Talk:Star Wars: The Force Awakens/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Wording of ending in plot summary

I've had two attempts at clarifying the ending reverted, so am bringing the issue here.

The description of the ending currently reads: "She finds Luke and presents him with his lightsaber." The word "presents" can imply that he accepts it, depending on how the Wikipedia reader interprets the word "presents". However, Luke accepting or rejecting the lightsaber does not happen during the film.

It would be clearer for all Wikipedia readers if some other wording were used. Thisisnotatest (talk) 17:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I was ok with "offers", but I'm also ok with "presents". Presentation does not imply acceptance to me, so I don't see any ambiguity. Either way, I think it's probably accurate enough for a plot summary. --Fru1tbat (talk) 18:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the "offers" version of the last sentence is easier to understand. I can understand the reverts against the version that talked about the audience, but offers seems like a good clarification. JMcGowan2 (talk) 18:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree with "offers". ‑‑Yodin^T 18:53, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

"Presents" is fine. There is no need for a change, hence the revisions. - ^theWOLFchild 20:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the definition of "present", multiple forms support its use in the article, especially 6a which states, "to offer to view". None of the definitions suggest it must be accepted in order to be presented. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Having thought about it more, I think I prefer "present". Maybe I'm being too picky about nuance, but it seems to me that "offer" implies a required acceptance, whereas you can "present" something to someone for their information, approval, acceptance -- whatever. Is she really intending to give Luke the lightsaber? She must know he's already got one... (Yes, I'm definitely being too picky) --Fru1tbat (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

An "offer" sounds like something verbal (or written) whereas a "presentation" sounds more like something physical. As we know, nothing was said between Rey and Luke, she just held out the light saber. - ^theWOLFchild 22:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

We seem to have opposite views of "offer" and "present." If "offer" were mandatory, why would "I'm going to make you an offer you can't refuse" have such a big impact in The Godfather? If "present" implied the ability to refuse, why would it make such news when an athlete is presented with a medal ("offered a medal" seems to be used before an awardee is chosen) and turns it down? Thisisnotatest (talk) 04:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

By your own words, you've confirmed what I just wrote. Your Godfather quote about an offer is about a character saying something. At the same time, a medal presentation is a physical act. Now, I don't know where you got "mandatory" from, or how it applies here, nor how the ability to "refuse" applies either, but they're basically irrelevant. The way the last line is written is perfectly acceptable. There is no need to change it. - ^theWOLFchild 04:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I was responding to User: Fru1tbat, who did say that "offer" seemed mandatory, not to you. Thisisnotatest (talk) 07:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

1) You didn't address your comment to Fru1tbat. 2) Your comment followed mine. 3) It's an open talk page, anyone can reply to anyone. 4) I don't see where Fru1tbat said anything about offers being mandatory 5) Many of your comments don't seem to make much sense 6) Why are you sooo desperate to change the last sentence of the plot? There's nothing wrong with it. 7) Move on already... - ^theWOLFchild 08:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

When a comment that comes after yours is indented the same as yours, then the author is likely responding to the same person you were. Otherwise, they would have indented it more. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

My last comment: Multiple articles from reliable sources have called out that the ending is a cliffhanger, for instance so I am puzzled that the wording of the plot does not make it clear that it is a cliffhanger. I will follow the notice to stop editing the plot. I'm just puzzled. Thisisnotatest (talk) 08:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree, this is the crux of it. ‑‑Yodin^T 12:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

References

As a side note, do we know from a canonical source that Luke has a lightsaber in his self-exile? 50.0.128.168 (talk) 04:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

...and you're asking this why? It doesn't state in the article that Luke has a light-saber with him in exile, nor do we see one with him the film. Unless you're looking to discuss the content of the article, this is not the appropriate place for your question. I've added a welcome template to your talk page to help you out. - ^theWOLFchild 04:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Come on, don't bite the newbie; again he was clearly replying to Fru1tbat, part of whose argument was "Is she really intending to give Luke the lightsaber? She must know he's already got one..." ‑‑Yodin^T 12:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

It's hardly "biting", It's not as if I insulted this person, I just let them know what is acceptable. I even went so far as to add a welcome template to their page. (what have you done?) Also, I didn't see what the question of whether or not Luke having a light-saber has to do with the original content question of this section. Lastly, I don't agree with the "cliffhanger ending", and now it seems that others don't agree either. - ^theWOLFchild 18:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Eh? No need to bite me either, hardly or at all, young wolf. ;) I'm happy to edit again (see discussions above, and the page history) but don't want to do so unless (as seems likely) it will just be reverted, hence my discussion first: your comments aren't very encouraging in that respect. I'm also still not inspired with confidence that you're really reading other people's comments: the only other comment on "cliffhanger" I can see is again Fru1tbat, below, who seems to be saying that "of course the ending is a cliffhanger" but it's covered already. ‑‑Yodin^T 17:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

You need to relax there, apparently-even-younger-Yodin... not everything is about you. Now off to Wikipedia-101 you go... - ^theWOLFchild 21:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Replied on talk page. ‑‑Yodin^T 12:26, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Which, by the way, was meant somewhat lightheartedly. Failed there, I guess. Although I would find it hard to believe he does not have one. And to Thisisnotatest's comment, of course the ending is a cliffhanger, but that doesn't mean it needs to be explicitly stated as such in the plot summary. It works perfectly fine without doing so: The film ends with Rey holding out the lightsaber to Luke, and the plot summary ends with the same statement. I don't see any problem with that. --Fru1tbat (talk) 13:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Addind a possible note to the article.

The novel version of the film identifies the planet Luke Skywalker lived in exile as "Ahch-To". But since the name was never mentioned in the film itself, it wouldn't be wise to add the name to the plot itself. But shouldn't at least add a note about it to the article? CAJH (talk) 07:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The 'plot' section of the article is specifically about what took place in the film. It wouldn't be appropriate to add details and info from a novel. That said, it might be worthwhile to have a section in the article about the novel and what plot-points it expands upon. - ^theWOLFchild 07:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the plot elements should go into a separate article dedicated to the novel. See the discussion immediately below. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 06:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Novelization

Would anyone who has ready the novelization of The Force Awakens like to create that article at Star Wars: The Force Awakens (novel)? DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 05:21, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the novel is being discussed in the section right above this one. I'm not sure it would merit it's own article (but, who knows?). I'm thinking it might be worthwhile to add a section to this page mentioning the novel and any plot points it may expand on. - ^theWOLFchild 05:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that, strangely enough. I think a novel is warranted. After all, there are a number of plot elements that did not take place in the film and the same guidelines that allowed for the first six installments to have their novelizations counted apply here. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 06:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I agree. 30+ years is long time, and there is certainly a lot of questions that can't be answered in ≈2 hours. As it so happens, I just came across a digital copy of the novel and I'm probably gonna start reading it tomorrow. - ^theWOLFchild 06:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Great; I can't wait to hear what kind of impression it leaves upon you. If you kick off the article, I'll definitely be up for helping with shoring it up with reception and what-not. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 04:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

GA nom?

Is it just me, or this somewhat pre-mature? There is still new info coming in on a daily basis; box office updates, box office records breaking, changes in critical reception, awards, awards and more awards, production-notes, home video release, etc., etc., etc. The article is being edited by numerous users daily. There is an active discussion about adding more content, like a section about the novelization of the film. Is this really the best time to do a GA review? Discuss. - ^theWOLFchild 12:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, the nominator doesn't seem to have edited the article at all, or considered noticing major contributors. Plus, the article isn't exactly very stable at this point, since the film is still in theaters and gaining repercussion, and it indeed seems too early to give it a GA nomination. This will probably be a similar case with Marvel Cinematic Universe film articles, which are predominantly GAs, but became so after their theatrical release ended. κατάσταση 15:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The nomination is being reverted: the nominator made a series of thirteen GA nominations today, and also conducted a review that showed he is unclear on the GA process altogether; all of his nominations are being reverted. The GA nomination of this particular article does seem premature for the reasons mentioned above. If one of the people working on the article had nominated it believing that it was ready, that would be another issue, but as this is a drive-by nomination that did not, as the GA instructions state, consult with the people actively working on the article, it is being removed, and should not be restored with this nominator's name on it. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Do note that film articles can only be nominated once the film is no longer in theaters. So even if main contributors felt it was ready, it would still automatically fail based on that requirement. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Sequel dates

Do we really need the full d/m/y dates (with refs) for the two upcoming sequels in the lead? Wouldn't the years only suffice? We have a "Sequels" section lower down for this kind of detail. Perhaps we could move the full dates and their refs to there? - ^theWOLFchild 20:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't care either way if the full dates are included in the lead (people will keep adding them if we don't, so I don't see the harm). And WP:LEADCITE should be followed, with the refs down in the section (they'll have to be down there anyways). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Reverting me was not necessary. I agree with leadcite, that's one of the reasons I suggested moving the refs out of the lead and to the sequels section. Instead of reverting, simply asking the community if we should the day/month part of the dates to that section as well. As it is, there is no mention of Ep. IX date right now. - ^theWOLFchild 21:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

You reverted me first so you know, as I was just cleaning up the lead and moving the sources properly, but that's neither here nor there. It also isn't something that really needs to be discussed (at least the ref part). I agree with the fact that there is no Ep. IX date. That should be removed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I already made a revert to the edits in question and suggested a talk page discussion in the edit summary. I then started said discussion. You ignored that (and WP:BRD) and needlessly reverted me. As it is, I've now boldly removed the day/month part of the dates in the lead along with the refs, and moved them down to the sequel section, where they belong. - ^theWOLFchild 21:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

It should be noted here that WP:LEADCITE specifically provides for editorial discretion on whether or not references should be included. If the release dates are in question (as they seem to be) or in flux, the citations in the lead are perfectly acceptable, and I think I'd personally prefer they stay. --Fru1tbat (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring

There's a whole lot of it going on and it needs to stop. Thewolfchild seems to be doing the majority of it. Seriously reverting the addition of an Oxford comma and change in pronoun? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The edit warring is a big deal, and for all the wolfChild's talk about taking it to the talk page, I don't see them here. Looks like a case of WP:OWN and another trip to the noticeboards for them.

But for the article, It was pretty clear that the lightsaber was Luke's in the film, so why the need to change the pronoun? Oxford comma, no sweat. Scr★pIron^IV 21:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I just haven't had a chance to post here yet. For the record, I'll stop reverting that edit. I was waiting to see if the user that added the edit would start a discussion to support after being reverted per, WP:BRD. I still don't that discussion, just a complaint of edit warring by another, involved editor who is trying to bypass BRD by tag-teaming the edit back in. Now I've agreed to leave it the edit alone, I would like to see either JDC808 or Muboshgu actually address the edit here on the talk. - ^theWOLFchild 21:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Seriously? thewolfchild, you started this "edit war" and are showing blatant signs of WP:OWN. Yes, I can cite that because I also know policies. You are reverting the addition of a comma and the change of the word "his" to the "the". Because you needed an explanation for something so minor, I gave it to you (the first, though not so obvious sign of OWN). You then reverted and told me to discuss as per WP:BRD (second sign of OWN). Muboshgu then reverted you and saw how very minor of an edit mine was that it did not need discussed. You then revert him and told him "um yeah... per WP:BRD, it does." (third sign of OWN, and the one that stood out as OWN). I revert you and call you out on the issue of OWN. You then revert me, again, with "if you can cite OWN, then you can read WP:BRD. stop edit warring and discuss your edit on the talk page". (the fourth sign that solidified the issue of OWN). Oh, and to top it off, you put a warning on my page for edit warring.

Because you absolutely had to have a discussion about this very minor edit, what is there to discuss? --JDC808 ♫ 21:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

BRD is pretty simple, You boldly change to "the", I revert back to "his" Sure, it's minor, but that doesn't exempt it from discussion, nor does that mean that your preferred choice of wording stands. Even Scrapiron diagress with your edit, and as you can see, he is not doing so as a favour to me. Once I reverted you, you should have started a discussion here to support your edit, not continually revert, in concert with your friend Muboshgu. Now, I can admit I shouldn't have repeatedly reverted (and have since stopped), but can you admit you should have followed BRD in the first place? Also, surely you don't need me to explain to why OWN doesn't apply here, do you? Now that I've agreed to stop reverting you, instead of complaining, how about you finally state a reason for your edit? - ^theWOLFchild 22:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually OWN applies pretty well here, which Scrapiron noticed. And actually (Scrapiron can correct this if I'm wrong), he didn't "disagree" with the edit. He just didn't see it necessary (there's a difference). BRD is pretty simple, and you might want to review it, especially these two points:

• BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense.
• BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing. The talk page is open to all editors, not just bold ones. (on this one, you should have started this discussion instead of continually invoking BRD).

I guess you missed the edit summary where I finally explained my edit. --JDC808 ♫ 22:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Wolfchild is bieng disruptive, reverting a comma and a 'the' ... Seriously? Also the 'the' is a nessessary change. The lightsaber isn't even lukes, if anything it was anakin's, or maybe it belongs to rey now... The confusion here clearly means 'the' is the right choice.  InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{InsertTalkHere}  22:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, it was Luke's at one point, but you're correct and is the reason why I made the change (and explained in my first revert's edit summary), "the" takes away any confusion that could be associated with the lightsaber. --JDC808 ♫ 23:27, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Can't believe I'm gonna chime in on this but... yes, "the" makes more sense, as ownership of the lightsaber changed multiple times throughout the films (Anakin, Obi-Wan, Luke, Maz, Finn, Rey), and Luke had a second lightsaber in Return of the Jedi which could more accurately be described as his. Using "the" makes it clear its the one in this film. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 23:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

There is no confusion. The lightsaber clearly belongs to Luke. It was Anakin's, he lost it to Obi Wan who then gave it to Luke. This is why Rey is returning it to him. It is Luke's lightsaber. - (edit: also "ownership" and "possession" are two different things. At no time did Obi Wan, Maz, Finn or Rey assert ownership. Themost recent, and still current "owner" is Luke.) - ^theWOLFchild 23:41, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

That is a whole other debate within itself (Was she returning it to him, or was she presenting it as a way to say "train me"? etc.). In regards to the issue at hand, it may not be confusing for you, but it can be for others. As Torchiest pointed out and the reason I made the edit, using "the" clarifies that its talking about the lightsaber in this film, and not by some chance Luke's lightsaber from Return of the Jedi. --JDC808 ♫ 23:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

FYI - Disney says it's Luke's lightsaber - ^theWOLFchild 00:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

your interpretatoon of the final scene is just that; yours. As in OR. There is plenty of confusion online as to what the final scene means. Therefore 'the' is the clear choice.  InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{InsertTalkHere}  00:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

See reply below. - ^theWOLFchild 00:56, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Very strong WP:OWN through reversions on the article: please do explain why you think "OWN doesn't apply here" Thewolfchild. Very confrontational style on the talk page, combined with appeals to WP:BRD, but no serious attempts at constructive dialogue, makes me think he's using "discussion" as a tool to block any edit when he WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. ‑‑Yodin^T 23:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

And what is the point of your post? You're the last one who should be criticizing. An admin asked me to stop reverting and I have... quit some time ago now. I have been discussing the issue, for quite some time now. Some of the other involved editors are finally discussing it as well. You got to post your (belated) little dig, but I won't be explaining anything to you. Do you have anything relevant to add to the current "his" vs "the" content discussion? - ^theWOLFchild 00:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Stop being biligerent. Clear disruptive attitude, I count two recent edit wars wolf started looking back through the history of the article, repeatedly breaking 3RR. The edit itself has been discussed above and the consensus seems to be that the edit is better than the original. I suggest taking wolf to the 3RR notice board if he is going to continue to be diliberately inflammatory.  InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{InsertTalkHere}  00:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

So... I'm not allowed to participate in the discussion? And if I do, but happen to disagree with you, then I'm being "belligerent" and "disruptive"? Also I see you cited WP:OR above. I cited a reliable source, how is that OR? You replied with There is plenty of confusion online - now that is OR. And, since when do talk page comments get reported to the "3RR notice board"? (whether they're "deliberately inflammatory" or not?). Simply put, I believe the original wording was correct. The lightsaber clearly is "his". This hasn't resulted in confusion here since it was edited that way over 3 weeks and 700 edits ago. (alleged "confusion" on other message boards is irrelevant here). Lastly, why would Rey give him the lightsaber if it didn't belong to him? - ^theWOLFchild 00:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

WOW that 'source'... so disingenuous. Its a link to an article about the trailer (before the film came out) 'confirming' that the lightsaber featured in the trailer is the same blue lightsaber from The Empire Strikes Back, this has absolutely no relevance to the current discussion. Could you by chance listen to some of the other editors that are confused by the 'his' wording? "Disruptive" is referring to continuing to say the same thing over and over when everyone says the opposite, "belligerent" refers to your dismissive attitude toward other editors' opinions. I see that you've already been taken to the 3RR noticeboard by Scrapiron. Simply put, I believe the original wording was correct. -- and that is the problem. this isn't a good reason to repeatedly revert someone, the only good reason is that what they wrote is demonstrably WRONG. otherwise you are (as others have pointed out) acting like you OWN the article.  InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{InsertTalkHere}  01:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see... anytime anyone edits an article in a way you don't like, they're "OWNing" it. If they disagree with you on the talk about it, they're destroying the very fabric of Wikipedia as we know it. Got it. - ^theWOLFchild 02:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The final shot shows her "presenting" or "showing" but not necessarily "giving". That's probably a moot point, but thought I'd point that out. As for "the" vs. "his", I think it would be better to leave it at "the" simply because throughout the plot section, only one lightsaber is ever mentioned. Had another been brought up, then clarifying "whose" lightsaber would be necessary. That doesn't mean "his" is necessarily wrong; it just means it's optional and probably best avoided since it adds interpretation that apparently multiple editors don't agree with. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree GoneIn60. 'His' isn't necessarily wrong, the lightsaber did once belong to Luke, the issue is twofold, 1: it isn't clear that Rey is "giving" the lightsaber to him as |Thewolfchild suggests and that the lightsaber still belongs to luke. and 2: Luke also has another green lightsaber that he used in RotJ, Thus making 'his' lightsaber a possibly ambiguous statement to some readers that haven't watched the film (i.e. they most recently saw luke with the green lightsaber at the end of RotJ)  InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{InsertTalkHere}  01:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Art of Force Awakens

I've picked up a copy of The Art of Star Wars: The Force Awakens and 1) it's got a lot of juicy information, 2) this information could be useful. I'll toss any info I think useful for any articles here, but if anyone has anything specific they want to ask about and think might be in the book, feel free to give me a shout. – The Millionth One (talk) (contribs) 02:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I heard that Kylo Ren has an eight pack, that he's shredded. Is this true? --JDC808 ♫ 02:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to answer in case I get thrown into a soda machine. – The Millionth One (talk) (contribs) 02:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Tidbit about the movie not doing so well Overseas

I think that this point is moot because how much revenue the movie does overseas needs to consider dollar exchange rate, and for example Mexico's Peso is in an all time low, so the revenue for the movie wont be as much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.70.2.200 (talk • contribs)

I don't think it's moot at all; how well a film does overseas matters. Compare how well Titanic and Avatar did overseas to how well The Force Awakens has done overseas; that is a huge difference. And the Star Wars films traditionally haven't done well in China, for example. I state "traditionally" because of this latest film having had a solid opening weekend there. That solid opening weekend is due in part to the marketing; so I will be adding material on that to the Commercial analysis section of the article...if no one beats me to it first. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

To the OP's point (more or less), though, it would be nice if there were a metric that didn't depend on multiple fluctuating exchange rates (e.g. ticket sales?). For comparing pure financial success, it's the most accurate, but it seems to me that it's often equated with "popularity", for which it's somewhat less appropriate. I agree with Flyer22 that it's still completely relevant to the article, though. --Fru1tbat (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, all Im saying is that the "poor" performance of the movie overseas can be accounted to more factors than "not nostalgic about the film" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.70.2.200 (talk • contribs)

I find it curious that we're saying that the seventh-highest-grossing film of all time overseas isn't "doing so well." What are the criteria? I wish I were doing so well. Antinoos69 (talk) 07:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I de-archived this discussion to note that I expanded the section (that's a WP:Permalink), and because I feel that this thread was archived too fast. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Latest version is here. I'd gotten the Deadline sources mixed up. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

May I request that we ditch the word "underperformed". Besides being a bit of corporate speak, it's also not clear what it is in comparison to. Is it lower than Avatar? To analysits' projections? It's not a clarifying word at all, and a clearer rephrasing without the corporate-speak would be beneficial.

But generally, it also seems to be a strange section, both saying the film's performance isn't good (when by any reasonable measure it's incredibly successful) and at the same time making excuses for that supposed failure (again, not really a failure). Seems like it's almost WP:UNDUE. oknazevad (talk) 03:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean, but I think what has confused you about the section is this line: "The Force Awakens did not underperform overseas if accounting for its 40/60 domestic to international split." I added it because a Deadline source offers the view that the film did not truly underperform overseas. Would you rather that I remove that line? Or reword it? If reword, reword it how? Either way, the section is not stating that the film's performance overseas was not good; it's stating that it did not do as well overseas as it did in the United States. It relays that when compared to Avatar, which is the film it keeps getting compared to in terms of box office performance, it did not do as well overseas; the section then explains why. The section is not WP:Undue, since all of what is there is thoroughly discussed in many WP:Reliable sources. See the Commercial analysis section I wrote at the Avatar (2009 film) article for a comparison. When I added a Commercial analysis section there and at Titanic (1997 film), I didn't realize that other Wikipedia articles would copy that style, but they have. The Frozen (2013 film) article is one example. This one is another. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I changed the line to this. I originally thought about giving it WP:In-text attribution, and so that's what I did; this makes the argument factor clearer. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

With this edit (followup edit here), I removed another "underperformed" instance. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2016

I would like to help update the cast list , to add more people that were in the film NichoXE (talk) 08:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. clpo13_(talk) 08:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

New Republic in the plot

In the plot summary, the New Republic is generally referred to as the Republic which could cause confusion with the Galactic Republic. After attempting to change it to say New Republic, something the link already directs you to anyway, I was reverted. Before reverting, I just wanted to explain why. Just because it isn't explicitly called that in the film, doesn't mean there aren't reliable sources that back up what it is specifically. Just like Maz is described as a cantina owner, even though the word cantina isn't used either. There is no reason not to be more specific. Chambr (talk) 03:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

It is explicitly referred to as just "the Republic" throughout the film, including the opening crawl. The term "New Republic" is not actually in the film, and not actually codified as being the name. It's a hold over from the old EU, and not actually canon to this film. But regardless of canonicity, which is an in-universe thing, it's the fact that the film just call it the Republic, and so should the plot summary. oknazevad (talk) 03:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The film just refers to Anakin asDarth Vader, not actually Anakin, so why is his name allowed as that in the plot summary? And the New Republic is canon, and it is what the film refers to when speaking of the Republic. The film also doesn't use the phrase cantina, although it is also in the summary. There are others as well. The fact is that there is really no good reason to not just refer to it as the New Republic, which is where the link even takes you with a lot of reliable sources there as well. The fact is that there are many specifics and elaborations I have seen in film summaries, including this one that aren't explicitly stated. Chambr (talk) 03:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree. If it helps the reader understand, there shouldn't be a problem with saying New Republic. I've actually tried changing it to New Republic in the past for the same reason you did and got reverted for the same reasons. --JDC808 ♫ 15:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the edit User:Chambr made is fine. The "new" (capitalized or not - I don't care which) provides context and clarity, and differentiates it from the Republic of the previous films. I wouldn't use "New" every time the republic is mentioned, but the first time seems reasonable to me. An alternative would be to describe the republic a little more, but that could be awkward and unnecessarily wordy. --Fru1tbat (talk) 15:29, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

What evidence do we have that the Republic portrayed in the film is the "New" Republic? Being supported by novels and other legacy materials doesn't justify its inclusion here. The opening crawl is probably the most important piece we can look at. If the film supported the term, then clearly it would have been used here. Remember, events and timelines that existed previously outside of the earlier films do not necessarily apply to the events and timelines depicted in this film. The only thing we know for sure is that we are picking up from where we left off in Return of the Jedi, in which case the Republic is still the Republic. To call it the New Republic would be to suggest some change occurred that was not implied by any of the films so far. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

But there was a change. The Republic of the prequel trilogy became the Galactic Empire of the original trilogy (which was declared by Palpatine in Episode III). The Republic in this film is not that same Republic. Also, The Force Awakens Visual Dictionary confirms that it's called the New Republic. --JDC808 ♫ 19:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Wow, that was embarrassing! Shows you just how much I know! In light of this rather obvious information (thanks JDC808), I think I'll gracefully bow out of the discussion. Still interesting the crawl doesn't use "new", but I'm dropping my opposition to it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:18, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

User:JDC808, yeah, I am going to be bold and re-add it. One user disagreeing with it is not enough to warrant keeping out an edit that improves the article by alleviating any confusion a reader would face. For example, the whole reason I made the edit in the first place is because someone I know thought the Republic now is the same as it was, because "Wikipedia doesn't say New Republic". This is a fact even though the link still directs you to the page New Republic. Also, the argument that "It isn't called that in the movie" is not really enough to warrant leaving out a fact confirmed by reliable sources for the same reason other implicit facts are in film plot summaries. Chambr (talk) 02:38, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Spelling error in Cast section

"Members of the Reisitance include Emun Elliott as Brance" (with reference 60) in this article contains a misspelling (Reisitance).— Preceding unsigned comment added by jaguarjim (talk • contribs)

•  Done. Thanks for pointing it out. Simple errors like that don't need a talk page post. Feel free to correct them as you see them. oknazevad (talk) 18:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

The article is locked so they might have had trouble doing that. Popcornduff (talk) 02:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Additional voice

Most of the lines/characters (as well as some clarification on certain actors) are listed here if anyone wants to take a stab at adding what isn't there already or reformatting. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Seeking an WP:IAR for WP:PLOT

This was a pretty monumental movie release, perhaps the plot summary should be expanded a bit beyond the guidelines of typical summaries.--Prisencolin (talk) 02:31, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Why? Popcornduff (talk) 03:31, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Second the questioning of the need. The plot summary effectively covers the film's plot without getting bogged down in minutia. I see no need at all. oknazevad (talk) 03:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree too: absolutely no reason to ignore all the rules and expand the plot. Covered fine. We aren't Wookiepedia. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

In proportion to the rest of the article, the plot is a bit small.--Prisencolin (talk) 04:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

No it isn't. It's 697 words, three below the limit, so it's pretty much perfect as it is (in terms of words used). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@Prisencolin: - You can expand it by 3 more words. - ^theWOLFchild 05:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The plot section is not the most important part of the article, or the most notable thing about the movie. Popcornduff (talk) 07:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)