Talk:Star Wars (film)

References to use

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. ISBN 1579218849. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik (talk • contribs) 16:18, 4 November 2010‎ (UTC)

Original research in section "Cinematic and literary allusions"

This section contains several possibly speculative claims that are unsupported by the given citations. Furthermore, although Lucas has publicly acknowledged inspirations such as The Hidden Fortress, other assertions in this section that the film "draws on", "was inspired by", and so on, seem to be based solely on perceived similarities to other films by Wikipedia editors, rather than actual statements by Lucas or other reliable sources, that he was directly influenced by them.

Even if reliable sources can be found that provide a comparitive analysis, showing strong similarities to other films, Wikipedia editors must be careful to use language that distinguishes between similarities found by experts, and verifiable citations showing that Lucas has actually acknowledged these to be direct influences.

The only person who can say for a fact what inspired Lucas, is Lucas himself. It's permissible to write "Professor Dr. Filmexpert maintains that the character of C3PO was inspired by the robot Maria in Metropolis", but it's not allowed to simply state that as a fact, unless there is a citation of Lucas acknowledging that. IamNotU (talk) 03:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I have not gone through it myself but I agree with the principle of what you are saying. Observations must be attributed, and editorializing should be removed. Betty Logan (talk) 12:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. That section is littered with original research, and the article Star Wars sources and analogues is absolutely riddled with it! that article, I note, has been tagged with OR since 2007 - how can an article remain in that state for almost 8 years without someone going in and tidying up? Star Wars music is in a similar state. It would be lovely to have good quality articles on these fascinating subjects. Such a shame.Cnbrb (talk) 11:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I went through and tried to edit out the original research in this section. If there is a consensus that this section is now free of OR, we should remove the template at the top of this section.Rocky Role (talk) 18:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Epic sf war film

An editor insists that Star Wars is neither an epic film, nor a sf war film. Clearly, SW is a film "with large scale, sweeping scope and spectacle, often transporting the viewer to other settings", which would satisfy the epic portion, and clearly is about the war between the empire and the rebels. But let's wait to hear from other editors and see what the consensus is.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Um... Star Wars. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

You are not allowed to interpret genres from titles or your own opinion. Genre is subjective and per WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:SUBJECTIVE. Your own definition that you listed above is not sourced. For a simple definition, "A film done on a large scale, involving massive set pieces, big-budget production values, and a cast of thousands. The emphasis tends to be on large events of historical importance, myth or heroic figures, and the setting is usually ancient times." Source. Regardless, you still need a source because we aren't allowed to interpret sources. I have never ever heard or seen the films discussed when bringing up war films or epic films. Can you find sources discussing the genre? Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Epic is mentioned and sourced in the article. And here's another source (ten second search). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate you coming to a consensus before removing tags. This sources is confusing to me because it goes against the other definitions of the epic, as it also refers to The Matrix as an epic and also seperatly refers to Star Wars as a fantasy film. In a more recent book on the epic genre, an author describes the genre like this: "There are as many definitions of epic as there are film critics to come up with them, so I hesitate to try to offer a complete definition of my own. However, I think what most people understand by the term today is not only a historical setting (though for me that is important), but something to do with size and expense, as well as the scope of the narrative settings and the size of the cast. Usually, because of the great crowds involved, this means that there is some sense of being caught up in the great moments of history: when a character’s actions affect an entire nation or civilisation, then it’s an epic. For example, Ben-Hur looking for his family is not epic, but taking on the might of Rome on behalf of Judah is. I think that’s why Darren Aronofsky misses the mark with his “Noah”: Noah-as-nation-founder feels epic; Noah-as-brooding-father chasing his family around a boat just doesn't feel as momentous." Source These are elements that are clearly missing from any of the Star Wars films. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Obviously that's your interpretation, one sources do not share [1], [2] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

You see, it's not my definition. Its from someone who wrote and entire book on the subject. Since we do not have a clear source of the definition of the genre, perhaps we shouldn't even use it. Especially with a more modern interpretation of what the genre means. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

"These are elements that are clearly missing from any of the Star Wars films." Your opinion. Simple as that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Not its not. Its not in the plot whatsoever from the difference above. You can interpret themes, but the plot and setting are clearly stated and no one would argue them. that's why plots are not sourced in most cases. So please address my points instead of just describing them as opinions, because I've only brought in something I thought was an issue. There has been no discussion of the war genre either, which still requires a source. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I've brought sources and all you've brought is your opinion, no matter what you say. I'm content to let others weigh in now. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Because clearly the genre is not clearly defined obviously. You find someone vaguely tossing around the term, but what specifices this into the genre? Can you find anyone discussing how it fits in the genre specifically? I can't. It needs more discussions than just a google search, which is all has been provided. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Not quite. Those are links to pages in books which refer to Star Wars as an epic. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I guess, I'll try to re-phrase again since you aren't replying to what I say. The epic film says some people will limit the genre to historical films while others will not. We can't decide which one is correct or not, which is why I'm asking, what should we do? Obviously some people do think it belongs as your sources above, while others are more strict and can only note that historical films should be considered into the epic. Do we ignore those? My suggestion for the article would be to remove the term epic only on the reasons that we can understand and grasp the genre of the film without this term, and it doesn't ignore the other sources and authors who have written books saying the film does not belong to the genre. Thoughts on that? Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Find a source that explicitly says Star Wars doesn't belong in the genre and then we can continue. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't need one that specifically says it does not, because that would be just one trivial source. There is no argument that this specific film does not follow ideas stated above (which are also statements said by other sources such as American Film Institute). As the genre is vague and not needed for people to understand it, we need to discuss whether or not it was important enough to include in the lead. We had a similar issue on the 2001: A Space Odyssey article, and the conclusion was to include the category for epic films, but not have it as a descriptor in the lead. I'm going to ask you a few questions, 1) How does the term epic help the user understand the film? How is the average user going to interpret it? If you can't answer these, I don't see why it warrants an inclusion.Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The genre is vague but here's a definition we should use. You haven't provided sources. The sources you provided aren't right. I don't have to provide sources, It's not important enough to be in the lead. You keep changing the goalposts. Where is the 2001 discussion, please? I see discussions where your assertion was hotly disputed and no consensus was formed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I have several issues with it, that's why I think it's worth discussing. First, there is no clear consensus of the meaning of the genre, and since there is no current consensus of what makes a film an epic film, it shouldn't be used in the lead as it will not help a user understand the film. My other issue is with the category "science fiction war film", which has no source or mention in the article. Can you show me how it should fit with this article? Preferably with some sort of source, or at least a definition of the genre that shows that Star Wars fits in. I'll try to dig up the 2001 discussion. I hope I've made myself a bit more clear now.Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Keep "epic" label in lead

• Comment This discussion seems to be going around in circles a bit so I hope you don't mind me adding my 2 cents. First of all, I don't think it is reasonable to expect Andrzejbanas to provide sources saying that Star Wars is not an "epic", since in the case of sources that don't categorize it as such they will simply omit it. The concept of an "epic" is clearly ill-defined so I certainly think we have to take care in applying the label. The American Film Institute define an epic as "a genre of large-scale films set in a cinematic interpretation of the past", and therefore Star Wars is omitted. Likewise, Allmovie which extends to the definition to fantasy films such as the Lord of the Rings trilogy do not apply the label to Star Wars. Therefore, we can identify two sources (one of them fairly eminent) that implicitly categorize Star Wars as not an epic. If we accept that there is a debate, then I would say that WP:DUE is the applicable policy here i.e. where does the weight of authoritative sources lie? The first source I would always look to to settle a dispute such as this (particularly for English-language film) is The Encyclopedia of Epic Films (compiled by film academics): I can confirm that the Star Wars films are listed, so they are regarded as epics by a canonical source. Databases such as the IMDB get by without using the term so on a personal basis I have no objection to dropping the term, but in this instance WP:V and WP:DUE seem to have been satisfactorily met for those who wish to include the term. Betty Logan (talk) 06:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support Was going to add my view but as is the case most times Betty Logan got it right. She has summarised the issue and shown clearly what the sources say. As usual it is just a case of following Wikipedia guidelines/rules and the sources. Not relevant really but thought I'd mention. The AFI has got it wrong to exclude Star Wars - after all it is a film 'A long time a go...' Makes it historical for me!!! And it fits their definition perfectly. Robynthehode (talk) 07:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Not support: Firstly, a film set in a fictional historical past based on, well, nothing is not historical. Historical would imply it was at least based on real events. I would avoid using the term "epic" in any sense in these articles as other terms can be used to describe them, and the term epic had too many variations to mean anything to a reader. I have no doubt that this film has been described this way, but no one seems to go into effort on how it fits in the genre or style. I'm not requesting that, but are we really gaining anything from such a vague term here? Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment Well then, the LOTR films should also not be considered epics based on your standards. And I guess The Odyssey is also not an epic. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 22:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment.Andrzejbanas has misinterpreted my attempt at humour. I wasn't being serious when I stated that 'A long time ago...' gave Star Wars any status as an epic film. I did try to flag it with three exclamation marks!!! Robynthehode (talk) 20:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Hahaha. Eggs on my face. Honestly, I've seen people make comments online where I assumed they were joking. And I was way way way off. Hence the creation of the ";)" I guess. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

So I've given this conversation some time and we've seemed to have hit a stalemate. Perhaps we should ask for some other opinions? Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm not sure whether this is a very proper source, but the Oxford Dictionary defines an epic (film, book, etc.) as "a long film, book, or other work portraying heroic deeds and adventures or covering an extended period of time," which doesn't necessarily exclude a work set in a fictional universe. Star Wars does portray heroic deeds and adventures, though it doesn't necessarily cover an extended period of time. I'll try to look for more film-specific sources on the matter, but the definition seems to include Star Wars. I'll see other sources on the topic though. Cheers. Katastasi and his talk page. 17:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose – I agree with some of the sentiments in Betty's response above that the term "epic" is not well-defined, or at least consistently in regards to fantasy films. There are sources that consider Star Wars a part of the epic genre, but on the other hand, there are other sources that have omitted it. As mentioned earlier, we would be likely to side with The Encyclopedia of Epic Films, which does have Star Wars listed as an epic. However, I think the larger concern here is whether or not this classification is really necessary in the lead. If we look at another sci-fi epic franchise, Star Trek, which has multiple featured articles, the genre is simply listed as "science fiction". I think that makes the most sense in the lead, which should focus on the primary genre most often associated with the film, especially when the film may technically belong to multiple genres and sub-genres. It is just a mouthful to say "epic, space opera" in my humble opinion, and few visitors will know what that means without having to do additional research. If we are trying to be clear and concise, "science fiction" is the simple solution. If additional genre exploration is needed in the article, then dedicate a section or sub-section to the cause as opposed to trying to sort that out in the lead. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

  I concur that we need to apply a simple solution here. Instead of "science fiction", though, I would support "space opera" as the most common genre I've seen for this film (and others), per the guidelines at WP:FILMLEAD. The lead section's second paragraph sufficiently conveys the "epic" and war-related premise of the film. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

  Good point. I support leaving "space opera" because it is most definitely the film's genre. Same as films like A Clockwork Orange, you could insert more than ten genres in there, but it is science fiction primarily. But if it is concluded to change the article from epic to just space opera, I suggest raising the same discussion for the other Star Wars films out of consistency inside the franchise's coverage in Wikipedia. Cheers, Katastasi and his talk page. 16:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

  Thanks for the comments. Yes, I was planning on propagating the change throughout the rest of the Star Wars articles (assuming someone doesn't beat me to the punch) once a consensus is reached. As Erik points out above, WP:FILMLEAD would definitely support us cutting this down from two genres to one in the opening sentence. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. It may very well be true, but I don't think "epic" really contributes anything. Like GoneIn60, I think "science fiction film" is quite good enough. I think Wikipedia has a tendency to overcategorize things, especially bands and films. If people want to use "space opera" instead, that's fine, as "science fiction" is a bit vague. But not "epic film" or "war film". If we include them, where do we stop? "Adventure film" and "comedy film" are just as applicable as "war film", and then we end up with four or five genres in the lead. As mentioned above, MOS:FILM suggests we stick to just the primary genre, which, in this case, is science fiction (or, I guess, space opera). Other genres can be discussed outside of the opening sentence. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support (edited) What a dorky discussion. Reminds me of Clerks Alaney2k (talk) 19:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@Alaney2k: Just to be clear, you support keeping epic but prefer to remove space opera (per your response below)? --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I see you've edited your response. In light of the confusion this is apparently causing, I've renamed the sub-sections for clarity. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)Switching

• Support Switching order of space opera and epic so that it is clear how epic is used, that it describe the film not that space opera, and that it's not some colloquial use of epic as in "rad" or some such.--A21sauce (talk) 21:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support - it's widely understood, there's a Wikipedia article that defines it, there are sources backing it. This is far from controversial and far too much energy is being spent arguing this point.Cnbrb (talk) 09:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, per NinjaRobotPirate It may very well be true, but I don't think "epic" really contributes anything. Epic (in film terms) is almost meaningless, big story, big themes, big cast, big locations, often big budget, almost always big success, it's practically a synonym of 'blockbuster'. On another article, I found that the ten biggest epic films list according to a US film org. included 'Ten Commandments', 'Ben Hur', 'Gone With The Wind' 'Lawrence Of Arabia', 'Spartacus', 'Titanic', 'Reds' and 'Schindler's List' and (I think) a few 'classic' war movies. What on earth links those films apart from the scale of their success? Betty Logan's excellent appraisal shows that the term is probably/possibly justified, but how does it inform anyone of anything? Pincrete (talk) 21:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support Star Wars has always been considered a film series composed of epics. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 00:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

• "Always been considered a film series composed of epics", mind backing that up @Kamek98:? What is your definition of epic? Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

• An epic emphasizes drama on a massive scale that has a sweeping scope. They also generally follow a heroic hero. All of them but one, Revenge of the Sith, follows a heroic hero. I guess you could say Revenge of the Sith is a tragic space opera but I don't really have anything to say on that one. But, that's not to say that each individual film can alone be considered an epic. Rather, the series as a whole can be considered one large epic saga. But if this IS the case, then The Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring, The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King, and the Hobbit films follow the same situation. So if we remove "epic" from these films, then surely the LOTR films and the Hobbit films should follow suit. I, however, think this is a controversial subject and is actually a huge waste of our time. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 21:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose keeping it in the opening sentence. It is not well-defined, adds nothing to basic identification, and looks like advertising fluff that is not appropriate in a wiki article. Expand on "epic" someplace else, maybe later in the lead, but not in the intro sentence. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
• Keep, early reviews available in google scholar and google books call it an epic, and Moyers devotes a chapter to the film in his Book on Robert Campbell. Again, epic fits this to a tee, and see Star Wars: The Legacy Revealed μηδείς (talk) 06:12, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. It is not an epic, which would involve a long period of time, e.g. an epic voyage, like The Odyssey. By some of the definitions given above, any adventure story with a hero is an epic, leaving the term with no distinction. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

That's not entirely true. Braveheart is an epic and it doesn't take place over an extended period of time. And each installment of Star Wars is a piece of a larger story that is clearly an epic. If by your standards we must remove it here, then we must also remove it from the Lord of the Rings films and the Hobbit films. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 01:50, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support This is still going on? Support per my sources given above. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Remove "space opera" label from lead

Star Wars should be simply called a "science fiction film". Many people do not know what "space opera" means, and wonder what it has to do with opera. Many fans like the term, but this is an encyclopedia, and the lead should be clear to all readers. - Gothicfilm (talk) 07:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that "epic" is a problematic and controversial term, but I'm in full support of space opera. Simply calling it "science fiction" is oversimplifying it. It would be like changing "noir" to "crime thriller", noir is more specific and a respected genre. Besides, readers who don't know what space opera is can simply use the link and read the page on the genre, much like noir. Cheers, Katastasi and his talk page. 20:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Film Noir stands alone as its own term. Space Opera does not. Readers should not have to click on a link to understand the opening sentence of an encyclopedia article. I asked non-Star Wars people if they knew what "space opera" meant, and they did not. When informed, they found it incredible an encyclopedia would prefer that term over science fiction. - Gothicfilm (talk) 16:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I also know people, though not cinephiles, who like noir and neo-noir films without knowing their genres. Space opera does stand on its own, but this is entirely subjective. I'd leave space opera because that's the accurate definition, while science fiction is a bit more vague (not to mention the scientific inaccuracy in SW, if you really think about it). It'd be cool if others would weigh in, though. Cheers, Katastasi and his talk page. 22:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

What does liking the films have to do with it? The people I mentioned did not dislike Star Wars. They simply had not spent enough time reading about it to come across the fan-favored term of "space opera" (which does not stand on its own when non-fans confuse it with opera - nothing subjective about that). "Science fiction" is less vague than the other primary genres we use in leads - drama film, thriller film, fantasy film, musical film, action film, etc. Scientific inaccuracy is common in science fiction. H.G. Wells created the genre with The Time Machine despite there being no real science to back the concept of time travel. As a compromise I would be willing to support the term Lucas himself called Star Wars in interviews in 1977: Space fantasy film - except as you can see it's a red link - there is no article for it. So unless someone creates an article for it as comprehensive as the one at science fiction film, the latter is the best one to use. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I kinda added the "scientific inaccuracy" thing as a joke, I'm perfectly aware that science fiction doesn't have to be accurate to real science. Also, non-fans can learn about space opera the same way they can learn about Star Wars reading the article, no? And there also exist non-film noir people who don't know what film noir is. I still prefer space opera, even if sci-fi is a more comprehensive term. Katastasi and his talk page. 02:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The lead of an encyclopedia is to be easily understood by everyone, not please the fans or act as a dictionary. Film noir is not synonymous with this. It goes back to the 1940s as a critical term. "Space opera" was created by people interested in certain works of science fiction. It has not been taken on by most critics or academics as a proper term or genre, and is unknown to most readers. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

My personal preference is 'space opera' because it is accurate and if someone doesn't understand what it is then there is a perfectly good article to go to. There are lots of articles where I don't understand all the terms in the lead. I use the links to broaden my knowledge. Simple. 'Science fiction' has its merits but also is limited by its breadth. However having checked the manual of style for films this is what is said 'At minimum, the opening sentence should identify the title of the film, the year of its public release, and the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified.' (my emphasis) So, as ever, it is not our opinions that matter but what the sources say. What do the sources identify Star Wars as? Not got time to check at the moment but will try to do this if no-one else does Robynthehode (talk) 07:23, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Critics were not calling Star Wars a "space opera" when it was originally released in 1977. They called it science fiction or space fantasy. Fans started calling it space opera years later, but that does not mean the term belongs in an encyclopedia lead. - Gothicfilm (talk) 15:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose – Absolutely not. Wiki policies don't exist to make up for the ignorance of your friends (@Gothiciflm). You are in persistent violation of WP:SPECIFICLINK and should not be allowed to continue what you are doing.--Taeyebaar (talk) 00:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:LINKSTYLE from the same guideline states: "Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence." That is a big part of Gothicfilm's argument and shouldn't be ignored. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support – Generally in the case of arguing for noir, which can be applied to hundreds of films, "space opera" is very non-specific as its barely a film genre that only covers a very small handful of films. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Just because few films are in a genre, doesn't mean it's not a genre. On the contrary, space opera is more specific than sci-fi. Katastasi and his talk page. 11:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

More specific isn't helpful if the genre or style of the film isn't discussed in the article itself. Especially in the lead where users should be given basic information, not the nitty gritty detail. Calling it sub-sub-genres, would be like calling the film a "May 27 1977 film" instead of a 1977 film. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Why not discuss it, then? I assume this article will go through an overhaul someday to get it back to FA status, so I suggest including a background or explanation of space opera somewhere in the article, maybe in the Writing or Legacy sections, or include a footnote in the lead. I think the page would really benefit from that. Katástasi (κατάσταση) 10:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

It's a very good point that the space opera genre should be discussed in the article to some extent, given this film's importance to the sub-genre. If we're getting technical, however, that content should exist in the body first, then added in some form to the lead per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Until then, it would make more sense to use the more widely recognized term science fiction as a placeholder. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Pretty much what GoneIn60 said. Mind you, this kind of definition each time in each Star Wars film would be a bit frustrating. It would be better for an article on the Star Wars film series. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support (for now) – After browsing the article's citations, it seems clear that space opera is a widely accepted sub-genre of science fiction that is often applied to this film. However, there are just as many sources (if not more) that neglect the more-specific classification, and instead, opt to simply call it science fiction. AllMovie and AFI] are two prime examples. It might be that the term space opera is more ambiguous, I'm not sure, but clearly there's a reason. I'm in favor of Katastasi's suggestion to explore the sub-genre's relevance to the film in the article's body. A well-written, well-cited explanation of this would lead us to a better conclusion of what should be placed in the lead. One good compromise might be to leave science fiction in the opening line, but then later in the lead, mention the film's relevance to the space opera genre (knowing it's discussed in more detail within the body). Sounds like a win-win solution to me. We can certainly discuss it further once we reach that point. Thoughts? --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Sounds interesting to me. If there aren't enough sources to support the genre as only "space opera" then it is a better idea to leave science fiction and either add a mention to space opera in the lead or a footnote. And then maybe repeat this for the other Star Wars film articles if consensus is reached, since they also state "epic space opera" in the lead. Katástasi (κατάσταση) 18:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose (keep) What a dorky discussion. Reminds me of Clerks :-) (edited) Alaney2k (talk) 19:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Haha, yeah perhaps there's too many Jays and not enough Silent Bobs. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose (keep) It's certainly not just a "sci-fi film". The Star Wars galaxy and its settings, mythology and supernatural features makes it more "fantasy" since its not bound by the laws of physics - nor does it acknowledge the existence of our own Earth. It takes place in space though, and the films are inspired by classical tales from ancient times and forward. So yeah, it's definitely a space opera. To me it just feels like the people who support the removal of space opera haven't even seen Star Wars. --Jonipoon (talk) 18:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose (keep) For the same reasons already expressed by those in favor of retaining "space opera" as the genre. In terms of a wider scope of genres though, Star Wars at best leans more towards fantasy than science-fiction. In that case—if we were to remove the space opera from the lead—then I'd rather support the use of "science fiction fantasy film" to describe all the affected film articles. Other than that, I say leave space opera where it be.

Also, I don't know if these advance the discussion, but I found a few sources where several authors and publications employ the use of space opera to describe Star Wars: The Huffington Post calls it an "epic space opera", the Los Angeles Times describes the franchise as "fantasy space opera", The Hollywood Reporter, Sydney Morning Herald, OC Register, and this Deadline.com article refer to it as just "space opera", and in this recent interview George Lucas remarks that Star Wars is generally "called space opera", but personally describes it as a "soap opera". ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 03:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, that's exactly what this discussion is about: listing the sources to help us make the best call. I came across quite a few myself that call it space opera, but most of those were news media articles. I think the issue some (including myself at the moment) are having with the label is the fact that more reputable sources who specialize in genre classification are not using space opera or fantasy to describe the film. They are simply calling it science fiction, and those sources are listed above. Could it be that the sub-genre isn't well-known enough, or in other words, somewhat ambiguous? If that's the case, then we probably don't want to use it either. Also don't forget the compromise here isn't to avoid space opera altogether in the lead. It was proposed that the opening line state science fiction, then later in the lead mention its impact on the space opera genre (of course, assuming that this impact is mentioned with sources in the article's body). --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose (keep) It's a widely accepted specific and unique film genre, just because you don't know what it means doesn't mean you should change it. CloudKade11 (talk) 00:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose (keep) - This is really getting ridiculous. If an editor is going to start disagreeing with every description in the lead, soon it will have no adjectives at all: "Star Wars is a film". Seriously, I wish people would stop nit-picking over perfectly good content. Star Wars fits the description of a space opera - I don't like the term, but it's well defined.Cnbrb (talk) 09:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
• SupportThe prime purpose of the lead is to be understood as broadly as possible, 'space opera' is not a well-established genre, nor (like sci-fi fantasy), is its meaning self-evident. The term seems to be favoured by fans and there is no reason for nor recording that in the article, but it should not be the opening definition, our purpose is not to spread or endorse the term. Star Wars has elements of many genres (comedy, fantasy, youth romance, a struggle between the forces of good and evil), but then so do many good films/plays, but its base line is Sci-fi or Sci-fi fantasy. Pincrete (talk) 21:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Space opera: a novel, movie, or television program set in outer space, typically of a simplistic and melodramatic nature. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 00:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose As much as I love SW myself, it isn't SciFi by any means, as that genre implies much more realism (>science< fiction, meaning fiction based on actually science, largely). This abuse might be sort of widespread, but that doesn't mean we should continue it. We have an encyclopedic approach. Thus, "epic space opera" is perfectly suitable. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 22:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't see where you're coming from. Terminator 2: Judgement Day and Back to the Future are considered science fiction movies and there is nothing realistic about them at all. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 23:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Just because there is a common misconception about what distinguishes the genre of science-based fiction (=SciFi) from futuristic and/or extraterrestrial fantasy settings belonging in the fantasy genre, doesn't mean we should keep it up or join the club of superficiality and ignorance. My 2c. -- Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Btw, the IMDb which is by far the most-cited movie website, is categorising the original Star Wars film as Action, Adventure, Fantasy genres (all others too). 'Nuff said. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 15:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Change to "science fantasy" label in the lead

After searching sources on the Internet, I found an article in Sci-Fi discussing that topic. It proposes that would be more appropriate to call Star Wars as science fantasy: "While it may feel like a cop-out, the best answer to whether Star Wars is sci-fi or fantasy is that it's a little bit of both. Calling Star Wars "sci-fi" ignores its fantasy elements, such as the Force; but calling Star Wars 'fantasy' ignores its interplanetary setting and sci-fi feel." There are even several novels with the same union of science-fantasy elements, and arguably it's a genre better established and defined than the space opera. And to emphasize more the mixture of science fantasy in Star Wars, another article in Sci-Fi discussing the midi-chlorians, microscopic organisms (sci-fi element) which allow Jedi and other Force-sensitive beings to connect to the Force (fantasy element). This organism is mentioned in Episode I: The Phantom Menace, "when Qui-Gon Jinn, sensing Anakin Skywalker's Force potential, took a blood sample to determine the boy's midi-chlorian count." In a subtly way, Star Wars try to give a scientific approach, in some hard science-fiction style, to certain elements that could be seen as purely fantastic. Also quoting IMDb, the official page of The Force Awakens includes sci-fi and fantasy labels together, being two major genres, alongside adventure and action labels. And to give huge contrast between sci-fi feel and fantasy elements, George Lucas: Interviews (on Google Books) clarifies a little about the genre of Star Wars from the perspective of George Lucas: "Beyond the audience, George Lucas was firm that the general public should not be encouraged to see the film as esoteric science-fiction. 'We seem them constant memos', he says, 'Do not call this film sciencie-fiction, it's a space fantasy". And in my opinion, that "space fantasy" label is closely related to the science fantasy, after George Lucas deliberately exposes in the films key parts of space transportation/space technology, alternate universe o reality (there is no Earth, Coruscant is the equivalent of the Earth), alien races, biotechnology, ecopsychology, language and war, and the key fantasy elements includes the Force, the Dark Side, Force Ghost, the Jedi "religion", a strong Anima mundi essence, and the use of "A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away" trope as sci-fi equivalent of “once upon a time.” Finally, science fantasy could be clearer for readers because merges two major film terms in the world of cinema, and has precise literary antecedents. --Percy Meza (talk) 11:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello

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

---

Does anyone think it's a good idea to change the title to Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope and list it was originally titled just simply Star Wars, and do the same thing for The Empire Strikes Back and Return Of The Jedi articles? let me know here on this talk page or on my talk page. Wikiman103 talk 16:43, 13 September 2015

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

"it stars [...] Peter Cushing [...] Anthony Daniels, Kenny Baker [...] co-star in supporting roles"!?

Okay, Peter Cushing was and is a better-known actor than either of the droid actors, but this wording is seriously flawed. I haven't watched it in a while, but if I recall correctly Cushing's screen time and line count were both negligible compared to Daniels's (Baker didn't have any lines but in terms of screen time...).

I didn't wanna make the change myself because it's in such a prominent place that I'm sure it's been discussed somewhere before and I didn't want to step on toes, but ... seriously, why?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

This isn't a personal interpretation thing, it's a billing thing. Peter Cushing and Alec Guiness are top billed cast members, Anthony Daniels, Kenny Baker etc don't receive top billing. The film's credits are what this is representing, not someone't view on it. Canterbury Tail talk 16:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Billing in 1977 though, so do we have to necessarily honor? Peter Cushing's role was minor in comparison to Harrison Ford, Alec Guinness et al. We're an encyclopedia, not an archive.--A21sauce (talk) 22:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Bringing film up to Good Article status

Hi. I'm interested in bringing this article up to Good Article status. I'm starting by copyediting it and filling in research bits that I feel could be answered, if possible. See this for a list of the other articles I brought to GA. Questions thus far (and my style is to jump around alot), for the "[Star Wars (film)#Premiere_and_initial_release|Premiere and initial release section]" under "Release":

1. In what town or city was Harrison Ford's shirt torn off?

2. A second showing at the Grattman theater. How was this arranged?

3. Under "Box office," we use 2014 values. Given that it's almost 2016, I think this could use some updating. Do we necessarily have to use Wiki coding "inflation|US|1554475|1977" to get this? Why can't we use a site like oanda.com or something for a more up-to-date figure?--A21sauce (talk) 22:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Lead sentence word order

The lead "[Star Wars] is a 1977 American epic space opera film..." is very clunky.

First, the word order emphasizes that its being a 1977 American epic space opera film, as opposed to a 1976 or 1978 American epic space opera film is somehow important.

Second "American epic space opera film" (opera film?) is hard to parse. This is easily addressable by splitting the "1977 American film" from "is an epic space opera Written and directed by George Lucas." Hence my edit to the front page. (The argument applies regardless of whether epic is retained.)

μηδείς (talk) 22:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I didn't agree with your first attempt at making this easier on the eyes, since I feel the genres "epic" and "space opera" need to remain together if they're both going to be mentioned, but I do agree with your latest attempt. We can probably go further and remove 1977 and mention it later in the lead. It doesn't need to be in the opening sentence, IMO. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The intro sentence of pretty much all articles follows the pattern "article title" is "something". Most important thing first is the title of the article in bold and what it is is explained succinctly next. The rest of the lead expands on that. "Star Wars (later retitled Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope) is a 1977 space opera written and directed by George Lucas" is sufficient and any modifiers beyond the basic ones needed for identification are superfluous. "epic" is advertising fluff and does not add to basic identification of what this article is about. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Geraldo, see the discussion above about dropping the epic genre label from the lead. More than likely this will happen, but there's not a clear consensus there yet. You may want to voice your opinion in that discussion. As for the year, it can be simply mentioned in a following sentence that clarifies when the film was released. It shouldn't be needed as an additional descriptor preceding the film genre. Pretty much agree with your sentiment, however, that we should keep this as simple as possible. --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Quick update: Just noticed you did comment above, so thanks for that! --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:32, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

per WP:FILMLEAD "At minimum, the opening sentence should identify the title of the film, the year of its public release, and the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified." and "If the film's nationality is singularly defined by reliable sources (e.g., being called an American film), it should be identified in the opening sentence." Basics for intro sentence title of the film, year of public release, primary genre, nationality. Other stuff may be useful in lead but probably should not be in the actual opening sentence of the lead. All that needs to be there is "Star Wars [title] (later retitled Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope [alternate title]) is a 1977 [year of release] American [nationality] space opera [primary genre] film [what it is]. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:45, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm on board with that once a decision is finally made about the genre. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:56, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I have again restored this version, given it was reverted 2 & 1/2 hours after this discussion was begun with the complaint that there had been no discussion. Again, I emphasize my soul goal is to split the adjectival description all believe is factual (1977 American film) from the predicate (epic space opera written...) μηδείς (talk) 06:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but you have to get consensus first and you simply do not have it. Opening a discussion does not give you powers to continue to edit war of the edit. JOJ ^Hutton 10:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

When an change is contested starting a discussion is appropriate but WP:STATUSQUO until consensus is reached to make the change. I object to starting the intro sentence with anything other than the exact article title (and alternative title) as the formulation is as a definition: "something" is "definition of that something". Adjectives belong as part of the definition. Geraldo Perez (talk) 12:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I personally prefer "Star wars is a 1977 film" over "The 1977 Star Wars film is", because no other article starts with "The". And there is a good reason for it, because it looks bad that way.

Also, the purpose of going to the talk page is to avoid edit wars. You don't have the right to revert back to the wording you prefer, Wikipedia isn't yours. You should only do if if people agree with you, and from what I see so far, nobody does. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 18:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 05 December 2015

• Star Wars (film) → Star Wars – WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. – Article editor (talk) 01:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

And Star Wars to Star Wars (franchise) (from Article editor (talk) 01:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC))

Moved from RMTR speedy move

• Extremely strong objection to undiscussed RMTR speedy move request Star Wars is clearly not uncontroversial, since it requires swapping articles around, and it's Star Wars. I don't see why you ever thought this should be an RMTR request. This clearly should have a normal full move discussion -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

@Article editor and 70.51.44.60: This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: When people state "Star Wars", it's definitely usually meant to mean the first Star Wars film (that might change with the upcoming new one); this is seen all over the media, in various WP:Reliable sources. I remember clicking on the Star Wars article years ago and being surprised that it is about the franchise. On a side note: The "Extremely strong objection" commentary above confused me until I looked in the edit history and saw this edit by Anthony Appleyard; that edit told me that this discussion was moved here. I was also confused by the 70.51.44.60 signature until this edit by 70.51.44.60. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

It's a problem with the automated conversion process of objected to RMTR requests. The person who converts the request into a full up discussion needs to manually adjust things or the resulting autoconversion makes it look very very weird. --70.51.44.60 (talk) 08:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment If anything I would think people's use of Star Wars is interchangeable from many different aspects of the franchise, if anything the current Star Wars should be moved to Star Wars (franchise) and Star Wars (disambiguation) should be moved to Star Wars.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• NOTE see similar move request by same nominator at Talk:Star Trek: The Original Series -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Survey

Is there any evidence that the film is better know pn as Star Wars than the expansive franchise?--70.27.229.4 (talk) 06:49, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose When I hear Star Wars I don't think of the first movie, I think of the original trilogy as a whole. And many people agree that Empire Strikes Back is the best one of said trilogy. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 18:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

  Oh and I also object to the idea of making Star Wars a disambiguation page. When I think of Star Wars I think of the original trilogy. And I have no reason to think of anything else. Star Wars refers to the franchise, there should only be a disambiguation page if there is no specific notable subject, which is far from the case with Star Wars. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 02:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support – The film is currently located in Star Wars (film) because it was originally in Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope and Star Wars was already occupied by the franchise. Now that the film has been moved, we need to determine which is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I think the film is the primary topic in this case because it was the film that spawned the franchise, not the other way around (e.g., on the other hand, the character Spider-Man led to the films). --Article editor (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The primary topic of Star Wars meaning the film that was 1977 is completely subject of bias. Guarantee you ask anyone that was raised with the prequels and up that asking "Have you seen Star Wars?" would result in "which one"? I say leave it as it is. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 01:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Don't move anything: Traffic info shows the series article gets hit about 3 times the first film.

Star_Wars_(film) has been viewed 231170 times in the last 30 days. This article ranked 3990 in traffic on en.wikipedia.org.

Star_Wars has been viewed 759878 times in the last 30 days. This article ranked 435 in traffic on en.wikipedia.org.

See [3] and [4] Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Geraldo Perez, I think that the Star Wars page gets more hits because readers are looking for information on that first film, or at least the latest film in the franchise. After all, going by the title of the article, how would they know it's about the franchise? I suppose it can be argued: "Then why don't just as many go to that film's page after landing on the page they didn't mean to land on?" Who knows why? Similar has been argued in other move discussions, where editors believed that readers were being taken to the page they were not initially looking for, and that this inflated that page's view count. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

And because we know that readers going to the Star Wars page are likely looking for the first film, we have the following at the top of that page: "This article is about the film series and media franchise. For the 1977 film, see Star Wars (film). For other uses, see Star Wars (disambiguation)." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Even if everyone looking for the film hit the franchise page first that still leaves twice as many hits there for people who didn't move on to the article on the film. More likely people don't know the exact names of most of the films who are looking for info so just search for "Star Wars" for all of them and use the landing page to redirect to the one they want. I think that is more useful to readers then hitting the article for the first film as primary, following the hatnote directions to a disambiguation page of some sort and then following links there to the film they want. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree. It makes sense that a lot of people type Star Wars to get to the main franchise article, and then from there, navigate to the film of their choice either from links within the article or from the disambiguation page linked at the top. I've done that myself many times. The point is that a search for Star Wars isn't necessarily a search for the first film any more than it could be a search for the other films. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

You bring up a good point. But I must point out that all the movies of the Star Wars trilogy are referenced and pardodied a lot in media. Take a look at how many times the "Luke, I am your father" is spoofed for example. All three movies in the trilogy are extremely notable. You see references and spoofs of all three movies everywhere. In movies, TV shows, video games, and especially the Internet. Having said that my vote still stands. The first Star Wars movie might be a bit more notable than the other ones, but not by much. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 23:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Blaze The Movie Fan, by "You bring up a good point", were you referring to my comments? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes I was. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 20:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support. According to a bit of puffery in our article, it's one of the most important films ever made. This would seem to indicate that it's the primary topic. In seriousness, I was one of the recent victims of ending up at Star Wars when looking for information on the 1977 film. This is how we do it for The Matrix, The Terminator, RoboCop, Hellraiser, and The Godfather, and, for some reason, I foolishly expected consistency from Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:40, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

But with most of these you mentioned, the first movie is very notable while the rest aren't as notable. I do get your point, but I don't entirely agree with it. People talk about RoboCop way more than any of the sequels. And with The Matrix, most would agree that it's an achievement in movies, while most hate the sequels. But with Star Wars the whole trilogy is as notable as the first Star Wars movie. The same cannot be said about any of the movies you're mentioning here. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 20:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Film Fan 12:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support per Article editor's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 13:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose because the original film and the franchise itself do not beat each other out enough for one of them to be the primary topic. Both topics have extremely high usage, and both of them have long-term significance in their own right. I concur with Darkwarriorblake in his comment that Star Wars should be a disambiguation page. That's the only fair way to go about it, as many readers are going to be looking for either the film or franchise. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Star Wars, the franchise page, is effectively a disambiguation page for the whole film series. Individual films listed in the infobox for easy access by anyone landing on that page. Star Wars (disambiguation), has more than just the film although it does summarize most of the franchise. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:12, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. I agree that people thought of the first film when they heard "Star Wars" for decades but with the release of the prequel trilogy and the other supporting works, the name "Star Wars" has become synonymous with the franchise as a whole and even hardcore fans refer to the original film as "A New Hope" or "Episode IV" nowadays, so the current usage here is correct (like it's also done with Tomb Raider or Mass Effect for example). Side note: en.wiki is not just used by native English speakers but by people from other countries as well and since the first film's title was translated in most of them (e. g. "Krieg der Sterne" in Germany, "La Guerre des étoiles" in France, "Guerre stellari" in Italy etc.), visitors from those countries will almost always refer to the franchise when speaking of "Star Wars". Regards SoWhy 18:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
• Undecided Good points are made on both sides but I do object very strongly to sweeping statements about what people call Star Wars (the film) without sources to back it up. I do not call 'Star Wars' 'A New Hope' nor 'Episode IV'. All my contemporaries do not either. So no SoWhy you cannot use that assumption to make your conclusion that current usage is correct. Provide sources rather than hearsay to back up your arguments (and yes I know I have said my contemporaries use the same terminology as I do which can be seen as hearsay but I am not making sweeping statements to make unfounded conclusions) Robynthehode (talk) 19:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• "Hearsay" is a strong word. Just do a quick search for "Star Wars" as a topic for further analysis and you will easily find tons of works that refer to the whole franchise when using that term (e. g. [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]). As for my argument regarding non-native en-wiki users, one just has to look at de:Star Wars or fr:Star Wars. Regards SoWhy 19:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think you understand what 'hearsay' means. It is 'information received from other people which cannot be substantiated' That is essentially what you base your argument on when you say 'even hardcore fans refer to the original film as "A New Hope" or "Episode IV" nowadays, so the current usage here is correct' My criticism of your reasoning it that you use the unsubstantiated claim that 'even hardcore fans refer to the original film...etc. No they don't Not all of them. Provide your sources for this not just a list of books you have found on Amazon and Google books. The list of books only provides evidence that some writers (and very probably reliable sources) think of the term 'Star Wars' in they way you are arguing for. Robynthehode (talk) 20:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not a native speaker but rest assured, I do know what hearsay means. As you admit yourself, the examples I listed are very probably reliable sources and all of them use the term "Star Wars" in the same way. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC states after all that "Usage in English reliable sources demonstrated with Google web, news, scholar, or book searches" is a valid tool to help determining a primary topic. Also, another valid tool is to check links from other articles using Special:WhatLinksHere/Star_Wars and see how other editors used the term "Star Wars" when linking to it; just click a couple of articles at random and you will notice that a majority of those links in context refer to the franchise and not the film (e. g. Blade Runner, Fanzines, Science fiction, The Matrix, Wipe (transition), Roger Federer etc.).
  While we are discussing tools to determine the primary topic: Article editor's argument "I think the film is the primary topic in this case because it was the film that spawned the franchise, not the other way around" explicitly violates WP:PRIMARYTOPIC's rule that "historical age" and "if a topic was the original" are not valid tools to determine a primary topic. Regards SoWhy 20:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• I think you are misunderstanding my point. Your last reply makes no mention of your claim that I challenged but instead makes a long statement about the more general point of use of sources and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. If you reread my comments I make no claims about sources or other aspects of the subject of this debate EXCEPT your claim that hardcore fans use certain terminology for the films. Using such a claim without specific sources is hearsay. Mentions of books about the more general subject (unless you can quote specific passages from these books) does not back up your specific claim about the 'hardcore fans'. I rest my case. Robynthehode (talk) 07:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose After seven films, simply calling Star Wars the first film is a bit ambiguous. But having the Star Wars page be Episode IV's article is too ambiguous. Star Wars is the franchise, Star Wars (film) should be the article. (Personally, I still think all articles should be either Star Wars Episode X: Subtitle or Star Wars: Subtitle, but I'm not going to start that again.) Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 01:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
• Confused! The 1977 film was called Star Wars, the franchise should be called the Star Wars (franchise). Not a single one of the other films was called "Star Wars"' instead they were all prequels or sequels to the first film. μηδείς (talk) 02:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

And even the first film is no longer officially called Star Wars as Lucas has tried real hard to get his new name to stick and most sources believe him. We are a holdout in using the original name. As I showed above there are about 3 times the hits for the franchise article as for this one supporting the contention that most people mean the franchise when they say Star Wars and search for that term. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

You say "most sources believe him." How so? Like I indicated above, the original "Star Wars" film is simply called "Star Wars" even today by a lot of the media, including by film critics. See this section of the Avatar (2009 film) article, for example. Even when we hear characters on television suggest their friends watch the film, they simply call that film "Star Wars." I don't see or hear it called by its revamped name nearly as much. Its Wikipedia article isn't even titled by its revamped name; it was moved away from that, and rightfully so, given WP:Common name. And, as you know, I addressed your page view statistics claim above; I and others above highly doubt that people are looking for the franchise when they type "Star Wars" into the search bar. I don't see how the franchise is the WP:Primary topic.

μηδείς, does your "confused" comment count as a "support" vote? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

What evidence do we have that the page view count on the franchise article is not an accurate depiction of those who intended to land there? Did I miss something? --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:49, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

No one is showing solid evidence of anything, but I find it silly to state that the franchise is the WP:Primary topic. The WP:Primary topic guideline has criteria (two), and suggests ways to determine what the WP:Primary topic is; needless to state, I don't see how the franchise passes either criterion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Franchise passes the first criteria based on page hits. Even if everyone looking for the film hit the franchise article there still remains twice as many who didn't click to the film article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I disagree, per my commentary above and below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, it might (MIGHT) pass the second criterion, but I fail to see how it passes the first. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Film may match the second based on historical significance although franchise itself is also significant. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

And going back to evidence, I don't see what else to state other than what I stated with my "22:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)" post above (which is partly bolded), and with my "22:25, 5 December 2015" followup post. Per my and NinjaRobotPirate's comments, and the hatnote pointing people to the first film, we know that people coming to the franchise article are looking for the first film. Not all of them, of course, but it's safe to say that a good number are. Per my commentary on this matter, it is my belief that the majority are looking for the first film when they land on the Star Wars page, and my vote is leaning toward "support." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:24, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The fact that the page count of the franchise article is three times more than the page count of the film article suggests otherwise. If a majority were really looking for the first film, then they would continue on to the film article, and the numbers of both would be much closer to each other. It doesn't make sense that they would just stop at the franchise article, unless of course that's what they were looking for or they were actually looking for something else (e.g., Empire Strikes Back, The Force Awakens, The Clone Wars, etc.). I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that when many search Star Wars, they are interested in the entire universe and not a particular film. And even for those who were interested in a particular film, there's no way we can be sure which one in the series they were after. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I should also point out that in addition to page view statistics, another criteria to look at when determining the primary topic is the number of incoming wikilinks. When narrowed down to the article namespace, the count for the franchise article is nearly 4000, while the count for the film article is just under 1000. That's another factor we should take into consideration. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, I've addressed the page count matter above; I've seen such a weak page count argument made before, people disagree with the weak argument, and the article being moved in spite of the weak argument. Above, one of the editors opposing the move feels that I made good points on the page view matter, and I don't see what's left for me to state on any of this...except that I'm not even close to convinced that the Star Wars page should be about the franchise. That stated, I reiterate that we don't know why readers stopped at the franchise page if they were looking for the first film; it could be because they got information they wanted about the first film from that page (I mean, just look at that section and how it and what is after it can suck a reader in), or it could be because of some other reason. If the article for the first film were titled "Star Wars" again, and the franchise was titled as the franchise that it is, we'd then have solid proof of which topic is more popular among our readers by comparing the page views for the franchise with those for the first film. Perhaps we should "go back in time" and compare older page view statistics when these two articles were titled differently; I'll be more convinced one way or the other then. But even with "going back in time," if the first film is shown to be more popular, an editor might argue that "back then, it was, but we're talking about the present." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

And what you addressed was well-refuted even using the most generous assumptions to your position that nobody doing a wiki search for "Star Wars" saw the third item down on the search dropdown list and clicked to the film article directly and and instead every click for people looking for the film article was via the franchise hatnote directions. Even with that generous best case set of givens still twice as many people stayed on the franchise page. More likely people who searched for the film read the drop down list and went to the film article directly. I fail to see how this is being a "weak page count argument" as asserted. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

There are a lot of unknowns. The best thing we can do here is base our decision on what we know, not on what we don't. Your position so far is based on the latter. The page view and incoming link statistics paint a different picture, and the incoming link statistic has not yet been refuted. Unless some concrete, factual information turns up in favor of the move, it will be difficult for me to support it. Let's also keep in mind the overall benefit to the encyclopedia. The move is beginning to look like an insignificant change that doesn't really do anything to improve the overall experience, at least not in a way that has been demonstrated/supported by facts; only a hypothesis so far. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Geraldo Perez, I don't consider your commentary to have "well-refuted" anything I stated; as far as I'm concerned, you have not at all proved that readers are looking for the franchise when they type "Star Wars." I very much highly doubt that they are looking for the franchise page by typing "Star Wars." What I see is that the first film is the WP:Primary topic, in more than one way. What you stated clearly is not enough for others to oppose the proposed article move. GoneIn60, I feel the same about your arguments. I already noted, in my "20:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)" post above, the only way my opinion on this will change. I would vote to "support" the move, but this discussion is likely to close as "no consensus." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Flyer22. I completely understand your belief that people are landing on the franchise page by mistake, and that may very well be true to some extent. However, without some kind of factual data backing that up, there's no way to know for sure what that extent really is. That is why per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, we have turned to article traffic and incoming wikilink statistics for an answer. Unfortunately, neither can be used to support the move. If there's something else we can look at, I'm all ears. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I think leaving this article here, moving the franchise article to Star Wars (franchise) and creating a broad concept article per WP:DABCONCEPT at Star Wars would be the way to go. The fact is Star wars refers to the films, the franchise (the toys/games/associated media) and the extended universe (the mythology/characters ect) in general. I doubt we will find many modern sources that distinguish between the different manifestations of the title. Obviously my suggestion would involve creating a new article which would create quite a bit of work for someone so if it's not task that anybody wants to take on then I think Star Wars should perhaps just be turned into a disambiguation page. Betty Logan (talk) 06:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
  • The franchise article is the DABCONCEPT article. It is already residing at the base location. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The franchise article is nowhere near being a broad concept article. The franchise article focuses on the media whereas a broad concept article would also summarize the content in the articles listed at Star_Wars#See_also, as well as give an overview of the key characters and various concepts such as Sith and Jedi. It would also cover the Cultural impact of Star Wars. Betty Logan (talk) 07:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose the franchise, with all the 11 (soon to be 16) films should be the primary landing point. All the 7 mainline films are "Star Wars" films with undertitles. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. After thirty years, numerous sequels and prequels, and countless other media, the franchise is the primary topic. Having the 1977 film at the undisambiguated title seems to be pushing a POV to me. --Tt(^talk/_contribs) 10:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Word. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 20:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Counter-proposal

Star Wars (film) → Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope – Star Wars orginated with the 1977 film but has evolved above and beyond it with one of the world's most extensive and iconic franchises. And just like Star Trek: The Original Series, it has received an alternative name which many people use to differentiate it from other franchise properties. Charles Essie (talk) 22:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Adding another RM template is not the way to counter-propose. You can do this in the comments. I would argue that this goes against WP:COMMONNAME (which was why it was moved from that extended title in the first place). Even something like Star Wars (1977 film) is more concise (per WP:CRITERIA) and still understandable. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

What Erik said. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Should I get rid of the template? Charles Essie (talk) 02:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment As much as I'd like to support this, there's no way getting pass the Wikipedia Star Wars fanboys here... so something like referring to Episode IV by its proper name would never float by them. They like simply "Star Wars". Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 01:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

  Please assume good faith. This article existed under the longer title but it was changed as a result of a RM discussion seen here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 03:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• Alternate Star Wars (1977 film) to distinguish between all the films, since they all have "Star Wars" as their overtitles attached to undertitles. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

We don't need to disambiguate between the films since they are all sufficiently distinguishable from each other as they are. In the context of the films alone only one is simply known as "Star Wars" so it's non-issue. Betty Logan (talk) 08:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose / Request to close counter-proposal – This move proposal has been beat to death over the last couple years, with the most recent occurring in February 2015. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)