Talk:Star Wars/Archive 8

This has been brought up a few times ....that is the article is full of unsourced charts and one of the reason of GA demotion....yet we have even more now causing the whole article to need side-scrolling.--Moxy 🍁 23:24, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I transferred the Television section to the SW Television series article, which fixes the side-scrolling problem. Now, if we could only get Disney to stop diluting the franchise ;) GoodDay (talk) 23:50, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

GoodDay, I have reverted your edits at List of Star Wars television series. All your edit there did was duplicate the tables already included in the article (why are we transcluding the tables in that article to the same article?), as well as the content on all the television series - they already have their own sections detailing the respective series; see here. -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:57, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I'll let you figure out how to respond to @Moxy:'s concerns. GoodDay (talk) 00:59, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Charts should just be a generalization of the content, a summarization; the sources should be included in the prose and the relevant articles. The current format matches the standard practice at multitude of franchise articles. -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:01, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I still don't see, however, how moving the Television section to the SW Television series article fixed the issue. All you did was bloat the television series article with information that's already included there. Why did you duplicate the table and lists? -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:25, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Didn't know there was another list there. GoodDay (talk) 01:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Then please check what you're copying across and editing next time, otherwise such edits could be considered disrputive. Everything you copied across was already in that article; it was meant to exist in this article to summarize that article. -- /Alex/₂₁ 02:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

The only chart that bothers me is the one for theme park attractions. Most of these are closed and only relevant to a minimal audience. Plus, they're easily available at the linked article. UpdateNerd (talk) 03:58, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

That's why it's only transcluded here. Also, 9 out of 24 isn't "most". -- /Alex/₂₁ 04:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Whether it's transcluded or not under the hood doesn't matter to the reader. Yeah technically not 'most'. Maybe a shorter table of just the open attractions would work better here instead. UpdateNerd (talk) 05:12, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

This edit request to Star Wars has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The franchise has Grossed over 10 Billion now not 9 Billion. Shadowbokunohero (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  Spintendo  08:53, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  Done. Now updated as per the numbers source. Timur9008 (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

You see the novelization of the original movie came out first so, characters like, Luke Skywalker for example appeared in the novel first and then the movie. Does this mean we should list it as their first appearance and then list the original film as their first theatrical appearance? Tee wew28 (talk) 08:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

No. The novelizations are based on the films and only released first to promote the theatrical release. UpdateNerd (talk) 08:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I do not agree after all the original novelization still counts,the rest do not,so I would like to disagree instead we should include it just for certain characters User:Tee wew28 —Preceding 8.3.20 comment added 08:55, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to using that rule for a character such as Palpatine, who was discussed in a novelization years before the first film he appeared in. But he doesn't "appear" per se, so that's a moot point. Regardless, it depends on consensus, so let the conversation run its course. UpdateNerd (talk) 11:55, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

The sidebar lists Lucasfilm as owner still. Should this be changed to Disney? 173.59.39.220 (talk) 14:18, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

The franchise remains directly owned by Lucasfilm. Maybe we should not that Lucasfilm is now a subsidiary of Disney, but that doesn't change that Lucasfilm is the correct entry for that parameter. oknazevad (talk) 14:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we need to note that, that's what the Lucasfilm article is for. Almost everyone is a subsidiary of someone else these days, so where would it end? Canterbury Tail talk 15:51, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

"Mixed reception from fans for Episode 8 and negative Reception for Episode 9". It should be correct,this is just an annedotical biased evidence,not supported by the facts Bananajohn (talk) 10:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

For a long while this article has described the Star Wars saga as space opera, but over the last couple of days HouseTyrell has persisted with changing it to science fantasy. I don't dispute that it could be described as science fantasy but rather that "space opera" is a far better description of the franchise. The basic fact here is that reliable sources predominantly categorize the Star Wars films in science-fiction terms e.g. "sci-fi adventure" (AFI), "sci-fi action" or "space adventure" (both Allmovie). "Space adventure" is generally synonymous with "space opera" and the Historical Dictionary of Science-Fiction presents the Star Wars films as exponents of the space opera genre. George Lucas has this to say about the genre: "Star Wars really isn't a science-fiction film, it's a fantasy film and a space opera." In reality space opera is somewhat the red-headed stepchild of science-fiction, but what Lucas is essentially saying is that these films are fantasy adventure films set in outer-space. Now we could mirror the AFI and call it a sci-fi adventure franchise but "space opera" is a far better descriptor IMO because it encapsulates the sci-fi, adventure, space and fantasy elements all within a single sub-genre. Betty Logan (talk) 19:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay. Not a problem. I didn't know that space opera is an interchangeable term with science fantasy. Indeed, I thought it was just a sci-fi subgenre.--HouseTyrell (talk) 07:37, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't have any sources on hand, but I can remember it often being described as a space opera. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:23, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Eponymous means named after a person. I don't think there is a "Mr. Star Wars" for whom the film is named. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:240:CB81:3770:C7F:648B:BFEA:D89F (talk) 21:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

  A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Draft:Darth Vadar (TV series). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 24#Draft:Darth Vadar (TV series) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to Star Wars has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Tiago-Coursera-123 (talk) 01:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Star Wars squadrons was already been released in Ouctober 2

  Done — IVORK _Talk 03:54, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

  A discussion is taking place to address the redirect I have a bad feeling about this. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 8#I have a bad feeling about this until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Lord Belbury (talk) 14:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Under the premise section, in the second paragraph, there's a typo:

"The Force is wielded by two major knightly orders at conflict with each other: the Jedi, peacekeepers of the Galactic Republic who act on the light side of the Force through non-attachment and arbitration, and the Sith, who use the dark side by manipulating fear and aggression."

I'm assuming "at" should be "that"

No, it's correct. "At conflict" is a valid construction, just like "at war". oknazevad (talk) 19:37, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Would anyone support/be willing to throw together a List of Star Wars merchandise or something similar? It would be easier as a reference point to link to a single article instead of Kenner Star Wars action figures, List of Kenner Star Wars action figures, Star Wars: The Vintage Collection, Lego Star Wars, Star Wars trading card, and Star Wars role-playing games. That is not to say "merge" them into the list, just a central page that lists the different types of merchandise, breaks off into the above separate articles where applicable but also gives us a place to list things that don't warrant their own pages like plushies, clothing, pots, etc. Just an idea. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

It's so obvious, but after trying to make that edit, I was told to "cease your edit-warring, and take it to the talk page," which is just such a normal and cool thing to say to someone online. Micro-series have 2-3 minute episodes that air during commercial breaks or get posted to social media to promote something else. Visions' episodes are all longer than 10 minutes, and it has a full-on production and marketing budget of its own. There's a difference between shorts (2-3 minutes) and an anthology of short films like Love, Death & Robots. Wikipedia is the only place I've seen that mistakenly calls it a micro-series, and it's just stubborn to keep calling it that at this point. JohnStartop (talk) 13:28, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Finding consensus on the talk page is a normal thing to do on Wikipedia for disagreements. It's best to assume good faith and not be hostile to direction. That said, I agree this isn't a micro-series. The series is very much like Love, Death & Robots and should be categorized the same way. - Nemov (talk) 15:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree. The television article also literally states it to be a series of short films, yet categorizes it as a microseries, contradicting itself. It simply is not. It should be moved on both articles. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 15:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I know that using the talk page is normal, but the authoritative language just made me chuckle. I guess it is time to present our findings to the High Council so that we can have them approve our opinion on a fact. JohnStartop (talk) 17:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Although I do agree that Visions should be considered its own animated series due to your reasoning, your reasoning also brings up concerns about the classification of the original animated Clone Wars series that aired from 2003 to 2005. Although the first two seasons of the series match your definition of a microseries, the third season meets the qualities that you give for a series to be a full-on animated series instead of a microseries. For example: the third season's episodes are all longer than ten mintues; unlike its predecessors, it was aired on its own programming slot instead of during commercial breaks; the series as a whole was heavily promoted and merchandised, including having its own toyline - something that Visions completely lacks. This raises an interesting question: if Visions can be considered a full-on animated series, why should Clone Wars not be when half of it meets the same criteria that Visions does? - Vader13289 (talk) 03:23, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Simply because Clone Wars is described repeatedly by sources as a micro-series, where Visions is not (it's simply an anthology series). That is simply it, in my opinion. I don't think we need to split hairs any more than that or discuss our own definitions. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 04:16, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I've made the same argument that Transformers: Prime Wars Trilogy isn't a micro-series because, by Season 2, it consistently exceeds mini-series runtime. People just don't list these situations with full-on series because of the overwhelming number of publications that copy each other's terminology. However, many micro-series have had longer episodes towards the end. How many episodes need to exceed micro-series runtime before it crosses the line? I don't know if that question can have a solid answer, so may as well list them as micro-series since they started under that premise. JohnStartop (talk) 07:40, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

An Anthology film is a film made with smaller films in them (New York Storie's, Four Rooms, etc...) They should rather be seen as Spin off films that are not in the main trilogy's.165.73.226.87 (talk) 20:03, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

They are called "anthology films" by production and creative development, thus that's what the term means in the specific Star Wars film context. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 20:47, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Huh, my bad, but just shows what state Lucasfilm is in.165.73.226.87 (talk) 15:17, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Not really. The other defining aspect of an anthology work is that each part is made by separate creators, which is the idea with these films, each of which has a separate director, screenwriter, and timeframe of the story. In that regard, it's exactly what an anthology series is meant to be, and so the term is absolutely appropriate. oknazevad (talk) 17:07, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Bottom of the first “television” article claims the Clone Wars micro-series is partially canon because of the character Durge. 2003 Clone Wars has never been officially recognized as part of the new canon Jfucgighufiggugfvhg (talk) 22:09, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

So you're referring to Star Wars: Clone Wars (2003 TV series)#Legacy? If so, the discussion should really be had at that article's talk page. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

  This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rutkowskij409.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Angelinaramos18.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to Star Wars has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

2001:1970:5EDD:6100:291B:6D1D:2E85:830B (talk) 20:58, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Please change the genre of Star Wars to Space Fantasy (Space Opera + Fantasy), the creator George Lucas even stated it isn't Science Fiction, it's a Fantasy movie and Space Opera. In another interview, he stated again it's not a Science Fiction movie, it's Space Fantasy (yes, he used that term.) Star Wars is a multigenre franchise. It has Fantasy, Space Opera, Mythology, heck even Western elements. So please, change Star Wars to Space Fantasy.

What exactly is it you want changed? It's already called a space opera throughout, and science fiction is only in the bottom categories/portal where it is also categorized as a science fantasy and space opera already... -2pou (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Ryzno — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6081:5703:EF60:CE1:F6A0:464A:FE96 (talk) 02:02, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

The section Television is broken into subsections Series, Films and Television Specials. Is the third category necessary? If not, then it's clutter. I don't think there is a difference between TV Films and TV Specials. 2600:1012:B16F:65B5:7C02:9A4C:71DE:F7AE (talk) 06:26, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to Star Wars has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This request adds information for the new Star Wars franchise TV show Andor.

Adjust the networkspan to 4 on this existing code block to make room for the new list row.

Then, add following code block to end of the list for the live-action TV series section.

Taysir Tayyab (talk) 08:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  Already done, Taysir Tayyab, it appears, by Alex 21, thanks! Skynxnex (talk) 21:11, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to Star Wars has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Under Merchandising, after the comment regarding action figures in the first line, this should probably be added:

"Also in 1977, Star Wars metal lunch boxes (with a plastic thermos included) were manufactured and became extremely popular. The first 1977 version, commonly referred to as the "black starfield lunchbox," contained only Star Wars scenes on the large front and back panels, with black star fields on all the narrower sides. This version of the lunch box was manufactured for less than a year. As the movie immediately became a huge hit, a newer version of the lunch box was quickly released with scenes from the movie on all sides of the lunchbox as well as the large front and back panels which remained the same. Both of these lunchboxes are now highly valued, with the short manufacturing timeline for the original "black starfield" lunchbox making it quite rare. A pristine black starfield lunchbox with the matching correct thermos in 2022 has been known to sell on eBay for prices in the $550-$895 range, and slightly less for the quite more common 1978 "2nd version" with movie scenes on all sides. The original price new in 1977 was about $5.95. 2601:603:C00:2000:E9A6:8BA9:C01:83E2 (talk) 00:32, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for this? It seems a tad excessive though for this general mention. Canterbury Tail talk 01:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Lemonaka (talk) 20:37, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to Star Wars has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Next to "In February 2020, a film was announced to be in development from director J. D. Dillard and writer Matt Owens", please add, "however, Dillard announced he was no longer attatched to direct that film in November 2022."^[1] 99.209.40.250 (talk) 17:07, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

  Done RealAspects (talk) 13:56, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Not sure how this should fit in, but I have (in Australia) a set of three 4k disks issued by Disney in 2022 containing respectively Episodes I-III, IV-VI and VII-IX of the Skywalker Saga. These are the films alone. The three disks sell separately and side-by-side with single-film disks containing add-ons. Errantios (talk) 13:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to Star Wars has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Mandalorian is misspelled under "upcoming films" 2603:8001:D400:45BB:9DE9:E39C:713C:4B81 (talk) 23:25, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

  Fixed -- ZooBlazer^talk 23:28, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to Star Wars has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please remove the word eponymous for describing Star Wars in the title. Star Wars is not named after anything, so it has no meaning in this sentence. Like this: Star Wars is an American epic space opera^[1] multimedia franchise created by George Lucas, which began with the 1977 film^[a] and quickly became a worldwide pop culture phenomenon.

Other people are copying this description to other pages, and spreading this incorrect use. Thank you! Hunterongames (talk) 08:21, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

  Not done for now: I believe what is being referred to here is that the original film shares its name with the name of the franchise as a whole, which does appear to be the case - is there something I might be misunderstanding? Tollens (talk) 08:28, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

@Tollens Thanks for your reply!

You are correct that the film was originally titled Star Wars, but it is currently titled and widely known as Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope. IMDB has it listed under the newer title, with the original title in parentheses below. Famous people on Wikipedia - actors, actresses, authors, etc - are most often listed under their pen-names or assumed names, with an explanation about their birth names. I don't understand why the original title is being privileged in this case.

I'm new to editing, so I'm still trying to understand the conventions regarding naming. Hunterongames (talk) 09:42, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

The current wording is fine. This is a movie IP and not a person. Biographies have different rules. The original film was called Star Wars so the current wording is in line with the sources. Nemov (talk) 12:39, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

OK. I'm still trying to get a handle on the rules for naming movies. As one example, Birds of Prey (and the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn) is listed under just Birds of Prey (2020 film), which is one of the shortened later versions of the title, but NOT the original. The first sentence in that article does use the full original title, but explains about the later renaming.

Is this the convention? I'm not opening the can of worms again regarding moving Star Wars (1977 film) to Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope, but I'm just pointing out that the article naming conventions don't seem consistent to me and trying to understand the choices. Hunterongames (talk) 13:18, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

It can be tricky looking at other articles because each of those decisions are made by individual consensus and the specific details are likely different. Nemov (talk) 15:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

@NemovThanks for the reply! I'll keep that in mind as I get more familiar with the editing process. Hunterongames (talk) 05:51, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

In the premise section, it was listed that Jedi and Sith primarily uses a weapon called the lightsaber which can virtually cut through anything. Shouldn't there be a note stating that there are some materials which is impervious to lightsaber like Beskar and Zillo Beast skin? JEDIMASTER2008 (talk) 03:56, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Unnecessary. It already states it can cut through virtually anything, which already tells the reader there are some things it can't cut through. It would be completely undue and unnecessary to start listing the things that cannot be cut through, especially when they would then need explained as to what they are. Canterbury Tail talk 07:14, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Why is the timeline hard to read. could we do something similar to Marvel Cinematic Universe#timeline as seen here

or even create a new page similar to Draft:Marvel Cinematic Universe timeline

Fan Of Lion King 🦁 (talk) 18:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd support this. I don't think there's enough for a whole timeline article. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 18:46, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

| subtitle =Phantom Menace | compressempty = | range1 = | range1_color = # |0BBY=A New Hope }} | subtitle =Tales of the Jedi | compressempty = | range1 = | range1_color = # |0BBY=A New Hope }} | subtitle =Attack of the Clones | compressempty = | range1 = | range1_color = # |0BBY=A New Hope }} | subtitle =The Clone Wars | compressempty = | range1 = | range1_color = # |0BBY=A New Hope }} | subtitle =Revenge of The Sith | compressempty = | range1 = | range1_color = # |0BBY=A New Hope }}

Here the start if anyone wants to help please doFan Of Lion King 🦁 (talk) 22:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to Star Wars has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

2A02:214A:801C:8100:CC9B:C753:5E:F488 (talk) 04:32, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Can you please remove Lando from "Many Star Wars series have been produced, both animated and live-action, the first being Droids and Ewoks in 1985. The Mandalorian, the first live-action series to take place in the Star Wars universe, has spawned multiple spinoffs and inspired other live-action series to be created. Confirmed upcoming live-action series include Skeleton Crew, The Acolyte, and Lando.", since it’s no longer a TV show but a movie.

  Done -2pou (talk) 14:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to Star Wars has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The New Jedi Order film release date has been confirmed. It’s May 22, 2026. I want to add it. Here’s the proof. In "Pakistan-born Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy will be the first woman and person of colour to direct one of three new Star Wars films. She's Muslim, brown, an Oscar-winning documentary filmmaker and this is her first major Hollywood feature". TikTok. 2023-04-20. {{cite web}}: |archive-date= requires |archive-url= (help); Check date values in: |archivedate= (help), Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy confirms that her film is the next Star Wars theatrical release. Anthony D'Alessandro (2023-06-13). Deadline https://deadline.com/2023/06/disney-marvel-wga-strike-thunderbolts-blade-avengers-kang-dynasty-1235415782/. {{cite web}}: |archive-date= requires |archive-url= (help); Check date values in: |archivedate= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |work= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help); Unknown parameter |text= ignored (help) confirms that the next Star Wars film will release on May 22, 2026. Therefore, Obaid-Chinoy's film must have that release date.</ref> 2A02:214A:8014:B700:846E:C4F5:C79F:F755 (talk) 09:37, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

That's synthesis, can't connect two pieces of information like that. Indagate (talk) 09:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to Star Wars has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

It has been sourced that the New Jedi Order movie will be released on May 22, 2026. Can you please include this to your sources. For sources look on List of Star Wars films and List of Lucasfilm productions. 2A02:214A:8014:B700:340D:2492:49E4:E52C (talk) 06:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  Not done Please provide a source and what text you would like to add. oknazevad (talk) 09:24, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to Star Wars has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The Dave filoni movie will have Jon Favreau as producer can you add him please? 2A02:587:980E:5500:99A2:904:70EE:73EB (talk) 09:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. SSSB (talk) 11:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).