Talk:Rogue One

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): Dragonborn126 (article contribs).

A Star Wars Story Subtitle

The film is referred to everywhere else across other media and inputs as "Rogue One: A Star Wars Story" and the page even addresses it as such. In a similar case to how "Solo (2018 film)" was renamed to "Solo: A Star Wars Story" due to the subtitle being included in the film, the case should be the same for "Rogue One: A Star Wars Story". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Red Shogun412 (talk • contribs) 12:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Disagree as the film itself excludes the subtitle. It's promotional, so it can be written either way. Solo: A Star Wars Story, on the other hand, features the subtitle within the film. UpdateNerd (talk) 12:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

It's not promotional, it's the formal MPAA-registered title that appears in the billing block. The on-screen title and the formally register title arent always the same. That said, the majority of the sources use the short form so WP:COMMONNAME tells us to use that as the article title. oknazevad (talk) 16:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Revisiting this as there's some folks who just seem not to understand the fact that the "A Star Wars Story" subtitle should not be called simply a marketing title. No, it doesn't appear on screen. But it does appear in the poster billing block, meaning it is the full, official title registered with the MPAA, not just a marketing title. Not all films have their registered title on screen. That said, being on screen does make it a valid alternate title, so we include it in the lead, and since it's the most commonly used title in third-party sources, it's the title of the article. No one is saying to change that. But any phrasing of the lead that calls the subtitled version merely a marketing title is plain wrong, and cannot remain. oknazevad (talk) 18:35, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I disagree, as it was literally used to market the film. Posters are advertising. To the average person, how a film is registered with the MPAA means absolutely nothing. UpdateNerd (talk) 18:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Poster billing blocks are not just advertising, they're governed by contract arrangements and registrations. They also have legal status in some countries with film registry boards. As the full formal title, not including it in the lead would leave the lead incomplete. oknazevad (talk) 18:43, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:COMMONNAME, we don't really observe contract arrangments, etc. At least as long as The Empire Strikes Back lists the short title first, R1 should do the same. UpdateNerd (talk) 19:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME is about the article title, which no one is proposing changing. As for the comparison with ESB, the short time appears first precisely because it's the official title, and the long version is the on-screen one. See the talk page archives for The Force Awakens for a previous discussion as to whether the long title should be in that lead; the conclusion was that being on screen makes it a significant alternate title, the same as the short form here. oknazevad (talk) 20:26, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Hmm based on the above I agree with the current format of the lead. UpdateNerd (talk) 10:41, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@UpdateNerd: Please see this extremely helpful and informative article from the New York Times about the billing block. Also, Empire Strikes Back is not a good example to point to, because it's had its "official/full" title adjusted after its subsequent release (hence why The Empire Strikes Back is first and the longer title is second because it is a subsequent retitling). Look at Dr. Strangelove as the basis of the current formatting here of using the film's official title, followed by its common name. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: thanks for sharing that article. Actually, TESB was originally released with the long title, but the posters omitted the "Episode V". Only the original Star Wars was first released with a shorter title. Dr. Strangelove is a decent example, as its title is meant to be colloquially shortened, similar to the SW anthology films. UpdateNerd (talk) 22:20, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

ESB was never initially released with a long title. It was just The Empire Strikes Back, or if anything Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back. The episode number included in the actual title (not onscreen mind you) was later. Hence the reasoning used in the most recent move discussions for the original trilogy films, and why those went to Star Wars (film), The Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi while the prequel trilogy stayed at their titles with the episode numbers in them. But I'm digressing from this discussion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:29, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

It's worth mentioning that the Solo film was moved to Solo: A Star Wars Story via consensus in a Requested Move discussion for disambiguation reasons per WP:NATDIS: the archived discussion. It was nothing to do with "the subtitle being included in the film", it was purely because the page needed disambiguating—which is actually noted in the previous remove request section directly above this one! ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 19:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Again, though, this isn't about moving the page, which I oppose,of in that discussion, it's about the phrasing of the lead. oknazevad (talk) 20:26, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I know it's not about moving the page, though I admit I phrased my comments very ambiguously about my understanding, I'm just clarifying why Solo was moved because an incorrect assessment of why that page was moved was brought up in favor of a particular phrasing of the lead. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:43, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Timeline

Can we get some clarification on the timeline please. The article said Bohdi defected "Thirteen years later" but at approximately 15 minutes into the film when Jyn is questioned by the Rebels and asked "When was the last time you were in contact with your father?" she replies "Fifteen years ago."

Where does the claimed thirteen years come from? Shouldn't it be fifteen year later?

I checked the film directly but if you don't have the film you might find this transcript of Rogue One helpful. -- 109.76.201.43 (talk) 14:27, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I've traced the change back to one specific edit from 18 April 2019. User DonQuixote did not give any explanation for the change.

The article said "Fifteen years" from early 2019 back at least as far as 2016. On this basis I am going restore the plot section back to saying 15 years, as it has been that way for the majority of the existence of this article. -- 109.76.220.38 (talk) 17:21, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Reviewing the edit history, I trimmed the plot because it was greater than 700 words. Reviewing the edit itself, I copy-paste-reverted to a previous version. My mistake on not catching the "thirteen year" thing. DonQuixote (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately others have copied the error. -- 109.76.220.38 (talk) 23:19, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

An editor claims a book published by Lucasfilm said it was thirteen years later.[1] Seems strange that a book would contradict the dialog in the film. Seems a lot like circular reporting to me, it is not like Lucasfilm hasn't made continuity mistakes. -- 109.79.75.247 (talk) 23:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC)