Talk:Star Wars (film)/Archive 6

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Clearly no consensus in favour of the proposals, with many against the moves citing WP:COMMONNAME. Number 57 15:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• Star Wars (film) → Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope
• The Empire Strikes Back → Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back
• Return of the Jedi → Star Wars Episode VI: The Return of the Jedi
• Raiders of the Lost Ark → Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark

– *Nomination and support I have no clue why on earth the previous consensuses decided to move these pages to what they are now. People claimed that nobody says "Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope" and rather instead say "Star Wars". That's just really odd to claim. I don't know how it has been when the original trilogy came out because I wasn't born during the original trilogy. However, I was born before the Phantom Menace came out. Trust me, many, many people refer to the films as "Star Wars Episode (whatever episode number): Subtitle". The official Star Wars website lists the names as so here. I am aware of the rebuttals at this in previous discussions, and that COMMON is preferred but there was no support for that statement that made sense. Google Trends and Google NGrams can't be used because when searching for Star Wars (because Star Wars (film) won't show up in any books) in Ngrams you'll get any books that mention the name Star Wars regardless of what episode. I am aware Google Trends allows you to search for Star Wars which is the default when searching for Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, but that's most likely influenced by Wikipedia itself as most Google Searches are. (Ever wonder why they include Wikipedia entries on the side?) It also just says 1977 film under it. And I have a bad feeling (no pun intended) that the term Star Wars, even when using the Star Wars (film), is giving results to Star Wars films that aren't just A New Hope. If you look at the Google Trend here, you'll see that the Star Wars term is skyrocketing in May 2005, when Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith came out. So... yeah... probably not talking about Episode IV. This graph from Google Trends, shows a strong result for Star Wars Episode IV A New Hope in May 2005 also. This graph, here, shows that the Empire Strikes Back is not as popular as the Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back term. It also, as a search term alone, appears dominate (except for the fall off in the month of Feb 2015 which is still quite young) here shows a dominate use of the full title. Anyways, so that's basically my input and reasoning for the move of the Star Wars films. Other films, such as Raiders of the Lost Ark default on Google Trends to Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark as seen here. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 02:55, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused to why fingers are being viciously pointed at me, accusing me of various things. The reasoning "most common usage" has already been disproven that the most common usage here is the Episode X: Subtitle form but then you say that all my friends call it Empire, etc. That doesn't make sense. Reliable sources refer to it both ways but the most common is the Episode X: Subtitle form.

•The term "Star Wars" in May 2005 (Revenge of the Sith release) •Term Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope at the release of ROS •Episode V •The full title for Return of the Jedi seems to be increasing in name •Return of the Jedi as a title fails in usage comparison compared to the full title form.

According to WP:COMMONNAME, then "If the name of a person, group, object, or other article topic changes, then more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change." So, shouldn't we be giving more weight to the Episode X: Full Title form?

•Rotten Tomatoes lists Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope •Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back •Return of the Jedi listed, not full named.

• Recognizability The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize. This one is kind of iffy. Due to circumstances the names are recognizable. But if you think about it, someone who doesn't know what the Star Wars film names are but knows what Star Wars is, then they won't always know what you mean by saying, f.e, "The Empire Strikes Back". Saying Star Wars Episode V The Empire Strikes Back is more recognizable in this case.
• Naturalness The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English. As per evidence of trends, it is safe to assume that the reader will search for the whole name rather than the Empire Strikes Back or "Star Wars (film)". If they were searching for Star Wars, they could mean any of them. Editors, without bias, would probably link the whole name instead of again, The Empire Strikes Back, due to its official name and the use of [[Star Wars Episode X: Subtitle|Subtitle]] depends on the sentence. (F.e. sentence: Star Wars Episode III Revenge of the Sith is considered a top film, along that of the fifth film, the Empire Strikes Back.
• Precision The title is sufficiently precise to unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. This one is where most people are looking to, it seems, but I find little flaw in using this to excuse. The Empire Strikes Back, again for example, reflects many things in culture. However, that is really the only problem so it looks like Precision is fulfilled here.
• Conciseness The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. This is my own opinion here, so don't retaliate because I admit this input here is my own opinion for this point of conciseness, but I personally see the conciseness of Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi as biased to the man or woman who grew up with the original trilogy. Without context, again, maybe one wouldn't know what you were talking about. In the 1977 case, they may argue it is too broad.
• Consistency The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. There are other film series, such the Chronicles of Narnia, that use the series name then the subtitle. For instance, The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.

Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject. Well, the official Star Wars website lists this as the full name.

Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. It is not always neutral to use the previous name/release name.

Anyway, more backup to my nomination reasoning. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 21:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Update: More sources, Lucasfilms website, Metacritic. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 20:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

More sources below, made a table with sources for Episode IV and Episode V, I'll make one for Episode VI soon. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 22:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Website	Star Wars	Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope/Star Wars: A New Hope	Reference	Other information
Lucasfilms	N	Y	[1]	"In its original run, the film was simply called Star Wars. “Episode IV A New Hope” was added starting with the April 10, 1981, theatrical re-release."
StarWars	N	Y	[2]	"In the original May 1977 release of Star Wars, the opening crawl did not feature an Episode number or the subtitle “A New Hope.” Those would be added with the film’s April 10, 1981, theatrical re-release."
SparkNotes	N	Y	[3]
Arts.mic	N	Y	[4]
CinemaBlend	N	Y	[5]	" In the case of Star Wars: Episode IV – A New Hope, it's completely owned by 20th Century Fox, as they funded and distributed the film. However, Fox only has the distribution rights to Episode V – The Empire Strikes Back and Episode VI – Return Of The Jedi (as well as the entire Prequel Trilogy,) and they have them until 2020. Disney actually owns the rights to the films, so anything Empire or Jedi related,..."
American Film Institute	Y	Y	[6][7]	AFI's 10 Top 10 and website listing
Laughingsquid	N	Y	[8]	Article talking about a condensed 1 minute animated speed run of the episode.
Goodreads.com	N	Y	[9]	Novelization of the movie
Reelz	N	Y	[10]	Includes clips listed under full title
Metacritic	Y	Y	[11][12]	Mixed usage
British Film Institute	N	Y	[13]	Set photos listed under full title
Fandago	Y	Y	[14][15]	Mixed usage
Original Prop	N	Y	[16]
Netflix	N	Y	[17]
The Register	N	Y	[18]
Bluray.com	N	Y	[19]
The Numbers	N	Y	[20]
Empire Online	Y	Y	[21]
Star Wars Screencaps	N	Y	[22]
The Guardian	N	Y	[23]
Flixster	Y	Y	[24]	Mixed usage
Behind the Voice Actors	N	Y	[25]
About entertainment	Y	Y	[26][27]	Mixed usage
Film.com	Y	N	[28]	Uses original title
National Board of Review	Y	N	[29]	Uses Star Wars for the 1977 awards and nominations.
People.com	Y	Y	[30]	Mixed usage
Movie Web	Y	Y	[31][32]	Mixed usage
Forbes.com	N	Y	[33][34]	Does not refer to the film as Star Wars as someone has claimed before.
Village Voice	Y	N	[35]	Star Wars
New York Times	Y	Y	[36]	Mixed usage
Box Office Mojo	Y	N	[37]
BBC	Y	Y	[38]	Mixed usage
Rogerebert	Y	N	[39]	Says "Chapter 4: A New Hope" further down but I didn't count it.
Huffingtonpost.com	Y	N	[40]
Academia.edu	Y	Y	[41]	Mixed usage
CVLI	N	Y	[42]
Boxoffice.com	Y	Y	[43]
Washington Post	Y	Y	[44]
Space.com	N	Y	[45]	"The LEGO Death Star is designed from the version featured in Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope" LEGOLAND representatives wrote in a news release.
CNN.com	Y	Y	[46]	Mixed usage
Foxnews.com	N	Y	[47][48]
Moviepilot.com	N	Y	[49]
Bangor Daily	N	Y	[50]
Gazette Live	N	Y	[51]
Latinpost	N	Y	[52]

Website	The Empire Strikes Back	Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back	Reference	Other information
Metacritic	Y	Y	[53]	Mixed usage
Stuff	N	Y	[54]
CinemaBlend	Y	Y	[55]	" In the case of Star Wars: Episode IV – A New Hope, it's completely owned by 20th Century Fox, as they funded and distributed the film. However, Fox only has the distribution rights to Episode V – The Empire Strikes Back and Episode VI – Return Of The Jedi (as well as the entire Prequel Trilogy,) and they have them until 2020. Disney actually owns the rights to the films, so anything Empire or Jedi related,..." (Only uses shortened title after identifying the whole title)
Original Prop	Y	N	[56]
Boxoffice.com	Y	Y	[57]	Mixed usage
CNN.com	Y	Y	[58][59]	Mixed usage
International Business Times	Y	Y	[60]	Mixed usage
Canada.com	N	Y	[61]
Moviepilot.com	N	Y	[62]
Digital Trends	Y	Y	[63]	Mixed usage
Hollywood Reporter	Y	N	[64]
HITC	N	Y	[65]
Chicago Reader	Y	Y	[66][67]
Leaderpost	N	Y	[68]
Express.co.uk	Y	Y	[69]	Mixed usage
Latinpost	Y	Y	[70]	Mixed usage
Gandul	Y	Y	[71]	Mixed usage
Comicbookmovie	Y	Y	[72]
Telegraph	Y	Y	[73]	Mixed usage
Time.com	Y	Y	[74]	Mixed usage
Drexel University	N	Y	[75]	Original script pdf
World Cat Citation	N	Y	[76]	Citation example, not a strong example but it works.
The Inquisitr	Y	Y	[77]
New York Times	N	Y	[78]
Outside Online	N	Y	[79]	Only uses the full title unless you count the overlay to the video/button
American Film Institute	Y	Y	[80][81]

• Support moving Star Wars (film) to A New Hope per WP:NATURAL and oppose the rest per WP:CONCISE Red Slash 05:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
• At the very least rename "Star Wars (film)" to Star Wars (1977 film) because the current title fails WP:PRECISE. The current disambiguator is insufficient to separate the topic away from the film series, which is also a film topic, or a "Star Wars film" in the generic, such as all the other films in the film series. The proposed titles are fine by me. Red Slash's solution is also fine by me. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 06:53, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose in the strongest possible terms - Lumping Raiders of the Lost Ark in to this discussion on the talk page of a different article just isn't on. The move has been rejected on that page a number of times and adding it to this discussion gives the appearance of trying to sneak it through on the sly. If you want to propose a move for Raiders of the Lost Ark do it on that article's talk page - X201 (talk) 07:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • i wasn't "sneaking" anything into it. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 07:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I didn't say you were. I said it gives the appearance of it. - X201 (talk) 10:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
• Respectfully, A New Hope is a poor idea for an article title. No one has ever, ever referred to the movie as anything besides Star Wars, Star Wars IV, or Star Wars IV: A New Hope or some variant thereof. There is nothing in NATURAL that suggests the thing being disambiguated should be outright removed. The current location of the rest of the suggested moves omit Star Wars in their names because the phrase was not originally present in their title; Star Wars is the actual title here. All that being said, I oppose all proposed moves (with no prejudice against the 70 IP's suggestion) due to longstanding consensus against doing so (the nomination here is disruptive; it seems the nominator regrets not being present in the previous discussions so they decided to beat the horse instead) and WP:CONCISE and WP:OFFICIAL. I believe they provide insight into a situation that is somewhat borderline, as the titles are all rather interchangeable. However, "I disagree with the previous well-established consensus", the latest one literally the next previous thread on this page is a terrible reason to start a new discussion and the nominator should know better. Deadbeef 07:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Um... A little bit vicious and uncalled for? Anyways. Not true. Episode V was in the original opening crawl although it was marketed as the Empire Strikes Back. Ever since the prequels, the full name is more used. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 07:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• Strong oppose and immediate closure per the recent discussion overwhelmingly in support of opposite. There needs to be a time limit on reopening discussions in opposition to a strong consensus. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support agree with everything stated in proposal for move. Wikimandia (talk) 11:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Reliable sources do not tend to use the "episode XX" nomenclature for the originals. The American Film Institute, the British Film Institute, AMPAS and the New York Times (just the few databases I picked at random) all have the original cataloged as "Star Wars", and the same goes for The Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi and Raiders of the Lost Ark. For better or for worse, this is how reliable sources document these films and that is what we are supposed to emulate on Wikipedia. WP:COMMONNAME explicitly points out that the "common name" takes precedence over the "official" name. Betty Logan (talk) 11:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I feel the argument using the Film institutes is biased. Reasonably. They represent classic releases so changing the name to its current official name is something that wouldn't be expected. I, personally, WOULD expect it to be called Star Wars in the AFI. Historic, but not up to date. But it AFI, f.e., it doesn't need to be. But this isn't AFI. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 20:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. AGAIN? Mezigue (talk) 11:30, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:CRITERIA since the current titles are still recognizable and concise and natural. For Star Wars, I would be okay with moving to Star Wars: A New Hope, but the "Episode" prefixes are extraneous for categorizing as films among many others on Wikipedia. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think the current names are fine. These are the common names, and fixing something that isn't broke doesn't really make sense to me. I'm sure we've got plenty of redirects to each article, so people who search for different variations will still find the appropriate article. Maybe I'm just getting old and out of touch with kids today talk, but the idea of calling Star Wars something like Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope seems odd to me. This is born out by Betty's links above. Maybe later, when this becomes the common name. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per Betty Logan. —Flax5 16:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose with caveats. I dip into these naming discussions now and again. Another proposal for this article's name to be changed. Really. There is a distinct likelihood that going over the same ground again and again and again makes some of us editors into boring hacks. To reiterate a previous post I made: Star Wars among everyone I know is known as 'Star Wars', The Empire Strikes Back is known as 'Empire' and Return of the Jedi is know as 'Jedi'. That's how we all refer to these three films. But that doesn't really matter does it? It is only citing reliable sources that matter for an encyclopedia not what one or other of us editors or a whole bunch of people searching Google think. My caveat to my opposition is that the reliable sources Betty Logan uses (thanks for stating those) all say 'Star Wars' but some say 'Star Wars (1977)'. If there was consensus for this or 'Star Wars (1977 film) I wouldn't oppose it. Otherwise please, supporters of this change, go edit other pages that need your time far more than rehashing old discussionsRobynthehode (talk) 17:14, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

How can you be so sure he wasn't cherrypicking? Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 17:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure Betty Logan (he?) was not cherry picking but all sources cited were reliable and it is up to you, as the proposer for the article name change, to make the argument for the change using reliable sources. Simple as that. Make the argument and I might be prepared to reconsider. If you can't just accept the consensus and move on.Robynthehode (talk) 17:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it should be the one making the claim (in this case it's the cherryplicking claim) to provide evidence. If this really is a case of cherrypicking sources that use the current name that would mean that it's likely that most sources actually use the proposed spelling, since cherryplicking would be unecessary otherwise. That should be relatively easy to prove.--67.68.211.169 (talk) 23:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - While there are many reasons to oppose this, Betty Logan's is the most spot on. Onel5969 (talk) 00:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• • Alternate solution:
• Star Wars (film) → A New Hope
• Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace → The Phantom Menace
• Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones → Attack of the Clones
• Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith → Revenge of the Sith

One way or the other, or it is inconsistent in its current form. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 01:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Inconsistency is acceptable. The originals had the "Star Wars Episode X" bit added onto them retroactively; the prequels did not. Just because they don't line up with each other doesn't mean one set should be changed to match the other, when doing so would be in disagreement with policy. Deadbeef 04:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - I don't see that much has really changed since the last recent move request. - Sangrolu (talk) 13:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, Today, Tomorrow, and for the end of time. Articles use the most common name. I thought it was pretty darn clear 4 months ago. Why make this proposal simply because you don't like the current common name titles?JOJ ^Hutton 15:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm opposing statements that these are the common name titles. As clearly, there is opposing evidence. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 21:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The sources oppose that view, and so has this and the last discussion.--JOJ ^Hutton 21:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

There is evidence on both sides and people are ignoring mine, it seems. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 21:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't assume to believe that since some people don't agree with your interpretation, that they must somehow be ignoring your argument. Remember that this has been discussed quite recently and I do not think that anyone is in the mood to rehash these arguments again. I'll leave you with a quote from then Congressman Gerald Ford when he was asked what he thought constituted a "high crime and misdemeanor" in reference to impeachment. His answer was "Whatever Congress says it is." Same goes for these discussions in terms of consensus. The fact that not everyone agrees on the terms of consensus does not mean that everyone did not get a chance to be heard.--JOJ ^Hutton 21:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I understand, I'm just asking if there is anyone who just voted oppose because last time it was opposed, then re-evaluate the situation because I have given some good evidence. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 21:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• Opposeper Betty Logan, and because the last RM, which came out soundly against this wasn't that long ago. Egsan Bacon (talk) 15:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support, as per regular use but, if the move is rejected, can a moritorium on moves be put in place that, when it runs out, the last RM would be "A long time ago ..." GregKaye 18:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
• oppose per the common name-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose As said many times and more eloquently above, Star Wars is the common name. Stesmo (talk) 19:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Except evidence proves otherwise. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 20:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose for all the reasons previously given in these move discussions. Who on earth actually calls these films by their "official" titles (despite the nominator's claims)? They're called Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi and Raiders of the Lost Ark by almost everyone. I have never heard anyone use the longer titles in real speech. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Right, because the sources that I use to back up my statements don't count? Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 19:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

All that shows, as far as I can see, is that websites listing the films tend to use the full current names. Well, of course they do. They're often trying to sell them. But that doesn't make them the common names. That's the names people actually use. If you told most people (other than film geeks) that you were going to see A New Hope or Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope they wouldn't know what on earth you were on about. If you said you were going to see Star Wars they'd know exactly what film you meant. They wouldn't ask which one. It would be obvious. This is possibly most true of those of us who went to see it in the cinema when it first came out in 1977, as it was one of the defining moments in cinema history (possibly younger people brought up on a diet of high-end special effects may not realise just what an incredible film it was at the time). It was simply Star Wars and always will be. However, I don't think things have changed that much in common usage. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

You make absolutely no sense. Google Trends and Rotten Tomatoes do not sell films or advertise. And Google Trends shows trends. Common stuff. And what's funny now is that you're trying to tell me that for a film that was changed to Episode IV: A New Hope soon before the Empire Strikes Back came out, and for a franchise that has became a huge name known as Star Wars, "People would most likely understand that by Star Wars you mean Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, but by saying Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope they would have no clue what you meant." Uh... how the hell does that work? No, it doesn't work, 'cause that makes zero sense. And no, just because some of you grew up with the original trilogy and hate the prequels doesn't mean that decides the most common usage is without the Episode X. And actually, only film geeks would recognize Star Wars as the 1977 film rather than the franchise. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 20:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Glossing over your childish rant, which has presumably been provoked by your annoyance that most people here don't agree with you, I have to say that, with respect, your allegation that most people know the film as A New Hope is utter and complete rubbish. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Nope. I have used reliable sources and Google Trend results to help aid my claims and almost everyone that has opposed so far has used no reliable resources besides Betty Logan, who used a biased conservative film website (because you'd expect the original title to be listed there) to oppose my claims. With all due respect, the allegations that the original titles are most common are atrocious claims. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 01:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• Sources Comment Okay here goes. I hope my research finishes this discussion or at least adds the necessary evidence for editors to come to a consensus. The proposer for the change Eric really should have been more careful in his research and comments. He previously questioned whether Betty Logan was cherry picking her sources and seems to think that the minimal sources he has supplied are conclusive for his proposal. Well after quite a bit of time checking his sources and adding some of my own this is what I have found:

Summary of the above tables: 'Star Wars' total is - Rotten Tomato sources 15, Metacritic sources 7 and additional sources 6. This give a total of 28 sources for this term. 'Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope is - Rotten Tomato sources 7, Metacritic sources 0 and additional sources 3. This gives 10 sources for this term. Use of mixed terms is - Rotten Tomatos sources 2, Metacritic sources 0 and additional sources 3. This give 5 sources for mixed use of terms.

A caveat to the tables above is that I have not listed all the reviews from the lists from Rotten Tomato website and Metacritic website - only those that seemed to me to be reliable sources (or at least more reliable than the rest) Clearly some sources are without question reliable sources such as: BBC, New York Times, Washington Post, American Film Institute, Empire and others (I am happy for editors across the pond to challenge my inclusion of some of the US sources as I do not know these media sources as well as I do ones in the UK). I do also understand that totals for the support for different terms does not form the basis for a definitive conclusion. However the fact that 'Star Wars' has nearly three times the references as do other terms does supply strong evidence to oppose the current proposal.

Having said all that I do believe that this summary of as many reliable sources as possible provides the necessary evidence to keep the article titles as they are. After all the articles in the first line of the lead state the alternate title anyway. I can't see the possible confusion. I do have further challenges to the proposer arguments re 'Recognisability', 'Naturalness', 'Precision' and 'Consistency' but I will let the evidence above speak for itself for now.Robynthehode (talk) 19:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per Darkwarriorblake, Betty Logan, the consensus of recent discussions, and the above. There needs to be a time limit on reopening requests in opposition to a strong consensus. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment There have been some suggestions that I "cherrypicked" the sources above, so I will just clarify this. I first looked at the three main sources I usually use for credit listings (the American Film Institute, the British Film Institute and AMPAS). They consistently used the original titles. I then looked at three more databases I am familiar with: the NY Times, Allmovie and TCM which all consistently used the original titles too (I just included the NY Times in my original post as the most prominent of the three). If any of these sources had listed the film under the newer title I would not have ommitted them from my original comment. So to clarify: I did not undertake an exhaustive search but there was no cherry-picking. Betty Logan (talk) 03:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Disproven. I found usage of the full title (not really "newer", it's been Episode IV: A New Hope since 1981) multiple times on AFI and NY Times at least once. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 03:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Except it is not "disproven" is it? Just because you have located further evidence that these later titles have been used in some capacity by these sources does not invalidate my findings that the original titles are still used by these sources. Also, I think the editors here should view your "results" with a skeptical eye, since you have an "X" next to the BFI entry for Star Wars and New York Times entry for "The Empire Strikes Back" even though these sources clearly do use the older titles. Betty Logan (talk) 04:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Thanks to the various editors that thanked me for my work above and thanks to [User:Kamek98|Eric] for trying to provide extra sources for your proposal. However Eric has failed to understand what a 'reliable source' is because of the inclusion of numerous sources that do not full Wikipedia's criteria for a reliable source. Rather than just wikilink to the relevant page I quote: (an editor should) 'Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form". Unpublished materials are not considered reliable. Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. (my emphasis).

So the following sources that Eric has included in his table above do not, as far as I interpret the Wikipedia policy, fulfill the necessary criteria or at least should not be given equal weight to other reliable sources such as BBC, New York Times, AFI etc. The list of sources that support Eric's position (or are mix usage of terms) which should be disregarded or only be given minimal weight in this discussion are: Laughing Squid; Goodreads (additionally name for novel not film); Reelz; Fandango (commercial site); Original Prop (commercial site for Star Wars props); The Register (specialist IT site), Blu-ray.com (commerical site), Star Wars Screencaps (fan site and anyway titles are listed the year after full title not as Eric states), Behind the Voice Actors (forum site); CVLI; Space.com (site is a front for a commercial company www.purch.com); Moviepilot.com (front for social media company); Bangor Daily (a blog); Latinpost (merely reports Empire Online poll of greatest films); Gazette Live - a local paper / news website in the UK; Flixster (seems to be a Rotten Tomatoes site so while being reliable if Rotten Tomatoes is accepted it merely replicates RT reviews).

In addition Eric is factually incorrect or has misinterpreted the information in these sources: Boxoffice.com (not mixed use - the linked article clearly states 'Star Wars' with a AKA in much smaller font at the bottom of the article), Washington Post - main factual articles say 'Star Wars' only a Going Out blog says full title.

I have briefly checked each website and their editorial policy and tried to make a judgement about the sources' reliability that I think should be disregarded or given minimal weight. My conclusion is that we could all (if we had enough time) find enough sources in a numbers game to support our particular point of view. This is why there is Wikipedia policy to make sure that only reliable sources following the criteria in the above quote should be given the weight appropriate to support a specific title, article or content edit. I believe, along with many other editors contributing here, that Eric has failed to provide the necessary reliable sources to support a change in the titles of any of the articles - 'Star Wars', 'The Empire Strikes Back' or 'Return of the Jedi'. I also think discussion should come to an end as no consensus has been reached unless of course Eric can come up with some new compelling evidence (maybe from a galaxy far far away) Things do change. Maybe in 5 years time all reliable sources will support Eric's position but for now they do not.Robynthehode (talk) 14:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Can we just close this train wreck already and put a three year moratorium on new move requests? Now someone is adding massive charts to prove some point. Most of us don't have the time to come to this talk page every couple of months to deal with this.--JOJ ^Hutton 15:01, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment It seems Wikipedia cannot even escape the clutches of Star Wars fanboys. Remember that more weight is given to the full titles since they are the latter names. And if this closes, I'll be preparing for a comeback with far more reliable sources than you can think of. I know the truth, I see through the lies of the Jedi I see the bias in this discussion and I'm not going to back down simply because the original trilogy generation has the cock of the traditional films stuffed in their mouth. Talk about neutral point of view? I fail to see neutrality. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 19:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Eric: Please drop this. This has gone on way too long. When you try to undo twice-established consensus three months after the previous close, you aren't listening to the community. Please don't prepare a comeback. Please just respect consensus and let it be. You're waist deep into POINT territory at this point as is. If you propose another move it will end exactly as this one has. Deadbeef 20:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Close as disruptive; set moratorium on move discussions for six months save that nobody may initiate a new discussion for a minimum of one year after they have previously started one. Three discussions in less than six months, the last two started by the same user, plus a move review is clearly into overkill territory. Users should not have to post the same things over and over again. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• Star Wars (film) → Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope
• The Empire Strikes Back → Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back
• Return of the Jedi → Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi

– Per COMMONNAME based on Ngram statistics (which reflect the movies which came out first) which include dozens of reliable sources, the name should be moved. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 20:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

In the ngram for the Empire Stikes back, usage of "The Empire Strikes Back" has been in heavy decline from 1999 to 2008. The decline is apparent in the corpus English shown here, in the corpus English Fiction shown here, in the corpus American English shown here, in the corpus British English shown here, in the corpus American English (2009) shown here, in the corpus British English (2009) shown here, in the corpus English (2009) shown here, in the corpus English Fiction (2009) shown here, and in the corpus English One Million (2009) shown here.

Assuming that by searching "Star Wars Episode V" (which is the max limit of words you can search on ngrams) it has an obvious relation to the full title Star Wars Episode V The Empire Strikes Back, the following results are revealed. The term has based in great increase over the years in the corpus American English shown here, and in the corpus English shown here. All other corpuses do not have any results for them.

Based on its decline in all corpuses of English, the Empire Strikes Back alone is NOT the common name.

I performed the same search for Star Wars Episode VI Return of the Jedi. The results show an increase in Star Wars Episode VI in the corpuses American English shown here, the corpus English shown here, again no results for other corpuses. Return of the Jedi as the title is shown in decline in all corpuses (except English Fiction) just as the Empire Strike Back was. English One Million (2009) shows decline here. English Fiction (2009) shows decline here. English (2009) shows decline here. British English (2009) shows a decline here. American English (2009) shows a decline here. English Fiction shows a decline but a slight return to increase shown here. In the English corpus, it shows a decline here. British English shows decline here. American English shows decline here.

Again, based on these results, Return of the Jedi alone is not the common name.

I did not look for decline in "Star Wars" as term because it would be impossible or extremely difficult to know for sure if it included only the 1977 film in the results. But I did find that the term Star Wars Episode IV is increasing in the corpuses English (shown here) and American English. (Shown here). Apply WP:COMMONSENSE.

1. Proposal and support. Solid evidence that was lacked in the last proposal that is valid in an argument on the subject. Furthermore, I also propose that we start each articles in the Star Wars saga as such in the table below (excluding Episode 7). Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 20:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
2. Support per nominator. McDonald of Kindness ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.