This article is within the scope of WikiProject Star Wars, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Star Wars saga on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.
Grimes, Caleb; Winship, George (2006). "Episode IV: A New Hope". Star Wars Jesus: A spiritual commentary on the reality of the Force. WinePress Publishing. ISBN1579218849.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik (talk • contribs) 16:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived 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: Rename to Star Wars (film), The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi. The view is that the films ae best known by these titles without the extended form; and also that the 1977 film is the primary film topic known as "Star Wars". The 1977 film may be a contender for the undisambiguated Star Wars; however the franchise article at that location was not included in this RM and so that question will have to be considered separately. A separate discussion would also be needed for the Prequel Trilogy and/or the first Sequel Trilogy film when that gets a name. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
– Per this discussion at WikiProject: Film and per WP: COMMONNAME, WP: CRITERIA, and WP: TITLE, these articles should be renamed to acknowledge their original names and not retroactively altered titles. Per CRITERIA, it fails to be natural, precise, and concise, and WP: TITLE states "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's 'official' name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." which again would be the original titles. Similar films like Raiders of the Lost Ark, which were later modified to Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark, acknowledge the original title over the modified one. Even in Star Wars (1977 film), the article refers to the other films in the series by their subtitle not by episode number which lacks clarity and conciseness. Trying to be consistent with the Prequel articles which were explicitly named as such is not a reason to modify these article names, or open the article with the modified name over the original. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2014 (UTC) Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Support because Wikipedia article titles need to meet the criteria outlined in policy -- recognizability, naturalness, precision, conciseness, and consistency. The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi are shortened article titles that are still recognizable and is definitely more natural and precise and concise. I would argue that "consistency" (possibly an argument to keep the "Star Wars Episode" prefixes) is applicable to larger sets of articles, not just these three films (or the six in the two trilogies). For example, we would not write The Avengers (superhero movie) because to be consistent, we prefer to use "film" over "movie" and to disambiguate by release year whenever possible. "Consistency" is not intended to apply to a small set of articles in disregard of the other criteria, especially WP:COMMONNAME. As for A New Hope, I would support a move to Star Wars: A New Hope since it is still recognizable and is more precise and concise. I also think that option is better than Star Wars (1977 film) per the "natural" criteria. Lastly, I would also support moving the prequel film articles to The Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones, and Revenge of the Sith. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Comment: for consistency sake can we just remove the episode numbers across the board? I.E. Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith → Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
This is an acceptable outcome of the discussion, but also what we are here to debate. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Support per WP:COMMONNAME and what was printed on the original movie posters. Star Wars (1977 film) is okay as long as the disambiguation list is there for identically named media. If you want to add "Star Wars: " in front of The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi title articles, since that shows on the posters as well (the frame of the title). Or remove it per how theaters billed the movie on their boards. -AngusWOOF (talk) 20:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Support 150%. These films are and have always been known by these common names. Now, as they were 30 years ago. JOJHutton 20:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Support per WP:COMMONNAME and the original film posters. We do not need to list the series by episode titles (i.e. Episode IV: A New Hope) because consistency does not apply to a small set of articles without regard to the WP:CRITERIA. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Support per nomination. I do have one suggestion though: wouldn't Star Wars (film) be more apt than Star Wars (1977 film)? To the best of my knowledge, there's no other film by that title, so it seems redundant to disambiguate by year as well as format, especially if the sequels are getting moved to new titles without the "Star Wars" prefix. —Flax5 12:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. The franchise has yet to produce a reboot film. -AngusWOOF (talk) 17:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I also agree. I was starting to wonder why it would be (1977 film) and was going to bring it up. Thanks for clearing that up for everybody. Jhenderson777 03:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Oppose; these are common titles for these films. They may not be the most common, but that's where the consistency criterion comes in. PowersT 13:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Per WP:CRITERIA, an article title should be recognizable, natural, precise, and consistent. Like I mentioned above, the characteristic of consistency is misinterpreted here. Consistency means that swaths of articles should be consistent with each other; it could not apply to such a narrow set of three articles. Even if you wanted to interpret consistency in this way, it disregards the other criteria. The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi are perfectly comprehensible common names, being much more precise and concise than the current titles. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
That's an idiosyncratic interpretation of the "consistency" criterion, not to mention the "precision" and "recognizability" criteria. Naturalness can be debated, which leaves your argument only with "conciseness", which cannot always override the others. PowersT 17:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I disagree that it is idiosyncratic. Think about how many sets of articles there are on Wikipedia in terms of media, geography, etc. It is a policy page, so it is high level and not going to apply to three movies. For example, we're not going out of our way to make sure Spider-Man (2002 film) and Spider-Man 2 are part of the same trilogy. And what of WP:COMMONNAME? It says article titles are not necessarily based on official titles and that they should be recognizable and natural. We do not need anything longer than The Empire Strikes Back or Return of the Jedi for the average reader to surmise the topic. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 05:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Certainly the subtitles alone are sufficient when the context is already clear, but an encyclopedia demands a little bit more in the way of title context and formality. I can't imagine how these shortened titles are considered more recognizable than the full titles. PowersT 16:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Support, though I think that even if the first movie is the only one referred to as "Star Wars", it should still be moved to Star Wars (1977 film). The more ambiguous Star Wars (film) should redirect to the disambiguation page. Fortdj33 (talk) 04:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Support. This article should be renamed Star Wars (1977 film) or Star Wars (film), but not Star Wars: A New Hope. Encyclopedias should be loyal to history and use a work's original title used for its first release. Most people today do not refer to this film as Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, so that is not its WP:COMMONNAME. No one ever heard that long title until three years after its original release, when Empire came out and the Episode V in the opening crawl had to be explained. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Support, I support the renaming of the afflicted articles to Star Wars (film), The Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi, as long as the official episodic titles for the films (e.g. Star Wars: Episode IV—A New Hope) are still mentioned in the lead paragraphs and used in navbox linking. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
This isn't about affecting those other things, but the article lead should not be opening with them, it should be the reverse of what is on this article: "Star Wars, [later/also] [released/known] as Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope". But that is a separate discussion. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
That's actually what I meant, when I said "still mentioned in the lead paragraphs". ~ Jedi94 (talk) 00:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Don't we generally use the article title (or one as close as possible) in navigational templates? Something like [[Star Wars (film)|Star Wars]] wouldn't be a big deal, but I think it might give the reader kind of mixed messages if we have a pipe link like [[Star Wars (film)|Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope]] in the footer of every Star Wars-related article. —Flax5 00:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Strong Oppose if A new Hope is only called 'star wars' what does that say about the other films? that they're not star wars? And It is currently a six episode saga in sequence so how can we remove them from their episode titles? All movies open with a star wars title and the name of each respective episode. This is what they were named by they're makers, how can wikipedia simply give them title choice of they're own? A new hope might have been known as star wars then but since the making of the other films and their placement in the the saga that has changed. If we stop calling them episode IV V and VI on wikipedia, what do we call the first three films?
Besides the article already mentions what A New Hope was known as then. It's decisions like these that help kill the credibility of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Who actually calls the first film A New Hope? I mean in real life, not in pedantville? Everyone I know calls it Star Wars. Always have done. Always will do. And going by most of the comments above, my experience is the norm. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:32, 14 January 2014 (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.
Now that the pages have been moved, how should the films be mentioned in Wikipedia articles? For example, should any prose mention of this film, if talking before the episode subtitle addition, just be Star Wars and then anything after Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope? And what about tables, or in the nav box? Just throwing this out there, because now that the move occurred, I believe there should be some consistency. I see that in the Star War WikiProject MOS, they have something, but maybe that needs an update now... - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I think the films with subtitles can be referred to as just that, even with updated titles we wouldn't refer to Raiders by the full thing including Indiana Jones. Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones, Revenge of the Sith? (I don't know, i don't pay attention to these films), The Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi. Only hard one is the 1977 film because casually you'd refer to the later existing series as Star Wars too, so in that scenario for simplicity using it's subtitle might be beneficial and provide consistency. I don't think they should be referred to by Episode X, it requires the user to possess more knowledge than should be expected about which episode is what, where as if you have seen or heard about The Empire Strikes Back and read "Empire Strikes Back" in prose, the association is easier to make. In my opinion at least.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
KISSKeep It Simple Stupid. Theres no reason to have the long drawn out title appear everywhere just so along as the meaning is understood.--JOJHutton 23:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Since it is common practice to give the year in film articles even when disambiguation is unnecessary, it should be "Star Wars (1977)". Second choice would be "the original Star Wars". But we should not use "A New Hope", as that did not exist in 1977. - Gothicfilm (talk) 12:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I have concerns about the wording "of all time". I think it's redundant and the sentence reads just fine without it. With that said, should we keep the wording or just leave it out altogether. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
The phrase "of all time" is a bit of a misnomer anyway. Technically it also encompasses the future too in a literal reading (which makes it bad writing). The problem with omitting the phrase could lead to confusion about whether it was the highest grossing film of the week, the year, or of "all time". Personally I would go with "one of the most financially successful films ever made" or "highest grossing film made up to that point", something along those lines. Betty Logan (talk) 10:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC) EDIT: I see the phrase is also used in the Awards section such as: "Empire magazine ranked Star Wars #22 on its list of the 500 Greatest Movies of All Time in 2008." Obviously in that case, that is name of the article so it would have to be retained in that instance. Betty Logan (talk) 10:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
The highest-grossing of it's time until ET. Still the third highest-grossing when it comes to inflation. The movie is always on a greatest movie list. Almost always. Usually in audience polls it usually #1 or close to it. Forgive me if I think that is accurate and going to stay that way. Although I can see the concern of that statement being on there. Jhenderson777 15:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Not sure if that phrase should be in any movie. If it does. This is actually one of the more legit examples of a film article. But it's one of those phrases best left out on multiple article mostly. Jhenderson777 00:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Is there a difference between the running times of the original version and the special edition?
The running time of the original version is 121 minutes, while the running time of the special edition is 124 minutes. Is there a difference? AdamDeanHall (talk) 14:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
You mean other than 3 minutes or what is in those three minutes? The extra length probably comes from more establishing shots of Mos Eisley and the encounter between Han and Jabba in the hangar bay before Luke and Obi-Wan arrive. Canterbury Tailtalk 14:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
The first film, Star Wars, was solely produced in its original release by 20th Century Fox. I am not sure why someone keeps removing that fact from the info box. Lucasfilm produced all the others, but the first film was a sole production of 20th CF. This needs to stay in the infobox and not be removed. If anyone needs any proof, I will link the Youtube video of Jack Nicholson reading the list of "Best Picture" nominees at the 1978 Academy Awards. Each film is read with its production company and producers. If there were multiple production companies, Nicholson reads them. You will notice that when he comes to Star Wars, 20th Century Fox and not Lucasfilm is listed as the production company. .--JOJHutton 19:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
The Academy evidently made a mistake. To quote from the original credits, and even the original first release poster (which is linked in the infobox if you wish to check) "Twentieth Century-Fox presents a Lucasfilm LTD. Production." And considering Lucasfilm was set up as a Lucas's production house from 1971, why would 20th Century Fox be the production company? Canterbury Tailtalk 21:50, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
They don't usually make this kind of a mistake. Its not a tongue in cheek remark, its a well thought out part of the night.--JOJHutton 21:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Please provide a better source than the Academy, a source removed from the production process. Also please respect WP:BRD. You were bold, have been reverted, now it time to discuss not simple revert and saying "it's a fact." I've provided you with a source stating it's a Lucasfilm production. Canterbury Tailtalk 21:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Additionally check the Academy website, they list it as a "Lucasfilm, Ltd. Production." See  for details. It seems they did indeed make a mistake, which isn't actually that uncommon. The small production houses often get replaced with larger distributors in the film listings on the night, it's pretty commonplace (guess who pays for these things, not the small production houses.) Canterbury Tailtalk 22:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't agree but I won't revert until the winds of change come around like they always do. A few years ago I once fought just to get it mentioned in the article that The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi were originally released by those titles to no avail, now the articles use those titles as their names. I'm patient and I'm right.--JOJHutton 22:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Evidence suggests otherwise. 20th Century held the copyright and ownership of it, but Lucasfilm was the production company. Big studios are very very rarely the production company, generally haven't been since the 50s. Most films are made by smaller production companies, often set up just for the film, and the studios are just distribution. For instance E.T. is generally considered a Universal production even though it was made by Amblin. This is just the way it is, the distributor and money providers often get the credit and the big callouts at the Academy and the like, even though they didn't make the movies. I have plenty of original Star Wars items, posters, books etc, and they all say a Lucasfilm Production. Even the Academy website says it's a Lucasfilm production, it seems only you personally disagree with this. Canterbury Tailtalk 00:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I've still got some stuff (booklets sold at the cinemas, posters etc) from when this and other films were released and it's all fairly consistent along the lines of "A Lucasfilm Ltd. Production - A Twentieth Century-Fox Release", which supports what's in the article. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:50, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
In the releases section we have the following lines "Within three weeks of the film's release, 20th Century Fox's stock price doubled to a record high. Before 1977, 20th Century Fox's greatest annual profits were $37,000,000; in 1977, the company earned $79,000,000." What is this trying to tell us? There is a severe dimensional flaw with these lines, one line states Fox's greatest profits were X and the next that they earned Y. Obviously the reader is supposed to look at this and go "Oh they doubled" or something like that, but that's not what it's telling us. It's comparing two incomparable dimensions, profit and revenue (earnings). If there is a comparison to be made they should be in the same dimension, both profit or both revenue (earnings). It may just be a wording issue but I don't know Fox's finances well enough to determine which is correct and what wording should be changed to meet with the right figures. Canterbury Tailtalk 11:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
In addition to the incorrect comparison (profit ≠ revenue), we would need a source comparing the figures in direct relationship to Star Wars. The assumption that the change is entirely/mostly/significantly due to Star Wars is unsourced. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the wording doesn't implicitly cite a comparison. Two sentences citing two (presumably) correct statistics, although there definitely should be a citation. However, inherently, a reader is drawn into a comparison, so I agree it should be reworded so as to avoid any confusion. Have re-worded, hopefully it works to correctly relate the two. Onel5969 (talk) 13:15, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
In addition to restoring unsourced material making a flawed comparison, you've made the WP:OR more explicit. I don't see that as an improvement. We need several things here, some of which we will not find:
A reliable source discussing the stock price and relating it directly to Star Wars.
A reliable source connecting an increase in profits and/or an increase in revenue to Star Wars.
You will not find a reliable source comparing profit one year with earnings the next. It's equivalent to saying my inseam was 32 inches in 2013, while in 2014 my height was 68 inches. Assuming Star Wars increased revenue (which, yeah, it did), the prior year's profits have nothing to do with the statement. Stating 1977's revenue in isolation is similarly meaningless. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:58, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Hi. It is not WP:OR. It is sourced, however, the tag was located somewhere not near those "dimensionally flawed lines". It was supported by the Empire of Dreams doc: Fox exec Gareth Wigan said, "The greatest profit that 20th Century Fox had even made in a single year was $37,000,000. And in 19 they made a profit of $79,000,000. That was Star Wars." That $79 million is not the revenue, it's the profit the company made because of the film. Helpful? — Mediran[talk] 00:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Very, especially the repair of profit vs. revenue. (Given that the source is not as accessible to me, I'm taking it on faith.) Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:54, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
At least this is now resolved. Thanks SummerPhd and Canterbury Tail for looking this up. — Mediran[talk] 11:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm surprised there's no discussion of the iconic Star Wars logo, designed by Suzy Rice. Unfortunately, her website is presently under construction, but this fine article  describes the development of the logo. I'd add this information as a new section myself (though it's potentially enough for an article of its own) but I suspect the regular contributors to this article could do a better job. -ProhibitOnions(T) 14:59, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! I think this should have an article of its own (Wow! I didn't know many things happened before they came up with the right perfect logo). And this should be mentioned in the film's development or somewhere. I'll try to add this soon. Thanks! — Mediran[talk] 09:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
i'm a little struck by this absolutely useless quotation from so notable an authority as a Chronicle staffer who remains nameless: "A San Francisco Chronicle staff member described the film as '... a thrilling experience.'" this serves no purpose. chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 22:36, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
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: consensus not to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. (While respecting the thoughts of the editor who requested that the discussion be given more time, it is clear that the current discussion will not result in a consensus to move the page, and I would add that these discussions are not votes and that canvassing is frowned upon.) If there is evidence that consensus has changed or new evidence is introduced that is relevant to naming policies and guidelines, please initiate a new request at that time. Dekimasuよ! 00:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Star Wars (film) → Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope – The first film is commonly referred to by this title in official media. AdamDeanHall (talk) 23:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC) I propose that this article be moved back to its proper name: "Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope." It is most commonly referred to, by both fans (in my experience) and in official media, by this title. From what I've observed, only fans from the 1970s and early 80s call this movie "Star Wars." Everyone I know my age refers to this film by either its full title, its episode number, or its subtitle. Wiki policy is to use the most common name, and from all of my observations the full name is the most common name used today. Emperor001 (talk) 00:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I would also like to request similar moves for Episode V and VI's articles. As further support I would note that Star Trek: The Original Series is at that full title despite the fact that it was originally released as simply Star Trek (and unlike Star Wars the opening title sequence was never changed to include the subtitle). For both Star Trek: The Original Series and Star Wars: Episode IV: A New Hope they were the first of their respective franchises with the creators having no idea that they'd be so successful as to spawn multiple spin-off shows and films so they were respectively released as simply Star Trek and Star Wars. Later, additional shows and movies came out, making the originals part of the greater whole. Fans began referring to Star Trek as "The Original Series" with the distributor adding that as a subtitle for home media releases to distinguish it from the later shows and movies while George Lucas took the extra step of officially changing the title to Star Wars: Episode IV: A New Hope, what many modern fans now know this film as, especially with the release of the prequels. Emperor001 (talk) 23:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose per discussion last January, which had a pretty strong consensus for the current setup. Per WP:CRITERIA, recognizability, naturalness, precision, conciseness, and consistency are criteria for article titles. these shortened titles are still recognizable and concise and more natural. (As in, nobody says, "Have you seen Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes back?") Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 23:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose moving as per Erik, and as per WP:OFFICIAL, which says that we don't use official names just because they are official, but only if they meet other criteria. - WPGA2345 -☛ 07:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose The reasoning and evidence to make the move is poor. Saying 'everyone I know my age' is not evidence it is opinion. Everyone I know my age calls the first released film 'Star Wars', the second 'Empire' and the third 'Jedi'. I would not dream of using that hearsay as evidence to change the title of an article in an encyclopeadia! While the Star Trek evidence is on the surface supporting it is the criteria as per Wikipedia policy that should be followed (unless there is a good and well argued reason why it shouldn't be). The Star Trek example is more an argument to change the titles of those articles than to change the Star Wars one back. The long discussion in January seems to have got it right.Robynthehode (talk) 07:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Support, as that's the current title of the film. GoodDay (talk) 13:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Support as it was only known as "Star Wars" until 1979 until it became the name of the franchise & storyline. If it's commonly known then we should at least provide some reliable sources. If it's kept at this title, then I suggest we mention in the article it's known in long form in the title. As an example on China it mentions the official form Peoples republic of China so we can add that in the same manner.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 23:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
The later longer title is already in the lead, in bold. But that title did not exist when the film was originally released. It is not its WP:COMMONNAME. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
nl:Star_Wars:_Episode_IV:_A_New_Hope - Google translates as ~"Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope" with lead text: "Star Wars: Episode IV: A New Hope is een Amerikaanse sciencefictionfilm uit 1977. De film is chronologisch het vierde deel uit de Star Warsserie, ..."
"«Звёздные войны. Эпизод IV: Новая надежда» (англ. Star Wars. Episode IV: A New Hope), изначально выпущенный под названием «Звёздные войны» — эпический научно-фантастический фильм 1977 года, снятый Джорджем Лукасом. Фильм является первым в саге по году выпуска и четвёртым по сюжетной хронологии..."
"Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope, conocida durante su estreno como Star Wars,2 (conocida en español como Star Wars: Episodio IV - Una nueva esperanza o La guerra de las galaxias: episodio IV - Una nueva esperanza, conocida durante su estreno como Star Wars o La guerra de las galaxias)..."
"Gwiezdne wojny, część IV: Nowa nadzieja (ang. Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope) – chronologicznie czwarty, a jeśli chodzi o kolejność powstawania – pierwszy film z cyklu Gwiezdne wojny. Film opowiada o młodym Luke'u Skywalkerze, "
ja:スター・ウォーズ_エピソード4/新たなる希望 - Google translates as "Star Wars Episode 4 / A New Hope" with lead text: "『スター・ウォーズ エピソード4/新たなる希望』（スター・ウォーズ エピソードフォー あらたなるきぼう、Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope）は、1977年に公開されたアメリカのSF映画。スター・ウォーズ・シリーズ第1作。日本公開題名は『スター・ウォーズ』。"
"Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope (no Brasil e em Portugal, Star Wars Episódio IV: Uma Nova Esperança), conhecido originalmente como Star Wars (no Brasil, Guerra nas Estrelas; em Portugal, A Guerra das Estrelas) ..."
zh:星際大戰四部曲：曙光乍現 - Google translates as "Star Wars Episode IV: New Hope" with lead text:
"《星球大战》（Star Wars），在1981年重命名（参见下方“标题”）为：《星球大战IV：新希望》（Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope）是乔治·卢卡斯导演的《星際大戰》"
"«Зоряні війни. Епізод IV. Нова надія» (англ. Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope) — класичний та культовий науково-фантастичний фільм, знятий Джорджом Лукасом, перший за роком випуску, але хронологічно четвертий фільм кіносаги «Зоряні війни». "
"Star Wars episodi IV: Una nova esperança (títol original en anglès Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, coneguda en els seus inicis simplement com Star Wars en la seva versió original i com a La guerra de les galàxies en la seva versió en català)..."
"جنگهای ستارهای (به انگلیسی: Star Wars) که در ایران به نام جنگ ستارگان مشهور است، یک فیلم فانتزی ماجراجویانه محصول سال 1977 میلادی است. این فیلم اولین فیلم از سری فیلمهای جنگ ستارگان است؛ هرچند که از نظر سیر زمان قسمت چهارم است. کارگردان و نویسنده فیلم نامه این فیلم، جرج لوکاس است. جنگ ستارگان بعدها دوباره، و اینبار جنگ ستارگان قسمت چهارم: امیدی تازه (به انگلیسی: Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope) نامگذاری شد."
We use English language sources for the English Wikipedia. Other languages may have different naming conventions. --NeilNtalk to me 15:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. The Star Wars Episode IV thing is fairly new. It was never commonly known as that on its release and I doubt whether it is even today. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Motion to postpone poll closing date I am requesting this poll closing date be postponed by another ten days from now since this issue seems to be raised a number of users on talk pages regarding the dubious claims that these movies were "later released as.." but seem to unaware of this poll. if it's closed within the next few days, it would not be considered a fair vote. Thanks.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 20:35, 29 October 2014 (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.