replica of what exists at the list article (I absolutely disagree the tables should be transcluded from the list), they would be useful to summarizing the films in a single list that does include the sequels and spin-offs. It's useful to list them all once, together, someplace. A simpler table like this, I believe would be appropriate because it focused on the information readers may most likely wants and presents it in one table rather than three. And I believe that because having them all listed together at the top of the film section would be providing precisely the necessarily context to all the other information. To clarify, I do think some coverage to other mixed media marketing is absolutely warranted, and I believe that the television, print media, and basically everything under expanded media needs to more properly cover also their publication history. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 20:55, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
- The only downside of a big table at the top is that it takes longer to get to the conception of the original film, which could easily be resolved with a sentence in the lead. I pretty much agree with you: three tables are the only that are necessary: theatrical films, TV movies, and TV series. Simple tables for this article, more complex ones on the "List". Also, I don't believe gathering consensus is needed for making that basic change, as it requires none of the suggested complex overhauling. Cheers UpdateNerd (talk) 21:07, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
- Considering the tables is an apparently contentious thing, given how often they're changed. I'd still say give it a few days. Also, I've posted neutral notices at WP:FILM and WP:STARWARS to see if anyone cares to have any input on the matter. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:16, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
- The only downside of a big table at the top is that it takes longer to get to the conception of the original film, which could easily be resolved with a sentence in the lead. I pretty much agree with you: three tables are the only that are necessary: theatrical films, TV movies, and TV series. Simple tables for this article, more complex ones on the "List". Also, I don't believe gathering consensus is needed for making that basic change, as it requires none of the suggested complex overhauling. Cheers UpdateNerd (talk) 21:07, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Given the length of the article, I don't think removing the tables entirely would be beneficial. In a less detailed version of the table, rather than an exact replica of what exists at the list article (I absolutely disagree the tables should be transcluded from the list), they would be useful to summarizing the films in a single list that does include the sequels and spin-offs. It's useful to list them all once, together, someplace. A simpler table like this, I believe would be appropriate because it focused on the information readers may most likely wants and presents it in one table rather than three. And I believe that because having them all listed together at the top of the film section would be providing precisely the necessarily context to all the other information. To clarify, I do think some coverage to other mixed media marketing is absolutely warranted, and I believe that the television, print media, and basically everything under expanded media needs to more properly cover also their publication history. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 20:55, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
- I'm of the opinion that tables are more handy in a list, which already reads like a database (albeit something Wikipedia is NOT). The main article is about the franchise generally, and should introduce its conception, historical context, themes, etc. without getting lost in all the sequels, spin-offs, etc. A separate article for prequel trilogy makes sense (as well as condensing prequel/sequel sections into overviews), although a separate article is prob not needed for the original trilogy or entire "Skywalker saga". Since SW is primarily a film franchise the article doesn't need to be generalized to its mixed media marketing, which seems to be the proposal here. UpdateNerd (talk) 20:34, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
- I know it's hard for you to grasp what an "overview" is, but that's just it. This is an overview article about Star Wars in general. The table is just that, while its list article has more detailed information, as that's how Wikipedia works. Shocking, I know. --Gonnym (talk) 20:21, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Though I can't believe we are STILL talking about this, I see Gonnym's point and wouldn't mind a trim of the film sections here in favor of the film and TV list. I think the historical opposition to this in general has been, no offense intended, because of Rosvel92. He means well, but makes sweeping, disruptive and often redundant edits that are sloppily written, fixates on what is canon and what is not, and continues doing so after repeated reverts and pushback. 99% of the edits he makes need to be corrected by other editors, both the content itself as well as basic grammar and spelling. I'm willing to see what Gonnym can do, but I violently object to Rosvel92 actively participating. Sorry.— TAnthonyTalk 02:17, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- To clarify, I wouldn't mind seeing a trim either. Just as long as it isn't a wholesale split the entire section off into those lists and leave like three paragraphs to cover the entirety of the films. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 02:48, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
What needs to be moved are the words in the section about the films series, the tables are the only things that should, absolutely, 100% remain for the television shows, for the films, and for the theme park rides, because the topic of this article is the whole Star Wars (franchise) (instead of just the film series), because this is the Star Wars (franchise) article, this article must cover everything, the films, the television series, the videogames, comic, books, theme park, and the merchandise (maybe the films section can receive a little more extended than the others, but not to the current degree where as it stands right now, this Star Wars (franchise) article is easilly confused with the Star Wars (film series) article, to the degree that Star Wars (film series) redirects to this article about the franchise, instead of redirectiong to the actual article about the Star Wars film series (which currently is List of Star Wars films and television series).
What Gonnym and me are complaining , is that the article as it stands right now, is out of scope, because it, is focused solely on the film series, instead of focusing on the franchise as a whole. I have said multiple times, the solution is to move sections about the film series section into the actual article about the film series (which currently is List of Star Wars films and television series). Keeping the article as it is right now is violationg the out of scoop guideline, because as he said this is an overview article.
The purpose of the franchise article is to say that there is more to Star Wars than the films, but as it stands the vibe the article gives is that Star Wars is only the film franchise and everything else is just crappy tie-ins. The sections regarding television series, videogames, comic, books, theme park, and the merchandise, should not be shrinked to make more space to cover the films, curently the section about the book, comics and videogames are not properly done, because any time someone tries to do them properly, they are reverted to expand the already overlong section about the films (which can be as long as it needs to, but in the article about the film series, not in this one). Attempting to shrink the film section is pointless, because shortly after someone will come and extend it again into a problem the film section has outgrown this article.
The solution is to move the individual subtopics of each film to the film series article. Because as it stands right now the excessive lenght of the film series section disrupts the flow of the article and makes the article like the film series article, instead of the franchise article it is supposed to be.Rosvel92 (talk) 04:19, 23 September 2018 (UTC)rosvel92
- OK, so you're proposing that Star Wars only broadly cover the films (with some weight given to the original trilogy), and that List of Star Wars films and television series be renamed to something like Star Wars films, where they are all addressed at about the level they are currently represented in the "main" article. I would support this revised proposal, and suggest that the Star Wars (film) later be moved to Star Wars (1977 film) to further disambiguate it. UpdateNerd (talk) 05:41, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- Hold on, whether articles are getting renamed is a whole other discussion.
- To respond to Rosvel. Honestly, the reason attempts, particularly your attempts Rosvel, to expand sections that aren't the films section get reverted is as TAnthony stated: they are often riddled with poor spelling, poor grammar, and sometimes they're clearly copied and pasted from some indeterminate source. If not that, there's also often a tendency toward table spam (I don't know who it was, but the film tables used to be a single table and now it isn't anymore, we do not need tables for everything, table spam is literally one of the points the article was delisted for) or some overemphasis on continuity or minutiae (again, because it was mentioned before, the special editions honestly don't need to be mentioned here and historically you keep trying to add them back in). As I said before, I don't oppose trimming the films section or expanding the others, I have not suggested trimming the other sections at all, I've just seen what specifically Rosvel is proposing and it is not helpful.
- I think we're on some sort of agreement to, though, pft, everyone in the discussion has been saying "trimming to more broad coverage of the films is acceptable" the entire time. I just absolutely oppose the specific way Rosvel wants to do it, and I additionally oppose Rosvel being one to do it. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 13:47, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- @UpdateNerd, yes, exactly. This article covers Star Wars as a whole, development, history, impact and various other media, with tables transcluded from sub-pages. The sub pages, each dealing in more detail about that specific subject - films, tv, books, comics, games, etc. I keep giving the MCU article as an example, as that is one of the best ones available on Wikipedia, with a good article tree and minimizing redundant information appearing in multiple articles. --Gonnym (talk) 15:06, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with @TenTonParasol that we don't need a bunch of tables added to this article. If they are already included in the linked "sub-pages", then including them here would be nothing short of redundant. UpdateNerd (talk) 18:04, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- As for what article gets what content, I've created a chart of how I think the flow should go (this is based on current articles and content) which can be seen here - User:Gonnym/sandbox/StarWars (UpdateNerd, you had to click 1 second before I published?) --Gonnym (talk) 18:06, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- Actually, that is the exact opposite of redundant. Again, an overview is supposed to give you a short summary (high-level one) of the topic. The tables are just that, a quick summary. If we take the film table as example - it shows film names, release dates, top-level crew. What it does not show is the story of the film or a detailed production of each film. That goes into a film series article and into a specific film article. Without the tables you'll have to write that information into prose (which is less reader friendly imo), but cut it either way, you'll still have to talk about it, so I'm not really sure how you two see the final product. --Gonnym (talk) 18:10, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- I've already stated my support of three (not-split-up) tables: theatrical films, TV movies, and TV series. They do eliminate the need for stating the release dates, box office etc. in prose form. But I don't think we need one for theme park rides, video games, or all the other minutiae. Maybe you could narrow down which tables you're proposing. UpdateNerd (talk) 19:19, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- I'm basically, again, saying that this is not the film or film and TV over article, but the franchise article. Theme parks, video games and anything else is part of that. Specifically, I don't think a video game table would fit here as it's just too many to list, same with books and comics. That said, they still need a section in this article. Looking at this article again, the only table not a TV or film table is the theme parks ones and that is pretty small. If this whole conversation is because of that one table, I'm impressed. --Gonnym (talk) 19:30, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- I've already stated my support of three (not-split-up) tables: theatrical films, TV movies, and TV series. They do eliminate the need for stating the release dates, box office etc. in prose form. But I don't think we need one for theme park rides, video games, or all the other minutiae. Maybe you could narrow down which tables you're proposing. UpdateNerd (talk) 19:19, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- Actually, that is the exact opposite of redundant. Again, an overview is supposed to give you a short summary (high-level one) of the topic. The tables are just that, a quick summary. If we take the film table as example - it shows film names, release dates, top-level crew. What it does not show is the story of the film or a detailed production of each film. That goes into a film series article and into a specific film article. Without the tables you'll have to write that information into prose (which is less reader friendly imo), but cut it either way, you'll still have to talk about it, so I'm not really sure how you two see the final product. --Gonnym (talk) 18:10, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- As for what article gets what content, I've created a chart of how I think the flow should go (this is based on current articles and content) which can be seen here - User:Gonnym/sandbox/StarWars (UpdateNerd, you had to click 1 second before I published?) --Gonnym (talk) 18:06, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with @TenTonParasol that we don't need a bunch of tables added to this article. If they are already included in the linked "sub-pages", then including them here would be nothing short of redundant. UpdateNerd (talk) 18:04, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- @UpdateNerd, yes, exactly. This article covers Star Wars as a whole, development, history, impact and various other media, with tables transcluded from sub-pages. The sub pages, each dealing in more detail about that specific subject - films, tv, books, comics, games, etc. I keep giving the MCU article as an example, as that is one of the best ones available on Wikipedia, with a good article tree and minimizing redundant information appearing in multiple articles. --Gonnym (talk) 15:06, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- OK, so you're proposing that Star Wars only broadly cover the films (with some weight given to the original trilogy), and that List of Star Wars films and television series be renamed to something like Star Wars films, where they are all addressed at about the level they are currently represented in the "main" article. I would support this revised proposal, and suggest that the Star Wars (film) later be moved to Star Wars (1977 film) to further disambiguate it. UpdateNerd (talk) 05:41, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- I generally agree with UpdateNerd, and frankly, I really don't care about the theme park table anymore. I don't think it's necessary and can be sufficiently covered in prose—and a prose portion of that section does still need to be added—but I don't care anymore about it. And, again, nobody is saying get rid of the sections for the other stuff. Nobody has said that at any point, it's just resistance to how much material under theatrical films ought to be removed. I actually think a lot of them can stand to be expanded. I agree with UpdateNerd that I agree to three not-split-up tables between Theatrical films, TV movies, and TV series, and no more of the five table nonsense for that.
- I'm having a hard time following your chart, but I do disagree that the television movies and Lego films need their own article. But generally splitting the list article is a separate discussion to be had over there.
- Seeing as we're generally in agreement about at least combining the tables for theatrical films and television series. Should we implement that right now? I'm linking again to my proposed for the film table. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 19:39, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- I don't see where we were in agreement in combining tables for films and TV series, or even where that subject was even brought up. Regarding the chart, each top level square is a high-level topic, some have examples under it so you'll understand the scope. Regarding your film table, while I'm not a fan of the current colored table, this one has some accessibility issues with the section headers mid table. --Gonnym (talk) 19:43, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- Ah, I apologize. I proposed that as part of article clean up that the tables be combined farther up toward the top of the discussion in my second reply. UpdateNerd asked before what your ideas on the tables were and agreed on combining the three tables for theatrical films into one table, and so on, and since you hadn't commented on the matter, I wrongly assumed you had no objection to that proposal. Mm, I understand the chart now, but I still don't understand how exactly it's helpful in determining how much to clear out here and how best to expand the other sections and where. And, I had structured it that way because it's the common way of structuring it (even on Marvel Cinematic Universe). Is there a different way to structure the table to circumvent accessibility issues (which I assume means we need to stop with the colspan also on the individual boxes as well)?
- I don't see where we were in agreement in combining tables for films and TV series, or even where that subject was even brought up. Regarding the chart, each top level square is a high-level topic, some have examples under it so you'll understand the scope. Regarding your film table, while I'm not a fan of the current colored table, this one has some accessibility issues with the section headers mid table. --Gonnym (talk) 19:43, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- Okay, to step back a bit it is my understanding that we all agree that the film section needs to be trimmed down to a broad overview, but at least I agree that other sections warrant expanding. And I'm fixating on this table thing bc it's the easiest cleanup step to start with: how to handle the tables and the fact that the current theatrical film set up means we have weird tiny tables for TCW and anthology. I think we should do this a step at a time. Figure out the tables first, then look how to handle the theatrical film section (what to cut, how to cut it, possibly merging the trilogy sections into one large section rather than three subsections each), then move to television (figure out that table, where to expand, etc), then the other sections. Argue about one thing at a time? Because trying to talk it out all at once definitely hasn't worked before. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 20:37, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- Strongly think that this conversation is getting out of scope. I need a flow chart to understand that flow chart. I think we have two editors, @rosvel92 and @Gonnym, with highly complex but different ideas for the article, but they claim to be in agreement, so it just confuses the proposal. @TenTonParasol and I have been dedicating a lot of time just trying to understand the shifting proposals and suggesting ways of improving them. I keep trying to start a consensus vote on a simple but broad decision so we can move on, but it seems we're back at things needing to be restated. I suggest that @rosvel92 and @Gonnym discuss their ideas without intervention, perhaps on one of their talk pages, and come back here with a more realistic proposal. Alternately, choose one idea for this consensus conversation, not reenvision every SW article. UpdateNerd (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- That's, in my opinion the main problem though. Focusing on this table or that section is a band-aid on a much bigger problem, which is that the Star Wars articles as a whole are a huge mess (to put it politely). What you want to do is good and will work, but it's working backwards. The reason why I was talking before about transcluding the table, as that the table info should not even come from this article, but from an article discussing the films. The best approach is for each section to summarize the article from which it came from, not for each section to be written as if there is no other article about that. By first determining what our main Star Wars pages are and then working on them, we will be able to determine how best to write this article and what needs to be here and in what order. --Gonnym (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- You need to be more specific about a self-contained step in what you envision as part of your larger plan, that will be an improvement even if the other parts aren't favored in the future. What do you mean by "transclude the film tables"? How are they not already? UpdateNerd (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- I think I was as specific as one can possibly be. The sub-articles need to be agreed upon and their scope defeind. That is the most basic step. Then the second step is to actually fill them in with content. A step later will be to see what content from those articles goes back here in summary version. As for the tables, only the first one is, the clone wars and the two other stand-alone ones are written in this article. --Gonnym (talk) 21:44, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- You need to be more specific about a self-contained step in what you envision as part of your larger plan, that will be an improvement even if the other parts aren't favored in the future. What do you mean by "transclude the film tables"? How are they not already? UpdateNerd (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- That's, in my opinion the main problem though. Focusing on this table or that section is a band-aid on a much bigger problem, which is that the Star Wars articles as a whole are a huge mess (to put it politely). What you want to do is good and will work, but it's working backwards. The reason why I was talking before about transcluding the table, as that the table info should not even come from this article, but from an article discussing the films. The best approach is for each section to summarize the article from which it came from, not for each section to be written as if there is no other article about that. By first determining what our main Star Wars pages are and then working on them, we will be able to determine how best to write this article and what needs to be here and in what order. --Gonnym (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- Strongly think that this conversation is getting out of scope. I need a flow chart to understand that flow chart. I think we have two editors, @rosvel92 and @Gonnym, with highly complex but different ideas for the article, but they claim to be in agreement, so it just confuses the proposal. @TenTonParasol and I have been dedicating a lot of time just trying to understand the shifting proposals and suggesting ways of improving them. I keep trying to start a consensus vote on a simple but broad decision so we can move on, but it seems we're back at things needing to be restated. I suggest that @rosvel92 and @Gonnym discuss their ideas without intervention, perhaps on one of their talk pages, and come back here with a more realistic proposal. Alternately, choose one idea for this consensus conversation, not reenvision every SW article. UpdateNerd (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- Okay, to step back a bit it is my understanding that we all agree that the film section needs to be trimmed down to a broad overview, but at least I agree that other sections warrant expanding. And I'm fixating on this table thing bc it's the easiest cleanup step to start with: how to handle the tables and the fact that the current theatrical film set up means we have weird tiny tables for TCW and anthology. I think we should do this a step at a time. Figure out the tables first, then look how to handle the theatrical film section (what to cut, how to cut it, possibly merging the trilogy sections into one large section rather than three subsections each), then move to television (figure out that table, where to expand, etc), then the other sections. Argue about one thing at a time? Because trying to talk it out all at once definitely hasn't worked before. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 20:37, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Frankly, I agree Gonnym has been pretty clear. Like, I agree we should write these sections as if there's a more detailed article elsewhere, which is why I say we shouldn't transclude the table. A simple version of what exists at the list should exist here purely because the other article exists. I'm saying: we have a simplified table here because there will be a more detailed table at the list (and it means we won't have the weird TCW and anthology tables here), we cut down the plot summaries because there will be plot summaries at the individual articles, we trim out small details like casting dates and very specific production information because that will be at the individual articles or the list article. I think we should be summarizing as we move information to the list article, working down the article from top to bottom (taking the trilogies as one section) and doing copy-edits working down. Rather than trying to handle all of the information and split it off at the same time. I don't really know what scope needs to be determined for the sub-articles really, because your chart doesn't look that different to me from what it currently is, except in that the list article is split into smaller article. It whether or not the list article should be split itself is another matter to be discussed later. (Though, I would support splitting it into two lists, List of films and List of television films and series, because I don't see why television films or Lego stuff warrants its own article. Just handle everything TV in one list.) I feel like we should treat the list article as is like the primary article, start moving information to that article, then determine if that article needs to be split further at a later date.
Take the chunk of original trilogy, say "this as going to the list article", figure out what of this remains at the main article, write an overview summary of that, move the information to the list, replace with summary, move to prequel trilogy. If by the time we get down to television films it's clear the list article needs to be split, then split the list article. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- Because the Lego Star Wars have films, shorts and TV series in them, so how does that fit into a List of TV series article? I could see if you want to add the TV films with them, but again, those are also different. The point of articles is not to reduce the size of the info, but to manage scopes easier - both for readers and editors. Also, I didn't show the complete list of articles that Star Wars have. In my chart I removed pages like Star Wars sequel trilogy (which should be merged into the films article). I also split the films from the TV (currently they are in the same article). If you also notice, pages like Comics and Video games have 2 articles basically talking about the same things - these sort of things happen when the article scopes are not clear to editors. Commenting about transcluding, it just makes it easier to control the data. Instead of two tables with the same info and needing to update both each time something needs to be updated (new info, broken ref, accessibility layout changes, etc), you just update it once (and watch it once for vandalism) and it gets updated everywhere you use it. --Gonnym (talk) 22:36, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Gonnym, other than deciding between simpler or more complex tables, is that basically what you're proposing?
- As I see it, the proposal does involve eventually requesting the removal of "List of" from the title of the other article. If we cut everything at its current length from this SW page, it can just be pasted in & gradually reworked. Not much extra writing needs to be done, just the broad overview for this page. The individual movie articles are the places for further details. UpdateNerd (talk) 22:52, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- I didn't even talk about tables, I think the film tables are fine as is (unless I missed something). I'm proposing splitting the films and tv data into 4 articles - theatrical films, TV series (including the one web series), TV films (if we really want, it can go with the TV series, but I believe the TV series article will be pretty big as is) and Lego Star Wars. No trilogy stand-alone article. Then move all plot-related information those articles. Leaving here the development/history of the franchise - very high level film development, but nothing film specific. Those should be moved to the film/tv articles. A table with the summary should be left here (hopefully transcluded as explain above why). The film article will look much more like this current article, but it would have the advantage of not having to share space with items which are not relevant (like Theme parks) and also have all trilogy information in one article and not split between 1,2 or 3 different ones. That's a very general idea - of course things will get into finer detail once stuff gets started. --Gonnym (talk) 23:02, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- Ah, you're proposing splitting out to four new articles, and not into the existing one as the "split-out" tag on the article & title of this talk section suggests. Trying to get these ideas put into more explicit terms so newcomers to the conversation don't have to mine the paragraphs above. UpdateNerd (talk) 23:14, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- I didn't even talk about tables, I think the film tables are fine as is (unless I missed something). I'm proposing splitting the films and tv data into 4 articles - theatrical films, TV series (including the one web series), TV films (if we really want, it can go with the TV series, but I believe the TV series article will be pretty big as is) and Lego Star Wars. No trilogy stand-alone article. Then move all plot-related information those articles. Leaving here the development/history of the franchise - very high level film development, but nothing film specific. Those should be moved to the film/tv articles. A table with the summary should be left here (hopefully transcluded as explain above why). The film article will look much more like this current article, but it would have the advantage of not having to share space with items which are not relevant (like Theme parks) and also have all trilogy information in one article and not split between 1,2 or 3 different ones. That's a very general idea - of course things will get into finer detail once stuff gets started. --Gonnym (talk) 23:02, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Drafts
Just joining to give my opinion since I had recently discovered the mess of the Star Wars articles and started work on drafts to try to improve them to match the quality of other big franchise articles like the MCU and the Wizarding World (which I created last year and got to GA status). I think it's clear that this article needs to be trimmed to serve as an overview of the franchise with more specific and detailed information found at separate films and tv series articles. I agree with Gonnym that we first need to determine the scoop and structure of each articles and then we can focus on the actual prose. If any of these changes are going to get approved, we need to work in drafts so people can see the outcome. Simply making multiple major edits will just be quickly be reverted. So I propose that we agree to a structure for those three articles and then work on the prose.
I've started three main drafts User:Brojam/Star Wars, Draft:List of Star Wars films, and Draft:List of Star Wars television series. Please have a look at the three drafts and let me know what you think of the structure. I think I've followed what you guys have been discussing with a films table very similar to what TenTonParasol proposed. For the films, I've divided them between each trilogy and then grouping the others (for now until more are produced and can be grouped into different sections) into an "Other films" section. For the tv series, separating them between animated and live action since we cannot separate them by continuity because that violates WP:INUNIVERSE. I'm not really convicted that the three television films need a separate article. They can easily be mentioned in the main franchise article. For the Lego films and series, maybe a parodies article, but they definitely do not belong with the other SW tv series.
I've also been working to cleanup the SW cast members list by separating the film and tv actors into two separate lists (Draft:List of Star Wars film actors [almost done] and Draft:List of Star Wars television series actors [need some help]) but we can look at that later. - Brojam (talk) 22:57, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, that's exactly the way (with finer tuning once we get this agreed upon). Also, thanks for joining in. --Gonnym (talk) 23:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Looking over it quickly (I'm short on time right now), frankly, these drafts are literally what I had in my head, just with expansions to the television section and (assuming what's currently here will exist under Other media) the outside media sections. I to answer about the Lego parodies, I really have no idea where they would go, and I thought the easiest solution would be as a television item it be covered under there, though I often think it should just be nixed out of the list altogether, but I doubt anyone else sees it thatway. I would support two lists, and the main article in the style of that draft. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:10, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- I just realized that Lego Star Wars pretty much acts as an overview for all the Lego tv series and films so no new article is need. - Brojam (talk) 01:36, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- I agree all up to making the film section broad on this article, and moving the excess of info to the List of films article, then I got confused. But after seeing the draft pages, I can say I was ultimately pushing for something similar to what Gonnym and Brojam are proposing, even though, I honestly didn't know how to do it or push for it. I had no clue as how to do it, they seem to have a more clear idea of what they want to do than me, so I fully agree they should lead. The Lego movies should be placed into Lego Star Wars.Rosvel92 (talk) 01:50, 24 September 2018 (UTC)rosvel92
- Not trying to be difficult, but fleshing out the lead on the Star Wars draft would really help define why that version of the page would more adequately introduce the franchise than the current article's structure. It's also unclear why there are separate film and TV sections with nothing but tables. See WP:PROSE. Thanks UpdateNerd (talk) 19:18, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- That version of the article structure puts the development of the films in the same place, reducing the number of sections that can be bloated and forcing detail to be trim and summary to be tight. Allowing for "list of" sections also allows for works to be listed in a way that helps contextualize the article without disrupting the flow of prose heavy sections like development sections. As far as why there's sections that's entirely tables, see farther down the MOS you linked to the list of works section ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 19:51, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- I can totally see how having all the lists of titles together in one place would be helpful, but a "List" article already exists, which ought to be the place to put those. I know, I know, I need to study the draft more to understand its logic, but it's much less intuitive to understand the Contents list than on the current live version of the article. UpdateNerd (talk) 20:17, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- It all boils down in the end to scope and the amount of details each article tier should have. So at the highest tier level (#1) you have Star Wars, the franchise page. This shouldn't even discuss the development of a specific film, but talk about how the franchise came to be, with the ups and downs, and the various media that came along. Then you have various List of articles (#2). These talk about a specific topic, so List of Films, will talk about the development of the films and a very brief synopsis of each film. But even here, the topic is still high-level, so a specific film will only have a summary of that film's important information. Then you have the specific film (#3), here you go into the details of each film (casting, writing, production, films, release, etc) and a detailed plot. Each top level is a summary of the previous level. The reason why you don't jump into the lead of any article (not even just the franchise lead), is that the lead (WP:MOSLEAD) is a summary of the article. How can you flesh out the lead before you finish an article? --Gonnym (talk) 20:30, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- That is perhaps the case, but I suggest waiting for the "List" to be broken out to Star Wars in film and Star Wars in television before migrating the sections. Cheers UpdateNerd (talk) 20:39, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- Since there didn't seem to be much standing in the way of this, I've gone ahead and processed a migration. It's easily reversible per the edit summaries, but I think it represents what has been opined by many editors. There was already an overview section, enough to cover the films and point to the List. I thought it was important to at least summarize the original film's conception. I think a spoiler-free summary of the Skywalker saga could also be provided here. If this change rides out, the TV section could then be split out, although...
- What about leaving the TV material here, and deprecating it from the List page? Then that page could simply be renamed Star Wars in film (removing a level of section complexity). We can always split out the TV material from this page later if it gets too out of hand. UpdateNerd (talk) 01:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- That is perhaps the case, but I suggest waiting for the "List" to be broken out to Star Wars in film and Star Wars in television before migrating the sections. Cheers UpdateNerd (talk) 20:39, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- It all boils down in the end to scope and the amount of details each article tier should have. So at the highest tier level (#1) you have Star Wars, the franchise page. This shouldn't even discuss the development of a specific film, but talk about how the franchise came to be, with the ups and downs, and the various media that came along. Then you have various List of articles (#2). These talk about a specific topic, so List of Films, will talk about the development of the films and a very brief synopsis of each film. But even here, the topic is still high-level, so a specific film will only have a summary of that film's important information. Then you have the specific film (#3), here you go into the details of each film (casting, writing, production, films, release, etc) and a detailed plot. Each top level is a summary of the previous level. The reason why you don't jump into the lead of any article (not even just the franchise lead), is that the lead (WP:MOSLEAD) is a summary of the article. How can you flesh out the lead before you finish an article? --Gonnym (talk) 20:30, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- I can totally see how having all the lists of titles together in one place would be helpful, but a "List" article already exists, which ought to be the place to put those. I know, I know, I need to study the draft more to understand its logic, but it's much less intuitive to understand the Contents list than on the current live version of the article. UpdateNerd (talk) 20:17, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- That version of the article structure puts the development of the films in the same place, reducing the number of sections that can be bloated and forcing detail to be trim and summary to be tight. Allowing for "list of" sections also allows for works to be listed in a way that helps contextualize the article without disrupting the flow of prose heavy sections like development sections. As far as why there's sections that's entirely tables, see farther down the MOS you linked to the list of works section ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 19:51, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
I've reverted @UpdateNerd: because I felt that the simple just cutting everything and moving it did not reflect the drafts and is just leaving the main article in a very, very under-populated limbo space where there's was ZERO information about the films and shows, and these cuts and moves are muddying the request for split process at the list. Generally, now that I've really sat down and looked at the split discussions over at the list. It's all.... very confusing how the attempt to implement this has gone so far, and sort of makes me question if UpdateNerd understands the structures of the drafts. @Brojam: since the drafts are under your userspace or in draftspace and were primarily edited by you, I'm wondering how you think it best to proceed. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 00:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- All for incorporating the best parts of Brojam's draft, but wouldn't it be easier to build up from a minimal section on the topics, rather than try to arrive at it by replacing sections bit-by-bit? UpdateNerd (talk) 01:18, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- I think the best way to go about this is completing the three drafts (which Gonnym and myself have been discussing and have started working on). Once they are done and we are all happy with how they look, we can go about moving the film and tv drafts to the mainspace and replacing the contents from this article with the stuff from here. TenTonParasol and UpdateNerd, you are both welcomed to join in on completing the drafts. Just have a quick read at the discussion at my talkpage to see what we are currently working on. It's important to note that we aren't just simply copying and pasting the info currently here and pasting in the draft, but more so condensing the info to only include major production details and making sure everything is properly sourced. - Brojam (talk) 03:40, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- Awesome. I'll take a look when I have a little more time in the upcoming week, but I absolutely agree with that process. Especially in the condensing and sourcing before adding it in. I do sort of wish I knew about the user talk discussion earlier though, because I was waiting for that exact thread to happen here. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 03:52, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- I think the best way to go about this is completing the three drafts (which Gonnym and myself have been discussing and have started working on). Once they are done and we are all happy with how they look, we can go about moving the film and tv drafts to the mainspace and replacing the contents from this article with the stuff from here. TenTonParasol and UpdateNerd, you are both welcomed to join in on completing the drafts. Just have a quick read at the discussion at my talkpage to see what we are currently working on. It's important to note that we aren't just simply copying and pasting the info currently here and pasting in the draft, but more so condensing the info to only include major production details and making sure everything is properly sourced. - Brojam (talk) 03:40, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Regarding the films section on the franchise article, I don't think each individual film should have it's own subtopic, leave that to the films article. In the franchise article, I think subtopics should be distributed this way:
- Theatrical films
- Main series
- Original Trilogy
- Prequel Trilogy
- Sequel Trilogy
- Main series
- Self-contained films
- Animated film
- Anthology series
- Self-contained films
There's absolutely no need for each film to have it's own subtopic in the franchise article, leave that to the films articleRosvel92 (talk) 14:37, 30 September 2018 (UTC)Rosvel92 (talk) 14:36, 30 September 2018 (UTC)rosvel92
I also think that copying everything from this article into the other is fine, as it will all be eventually replaced with the other drafts. Is more of a temporary solution, to reduce he info about the films in the franchise article and to make it closer, to what it should be until the drafts which will be the definitive solution, are done.Rosvel92 (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2018 (UTC)Rosvel92
Coming from this. Like I stated, the Star Wars article is about the franchise and the List of Star Wars films and television series article would overwhelm that article. We have WP:Spinout articles for a reason. The list article is one example of a spinout article being needed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:25, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- Following up here as well; even though it pertains more to the List article. The proposal is based on the fact that the prequel and even the original trilogy don't have their own articles, which would be redundant from this SW overview, the list, and individual title articles. I proposed based on some prior discussions that the List of film & TV be split into one on film and one on TV, but that was before that article was filled with more detailed sections migrated from this overview. Perhaps we should reopen the discussion to split film/TV, but I don't think the individual sequel trilogy article is justified without a new proposal for ones on the original & prequel trilogies as well. UpdateNerd (talk) 02:36, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- @UpdateNerd: It is being discussed above. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Development of the franchise section
I think this is already covered within the article, and there are also now separate articles for all three trilogies. Please make your arguments for why changing the current structure of the article is needed. UpdateNerd (talk) 22:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Because without a Development of the franchise overview subtopic at the top, it leaves the scope of the article quite unclear, mostly because the article still remains too close to the films and tv article, to a degree where both articles can be easilly confused.Rosvel92 (talk) 19:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC)rosvel92
How was the photo of Carrie Fisher selected?
-
Why are Mark Hamil and Harrison Ford shown in tuxedos at red carpet events, while the photo of Carrie Fisher appears to be a candid shot taken at a strange angle?
Why are Mark Hamil and Harrison Ford shown in tuxedos at red carpet events, while the photo of Carrie Fisher appears to be a candid shot taken at a strange angle?
- Wikipedia is necessarily limited by the requirement to use free images wherever possible. This means that editors can only use the images of Carrie Fisher on Wikimedia Commons. If you can find a suitable substitute there, by all means suggest it. I suspect the photo chosen was because it was taken at a time close to the first release of Star Wars, and so is most relevant to the article content. Cnbrb (talk) 12:25, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Categorisation
I notice that this article, Star Wars (film), the saga films and anthology films are all categorised under both Category:Lucasfilm films and Category:Star Wars films.
Star Wars films is actually a subcategory of Lucasfilm films, so in accordance with WP:SUBCAT, I would suggest that these films each be removed from Lucasfilm films, as they are already contained within a child category. Perhaps, in line with the guideline on eponymous categories, this article alone (covering the whole franchise) could remain in the Lucasfilm films category.
Any views? Cnbrb (talk) 12:14, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
- Yep, "an article should be categorised as low down in the category hierarchy as possible, without duplication in parent categories above it." UpdateNerd (talk) 14:38, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Categorization#General categorization says Category:XXXX studio films are non-diffusing parent categories. This means films should not be removed from Category:Lucasfilm films just because they also happen to be in a subcategory. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:12, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- Oh OK, thanks for pointing that out. A bit confusing, but it looks like it's been thought about before so I'll not propose any category changes then. Case closed! Cnbrb (talk) 13:54, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- Right, so another editor has taken a different view and has unilaterally removed all the Star Wars films from the Category:Star Wars films, which seems counterintuitive to me. Anyone think this is a good move? Cnbrb (talk) 20:53, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
- All those need to be reverted. Category:2015 films and Category:American films are also non-diffusing categories. Betty Logan (talk) 20:58, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
- I agree. I reverted ep IV but I don't want to be seen to be on a vendetta. Besides, he's replaced some other categories with totally absurd choices (Category:Amputees in fiction??!?). I'm struggling to see any good faith in these changes. Cnbrb (talk) 23:16, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
- Right, well as few people seem to have taken an interest, I have reverted all the Star Wars film recategorisations myself. All the Star Wars films are now back in Category:Star Wars films. Cnbrb (talk) 15:15, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- All those need to be reverted. Category:2015 films and Category:American films are also non-diffusing categories. Betty Logan (talk) 20:58, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
- Right, so another editor has taken a different view and has unilaterally removed all the Star Wars films from the Category:Star Wars films, which seems counterintuitive to me. Anyone think this is a good move? Cnbrb (talk) 20:53, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
- Oh OK, thanks for pointing that out. A bit confusing, but it looks like it's been thought about before so I'll not propose any category changes then. Case closed! Cnbrb (talk) 13:54, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Categorization#General categorization says Category:XXXX studio films are non-diffusing parent categories. This means films should not be removed from Category:Lucasfilm films just because they also happen to be in a subcategory. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:12, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
The film table
It's been a while since I've viewed this page, and it's safe to say a lot has changed. What I'm wondering about is why are there several film tables? The film series are all within the same continuity, and should just be listed together in a table encompassing the whole film series. The intro to the current Anthology films is misleading as it reads a long the lines that Lucas developed them. This is false as both movies were developed without his involvement and purely created by Lucasfilm/Disney. Lastly - I still think a page solely dedicated to "Star Wars Legends" (the now non-canon additions to the franchise) would clear this page up a lot. Especially given it is its own branding from Lucasfilm. With that, the films shouldn't be divided as 'Skywalker Saga' and 'Standalone films'. The entire film series is the "Star Wars Saga". Someone explain the current layout to me?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 19:20, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Its as simple as this, DisneyMetalhead."Star Wars saga" and "Skywalker saga" are just dfferent names for all films in the galaxy far far away. However, if you have watched the films, you will notice that they revolve around and follow the stories ofAnakin,Luke,Leia(Skywalker)and Ben(Solo).Hence,Skywalker saga. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.29.18.165 (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- I don't know. I've been away for a long time myself. Honestly, as I've always said, the tables should be AT MOST two tables, and the Skywalker Saga thing should be nixed. Because, lmao, the sequel trilogy revolving around a Skywalker is a little contentious imo; Kylo Ren isn't typically considered a protagonist, after all. And calling them trilogies matches the Standalone Film title: it describes how the films are grouped, which is a primary production feature of the films. That said, I support a single table, and if not a single table, then TWO tables and no more. I thought we agreed to that ages ago, and I don't know why they were split again. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 12:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- The helpful thing about having the tables separate is that, since they're ordered by release date, the sequel trilogy films with episode numbers aren't mixed in with the standalone films (those stand alone). UpdateNerd (talk) 12:27, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- Tables have no sources for content not in the article ....let alone WP:PROSE that says best to not have this format for articles at all. Why have prose then add the same thing to unsourced charts??--Moxy (talk) 23:01, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think the lack of sources breaks any policies as long as the linked articles clearly provide them. But if we're going to remove the most intrusive tables, we should really start with 'Theme park attractions'. UpdateNerd (talk) 23:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- WP:LISTVERIFY.--Moxy (talk) 03:55, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- I'm all for adding citations, but my main concern is not breaking named sources across articles, especially in the transcluded tables. UpdateNerd (talk) 08:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- I agree on the theme park tables. I've proposed it before, but, iirc, it was opposed on the grounds that other media sections have tables, which is silly. There is a child list article, and that information is certainly not best presented by table here. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 00:25, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- WP:LISTVERIFY.--Moxy (talk) 03:55, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Theme park table
While, we're on the topic, shall we remove the 'Theme park attractions' table from the main Star Wars article, and discuss any relevant theme park information only in prose? UpdateNerd (talk) 08:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Maul: Lockdown - The Last Book released before the announcement of the Legends line
The statement that Maul: Lockdown was the last book released before the announcement of the Legends line is incorrect. Maul: Lockdown was released on January 28th 2014.[1] while later than that the Honor Amongst Theives, by James S.A. Corey was released on May 4th 2014[2], later than Maul: Lockdown and also before the announcement of the Legends line.[3]
- Thanks for pointing that out. Whether it was the last pre-Legends book or not, I think it's of little relevance to this article dealing with the franchise as a whole. There are plenty of subpages for such little-known titles and/or the description of the last non-canon/first canon releases, etc. UpdateNerd (talk) 21:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- I know it is of little consequence to the meaning of the article as a whole but it is erroneous. It would be perfectly fine to not mention the last pre-Legends book at least by my opinion. However actively incorrect information shouldn't be present, regardless to the meaning to the article as a whole. Thanks for the response I hope this helps. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.81.195.84 (talk) 22:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
References
- ^ . Random House https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/85448/lockdown-star-wars-legends-maul-by-joe-schreiber/. Retrieved 21/02/2019.
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|accessdate=(help); Missing or empty|title=(help) - ^ . Random House https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/227083/honor-among-thieves-star-wars-legends-by-james-s-a-corey/. Retrieved 21/02/2019.
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|accessdate=(help); Missing or empty|title=(help) - ^ . Star Wars https://www.starwars.com/news/the-legendary-star-wars-expanded-universe-turns-a-new-page. Retrieved 21/02/2019.
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|accessdate=(help); Missing or empty|title=(help)
"American epic space opera franchise" vs "American epic space-opera franchise"
In the phrase "American epic space opera franchise", found in this article's first sentence, "American epic space opera" is a modifier to the noun "franchise". The Wikipedia article on compound modifiers states that "[a]ttributive compounds – modifiers within the noun phrase – are typically hyphenated". So I corrected the phrase to "American epic space-opera franchise". (The preceding adjectives "American" and "epic" makes it even more important to use the hyphen; too many attributive adjectives makes it hard to decipher without the hyphen.) Another user, Oknazevad, disagreed with me, and an edit war between Oknazevad and myself started. Eventually another user, General Ization, stepped in and gave me a 3RR warning. During the edit war, I kept referring to the wiki article on compound modifiers, which clearly proves my point, while Oknazevad used unsourced (and incorrect) claims like "multiword genre name[s] [are] never hyphenated" or emotional arguments like "You're just plain wrong" and "You don't know what you're talking about", totally disregarding that the Wikipedia article on compound modifiers proves me right. Any thoughts on this from other users? Aikclaes (talk) 06:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
It's unfortunate that the guideline article uses the example of heavy-metal detectors instead of the genre "heavy metal". E.g. "Metallica is an American heavy metal band." Genres function somewhat like proper nouns; see also Spaghetti Westerns such as The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:53, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
You're kind of missing the point. This hasn't got anything to do with proper nouns. "Space opera" is a genre, sure, but when used attributively (i.e. before the noun) it is a compound modifier, and should be hyphenated, like the article on compound modifiers says. Analyze this example: "There are both light-weight and heavy metal bands on the bill." Metal bands that are heavy or bands in the genre "heavy metal"? Aikclaes (talk) 09:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Does light-weight metal have a Wikipedia page I can check out? UpdateNerd (talk) 09:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)- Compound modifier#Exceptions says: "Major style guides advise consulting a dictionary to determine whether a compound adjective should be hyphenated; compounds entered as dictionary headwords are permanent compounds, and for these, the dictionary's hyphenation should be followed even when the compound adjective precedes a noun." Space opera is a permanent compound and not hyphenated. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
The quote you refer to concerns compound adjectives in general. This discussion, however, is about compound modifiers that are used attributively (i.e. before the noun). In our case we have no fewer than four words (American, epic, space, opera) that modify the noun (franchise). Without hyphenating the compound modifier "space-opera", the reader can interpret the article to be about an opera franchise set in space, not a space opera. Since it's the article's first sentence, clarity is extra crucial, as we will have readers who have no idea what Star Wars is and need a quick but clear understanding of what the article is about. Aikclaes (talk) 13:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Although you appear to be ignoring any logic that doesn't support getting your way, you would really need to find an RS using a similar two-word genre as a hyphenated genre. Your "light/heavy metal" example doesn't qualify, because the example wasn't referring to a genre. Finally, someone can just click the linked space opera if they have somehow been made to think that SW is a musical set in space. :) UpdateNerd (talk) 23:14, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
I now see that the quote says "even when the compound adjective precedes a noun". However, if you click on source 4, it says "even when they follow the noun they modify". Clearly not the same meaning; "precede" and "follow" are opposites. Aikclaes (talk) 13:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Support hyphenation. Space opera (without hyphen) is a noun only, per American Heritage, Merriam-Webster, Oxford, and Collins. Consider also the more-common science fiction, which is only a noun per those same four sources, and its only usage as an adjective is presented with hyphen [1][2]. To function as an adjective, it should be hyphenated as a compound modifer. A145GI15I95 (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, despite my earlier argument against, I was in error; it's clearly a compound modifier. It might look 'unusual', but I think that's just because we usually see the word as a noun. When it appears in front of a sentence's subject as an adjective, it should be hyphenated. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Star Wars Saga films/table
The division of separating films to sub-sections purely based on 'spinoffs' vs 'main films' is too fanpage-like. The franchise has once again been called "Star Wars Saga" by the studios involved, and the official website of the franchise. This includes all films and TV series that are cannon. I think that a better structure would be subsections titled "Film" and "Television" and that is it. The details of being 'spinoffs' vs 'prequels' etc should only be in the respective film's paragraph. My suggestion would be to go back to what was here before. Something like this:
The purpose of a Wikipedia article is to simple state the facts. Not complicate them with color-coded tables, nor over saturate the page with divisional sub-sections and sub-sub-sections, etc. The studios involved consider the films and canon merchandise to be the Star Wars Saga. No need to sub-divide films into sections and TV series into sections as well. Only two sections are needed; one titled 'Film' and one titled 'Television'.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- I was thinking about this this morning and I absolutely agree. I think the "Skywalker Saga" label should be nixed and very much believe the tables need to be consolidated. My only suggestion is that "Anthology films" be renamed to "Standalone films" given that the TCW film saw a theatrical release and I do not see a reason to separate it out. As a sidebar, I personally believe, also, that nixing "Skywalker Saga" should extend to the list page and template. There is no reason to have that as a title. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 02:45, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Section headings are a useful place to clearly distinguish content and link to main articles (as in the case of the three trilogies); however, I don't think the Anthology series really needs its own subsection with two separate tables for standalone films. UpdateNerd (talk) 03:30, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- The article should upgrade it's self with WP:PROSE that is sourced over multiple color coded kids charts that are unsourced.--Moxy (talk) 13:00, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- The proposed table isn't color coded (it removes the, yes, ridiculous color-coding of the current table), and the unsourced issue is easily solved by putting references in the table. Information about the films, and its key details, in comparison to one another is probably commonly looked to information and tabling it in summary of the prose portion makes that information easy to access. Like, personally, I think the above film table should be the only table in the article, and (for me) solves the issue of the article having too many tables. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 18:39, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Not opposed to replacing the color coding with the horizontal banners & definitely support adding citations. On the other hand, combining the multiple tables into one is really a separate conversation, and wouldn't be an improvement with the current page formatting IMO. UpdateNerd (talk) 00:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- There isn't any combining to do. I'm just suggesting adding the TCW film to the above proposed and straight up removing the other tables on the article, but yea, separate thing. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 11:46, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Not opposed to replacing the color coding with the horizontal banners & definitely support adding citations. On the other hand, combining the multiple tables into one is really a separate conversation, and wouldn't be an improvement with the current page formatting IMO. UpdateNerd (talk) 00:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- The proposed table isn't color coded (it removes the, yes, ridiculous color-coding of the current table), and the unsourced issue is easily solved by putting references in the table. Information about the films, and its key details, in comparison to one another is probably commonly looked to information and tabling it in summary of the prose portion makes that information easy to access. Like, personally, I think the above film table should be the only table in the article, and (for me) solves the issue of the article having too many tables. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 18:39, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- The article should upgrade it's self with WP:PROSE that is sourced over multiple color coded kids charts that are unsourced.--Moxy (talk) 13:00, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- I would argue that the above table is a much simpler format, and consistent with other similar pages. Furthermore, the way around "Anthology films" without placing the opinionated "Standalone films" banner would be to have TCW film under an "Animation" banner. The reality of that film is that it was technically a pilot episode for the series that followed. IMO the easiest way to keep this from getting too messy would be to have sections titled 'Film' and 'Television'. TCW really is a television series film... Using classifiers that the studios involved uses is the best way to keep this page from appearing so fan-based/fan-page-like.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 19:46, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- I would support that. I only mention TCW on the basis of consistency if it's a theatrical release table, but I wouldn't die on that hill. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:27, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- I agree that this is a much better format for the table. If Disney/Lucasfilm release an official name grouping the original, prequel and sequel triologies (the SW9 trailer did mention "the saga comes to an end"), we can just write it in prose like what the MCU has done. I would, however, include TCW with the anthology films and label them under "Standalone films" or "Other". No need to make a new "Animation" heading just for one film. - Brojam (talk) 22:46, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- I would argue that the above table is a much simpler format, and consistent with other similar pages. Furthermore, the way around "Anthology films" without placing the opinionated "Standalone films" banner would be to have TCW film under an "Animation" banner. The reality of that film is that it was technically a pilot episode for the series that followed. IMO the easiest way to keep this from getting too messy would be to have sections titled 'Film' and 'Television'. TCW really is a television series film... Using classifiers that the studios involved uses is the best way to keep this page from appearing so fan-based/fan-page-like.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 19:46, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Let's adjust the film's then. Additionally - the solution to TCW would be to list it in the 'Television' section, as it is the pilot episode to the series, and place it under a banner, like this:
Star Wars CANON television series table - option 1
Television
| Theatrical release | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Title | U.S. release date |
Director | Screenwriter(s) | Producer(s) | Production Studios |
Distributing Studio | |
| Star Wars: The Clone Wars |
August 15, 2008 | Dave Filoni | Henry Gilroy, Steven Melching & Scott Murphy | George Lucas and Catherine Winder | Lucasfilm Ltd., Lucasfilm Animation | Warner Bros. Pictures | |
| Network releases | |||||||
| Title | U.S. release date |
Showrunner(s) | Writer(s) | Producer(s) | Production Studios |
Network(s) | |
| Star Wars: The Clone Wars |
October 2008- present |
Dave Filoni | Dave Filoni, Steven Melching, Katie Lucas, Christian Taylor, Drew Z. Greenberg, Henry Gilroy, Cameron Litvack, Matt Michnovetz, and Paul Dini | George Lucas and Catherine Winder | Lucasfilm, Lucasfilm Animation, Lucasfilm Animation Singapore Netflix Original Series The Walt Disney Company, Disney+ Original |
Cartoon Network Netflix Disney+ | |
| Star Wars: Rebels |
August 2014- March 2018 |
Dave Filoni, Simon Kinberg & Greg Weisman | Dave Filoni, Simon Kinberg, Greg Weisman, Henry Gilroy, Kevin Hopps, Charles Murray, Matt Michnovetz, Steven Melching, Bill Wolkoff, Gary Whitta, Nicole Dubuc, Brent Friedman, Christopher Yost, and Kiri Hart | Dave Filoni, Simon Kinberg and Greg Weisman | CGCG Inc., Disney XD Original Productions, Disney-ABC Domestic Television, Entertainment Clearances Inc., Lucasfilm Animation, Lucasfilm Ltd., The L.A. Studios, Virtuos-Sparx* Animation Studios, Walt Disney Television | Disney XD | |
| Star Wars: Resistance |
October 2018- present |
Athena Yvette Portillo, Justin Ridge, & Brandon Auman | Dave Filoni, Brandon Auman, Kevin Burke, Chris "Doc" Wyatt, Eugene Son, Stephany Folsom, Paul Giacoppo, Gavin Hignight, and Steven Melching | Dave Filoni, Athena Portillo, Justin Ridge and Brandon Auman | Disney XD Original Productions, Lucasfilm Ltd., Lucasfilm Animation | Disney Channel, Disney XD, Disney Channel YouTube Channel | |
| Star Wars: Forces of Destiny |
July 2017- May 2018 |
Carrie Beck & Dave Filoni | Nicole Dubuc & Jennifer Muro | Carrie Beck and Dave Filoni | Ghostbot Animation Inc., Lucasfilm Animation | Disney Television Animation, Disney YouTube Channel | |
| Star Wars: The Mandalorian |
November 12, 2019 | Jon Favreau | Jon Favreau, Dave Filoni, Karen Gilchrist, Kathleen Kennedy and Colin Wilson | Lucasfilm, Walt Disney Studios, Disney+ Original | Disney+ | ||
Something along these lines would clarify that the animated theatrical film that was released, was the pilot episode of the series. Otherwise we could do a similar format to what the MCU has done with their Television series table. It may be less cluttered that way. Thoughts?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 06:33, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Star Wars CANON television series table - option 2
| Series | Season | Episodes | Originally aired / released | Showrunner(s) | Network(s) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| First aired | Last aired | |||||
| Star Wars: The Clone Wars | Film | August 15, 2008 | Dave Filoni | Theatrical film | ||
| 1 | 22 | October 3, 2008 | March 20, 2009 | Cartoon Network | ||
| 2 | 22 | October 2, 2009 | April 30, 2010 | |||
| 3 | 22 | September 17, 2010 | April 1, 2011 | |||
| 4 | 22 | November 16, 2011 | March 16, 2012 | |||
| 5 | 22 | September 29, 2012 | March 2, 2013 | |||
| 6 | 22 | February 15, 2014 | March 7, 2014 | Netflix | ||
| 7 | 12 | November 12, 2019 | Disney+ | |||
| Star Wars Rebels | Shorts | 4 | August 11, 2014 | November 4, 2014 | Dave Filoni, Simon Kinberg & Greg Weisman | Disney XD |
| 1 | 15 | October 3, 2014 | March 2, 2015 | |||
| 2 | 22 | June 202, 2015 | March 30, 2016 | Dave Filoni & Simon Kinberg | ||
| 3 | 22 | September 24, 2016 | March 25, 2017 | |||
| 4 | 16 | October 16, 2017 | March 5, 2018 | |||
| Star Wars Resistance | 1 | 21 | October 7, 2018 | March 17, 2019 | Athena Yvette Portillo, Justin Ridge & Brandon Auman |
Disney Channel |
| Shorts | 12 | December 10, 2018 | December 31, 2018 | YouTube | ||
| 2 | TBA | late-2019 | TBA | Disney Channel | ||
| Star Wars Forces of Destiny | 1 | 16 | July 3, 2017 | November 1, 2017 | Carrie Beck & Dave Filoni | YouTube |
| 2 | 16 | March 19, 2018 | May 25, 2018 | |||
| The Mandalorian | 1 | TBA | November 12, 2019 | TBA | Jon Favreau | Disney+ |
- This secondary option may be more appropriate for a television series table; as compared to other franchise articles.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 07:35, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- @TenTonParasol:, @UpdateNerd:, @Moxy:, @Brojam: -- any opinions regarding the two condensed styles of tables for the 'Television' section? This page is so sub-sub-sub-sub-sectioned/divided that it has become too complex. Franchise pages should have a simple format - typically divided by 'Film', 'Television', and 'Other media' sections. My efforts in adjusting these tables is to simplify the article. The second table, I would argue is more effective and is similar to what has been done on the MCU page (as well as each series' respective articles).--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 21:28, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- This secondary option may be more appropriate for a television series table; as compared to other franchise articles.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 07:35, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- The second table looks good, but I don't see the need for the final "Pending/Released" column. That's implies by the release dates. UpdateNerd (talk) 22:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- I also agree the second table is good, and I like it very much. I also think nixing the "Status" column is a good idea because of the release date. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 02:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- I concur with the above assessment. Don't need the status column, but otherwise quite sharp. oknazevad (talk) 03:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- I also agree the second table is good, and I like it very much. I also think nixing the "Status" column is a good idea because of the release date. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 02:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- The second table looks good, but I don't see the need for the final "Pending/Released" column. That's implies by the release dates. UpdateNerd (talk) 22:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- I don't like the status column either, I would say replace it with some brief explanation of the shows timeline or relation to the film series, but I wouldn't complain if it's not included. Also provide some distinction between animation and flesh, I suppose. And is there any way to give less importance to the Holiday Special, while still following the guidelines?Rosvel92 (talk) 05:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)Rosvel92
- I personally don't really mind the status column. Also do you have sources for all those showrunners for each season? - Brojam (talk) 05:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I will add the tables, and sources can be added. This format easily and simply confirms that TCW was an 'afterthought' as all creatives involved have stated. This also clarifies that it was an intro/pilot to the TV series. Additionally the animated film can be referenced in a sentence within the 'Theatrical release of television productions' section...--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 18:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Television films table
| Film | U.S. release date | Director(s) | Screenwriter(s) | Producer(s) | Network |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Star Wars Holiday Special | November 17, 1978 | Steve Binder | Pat Proft, Leonard Ripps, Bruce Vilanch, Rod Warren, and Mitzie Welch | Joe Layton, Jeff Starsh, Ken Welch, and Mitzie Welch | CBS |
| Caravan of Courage: An Ewok Adventure | November 25, 1984 | John Korty | George Lucas (story), Bob Carrau (screenplay) | Thomas G. Smith and Patricia Rose Duignan | ABC |
| Ewoks: The Battle for Endor | November 24, 1985 | Jim Wheat & Ken Wheat | George Lucas (story), Jim Wheat & Ken Wheat (screenplay) | Thomas G. Smith and Ian Bryce |
@Rosvel92: This is what I would propose for the television films/holiday specials. - Brojam (talk) 05:59, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Rian Johnson trilogy
Why are there 0 mentions of the upcoming star wars trilogy's by Rian Johnson and those Game of Thrones guys? ARZ100 (talk) 23:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- Because very little development information has come out about them, they are mentioned as existing under Star Wars#Films, and they will be covered more in-depth over at List of Star Wars films and television series. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 02:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- What @TentonParasol: said. They are merely in-development right now.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2019
 | This edit request to Star Wars has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under the "Television" section, under the "Television series" heading. It states that Seasons 5 & 6 of The Clone Wars both have 22 episodes each. However, this is inaccurate. Season 5 actually has 20 episodes, while Season 6 has 13 episodes. StardustSoldier (talk) 00:16, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Gangster8192 00:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC)- Wikipedia's own episode list for The Clone Wars series says so. List of Star Wars: The Clone Wars episodes. Also here and here on Wookieepedia. As well, a general search for Clone Wars episodes will show how many episodes there are for each season. StardustSoldier (talk) 03:55, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Reflections (2018)
What is "Reflections (2018)" that is listed as a short film? Is that a real, official thing? If so, we should probably explain what it is somewhere in the article. The infobox is the only place it is mentioned. -Vrobowp (talk) 20:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree.-bearbro123
Official timeline
At the 2019 D23 Expo, The Walt Disney Company/Lucasfilm Ltd. revealed the official chronological timeline along with three different periods of time: "Age of Republic", "Age of Rebellion", and the "Age of Resistance". Though we cannot re-arrange the entire page to reflect this, perhaps in pros regarding the franchise we can list/specify or even at least acknowledge these official classifications(?). Thoughts?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- I added those era names to the 'Themes' sections of the individual trilogy articles. I don't think lists are an improvement over paragraphs of prose. I'm not sure where they belong on the main article yet, and I'm not sure that just because Disney released a promotional image we need to rearrange the article around it. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:04, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
My edit was reverted despite being sourced. And providing improvements, while explaining the ages (which should be acknowledged). Also this certainly pulls the final nail on the coffin and kills the whole BBY and ABY arrangement (which never made sense).Rosvel92 (talk) 13:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)rosvel92
Wookieepedia
Lets take this here as it's starting to verge into edit warring territory. Wookieepedia was recently added to the article, after an absence of just over a year. It was removed as a fansite and reinstated. Now it's been removed again (and re-added) under the WP:COPYVIOEL which is quite clearly labelled "For policy or technical reasons, editors are restricted from linking to the following, without exception:" (emphasis in the policy article.) I've removed it again under this policy ad per WP:BRD (which I know is not policy.) Lets discuss. Canterbury Tail talk 21:58, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
- Agree as per above Contributory copyright infringement They freely admit the copyright is not theirs.... and indicate that in no way do the have the rights ...plus our article on the fan site is linked in see also already. --Moxy 🍁 22:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Portal bar
Template:Portal_bar Please note that this template does not belong in the "See also" section.
I recommend moving it down below the External links section. -- 109.77.254.36 (talk) 02:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
- I'd actually recommend dropping it. It serves practically no purpose. Canterbury Tail talk 02:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
- Trimmed the portal spam...also removed fansite link as per previous talks...best not to link to a fan site in general ...but more importantly the site is packed with image copyright violations. WP:COPYVIOEL...best be safe Contributory copyright infringement--Moxy 🍁 16:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
- If you're dropping useless junk half of those Navboxes could easily go and nothing of value would be lost. -- 109.77.229.77 (talk) 12:15, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- Agree with nav boxes.....next step should be charts turned into WP:Prose ...drop the kids charts.--Moxy 🍁 22:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- If you're dropping useless junk half of those Navboxes could easily go and nothing of value would be lost. -- 109.77.229.77 (talk) 12:15, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- Trimmed the portal spam...also removed fansite link as per previous talks...best not to link to a fan site in general ...but more importantly the site is packed with image copyright violations. WP:COPYVIOEL...best be safe Contributory copyright infringement--Moxy 🍁 16:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Game of Thrones creators trilogy cancelled
I don't know what to add/what to remove, but as per this Deadline source, the trilogy from the GoT creators is no longer happening, or at least the writers are exiting. Magitroopa (talk) 03:56, 29 October 2019 (UTC)