Template talk:Star Wars/Archive 1

This is an archive of inactive discussions. Please do not edit it. If you wish to revitalize an old topic, bring it up on the active talk page.

Split?

If it helps the revert war, I dont think Shadows of the Empire should be included on this template. DrHaggis

Me neither. Copperchair 20:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A template like this does not have to be exhaustive, that is what categories are for. There must be a solution to this that makes all parties involved comfortable.

Proposed Solution: split the template into several templates.

Star Wars Movies - episodes 1-6, and the 2 theatrical ewok movies
Star Wars TV Shows - The droids/ewok cartoons, clone wars cartoons, proposed live action, xmas special
Star Wars "Extra Projects" - Shadows of the empire, return of the ewok, R2D2 beneath the dome.

- Dr Haggis - Talk 22:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea, sort of. Shadows of the Empire has a place in the template because it is quite unique, compared to other Lucasfilm projects. It was even thought at the time by many to involve an actual movie being made, due to it involving everthing but the movie.The project belongs in the tremplate, I feel, but, just as Drhaggis suggested, it should be in a specific category. Adamwankenobi 02:03, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite agree. "Return of the Ewok" and "R2-D2: Beneath the Dome" are documentaries, but Shadows of the Empire is everything but that (video game, book, toy line, etc.) It should go in an "Expanded Universe" template (just a suggestion). Copperchair 03:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So I think we agree that Shadows can be in the template, providing it does not get the same "weight" as the films. Also we wish to prevent future editors from adding all the books, comics and fan films which will just clutter things up. I'm hesitant about classifying anything as EU because I don't want to get into a canonical war. I think the best category for Shadows and all other non film and TV ventures is "Miscellaneous Projects" - Dr Haggis - Talk 15:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As the template stands, it doesn't have the same weight as the films. It has the same weight as the other main EU projects by Lucasfilm. Shadows has the same weight as Droids, the Ewok films, or The Star Wars Holiday Special. All the EU works obviously, cannot fit into the list and would not be practical. Shadows of the Empire is here because it is the only project from the EU that was designed similar to a movie. The fact that it had all the properties of a movie, or any type of motion picture media, gives it a special place in the EU, and should then give it a place in the spinoffs list. Myself, I don't want anything else than what is on the list included. There are no more projects that would fit the categories, to my knowledge. Although the spinoffs section keeps things organized, I think subdividing it will be more self-explanatory, and will specify exactly what belongs in the lists. Adamwankenobi 18:39, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is NOT a movie, face it. It wasn't even done in one media only, it was dispersed through several ones. I think Dr Haggis's proposition is a very good idea, by the way. Copperchair 07:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that it is not a movie. I have even changed the format of the template to accomodate this. I'm not saying the project was a movie. I just feel it deserves a special place on the template, due to the media content that makes it resemble a movie. Compared to other EU projects, it is the closest to a movie. Also, I have added the expanded universe article to the template, in order to accomadate every single other EU project. This will make the template exhaustive, without actually being exhaustive. Adamwankenobi 04:37, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just made another, more specific version of your template. Let me know how do you feel abot it. Copperchair 05:27, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the "Other Projects" section areound a little. Maybe the "Featurettes" section should be more specific as to what it's referring to. Adamwankenobi 01:47, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is too big. Check out Template:HitchhikerBooks or Template:Lotr for simliar examples. - Dr Haggis - Talk 14:13, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be just as big as the Star Trek template. Adamwankenobi 01:47, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can do better then the Star Trek people. ;) - Dr Haggis - Talk 18:34, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Star Wars episodes

Is it alright with everyone if I just put this template on the pages for the six Star Wars films instead? The current template is getting dauntingly big... we simply can't have an all-encompassing Star Wars template to provide links to all the Star Wars articles. Pretty soon this template may grow to include Star Wars planets, weapons, authors, conficts, races, places, vehicles, and organizations. On the 6 episode pages, I'd rather just have a compact template with links to the other movies. Coffee 20:52, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am the one has has added all of the additions to the template. What I have been trying to do is make it all-encompassing, without it actually being all-encompassing. I have limited the template though, to listing only the media projects. From those pages, you can easily reach all of the other ones you listed. For example, the EU section tells you about the EU when you click on it, but if you are interested in the star wars races, weapons, etc, there are links in that article to all of that. Please don't remove the other sections from the templates, they are there to allow someone coming to the articles to be able to find out everything they want to know about star wars... easily. TheAlternateReality 21:33, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As it is right now, the template is just too big. Star Tours? Beneath the Dome? The Official Star Wars Fan Film Awards? Nobody cares about a link to those articles from the individual film pages. Making the template bigger isn't making it better, it's making it worse. Coffee 21:48, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Look how tight and complete the Template:HitchhikerBooks template is. It has colour, and links to some of the key categories in the universe to be as complete as can be without taking up so much real estate. - Dr Haggis - Talk 22:28, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The links to the spin-off projects are there not really because I thought that anyone would care about them (not many do). Nor are they there because I think they hold the same importance as the films. The lniks are there just to give a complete, organized collection of links to all star wars productions. It just seems that there should be more listed there than just the films, as there is much more to star wars than that. Adamwankenobi 00:45, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that "The Official Star Wars Fan Film Awards" should not be there. As it's name says, there made by fans, so there are not too serious projects. Copperchair 03:14, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but they were officially sponsored by Lucasfilm, not to mention endorsed. Since this annual event seems to be a major project that holds much importance to many fans, I feel it should be included in the template. Adamwankenobi 04:04, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not everything sponsored by Lucasfilms belongs in this template. Look, if you want a complete organizes set of links to all Star Wars productions, that's what the Star Wars portal is for. If this template starts branching out to things beyond the films, it'll will bloat up beyond control we'll be bickering about it forever. Coffee 07:46, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Revert War

Be advised that reverting the same page more than three times in a day is a violation of Wiki policy. - Dr Haggis - Talk 20:13, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What's in, What's out

Geez, guys, discuss this stuff on the talk page instead of engaging in back-and-forth revert wars. Coffee 20:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please. Alf 20:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I'll take out the mockumentaries section, if alinktothepast will leave everything else how it is. Adamwankenobi 20:35, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's still too big without the mockumentaries. Shadows of the Empire, Star Tours, and Fan Film Awards... those need to go too (besides, SOTR is part of the EU). Take a look at this Template:Star Wars episodes (I modified it). Can we agree to use that on the 6 film pages? It's compact, the focus is on the links to the six films, and there are links that would lead readers to all those pages that clutters the current template. Coffee 20:45, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We could actually use two templates. For the pages of the episodes, use the template with just the episodes. And below that, have a template dedicated to the EU. With the EU template, add in all of the listings that "clutter" the current one. This seems to have worked in a similar way on the Lord of the Rings and James Bond series templates. A Link to the Past will probably still have complaints, though. Adamwankenobi 20:54, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Template:Star Wars episodes is very nice. We could even have a little icon on it like the Template:Norse mythology has. - Dr Haggis - Talk 21:03, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've made two templates. One for the episodes, and one for the EU. Adamwankenobi 21:25, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Star Wars episodes template Coffee made should be used. I'm going to slap that on the articles. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:49, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Seeking for dialogue

As a sign of good faith I will leave this template alone. Copperchair 02:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's good, you've taken your first step into a larger world. The Wookieepedian 03:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This section contains archived talk from the former {{Expanded Universe}}, which was merged into {{Star Wars}}

.

What belongs here

Stuff that's unrelated to the Expanded Universe doesn't belong in this template. Adam, if you have some other vision for a template based on this one, than create a fork template under another title that isn't at "Template:Expanded Universe" and doesn't say "Star Wars Expanded Universe" at the top. — Phil Welch 05:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, in the category on the EU template, I'll change it to "non-EU projects The Wookieepedian 05:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That makes no sense. That's like creating a category on the Star Wars template that says "non-Star Wars projects" and including Star Trek or something crazy like that. I'm serious about this--create a fork of this template under another title and use that if that's more toward what you're envisioning. Something like Template:Star Wars (non-episode). — Phil Welch 05:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see what you mean. The Wookieepedian 19:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Add The Great Heep

We definitely need to add The Great Heep to this list, though whether it would count as a spin-off film or cartoon, there's room for debate. (Think of an animated Holiday Special), we also need the article of course - but you can guarantee within 24 hours of a redlink appearing on this template, somebody will have created the article ;) Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 13:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Heap is not a standalone animated film. Technically, it was episodes 14 and 15 of Star Wars: Droids. The Wookieepedian 04:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

X-wing series

Shouldn't we add the X-wing series to this template? – Mipadi 20:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are 10 different items we can add to this template but we can't since there is no room. Jedi6 01:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reformat

I like to recommend a reformat of Template:Expanded Universe to a template like Template:Metroid series. For starters it is incorrectly named since it doesn't have Star Wars in the title so it could be any expanded universe. Also it is limiting in how many items can be placed on it. Jedi6 01:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm The Wookieepedian, and I support this message. :P The Wookieepedian 01:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree :) Deckiller 01:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is it? Jedi6 23:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty good. It may be different than the rest of the Star Wars templates, but the color scheme is the same, and that's all that matters IMO. Nice work. Deckiller 23:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Broken

The styling on the template is broken—it doesn't look right in high resolutions (I'm in 1280x1024 right now). I'm working on trying to fix it. – Mipadi 15:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

I honestly think that the film template should be merged with this one so that we can keep it all in one template. See my idea for the template. The Wookieepedian 05:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try adding the fanfilms some way too. Jedi6 06:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just afraid to merge the two because there was a LOT of sensitivity on this the last time. The Wookieepedian 06:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well this one needs to be renamed anyway so I'd wait a day for replys. Then just be bold and do it. Jedi6 06:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, I think if we're going to add the films, we should just have this at Template:Star Wars, and replace what is there currently. Most of the other film series templates have been treated this way, so I thought it would be nice to do that to this one as well. The Wookieepedian 06:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Try posting this idea at the other template. Jedi6 06:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend posting this sort of stuff on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Wars/things to do. Deckiller 19:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

N/m Deckiller 19:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reformat

I dislike the new format. The words are to small and the centering of the text makes it hard to line up the catergories names and the objects. Jedi6 17:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I formatted it this way so as to limit the amount of space, as that was the primary complaint last time we merged the film and EU templates. The Wookieepedian 11:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any ideas where to put the portal link at, Portal:Star Wars? Jedi6 22:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization

Complaint: I think "KotOR" looks really bad; any reason it shouldn't just be "KOTOR"? I only ask because there's a discrepancy between KOTOR 1 and KOTOR 2; the first refers to itself repeatedly as KotOR, while the later says KOTOR. I prefer all upper-case letters, personally. EVula 04:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While it looks bad, the correct form is KotOR because in Knights of the Old Republic the "of" and "the" parts of the title would be lower case. Jedi6 06:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shrink

Basically, there are two choices - either to shrink the list or delete the Star Wars categories. The size of this template basically nullifies the need for the categories. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

three choices - either to shrink the list, delete the Star Wars categories, or just keep them how they are*

The categories are to categorise the articles, the template is to assist in navigation between them. Voretus ^talk 02:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to delete the categories and there is no reason to have the template list just the films. The template serves the purpose of giving a general overview of related articles. Listing just the films does not serve this purpose. Yet, Link, you seem to talk like the template lists everything, which it does not... It lists an overview of articles from each part of Star Wars. The Wookieepedian 02:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General overview? This is one of the biggest templates I've seen. And we do NOT need to assist people in navigating from Episode I to Super Star Wars, no we do not. It is inane to have such a massive template. See: Template:Sonic games, for instance. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Horrible example. Star Wars is much, much larger than the Sonic franchise (ten times over).

I wouldn't be opposed to slimming down the existing template, and perhaps spinning some of the sections off into their own templates ({{Star Wars Games}} or similar). But A Link's massive reductions to the template are a bit extreme. EVula 05:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to talk a large template, see {{Buffyversenav}}. But with the Star Wars template, I've just drastically cut down the template, yet the it still remains comprehensive. Take a look. The Wookieepedian 06:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that makes the template less useful. It's harder to branch out to multiple windows with that template. I don't see what was wrong with the old one.Rhindle The Red 21:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding the template

There is barely anything on the current template. I think that, at the very least, the six films should be added to it. I think it would be smart to also add the TV series and TV movies. --Hotdoglives 07:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded the template. I don't think we should add any of the books/comics/games to the main template, or it will get too messy. The links to the lists of books/comics/games should do. --Hotdoglives 22:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The full scope of the template has changed several times. Edit with caution. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Heep

I added the Great Heep TV special (the follow-up to the Star Wars: Droids series) to the "Spin-off films" section of the template. Even though it was produced by the same people as the series, it was produced and aired separately as a TV special, not as an episode of the series; so I think it qualifies to be listed on the template. --Hotdoglives 07:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Universe

I added a 'universe' section, with links to directories of Characters, Locations, Creatures, Vehicles, Items, Conflicts, and Dates. This should eliminate the need to add long lists of characters and the like to the template. Hotdoglives 02:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Font and color change

I changed the title text to yellow and the group header text to blue, and all of the header texts to sans-serif according to the movie title and credits. I declared sans-serif for the header texts because I, for one, like to read most stuff in serif text (specifically Palatino Linotype) but this Star Wars template should be an exception. If you want to revert it for whatever reason, I'd recommend simply not declaring any specific coloring or anything. After all, when do you ever see white text in one of the six Star Wars movies? D. F. Schmidt (talk) 05:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Card games

I agree with TheRealF that there's no need for a completely separate grouping for the various card game spinoffs. It would be appropriate, perhaps, to include a link to the Card games category in the "Other media" group. --EEMIV (talk) 02:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a those to that inside the "Other games" link. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 02:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, never mind; card games are sufficiently covered. Despite there being lots and lots of varieties, they're relatively insignificant and don't warrant such a big ol' focus as an entire navbox infobox grouping would offer. --EEMIV (talk) 02:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta agree with you two about the card games - I can't see giving such prominent placement to these, especially when they're not even in current production, and one new link (The SW:CCG Players Committee) doesn't even have an article. I'm also troubled by his now labeling his opponent's edits as vandalism - for someone who was demanding other editors discuss things first, he doesn't seem to think the same applies to him. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Since Rypcord couldn't be bothered to discuss the situation, and continued to mistakenly call others edits vandalism, I've reported him for edit-warring. Maybe a block will get his attention. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Sequel Trilogy"

Is there any good reason for this to be on the template? Rhindle The Red (talk) 17:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has an article, is related to Star Wars, and is likely to be something readers of other Star Wars articles will be interested in. Powers ^T 20:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of articles that fit that description, but aren't in the template. This article also has barely enough information to justify itself. A few careful trims and this could be absorbed into Star Wars without making a ripple. Rhindle The Red (talk) 01:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's a different discussion. Powers ^T 13:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's this discussion. Should a minor article that is at best a breakout of another article and at worst is useless be in the template? Rhindle The Red (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't as good as the the franchise and film entries. However, unlike the ton of other Star Wars articles out there that aren't in this template, it is rooted in a real-world perspective. I wouldn't be opposed to it being (re?)integrated with Star Wars, but that's a discussion (as LtPowers suggested) for that article's talk page. But, because for the time being it's a standalone article with an appropriate encyclopedic focus, it's appropriate to include on the template. --EEMIV (talk) 17:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should be under Other Media, as the purported trilogy have not yet been produced into Main Films. Rikkyc (talk) 08:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, there's no place for it. 201.192.6.114 (talk) 20:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article exists which is enough to signify its inclusion in this navigation box. BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 20:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The article is Star Wars related and should be there. Navboxes are to link to relevant information, not to look pretty. Dream Focus 20:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These are NOT "Main films". Period. 201.192.6.114 (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never produced, but the subject of cited third-party (and even producer) discussion as potential film projects. They fit appropriately in the "film" category. Please note that the local consensus is for this content's retention; your reversions to the counter are becoming disruptive. --EEMIV (talk) 16:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of main films, should it be in the universe category? Or a category called miscellaneous or other. Dream Focus 16:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not; the article address what would be the seventh, eighth, and ninth main films in the franchise; thus, the link belongs under "main films". No one is going to become confused and think the films were actually made just because they're included under "Main films". Powers ^T 13:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it is just what probably was just rumored to be a sequal. it should really be under other or see also section. Gman124^talk 16:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you say, but you cannot impose your opinion by fiat or by persistence. There seemed to be agreement here that the link should stay under "Main films" but you came in and changed it because you disagreed. After I reverted, you should not have reverted it back without gathering a consensus for your change. Powers ^T 19:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say that there was an agrreemnet to keep it under "Main Films" section? Initially in this section at least, it was argued that does it belong in the template. and the rest of few people said yes it should be in the template, (none of their statements say it should be in Main Films section) Rikkyc is the first one that said anything about in shich place it should be at. Then Dreamfocus, then EEMIV, then you, and then me here after a few months, so there was no consensus on the placement of sequal trilogy as i see. Gman124^talk 20:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right; I overstated the case a bit. The point stands, though, that when a dispute arises, reverting a reversion is not good form. We do things by consensus here. And consensus must be found to make a change, not to preserve the current state. Powers ^T 22:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the lego films

I see some edit warring so I read the article for one of the items someone is trying to add under films. Lego_Star_Wars:_The_Quest_for_R2-D2 is sanctioned by Lucasfilms, and premiered on the cartoon network. So it is Star Wars related and should be somewhere on the template, as well as the others. Perhaps a lego section? Dream Focus 17:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not everything Star Wars is really in the template. For example characters and other fictional objects have their own template of themselves. I am sure we can work out what can be here though. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷

Television specials

Such things like The Star Wars Holiday Special and The Great Heep were listed as spin-off films but neither were films, both were aired as television specials. Especially The Great Heep which was only 45 minutes long and a prime-time tv special for the Droids animated series. With the upcoming The Padawan Menace special which clocks in at 30 minutes and is Lucasfilm sanctioned, which is thus significant enough (only the third in-canon television special in the entire franchise) to warrant being on the template but too short to be classifed as a spin-off film (It is absurd to leave off a full thirty minute Lucasfilm produced television special off the template. Especially when a five minute short is able to be on the Indiana Jones template.) the addition of Television specials is further warrented. Jyenor86 (talk) 16:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per the discussion above, this can go in the LEGO Star Wars template - as something out of continuity and not in-universe, it doesn't belong on this template. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Title Font Color

The template's font color has repeatedly been changed to yellow over black, and has always been reverted, citing color-related problems and such. However, is it possible to have only the title (i.e. Star Wars) be in yellow with a black background and leave the rest of the template untouched? That's the case for this particular template and there doesn't seem to be much of a problem with that one. The colors aren't too distracting on the title alone. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 23:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously technically feasible, but I still think it looks obnoxious. --EEMIV (talk) 04:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The template you linked to no longer has a yellow-on-black title, and is easier to read. --Carnildo (talk) 23:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded Universe

Now that Lucasfilm has confirmed that only the movies, The Clone Wars, and Rebels are considered canon, should the rest of the television section (Ewoks, Droids, The Holiday Special, etc.) be moved into the expanded universe section? That way they are still links in the template that interested readers can use, but any confusion someone might have is hopefully eliminated. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if instead we step away from the "EU" label entirely: it means something to fans, but someone new to the subject might not know what the/an "Expanded Universe" is. Perhaps go with straight-up media label: television, print, etc. --EEMIV (talk) 01:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adamstom.97, I'm seeing now that this dovetails a bit with a notion you mentioned a while ago, again in response to Disney/Lucasfilm re-configurating the notion of canon. The same premise applies: canon-ness doesn't mean anything to the vast majority of readers. Frankly, the "Expanded Universe" label should probably be eliminated because it, too, isn't germane to casual readers not familiar (or perhaps only marginally familiar) with the franchise. --EEMIV (talk) 14:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Canon" irrelevance

"Canon" is only an important subject to fans, who nitpick about such minutiae and wring their hands over its changes. To the ordinary reader, for whom Wikipedia is the intended audience, "canon" doesn't mean anything. The basic breakdown of media -- films, TV, etc. -- is more relevant. "Canon" might be a good organizing notion at Wookieepedia, but at Wikipedia it really doesn't matter and obscures the content. --EEMIV (talk) 13:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a request for additional input at the Wikiproject talk page. --EEMIV (talk) 14:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If Disney and Lucasfilm have created essentially two seperate franchises now, one that they consider the true Star Wars franchise, and the other for fans of the old EU, then that cannot be ignored here. We cannot chose what is important or what carries WP:WEIGHT, especially when the thing we are ignoring is both so important for a lot of people, and was such a big deal on the internet both at the time that the distinction was made, and most likely in future as new additions to the franchise are made. I understand what you mean when you say canon is trivial, but that label doesn't apply here, because it is now an official, WP:Real world term used by Disney. If the official announcement had not made mention of canon or the EU, then I would agree with you, but as can be seen at at the ref a added in my last edit, as well as numerous other pages on the internet, these have been used in an official, notable manner. As per the announcement, there is now two 'versions of Star Wars', if you like, one being released under the normal Star Wars banner, the other being released under the new 'Legends' banner. This is something we cannot just ignore on Wikipedia, as it is very likely information that people will want to know, especially as more tie-in content is released. Also, your idea that we can't use terms that the general public don't know is ridiculous. Every Wikipedia page turns words like this into links, so that anyone who doesn't know it can quickly find out what it means. Many times I have been researching something on Wikipedia and have come across a new word, that I learnt the meaning of by clicking on. As you may have noticed in my recent edits to this template, I turned the headings "Official canon" and "Legends canon" into links to the canon and EU pages, respectively. Therefore, If someone sees we have made a distinction between certain Star Wars products, but doesn't understand why, they can easily find out by following the links.

PS. Considering there is already a page for both Star Wars canon and the Expended Universe, where they are both referred to in a non-trivial/fanboy way, I don't think you have the right to decide that either of these two concepts do not belong on Wikipedia at all. If you still think you do, how about expressing those ideas over at the talk pages for those two articles? - adamstom97 (talk) 22:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, we have articles on canon and EU, and I've contributed to them. My disinterest in them right now is vis-a-vis an organizing premise/mold for a navigation template, not the merits of e.g. whether they "matter." I think, for instance, that Disney's re-visioning of canon is appropriate for coverage at both of those and that third-party coverage of that decision bolsters the rationale for covering them at Wikipedia. And, in fact, they probably should be included somewhere in the nav template itself as subjects relevant to the franchise. That said, I don't find labels like "Official canon" and "legacy canon" clear to the casual reader; one shouldn't have to investigate those terms in order to decipher/understand the major groupings in a navigation template. I wouldn't expect to find the term "official canon" or "legacy canon" in the lead sections of any of those articles, i.e. wouldn't expect readers to find clarification in the subject one they click one of those links. The labels have relevance to those of us drooling over every slip and sliver of coverage -- in which case, changing the labels doesn't matter to readers like us. But, changing the labels probably obfuscates more than it clarifies for more casual, curious readers. Sorry if that wasn't clear. (Another similar franchise with tiers of canon and official-hood that also keeps casual-friendly grouping labels: {{Star Trek}}.) --EEMIV (talk) 00:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I now understand where your coming from, and agree with you to some extent. However, I'm think that grouping all of these together, especially the tv series, which are under one heading, could be quite misleading to casual readers, especially since, as you pointed out, the individual articles don't state the canon/legends part in the lead. For fans who might be interested in this distinction, but are, say, confused by the official announcement, and looking for some clarity, it is easy for them to see exactly what is and isn't canon. For major fans of the series, it will make perfect sense, and they probably won't even look twice. For much more casual or even non-fans just looking for information, it seems like this is the easiest place to get that information across to them in a simple way, and if they are confused by the headings, then they can find an explanation by simply following the links provided (if they are just looking for information then I doubt they will mind learning something new). You seem to be worried that we are just making this confusing for casual, curious readers, but I think it is probably better that they not understand these two labels, and have to learn more about them by following the links, then if they think these are all together and then later on see something about different continuities, or a certain book or tv show being contradicted or called "non-canon", when they would be even more confused, and probably feel that Wikipedia is out of date. There is always going to be some level of confusion where casual readers are concerned, but I'm confident that adding these two labels will minise said confusion, and allow for more fluent reading and navigation. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right-o, and I see your perspective, also. I don't think either of is necessary "wrong," we're just prioritizing and seeing things a bit differently. Probably best to see if anyone else from the Wikiproject cares to step in with their own perspective. If not, no harm I suppose in taking a stab at using your groupings and seeing whether that altered template "in the wild" garners feedback/concern. Happy editing. --EEMIV (talk) 18:39, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My recent edits

I've simplified the template for a general audience. Canon is an internal classification system intended for writers and creators of Star Wars fiction. Beyond that, it is really only of fan interest. It's perfectly fine for Wookieepedia to make the distinction between canon and non-canon, but I don't think it's appropriate for a general interest site like Wikipedia.The Wookieepedian (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: I just read the above discussions on this subject (I didn't notice them when I first posted), and User:EEMIV basically sums up how I feel on the issue. Perhaps we could have a vote? The Wookieepedian (talk) 15:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:DEM we shouldn't really settle this with a vote. The fact is, as I stated above, though I do see your point of view, the canon and legends distinction is an official WP:Real world distinction made by Disney, and so is relevant to anyone interested in the subject, not just hardcore fans. Those things that are now considered non-canon are currently being released as legends to differentiate them from the official canon. What if someone sees this and wants to know what is being published as what? I am going to the revert the template back to how it was, per the above discussion, but if you still think this should be discussed then I would be happy to do so. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adam, it is inaccurate to restore your template overhaul and label it "per talk": per talk, two editors have at various times restored the medium-organized template along lines of real-world significance to casual readers. I believe my last two cents on the subject was to suggest letting the canon-organized version linger out there and see whether anyone else cares. Looks like someone does. My post for comment at the Wikiproject page didn't garner any input; perhaps as a next step you'd be willing to prompt for input from WP:3O? --EEMIV (talk) 14:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be a good idea. The Wookieepedian (talk) 17:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to go down that road if that's what you guys are thinking. I can see where you are coming from, and I realise that canon is most relevant to the fans, but I do think that too much emphasis has been placed on it in the general public to be ignored. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Should the template be divided into canon/non-canon sections?

NAC:No consensus, based on inadequate response. There were only two responses. It appears that this talk page is not particularly active. Recommend that a new RFC be published, and that it be publicized in WP: WikiProject Star Wars, WP: WikiProject Disney, and WP: WikiProject Film. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

As can be seen in the discussions on Template talk:Star Wars, there is a dispute as to whether Template:Star Wars should only be divided by media type, or whether it should be further divided into canon/non-canon sections. The Wookieepedian (talk) 18:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The two ideas: media type and canon. --EEMIV (talk) 18:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By media type. There's something to say for both approaches, but the out-of-universe one is more appropriate for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not especially concerned with whether some TV special is canon or not. Fans can use Wikia to categorize by canon. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The canon is out-of-universe as well, because Disney/Lucasfilm releases the two continuities separately, under different names. If this wasn't the case, then you would be right, but in this case, canon vs. legends is not a simple fan definition, it is an official licensing differentiation. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By canon. My first impulse was to dismiss this option as unworkable (I thought it was meant to be applied to categories, not this template). But seeing the result and knowing that it only applies to notable works (and not characters, world or concepts in the fictional universe), it makes sense to use it as a classification layer - the distinction between canon and the expanded universe is a major official categorization in Star Wars, that helps define how marketing and resource allocation are handled by the owner company.

Maybe it would make more sense to use it as the second layer though, instead of the outer one - the first level could divide by works by media type like in this version, but then the Spin-offs should tell apart the Clone Wars and Rebels from the Battle of Endor and Holiday Special. Diego (talk) 15:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Removing the subsections

I strongly preferred the previous setup of the template, where the films were divided by the categories of being a part of the original, prequel and sequel trilogies. As it stands now, it seems rather muddled and confusing for readers who are not so familiar with the films' continuity. Adamstom.97, would you like to explain your perspective, since you established the change and have reverted others' attempts to restore it? DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 18:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My issue was that the template was becoming uber-subsectioned, making it longer and longer without taking up the width of the page. So even though it allowed users to see the individual trilogies, it was messy, and though this new format doesn't explicitly state which films make up the individual trilogies, the inclusion of the dates means users can figure that out for themselves (it is pretty clear that there are large time gaps between groups of three films). As for your comment concerning continuity, since its not just the films that have been released out of chronological order, there isn't much we can do here to indicate overall continuity (Template:Marvel Cinematic Universe is in the same boat), so our best option is to stick to the WP:Real world perspective here, and allow the individual articles to establish continuity and relationships between films and series etc. I understand why you preferred the previous setup - I myself had a hand in establishing that - but it turned out really messy, and I realised that it just wasn't the way to go where this template is concerned. Also, thanks for starting this discussion rather than just editing the template. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Attempted another route for coding to clean up the template and reinserted the grouping of trilogies. Feedback? Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 02:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of Prequel Trilogy, Original Trilogy, and Sequel Trilogy

I don't see why people were making a fuss over including these bits to organize the template. If you organize it by release date normally it makes sense but you have to think about it. Look, yes, a lot of people know that 4, 5, and 6 came before 1, 2, and 3. However, there are also lots of people who don't know this. Unless you can come up with a good reason that this shouldn't be a considered factor into it, I don't see why someone would change it back. Please discuss here before reverting it. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 02:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We deal with the real world, not in universe facts, so even though the films in in-universe chronological order would be organised 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, the true encyclopaedic order is 4, 5, 6, 1, 2, 3, 7. Now, I understand you saying "a lot of people know that 4, 5, and 6 came before 1, 2, and 3. However, there are also lots of people who don't know this" but by looking at it that way, you are assuming that A) this is something that people need to learn by looking at this template, rather than actually reading the articles, and B) that the films should be watched in chronological order, which is a personal opinion and has no relevance here. This isn't the first time this issue has come up, so don't worry, I'm not trying to change it just because I don't like it or something like that. I am now going to revert the page again, as that version is the currently agreed upon one, but if you wish to continue this discussion, or if somebody else wants to join in, then the potential is obviously there to change it back to your version down the track if needs be. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too sure. I think that by date of release could be also considered universal. You know what I mean? I also don't see how using no separation cleans up the template. It looks odd af. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 06:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why not a version that puts the films in release order, yet divides them into trilogies? The Wookieepedian (talk) 07:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

such as putting in bold Original before the current string of text, etc? That could work.Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 07:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The template used to be like that, but it was agreed that it was becoming too subdivided, and therefore unnecessarily wasting space. Not to mention that it is already clear that there are groupings of films, and further information can be found in the actual articles. Remember, the template's sole purpose is to link alike pages, not to reveal information itself. We only separate it out as it is to make it easier to find specific articles. If we get to a point where there are too many film articles, and it is just too hard navigate through them, then a discussion could be had about perhaps further subdividing the sections. But for now, it is unnecessary. Also, to Kamek, the films release dates are real world facts, and are in no way a part of the actual universe and its characters. On the other hand, the sequence of events within the films is definitely in-universe information, which is fine in a plot summary, or the like, but never supercedes the real world in this encyclopaedia. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:14, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disinclined toward another sub-sub-section in the template. As a tangent, I'm a fan and I'm not sure I understand what the saga label means -- isn't it all part of The Star Wars Saga? Did the template at some point have Episodes in lieu of saga and include the episode roman numerals? Would that serve as a balance between presenting the major films in release order while still acknowledging the in-universe chronology? --EEMIV (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is all a part of the Star Wars Franchise, and all exists within the Star Wars Universe, but only the Episodes are a part of the Star Wars / Skywalker Saga. We changed it from episodes because that could confuse readers who aren't familiar with how that term is used in the films, seeing as it usually refers to episodes of television, rather than feature films. Also, I think the roman numerals were removed because they were giving people even more of a reason to put the prequels first, when it had already been agreed upon that we wouldn't do that, not to mention that on templates I have often found that only subtitles, where they exist, are used (See Template:Star Trek as a comparable example. Again, I think you guys are placing too much importance on in-universe chronological order, when we need to be focusing on the real world (See Template:X-Men media for another film series with films released out of chronological order). - adamstom97 (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should Star Wars (film) be written as A New Hope in the template?

It is kinda ambiguous looking and would be in agreement with the other titles listed in the saga in the template. Just write it as [[Star Wars (film)|A New Hope]].

We could maybe even actually start breaking the saga into trilogy as I suggested before. With 7 main films, it is started to getting big. And Star Wars Episode 8 is coming out in 2017, which technically isn't far away.

We could even write it as [[Star Wars (film)|IV: A New Hope]], [[The Empire Strikes Back|V: The Empire Strikes Back]] etc...

Any opinions? Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 22:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All of these things have been discussed, either here or in numerous edit summaries, and decided against for various reasons. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the heart of it, we go with Wikipedia:COMMONNAME. "Star Wars" is far more a "common name" than "A New Hope." For more, NB previous discussions on this page and its revision history. --EEMIV (talk) 02:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the article title and the name used in the template should always be as close as possible? A navigational pipe link to a completely different name seems like it would be very unintuitive to me. —Flax5 12:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Calling the 4th Episode Star Wars is okay in context but saying "Have you seen Star Wars?" to someone out of context (when you mean A New Hope) they're going to most likely say "Which one?" We should stop acting like COMMONNAME applies to these films because to be honest there is no official "Common name". People call every Star Wars film a variety of things so saying the common name is "Star Wars" is true and saying the common name is "Star Wars: Episode IV A New Hope" is also true and so is saying the common name is "Star Wars: A New Hope". People should start using WP:COMMONSENSE Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 20:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Warning when editing

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

I'm requesting admin help here, but maybe anyone can answer my question: is it possible to add a warning at the top of the page when editing this template? I'm talking about the naming convention and order of the movies. Every other day someone comes and tries to add "Episode X" to the titles or changing the first one in "A New Hope". Since it looks like there's no discussion to have, I think we should insert a message to notify future editors and maybe avoid some reverts. Is it possible? Am I being naive? Heinerj (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A brief warning has been placed above the template that will not be included on pages where the template is transcluded. I don't know how long it will last, but feel free to improve on it as needed. – Paine Ellsworth^CLIMAX! 10:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1) There is no problem with adding the Episode numbers on the films titles. It gives readers an insight to their sequence. I think what the fan boys have done to the articles and titles of the original films is extremely misinformative.

2) There is no problem with me adding A New Hope at least in brackets to Episode Four's link in the template. This way people won't get confused when looking for episode 4 in the template. If you have any reliable sources (and no film poster's didn't ever claim they were not known by their episode names) that claim these don't go by the episode names, I'll reconsider. Officially, and commonly, it is known as a New Hope, so putting it in brackets is fair and justified.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 00:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This issue has been discussed many times before, and you have presented no knew arguments or evidence for us to debate. -adamstom97 (talk) 01:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What "new arguement", is required? The films are officially and always known by their episode titles. Why is one side without sources pushing it's personal feelings onto the community. No sources. This absurdity should stop at one point for the sake of wikipedia.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 04:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I didn't want to stop any future discussion from happening. If Nadirali still has some doubts we should discuss them. I personally have no opinion on the matter but adamstom97, you seem to reefer to previous conversations. Perhaps you should link to them? Or restate the main points? Just saying "already discussed" is not really going anywhere. Heinerj (talk) 12:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The previous discussions have been held here and in edits summaries (and maybe even in personal talk page discussions) over a long period of time, and have subsequently been brought up again by different editors apparently unaware of the previously established consensus (both this discussion and the one directly above it are examples of this). Essentially, the reasoning for the templates current formatting is a combination of many factors and points of view, including: there is no need to repeat Star Wars Episode in front of every title. Many other templates (for many different media products) also present only subtitles to avoid redundant repetition. We already know that it is Star Wars, and that it is a part of the main saga, and the expanded title can easily be seen by clicking on the link itself; using the numbers is just confusing and unnecessary, the former because we are listing these films from a real world perspective, so the list would go IV V VI I II III VII, and the latter because this is just a navbox, it's sole purpose is for navigation, so it doesn't need to educate the reader(s) on additional facts (the dates should probably be removed as well, but that might be a whole new discussion) – remember, just because something is cool to "fanboys", like listing things in in-universe chronological order (or at least implying the films "sequence"), does not mean that it is appropriate for an encyclopaedia; the actual page that the Star Wars link connects to is called "Star Wars (film)". It isn't up to us here at a navbox to change what the film is reffered to, or what is considered its WP:COMMONNAME, so if you have an issue with this, take it up at the appropriate talk page. If, at some point, it is decided that the actual common name is "A New Hope" or "Star Wars (A New Hope)" (I highly doubt it's that second one) then the link here can be changed appropriately, but since this is just a navbox, all we can do is connect the links that we are given. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I essentially agree with the above, especially the part about this being a navbar, which means titles can even have their parenthetical disambiguators piped out for the sake of brevity and conciseness. Readers can find out more about the titles either by hovering their mouse over them to see the tooltips or by clicking the links – easy as pie (whatever that means

) – Paine Ellsworth^CLIMAX! 00:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rogue One

Armegon wants to start a new line in the template for "Stand alone" and inset Rouge One as the sole entry [1]. The problem is, there isn't an article on Rogue One. That's probably a good thing because we know very little beyond the name, director and planned release date. Regardless, the entry on the template is a link to a section of the Star Wars article. A couple of editors have removed it so far and Armegon keeps restoring it with the reasoning that there's not a rule prohibiting it (and some all caps shouting to do it). My main reason for removing it is that the purpose of a template is to be a navigation aid. In most cases, items that don't have articles don't belong on a template since there isn't anything to navigate to. In this case, there is a very short section of a much bigger article, but I don't think that's sufficient. If we start linking sections, where does it stop? The article on the Empire Strikes Back has about two dozen sections. Should we make those all separate entries on this template too? Someone could be looking for those items too..... Niteshift36 (talk) 03:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NAV, navigational templates are for connecting like articles, so the section link does not belong here. And per WP:NFF, an article should not be made about a film until it begins filming, so there will be no need to link Rogue One for a wee while. When there is an article to be linked to, it will belong in the same section as all the other spin-off films – the "Stand alone" films are spin-offs from the main Star Wars saga as well. And finally, this edit warring is ridiculous. User Armegon has been reverted multiple times by multiple different users, and I think consensus is very clear. Leave the navbox be. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fan films

I put in fan films in the template in the fandom section because I don't notice it anywhere else in the template. If it's already there, then revert me no problem.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 21:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anthology group

Do not issue improper edit summary such as:

"they are separate categories, and will have more links added at some point anyway"
"Rouge One is the first of the Anthology series and is currently filming; Clone Wars is separate from both series. Do not revert."

There is no "Anthology Series" until their is an actually second movie, even then it may be group in others with subgrouping that is through the "*Anthology **The Force Awaken" combination use which generates "* Anthology (The Force Awaken)". It may be planned but Disney may not go head with it if the first movie flops or many other issues that might cause a movie not be made. Until there is enough sourcing for an article for the next movie there is no need for its own subgroup. Nor does the lack of an "Anthology" disavow that there will be one. It can go in the "Others" group with "Clone Wars" as it is a Catch-all term thus catch-all category not a separate category (like "animated films" might be). Note that the purpose of a navbox is to make it easy to find related articles. Part of that is being compact as possible. Thus keeping groups to a minimum. Spshu (talk) 18:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the template for the Marvel Cinematic Universe. It currently lists Captain America: Civil War as the only film in Phase Three. You mentioned above that we can't include a single film as a part of a group. However, we still list Cap: Civil War as part of Phase Three. It's not a question of how many movies need to be a part of a group before we can consider it a group. As it relates to this issue, Rogue One IS an anthology film, distinct from the Star Wars saga. The Clone Wars is another film distinct from both the Anthology and the Saga. There is enough reliably sourced information from Lucasfilm and Disney to assume that the Anthology series is unique and separate. Rogue One should be listed in the navbox as such. Maybe we can try to come to a consensus on this? -Rmaynardjr (talk) 19:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First read WP:OTHERSTUFF so what is happening at Marvel Cinematic Universe is irrelevant here; it is should not if can be help. Rmaynardjr, you failed to complete read the above to understand "Other" is a "catch all" not a designed series name, which you are in effect attempt to claim. It doesn't matter what Disney and Lucasfilm state, we for example, don't order the Saga films based on the chronological order which can most likely be reliably sourced. You are basically WP:CBALL that the Anthology Series will not be canceled for any reason or that the Rogue One might become a series in and of itself. Spshu (talk) 20:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relax. I'm not trying to start a war; I'm just disagreeing with you. You don't have to tell me what I failed to do or fill your reply with other vaguely worded, grammatically incorrect insults. Let's discuss the issue and not make this about calling each other out.

I brought up the MCU not because it MUST follow the same structure as Star Wars, only as a means of demonstrating that a film can be listed alone in a group. I'm not trying to claim that "Other" is its own series. I'm just saying that the Star Wars film series has expanded to include a Saga and an Anthology, and since The Clone Wars doesn't fit into either group, it does belong in the "Other" group. Rogue One doesn't belong there because it's part of the Anthology. I've read your linked articles, and I do understand your point. You're right, the Anthology might be cancelled. Rogue One might launch its own series. But neither of those things has happened yet. Right now, what we know and what we have sourced tells us that the Anthology is a segment of the Star Wars film series MUCH LIKE Phase Three is a segment of the MCU film series. I know, it's irrelevant, but it's similar. If our current sources tell us it's a part of the Anthology, let's list it that way. Would anyone else like to chime in? Spshu, I understand your argument, but let's try to see what others think, too. Rmaynardjr (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree with Rmaynardjr. The franchise has expanded to include an anthology series separate from the main saga and The Clone Wars film. The template should reflect that; it indicates common sense. The Marvel Cinematic Universe template is in fact a great example. This creates unnecessary confusion for readers; and that is also how it is listed on the main franchise page. I honestly don't understand why this has turned into this big of an issue already. - Cartoon Boy (talk) 21:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rmaynardjr, I argue tough that doesn't mean a war. I understand that you disagree. Just because I point out you are not arguing the main point isn't an insult. But then you go ahead and insult me ("other vaguely worded, grammatically incorrect insults" which expressly crosses the line), so how is that not want to start a war?

Well, the MCU template is currently an exception as there isn't any thing to pair it with. We do here as it the not incorrect "Other: Clone Wars *Rogue One". Two, it could be consider a fork/duplicate or spin/split off of Template:Marvel Comics films, which expressly denied categorize by MCU or series (adjective-less series and Amazing pair of Spider-man films for example) thus is problematic as an example.

A "catch all" can still "catch", or contain, an item in another category or group. Technically SW: Clone War animated film could be group under "Animated" or it could be considered an "Anthology" series film as it does fit the profile (of a stand alone film, although it is a pilot movie for the series; but no source has come out and indicate so). All the Saga films already "belong" to another group, why are you (and the unspoken other editor that wish this to be an order instead of a discussion) not hopping mad that they aren't separated into the trilogies? "They cannot mix" seems to be your point. :::::"But neither of those things has happened yet." Well, Rogue One may not be an Anthology SW film either as it latest "title" tag (or subtitle, or what ever you call it) is "A Star Wars Story" and isn't full named "Star Wars Anthology: Rogue One" any more. Thus it may not be an "Anthology" film as they did remove that term.

The franchise has already expanded with Clone War theatrical movie. Anthology is not really a series until (at least to me) three movies have been made. Your position is not common sense. If this was the Disney live action movie template, we should then have a Warlord of Mars group as they were going to make a trilogy. "Its Disney they must be making the whole trilogy plan." Well the first movie, John Carter, did poorly and no trilogy is going to be made. "Common sense" (to some) is to place movies in chronological order of the movies which has been rejected here.

So, Cartoon Boy, how is listing Rogue One under "other" create confusion? "Other" is a catch all term thus should not create confusion. Then the list of the different main trilogies in the same group should be creating all sorts of confusion. (Why are you labeling them Saga? Why are not they not list in their trilogies? ,etc.) Anthology is confusion as the movies are not "[Anthology|anthology]]", a collect of short movies, so the group in and of itself may be confusing as Rogue One has a single story

I tagged it as an Anthology film as a subgroup of other. Is that acceptable? Spshu (talk) 22:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Anthology subgroup in other is unnecessary. Also, this debate is ridiculous. I think it is now pretty clear that having two subgroups with single links that can naturally fit under one header is not a good idea. Other can mean anything that is not separately listed, so it can include the anthology films as well. The issue can be rediscussed when there are more Anthology articles. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone, seriously, relax. Spshu, I didn't mean "grammatically incorrect" as an insult. It's a fact: some of what you wrote was vaguely worded and grammatically incorrect. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but it makes your arguments (whether they're meant to be insulting or just "tough") difficult to read and follow, and if we can't understand what you're saying (I have literally no idea what, "it is should not if can be help," means), then how can we effectively debate the situation?

If the consensus is "leave Rogue One in the Other group," so be it. But we haven't reached that yet. I look at it this way: There are a variety of films in the Star Wars series. There is a group of them known as the Saga, pertaining directly the Skywalker family, as confirmed by Kathleen Kennedy in this article from Le Point. In April, it was also confirmed that a series of Star Wars films set in the same universe as and separate from the Saga would be released as "Anthology" films. There was a dispute over whether they're called Anthology films or Star Wars Stories, but the nomenclature isn't the relevant piece; rather, the distinction from the Saga is. I look at that as two series of films within the Star Wars Universe: a Saga and an Anthology. Additionally, there's another film which does not fit into either group, so it's listed that way. I get that "Other" is only meant as a catch-all and not a series in and of itself, but Rogue One IS, according to all published media related to this matter, part of a series of films called the Star Wars Anthology. It has been listed that way in the NavBox since it began filming in August, and as Cartoon Boy mentioned above, it's listed as an Anthology film in the InfoBox on the Star Wars main page. I'm not sure what sparked interest in this sudden change, but I see no reason to alter it. It's an Anthology film, plain and simple. Rmaynardjr (talk) 01:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just because we weren't discussing this before, doesn't mean we shouldn't be discussing it now. The fact is that if we can combine some subgroups to remove ones containing single links, we really should do that. And you can't say that Rogue One doesn't come under Other if there is no Anthology section. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really disagreeing anymore. I think we all bring up some good points. I look at this as a means of easily directing people to the different series within the Star Wars Universe and distinguishing those series, others look at the NavBox as something that should be condensed as much as possible, which makes a lot of sense. Are there other NavBoxes in similar situations that we can use as precedence? The MCU isn't exactly comparable given the nature of that series, but perhaps we could use another NavBox as a means of settling the issue without just saying "x is the right way to do this." Rmaynardjr (talk) 02:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saga order

Hello. I am formally requesting a change to the order.

The current order: Star Wars (1977) The Empire Strikes Back (1980) Return of the Jedi (1983) The Phantom Menace (1999) Attack of the Clones (2002) Revenge of the Sith (2005) The Force Awakens (2015)
Proposed order: The Phantom Menace (1999) Attack of the Clones (2002) Revenge of the Sith (2005) A New Hope (1977) The Empire Strikes Back (1980) Return of the Jedi (1983) The Force Awakens (2015)

I believe the episode titles should be consistent. I also believe the films to be ordered by the Saga's chronology (based on episode numbers) instead of the film's release date.

Gorba (talk) 22:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This has previously been discussed. Basically, we deal with the WP:Real world, and in the real world these films were released in this order, with these names. There is no inconsistency, and the films definitely should not be in chronological order over release order. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks adamstom97 for clarifying. - Gorba (talk) 20:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re-insertion of The Star Wars Holiday Special

I placed the Star Wars Holiday Special in the non-canon for the second time since this movie is NOT canon and NOT considered part of the Star Wars saga or expanded universe. If anyone can prove or argue otherwise please discuss it here before re-inserting.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 02:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And also to repeat myself I also think fan films should have a template of their own to avoid confusion with other Star Wars films/spin-offs officially produced by Lucasfilms such as "The Holiday Special" but not considered canon.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 02:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a part of the expanded universe and as such should be in the Legends television section. Even the Holiday Special article itself has a large section on it: Star Wars Holiday Special#Role in greater Star Wars continuity. On the other hand, the Lego Star Wars shows such as "The Yoda Chronicles" and "Droid Tales", are without a doubt NOT in the established EU/Legends continuity (and are certainly not canon either), and as such should be removed. -- 206.63.228.5 (talk) 19:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any sources for that?--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 01:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't Jedi, Sith go in the brackets with Philosophy & Religion alongside the Force?

It seems more appropriate there. What is your response?--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 01:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, the Jedi and Sith articles are about the groups of characters first and foremost, so they are more appropriate where they are. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But there are many more characters than Jedi & Sith. How about creating a section called organizations and putting them there?--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 07:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter that there are more characters, and we don't just make new sections if we don't have to. These articles come under characters, fit most appropriately there, and don't need to go anywhere else. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Documentaries

I don't see anything in the template linking to Category:Star Wars documentaries. If it's already there, then fine, otherwise please link it in an appropriate section of the template.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 21:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't multimedia be retitled video games?

Per Wikipedia's definition of multimedia?--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 22:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. Although the main content of each of those projects is a video game, they are all ultimately multimedia projects, subsections of the Legends continuity that include comics and books, etc., as well. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does the article about the box office records of The Force Awakens need to be on this template?

Personally, I don't believe it does. The Force Awakens has a separate template at Template:Episode VII, and it is more than appropriate on that one. But for the main Star Wars template, it seems out of place and inappropriate, particularly in the listing of the "saga" movies of the series.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 20:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of discussion, the list in question is List of box office records set by Star Wars: The Force Awakens ... Are there any similar box office lists for the Star Wars franchise, either standalone or embedded in other articles?— TAnthony^Talk 21:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about other examples among the Star Wars pages, but the fact is that this is the navbox for Star Wars related links, and there shouldn't even really be a navbox for a single film when this one already exists. Another example of this sort of thin being linked among a list of films in a series is Template:Marvel Cinematic Universe. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:33, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about List of accolades received by The Avengers (2012 film) in the Marvel template? It doesn't stand out as much there because every film on that template has soundtrack and/or video game noted, and this template is already more busy and complicated. But I see its usefulness because the many records broken add to the notability/success of the entire franchise, maybe there's a spot somewhere else in the template. I was asking about other lists because perhaps there is information enough for other works that could be folded in to make the list more franchise-wide, or perhaps another list of similar information that would make this one seem less out of place.— TAnthony^Talk 23:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And, the individual film templates seem very necessary since there are so many characters, video games etc that are specific to those films, and having them all combined her would be insane. An argument could probably be made for trilogy nav boxes, however, since the individual ones aren't huge and there is a lot of carryover of characters etc among films in the two previous trilogies.— TAnthony^Talk 23:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the Episode VII template suffices for providing a hub for this kind of movie-specific content. Therefore, going off the previous discussion, we should keep the individual film navboxes as is, as there is simply so much content unique to each film and so much cultural weight that this is one of the few series that warrants such an approach. That being said, could you chime on this discussion, Cartoon Boy? DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 00:39, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The link could actually fit quite well in the miscellaneous subsection of the cultural impact section. Either way, I think it is important that it is added somewhere in this template, per TAnthony's reasoning of notability/success. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:37, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine with it being in the miscellaneous section. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 04:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the list on the template looks clunky, particularly when it's put in parentheses next to the films in the franchise, when the other 6 movies in the franchise don't have anything similar in parentheses. If this was organized like Template:Marvel Cinematic Universe, I could maybe see the argument, but since it's an article about an individual movie and NOT the series, it should stay on the template about that individual movie. Keep it on its individual template, it's not crucial to understanding the FRANCHISE as other articles on this template are.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 18:56, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you and I can agree that the article does not belong in the space for the list of movies. As for having it in the miscellaneous section? I'm indifferent. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 08:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe wait a little bit, until we know the full box office situation of the film (since it will be in theaters for a while) before deciding to include it in a "miscellaneous" section...?Fireflyfanboy (talk) 16:42, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Italics?

Hi @TAnthony:,

If Star Wars is never not italicized, what about the links to Star Wars Land and Star Wars: Where Science Meets Imagination? While it does make sense to me that Star Wars is italicized every time (I removed it initially because the charity lacked italics in its title), I'm having a hard time looking up the correct guideline on titles of charities and amusement parks. --Soetermans. T / C 15:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Star Wars Land article clearly establishes the italics in the lead. Articles like Star Wars: Where Science Meets Imagination have obviously not been noticed, or assessed in any real manner. When we are talking about an obvious franchise or body of work that is typically italicized per the MOS, it seems to me that there would have to be a specific instruction not to italicize somewhere else in the MOS.— TAnthony^Talk 15:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. Makes sense. --Soetermans. T / C 15:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And obviously I'm talking about the Star Wars portion of the title being italicized, and the rest depending on the rules for the particular medium. For example, I believe the names of toys and candy are not typically italicized, so you have Lego Star Wars and Star Wars Pez. I don't think attractions are typically italicized on their own (It's a Small World, etc.) But I see that some, like Space Mountain and Pirates of the Carribbean, currently are, so I'm wondering if there was some consensus or they're flukes that need correction.— TAnthony^Talk 16:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for this. I wasn't sure over at The Force and couldn't find anything in the SW MOS (I get confused sometimes about what's in the SW MOS and the Trek MOS). Glad to know somewhere out there there's some direction. --EEMIV (talk) 16:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Parody dates

Should we drop in the release dates for the parodies? It'd be consistent with the films and other projects within the franchise. It's also just more text. I care not either way, but noticed the discrepancy and figured I'd ask. --EEMIV (talk) 16:55, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it improves consistency, and I've made changes accordingly. –Matthew - (talk) 23:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]