Talk:Star Wars: The Force Awakens

Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens

Where is it known as this? It's fine to use Episode VII as a short hand in the article although The Force Awakens seems more appropriate, but where is this an official title that belongs in the opening sentence? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

http://www.starwars.com/films The Wookieepedian (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Where does that state it's an official name? It's used in hte title once on that page without stating any official capacity while simple Star Wars: The Force Awakens is mentioned 5 times. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

There has been a whole debate about the article titles for these films - I think the eventual consensus was that the Star Wars film articles should be titled according to the name by which they have been originally marketed, which is not always the same as the title which comes up in the opening crawl. I believe the idea is to keep the articles in-line with WP:COMMONNAME. When it's released, TFA will probably bear the "Episode VII" prefix in the opening crawl, but this does not appear on any official promotional material (posters, websites, etc). The prequels were in all likelihood deliberately advertised with the Episode number to emphasise the prequel narrative in public awareness, and the Wikipedia articles have been titled likewise. Those who like consistency and order, the decision may seem a bit inconsistent, but has its logic. It's been discussed to death and a naming convention appears to have been reached by consensus. It's really not worth trying to dredge all that up again here! Cnbrb (talk) 18:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Cnbrb, I don't think that was the point being made by Darkwarriorblake. He was pointing out that the "alternate" title mentioned in parenthesis in the opening line of the lead probably shouldn't be there, unless we see a significant number of reliable sources using it. So far, one source doesn't justify the alternate name being mentioned. This does not appear to be about changing the article title. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, no worries, maybe I misunderstood. I was just cautious about an old argument being dredged up again.... but all's well.Cnbrb (talk) 10:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

But if it's in the title crawl, there's no need for additional sources, is there? The Wookieepedian (talk) 20:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, where's the source that shows the title crawl? It must be a reliable source reporting that. If it's anything like the previous films, it will just say, Episode VII: The Force Awakens and not Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes GoneIn60, that is the point I am trying to raise. I'd like to nip this in the bud where possible given the angst involved in titling the original films' articles. I'd rather we not propagate misinformation if possible. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, all the pre-production sources referred to it as Star Wars Episode VII ([1]), and Abrams himself does in a recent video ([2]). Put this with the official site classifying the film as Episode VII ([3]), and it seems to be a reasonable secondary title to refer to use on the wiki. The Wookieepedian (talk) 22:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Even if such synthesis were verified, neither of those titles equates to Star Wars - Episode VII: The Force Awakens, you're just quoting short hand titles, you could just as easily add "Also known as The Force Awakens to the lead. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

But again, the official site ties all of this together, when it refers to the film as that title here. It doesn't get any more official than that. I'm not sure why any other sources are needed. All of the films follow this format, and no announcement has been made that the new one will do things differently. The Wookieepedian (talk) 22:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:OFFICIAL, official names should be mentioned in prose early in the lead section and bolded, just like it is now. There are several problems, however. First, the official site doesn't mention this specifically in prose. A link on the page does, but when you click on that link, it takes you to another page that fails to mention the title anywhere. Instead, everything there is listed as Star Wars: The Force Awakens. Second, the title you're claiming support for on the official site doesn't match exactly with the name cited in the article. The website says, Star Wars: Episode VII The Force Awakens, but the article states, Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens. The colon is being used in an entirely different position.

Personally, I think there's too much wrong to include it at this point. Official websites can have errors that don't represent the brand correctly, and it appears that may be the case here. It would be preferable if the official name was published in a press release or something other than a web link. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough. The Wookieepedian (talk) 22:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks like we may be on the same page now. Unless we can find several reliable sources citing Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens, then I'm in favor of removing all traces of it from the article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I concur. If sources do come up, then we can revisit. Maybe we can mention that it is the first live-action film since the prequel film Revenge of the Sith? Basically, report how this film relates in real-world and fictional chronologies? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

It does seem odd to me that we don't call it Episode VII in the lead on the basis that it doesn't seem to be its recognised title anywhere, but refer to the film repeatedly as Episode VII in the actual body of the article. This might need some clarification for readers unfamiliar with the episodic history of the series - otherwise the thought "what the hell is Episode VII?" might occur. Thoughts? Popcornduff (talk) 15:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

It may indeed seem odd, but the Episode VII name does not actually appear on any official promotional material (posters, websites, etc), so the tendency is for editors to play down this naming format. That said, the second sentence of this article begins "The seventh installment in the main Star Wars film series..." so the episodic history is pretty clear. When it's released, TFA will probably bear the "Episode VII" prefix in the opening crawl, but it's better to wait for December 18 before reviewing this.Cnbrb (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Why not include a parenthetical stating it is known informally as Star Wars Episode VII? I have plenty of sources for this. It may not be official, but I think including that note will avoid confusion among newcomers to the franchise as to where it fits in chronologically, and also note that it is a name that many people will use in place of "The Force Awakens". I just don't see why it can't be noted, not in the title itself, but again in parenthesis. Please let me know your thoughts on this. Shane1261994 (talk) 02:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The reason is stated clearly above. Up to this point, there have been no reliable sources, so if you have some to share, post them here and we can continue this discussion. Keep in mind that one or two isn't going to be enough for us to mention this in the lead. We would need significant coverage per WP:DUE, otherwise at best, we'll only be able to mention it in the body of the article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, the film is released next week. And once we can confirm that "Episode VII" is in the official opening crawl, this silly debate is over! --Jonipoon (talk) 10:12, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

That's more like wanting to -extend- the silly debate. Everyone knows it is episode 7. The point is the official and common names omit the episode text. They don't use it anymore. It does not mean anything that it is in the crawl. That does not make the movie title any different. Alaney2k (talk) 14:00, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, as Alaney says, it is about actual names. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Ditto what they said. In addition, "Episode VII" being in the opening crawl is not the same as the disputed title, Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

And proper notation that it is used in the crawl is down in the release section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Having just seen the film I can confirm that it definetly refers to it as 'Episode VII' in the Opening Crawl. My suggestion about how to resolve the title dispute would be too follow the precadent set by Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi and having 'Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens' listed after the official title as a title that film is also known as. 106.68.38.9 (talk) 13:50, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

No. It being the seventh episode was never the issue. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:05, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

The film is also known as Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens, as very much evident by it's official opening crawl. This name needs to be added to the article's opening line, "Star Wars: The Force Awakens (also known as Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens): this is akin to how the original Star Wars film article's opening lines read "Star Wars (later retitled Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope)". --Kurt Leyman (talk) 00:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

It's -just- the opening crawl. If you read the reference from Kathleen Kennedy, the film-makers decided not to used the episode number in the title, like the original trilogy. Only in the crawl. Look it up. Alaney2k (talk) 06:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

This is the link here: "@AweMagic The original trilogy never used the Episode number in the official title. We'll still be using it on the crawl. :)" Alaney2k (talk) 06:38, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

That's not in question. But just as the original trilogy film articles use the (also known as Star Wars Episode N) in their leads, so should this article, because it is an accurate statement to include the title as it appears on screen, even if they did leave it out of most of the marketing.oknazevad (talk) 07:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

WP: OTHERSTUFF. If you can't prove that it is officially known by that name, then it doesn't belong there just like all the other made up names people like to add article leads. People keep saying "Bu-but the opening crawl!". Well I've seen the opening crawl, and ain't nowhere that it says on screen "Star Wars Episode VIII: The Force Awakens" as a title, so get over it.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:03, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Have you actually seen the film? Is there an alternate cut where you are from which you saw and didn't know about? As I saw the movie last night, and clearly on screen as confirmed it would do by the film makers, in the opening crawl it actually says "Star Wars" then underneath "Episode VII" then under that "The Force Awakens". Just like how all previous films where. Charlr6 (talk) 11:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I bet this is going to all go on for ages, but the matter is extremely simple. The original films in marketing never had the episode number in titles. But the opening crawls did. And the other Star Wars films say....

Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back (also known as Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back)

That is EXACTLY how it should be listed here. Saying there needs to be referencing to keep episode number as "also known" or whatever is like saying there needs to be referencing for the plot, because without one it could be completely made up! I have no idea what DarkWarriorBlake saw, but when I saw the movie it clearly said "Episode VII" in the opening crawl just like Kathleen Kennedy said it would. I hope to come back to this page to see people have came to their senses a little. It should be extremely easy to keep consistency between these pages and simple list the episode number, like done before with it "also known as" or "in film titled"--- or whatever you want to say it is, but it doesn't change the matter that it is in the film. Charlr6 (talk) 11:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Is the Daniel Fleetwood story relevant?

Should the article include the film's pre-release viewing by Daniel Fleetwood? '''tAD''' (talk) 20:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support: This story has been covered by some of the biggest media channels, including BBC, CBS, NBC, Telegraph, Yahoo. There are also an array of stories in the biggest media of the German language and the French. This is intrinsically linked to the film because the actors supported the campaign and the viewing was at the behest of Abrams. It would be different if the film was on general release but Daniel couldn't get to the theater, so a third-party theater sent him a reel. In addition, the GA-class article on Up (2009 film) covers a similar event. '''tAD''' (talk) 20:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
• Discuss: I wanted this to be discussed before inclusion. WP:NOT is clearly relevant here and so to is WP:V. Just because it is included in reliable sources does not mean it should be included in Wikipedia. It may be notable, but is it relevant (notability doesn't automatically confer relevance)? If it is agreed that it should be included then the edit needs to factually correct. Although all the actors in the film may support the campaign that is not what was reported. The reference to the other film Up (2009 film in support of this edit in Force Awakens is also flawed. Using another Wikipedia article as an example of support does not necessarily make a convincing case because Wikipedia cannot be used as a source for itself. Also the Up film article is different in that the director of that film is quoted making a relevant statement about why he thought it was the right thing to do to send a pre-release copy of the film to the dying child and how that related to the message of the film itself. I think the story is a great story and I am glad this fan has got his wish and people involved in the film helped make it happen but is its inclusion right for an encyclopedia? Robynthehode (talk) 21:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Undecided about whether this is worthy of inclusion but I'm leaning towards no. Really, though, I just wanted to agree with Robynthehode that just because another Wikipedia article does something doesn't mean it's correct to do in every case, or even any case. It might not be justified in the case of the Up article either - and in my experience there are a lot of GA articles out there with major failings. Popcornduff (talk) 15:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - I was really glad to hear that Daniel Fleetwood fulfilled his wish before the end. It was a truly touching and sad story, but this does not mean it is worthy of inclusion in a WP article. It may be covered widely by the media, but the media cover all sorts of peripheral stories to gain readership. Sorry, not something that should be included. Cnbrb (talk) 19:27, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose on the grounds that pretty much an exact situation happened with Star Trek Into Darkness and that info is not on that article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: What about making a Wikinews article about this story and using the {{Wikinews}} template somewhere in the footer to link to it? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support – What makes this case unique, in my opinion, is the level of anticipation for this film's release. In addition to the amount of coverage it received, the pre-release screening is significant in the respect that an unfinished version was shown early. Regardless of the reason, that seems to belong in the release section; albeit, as a brief, single sentence that probably shouldn't mention the fan's name (an irrelevant detail). I'm taking into consideration that this happened to a film whose production has been shrouded in secrecy. I wouldn't make this exception for any film, but for this one, I think I would. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose It's a human interest story that doesn't actually have to do with the movie itself. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
• Weak support I think it is relevant on Wikipedia. If this is the third occasion of something like this happening, then I don't see how it is controversial to mention it. It can definitely be too prominent. I think fan events are relevant in general and becoming commonplace. Just keep the text trimmed and summarized. It might be time to have a wider discussion of how to mention fan events in film articles. Fans make fake trailers, fan films, do cosplay. I think it is just part of our everyday world nowadays. It doesn't make Wikipedia a fan site to note fan events. No need to be a dry resource. Alaney2k (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose: It's a very sweet story, but it's not really about the Star Wars film. It's not necessary to include it in order to achieve a comprehensive encyclopedic article on the film itself. Safehaven86 (talk) 01:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support: Balance wise we should not dedicate much of the article to this, as it is pretty minor in the grand scope of the film, but I think that a sentence or two mentioning that the film was shown early to a dying fan in a campaign backed by many of the actors and covered widely in the media would be relevant, an extra bit of information for readers to learn, and to be honest would just seem right. What other articles say or don't say about similar situations doesn't matter (WP:OTHER), I am just looking at the this specific situation, and I definitely think that this is relevant, albeit not so notable as to have a significant amount of coverage in the article. Just something in the release section like this is what I am thinking: The film was shown early on November 5, 2015, to dying Star Wars fan Daniel Fleetwood following a social media campaign supported by several of the film's actors. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
• Opppose: A heart-warming story of absolutely no real relevance to the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support: Widely covered in the media. Gamaliel (talk) 15:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support: It is notable and seems relevant enough for a sentence. I will add it. --Frmorrison (talk) 20:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

While I support some mention as well, I agree with the revert of your recent edit by Robynthehode. It's obvious we are in the middle of determining consensus, and if you check the history, this has already been attempted. We need a clear consensus and agreement on wording prior to adding it to the article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• Neutral: It technically does not have that much to do with the movie itself, but more about charity work done by the crew. Still, it is related to the subject, and can be part of the article. If added, personally I wouldn't be wondering about why people included this. If the final decision is to add, a few sentences would be enough. Zamaster4536 (talk) 14:17, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2015

in Comicbook.com, it says that on Amazon has reveleled the last name of Finn, it says his name is Finn Calrissian. 154.20.79.90 (talk) 16:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 18:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Dubious anyway. In the SW universe, Finn is related to the series of trooper. As in "FN-" followed by a number. Alaney2k (talk) 21:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Profit projections relevant

Are profit projections relevant to the article? While they do occur in the media, unlike actual box office receipts they have no baseline facts beneath them and amount to little more than gossip -- gossip occurring in the mass media but gossip all the same. Its a section no other future film release pages have, including high profile films like Avengers and Batman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.179.137.204 (talk) 07:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

No film in history has the same hype behind as Star Wars VII since people have been waiting for this film for over 30 years. Since it is unique, mention of the potential profits are warranted. --Frmorrison (talk) 20:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Genre classification

There is a discussion in progress concerning the "epic space opera" label being used throughout the Star Wars film articles. Both epic and space opera are being questioned in the lead. Please voice your opinion on the matter at: Talk:Star Wars (film)#Epic sf war film. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's defiantly a space opera. Cowik (talk) 09:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment in the discussion, where your opinion will be heard by those involved. You might also notice that the discussion isn't about whether or not these labels apply, but whether or not they should be in the opening sentence of the lead. There are strong arguments on both sides of the issue. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

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. --Jonipoon (talk) 13:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Sounds very peacock-esque in all honesty. I suggest changing the placement the word "epic". TheAstuteObserver (talk) 10:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

The Guardian mentions the Wikipedia article

The Guardian reported, "The Wikipedia entry on Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens currently runs to 9,500 words, including 200 source notes." Thought those who have worked on the article may enjoy this. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

We're all going to be rich! Popcornduff (talk) 15:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2015

This page does not mention the New Republic, which is Canon according to Wookiepedia. This is not mentioned in this page. One needs to make the necessary changes to produce the information that is canon. Petiwala12 (talk) 23:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.
• That is not how edit semi-protected requests work. Please mention specific changes that you want to make. You are more than welcome to type up what you want to insert and place it here under a new request and someone can put it in for you. Please note that we require reliable sources and Wookiepedia is not considered a reliable source by our standards. You can use it to gather other sources but using that as your primary source is not going to cut it. --Stabila711 (talk) 03:00, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Max Von Sydow is Lor San Tekka

Add it. Lor San Tekka, a former Imperial officer stranded on Jakku, now a village elder — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.73.132.54 (talk) 18:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Provide a reliable source. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2015

Xzpezer (talk) 20:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Not done No request has been made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Zappa24Mati 20:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Rating

I think it should say that the movie is rated PG-13 for sci-fi action violence

Read WP:FILMRATING.--JOJ ^Hutton 20:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

R2-KT

It has been confirmed that R2-KT will be in the film by head of the 501st Legion, can someone mention this?

http://io9.com/the-heartwarming-story-behind-r2-kt-and-how-she-joined-1744986951

Mary Franklin of Lucasfilm asked me to pitch the idea to Kathleen Kennedy (Lucasfilm President), and after hearing the story of our pink ambassador of hope Lucasfilm requested we ship her off to London early last year. Quick repairs were made and off she went for six months,” Johnson says in his email. While he could not disclose just when we could expect to see the pink droid, he was assured that she will definitely appear.

Albin Johnson

The actor name order

Since it was suggested that we take this to the talkpage, I decided to do just that.

Personally I don't care if the actor is popular or not. Obviously the new ones aren't popular yet, and the ones from the classic Star Wars movies are, but I don't think it matters. I think the names of the actors should be by how much they are in the movie. The protagonist's actor should come first, then the second most important character's actor, and so on.

I mean that is basically how it is in most movie articles, so why should this one be any different? Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm also totally ok with the order of the actors to be by the poster billing block. That is important after all. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• This bothers me, because if you just look at the list of actors you'd think Luke was the 2nd biggest character in the film, yet he only actually appears briefly, at the very end. —ajf (talk) 01:03, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• Okay, I went and reordered the cast a little bit. Needs some improvement, but at least now the top three are Rey, Finn and Han, which is more representative. —ajf (talk) 01:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• It has been reverted (not by me, but I agree). "Importance" is subjective, matching the order of the credits or poster, which it does, is objective. oknazevad (talk) 01:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Cite archiving

Virtually none of the cited sources have Archive.org or Webcitation.org archiving. Some may have been automatically archived by the former, but there's no way of knowing which of these links are protected and which are in danger of link rot until archive fields are added to the cite templates. It's too much for one editor to do readily, so I hope others will pitch in. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Premise

The source given to verify the premise does not give character names for the new film. It says only:

It has also been confirmed that Star Wars: Episode VII is set about 30 years after the events of Star Wars: Episode VI Return of the Jedi, and will star a trio of new young leads along with some very familiar faces. No further details on casting or plot are available at this time.

Yes, my cite requests are a technical request, but the fact of the matter is that we cannot claim that the names appear in the cited source when they factually do not. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Then look for another source that confirms this. The movie is less than a month away, I refuse to believe there are no reliable sources that confirm the character's names. And that source is clearly outdated, since it says "No further details on castling or plot are available at this time".

Like I said, the movie is less than a month away, so I'm sure it's easy to find good sources. I would do the honor of looking for it myself, but I don't know how I can determine if a source is reliable or not. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 01:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2015

Hello,

I would like to request a pair of amendments to be made to the Star Wars: The Force Awakens Wikipedia page.

1. Please change "In October 2013, other crew members were confirmed, including sound designer Ben Burtt, director of photography Daniel Mindel, production designers Rick Carter and Darren Gilford, costume designer Michael Kaplan, special effects supervisor Chris Corbould, re-recording mixer Gary Rydstrom, supervising sound editor Matthew Wood, visual effects supervisor Roger Guyett, and executive producers Tommy Harper and Jason McGatlin" to "In October 2013, other crew members were confirmed, including sound designer Ben Burtt, director of photography Daniel Mindel, production designers Rick Carter and Darren Gilford, costume designer Michael Kaplan, special effects supervisor Chris Corbould, Creature Effects / Special Effect Make-Up Supervisor Neal Scanlan, re-recording mixer Gary Rydstrom, supervising sound editor Matthew Wood, visual effects supervisor Roger Guyett, and executive producers Tommy Harper and Jason McGatlin"

This should be changed because In the “Pre-production” section the sentence beginning “In October 2013, other crew members were confirmed including sound designer Ben Burtt, director of photography Daniel Mindel…” alongside the other names the addition of "Creature Effects / Special Effect Make-Up Supervisor Neal Scanlan” should be included as he was the Head of Department for that entire division of the production team which operated independently from the SFX or Hair and Make-Up Departments and is a name of equal relevance to the others listed. [1] - Neal Scanlan IMDB - http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0768943/ - [2] Droid Dreams - http://www.starwars.com/news/droid-dreams-how-neal-scanlan-and-the-star-wars-the-force-awakens-team-brought-bb-8-to-life)

2. Please change "To that end, the droid BB-8 was a physical prop that was developed by Disney Research in partnership with Sphero,[126] created by special effects artist Neal Scanlan and operated live on set with the actors." to "To that end, the droid BB-8 was a physical prop that was developed by special effects artist Neal Scanlan and his team based out of Pinewood Studios in the UK and operated live on set with the actors."

This should be changed because, due to a confusion in initial publicity that was then rectified in the main information sources provided by Disney, the statement that BB-8 was developed by Disney Research in partnership with Sphero is incorrect and the article used as reference to this statement is entirely misleading [3] as this article references a design project that Disney Research had done in relation to Bi-Pedal robots and has no correlation to, or is referenced by JJ Abrams or any of the team behind the development of the BB-8 Droid. Sphero were responsible for development of the toy version based on main design that was released after production on the film. The droid was initially conceived through a concept by J.J Abrams and designer Christian Alzman. - This was then developed by concept designer Jake Lunt - “At this point concept designer Jake Lunt Davies of the creature shop developed BB-8 further”[2] The team that created the physical versions used in the film and publicity events was comprised of Senior Animatronic Designer Joshua Lee and Electronic Design and Development Supervisor Matt Denton [2] and [4] and it was confirmed multiple times that Sphero had nothing to do with the production of these practical effects [5] despite initial rumours and incorrectly researched articles. So to summarise the Sphero team and Disney Research were not involved in the design and development of BB-8, but it was Neal Scanlan and his team based in the UK. [6]

Sources:

1. Neal Scanlan IMDB profile

2. Brooks, Dan (August 26, 2015) “Droid Dreams: How Neal Scanlan and the Star Wars: The Force Awakens Team brought BB-8 to life”. Star Wars.com - http://www.starwars.com/news/droid-dreams-how-neal-scanlan-and-the-star-wars-the-force-awakens-team-brought-bb-8-to-life

3. [126 Hackett, Robert (May 26, 2015)/. “Disney just developed the most adorable walking robot”. Fortune. Retrieved July 23, 2015]

4. Hobson, James (September 4, 2015) “Spehro Wasn’t Actually Behind The BB-8”. Hackaday.com - http://hackaday.com/2015/09/04/sphero-wasnt-actually-behind-the-bb-8/

5. https://www.facebook.com/groups/everythingbb8/permalink/1494123994213861/?__mref=message_bubble

6. Rundle, Michael (April 17, 2015) “The adorable new rolling Star Wars droid is not CGI” Wired.co.uk N nannoo (talk) 11:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2015

Shouldn't we change Finn's name to Finn Calrissian because a couple weeks ago a page was taken off Amazon that stated Finn's last name. 71.38.139.48 (talk) 00:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

No. That is an unconfirmed rumor. Might or might not be true. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Marketing - Poster Spy design contest

Is it worth adding this? On November 11th posterspy.com launched an alternative poster contest with Curzon Cinemas and Wacom. 10 Shortlisted entries will be showcased at the cinema for 2 weeks during the screenings of the film. Over 90 entries have been submitted from artists globally and has become one of the most successful poster campaigns on the site to date. Actor Anthony Daniels (C-3PO in the saga) chose the winner for the contest.

References

Not done: No evidence that this is a significant contest that should be included. -- ferret (talk) 02:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Not done: In response to your message left on my talk page: In the end, this is just one of dozens, if not hundreds, of contests that are being ran in relation to the movie, some with and some without involvement from various cast members or film crew. If you look through the article as it stands, the only contest mentioned currently is where Abrams ran a donation contest through UNICEF and the winner was actually brought on set and used as an extra. No other contests are mentioned or detailed, and I have no reason to believe this one stands out as important in the long term coverage of the film. -- ferret (talk) 13:03, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2015

This article states that Mike Quinn (which is myself) is taking over the role of Nien Nunb from Richard Bonehill in Return If The Jedi. This is incorrect and needs to be corrected before this becomes quoted everywhere. Mike Quinn is RESUMING the role of Nien Nunb. It was myself (Mike Quinn) who created thew role in the cockpit of the Millennium Falcon, not Richard. Richard was the extra who wore the costume in the background of a few scenes. This was when he was just a background alien, before he was chosen by George Lucas to feature in the Falcon, which is when I performed him with acting, dialogue and closeups. Hope that makes sense. Many thanks!

Michael E Quinn (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

References

Nien Nunb is back? Awesome! You are correct that Nien Nunb was a two person job in Episode VI. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:57, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Done Okay, it's fixed. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Speculation over the synopsis confirmed

http://millenniumfalcon.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=9790

Including that rumor about Kylo Ren commiting patricide, Han Solo being his father. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheNaziPrince (talk • contribs) 09:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Generally speaking, phpBB falls under user generated blogging software, which is almost never considered a reliable source. In addition, a brief scan of the page doesn't show any kind of sourcing for this information, so there's no way to verify that it's accurate. JMcGowan2 (talk) 15:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the tie-in material in the Episode VII template

Should Star Wars Battlefront (2015 video game) be listed under the tie-in section of the Episode VII template? The aforementioned video game features exclusive downloadable content that depicts the Battle of Jakku, which is integral for the plot of The Force Awakens, so I am curious. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 11:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

...And Disney Infinity 3.0? Should I include that, as well? DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 11:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• I suggest that we limit it to things directly related as much as possible. There are always other things going on in the Star Wars industry. :-) E.g. comics. Anyway, so DLC and a new release of Infinity are only peripherally related to TFA. Alaney2k (talk) 14:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

That's true. I suppose it's also worth mentioning that the first two Battlefront games aren't counted as tie-ins for Revenge of the Sith. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 22:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Action figure photo DMCA issue

According to two pieces at Ars Technica, there has been a situation regarding a photo of an action figure of one of the characters that got released and bought early. I'm certain there are other news outlets that have mentioned it by now. Would this be covered in the merchandise section? 177.142.63.141 (talk) 23:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Gwendoline Christie not mentioned

I was a little surprised when I saw that Gwendoline Christie is mentioned neither in the infobox nor under the cast. Isn't she at least worthy of a mention in the infobox? She plays an important supporting role in the movie after all judging from wallpapers, posters and trailer footage.-Throast (talk) 20:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

No, she's not in the credited cast featured on the poster. We're using that ordering for the infobox. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 02:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Copy prevention technique-too much detail?

I had initially included a note in the development section about the scripts being printed on Red paper as a measure to prevent leaks. This was later reverted by an editor claiming that it was too much detail, and I wanted a consensus to form regarding whether it should be included or not.

While noting the color of the paper does on the surface seem incredibly minute, I think it's a rather interesting approach to preventing leaks. I also planned on including a quote from Anthony Daniels noting that he found the script difficult to read because of this, however my edit was reverted before that could be done.

The point is that security was a big deal with the scripts and I don't think that it would be too excessive to have a mention of that. --Deathawk (talk) 07:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I think it is noteworthy since it is unusual, and if we have an actor commenting that it was difficult to read, despite being more safe from leaks, then that is even more so. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Friendly courtesy reminder

Hi everyone. With the film premiering tonight, and coming out in the coming days, just wanted to pass along a reminder, to the best of our abilities, to be courteous to other editors when editing the page regarding plot info. While spoilers are allowed on Wikipedia, we can be kind to other editors who may be keeping this on their watchlists with our edit summaries. If adding some plot/spoilery info, don't make your summary "DARTH VADER IS LUKE'S FATHER!" Using "adding plot info" is perfectly fine. We're all fans here and hopefully want to enjoy the film unspoiled. Thankfully we have semi-protection so that should help a bit. (Short summary: Don't be a dick.)

May the force be with you all, and enjoy the movie when you see it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Good reminder. I wouldn't have thought of that...not that I am lucky enough to be there. I hope someone from Wikipedia is there though and updates the plot. I want spoilers! Shoeless Ho (talk) 03:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I am not there, but to each their own regarding what they want spoiled. I was just wishfully hoping those who could care less of being spoiled/have already seen it are courteous to others who wish to remain in the dark, but I can't expect much. I personally don't want to know what's happening (because I amazingly still don't have much knowledge about the film, having not watch all the footage clips released after the final trailer), so I'll be steering clear of this article until 12/18. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Surely people who don't want to see spoilers will be sensible enough to avoid this article completely until they have seen the film? Some people might want to have spoilers, surely? Wdford (talk) 18:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, avoiding the page of a newly released film is always good advice if someone wants to avoid spoilers, as Wikipedia contains unwarned spoilers and gas for years. But I do think Favrefan makes a good point about not putting the spoilers in the edit summary for the edit, so it is not accidentally seen on a watchlist. oknazevad (talk) 14:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Provisional reception section

See [4]. I'm of the view that this should be included, even for only 12 hours. People still read the article until then.  Sandstein  17:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I see no harm in including the initial reception for now. Even if it's removed later, it will be of use to the thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands?) of people who visit the page in the next few hours. It also meets notability guidelines, as far as I can tell. Popcornduff (talk) 18:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

There is no real point in including it now. If this screening was weeks before the general release, then yes, this would be fine, notable, etc. But the review embargo for critic reviews is being lifted in 13 hours. So we can wait. We are in no rush, no matter how many people are coming to the site. Surely if readers are coming here, they can search the internet for these thoughts if they really want them. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

For almost all topics, there will be better information coming later. That doesn't prevent us from using the (reliable and pertinent) information we have now. You haven't argued that this information is not in fact relevant and reliably sourced.  Sandstein  19:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

But be smart about it, considering points laid out in WP:NOT: How is having fan responses helpful, knowing that official reviews are going to be available extremely soon too us? As I stated in my first response, if this premiere was much sooner than the general release, all of this would be well and good, because there would be a time cushion between these reactions and official reviews. But, again, given the fact that reviews are going to be appearing in 13 hours, there is no point to these reactions, especially since they will not be kept in the article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

These aren't fans, but industry professionals. And their initial reactions aren't necessarily less important or relevant than "professional" reviews; they are two different but, to the public, equally relevant forms of reception.  Sandstein  19:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

They are "fans". When dealing with the reception of a film, it should be comprised, to the best of its ability, by industry standard publication reviews (The Hollywood Reporter, Variety, Deadline.com, newspapers, etc.). Many of these reactions do not fall in that category (ie Elizabeth Banks, Patton Oswalt and Andrew Stanton). And, the ones that do, are going to have full reviews, again, up very shortly. So if anything, all that could be added from this would be a generalization that the reaction was positive, without extracting thoughts. Save those for the reviews, and readers can follow the ref if they want to read them. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Favre1fan93 is correct. Wikipedia film articles do not include any audience reactions except the CinemaScore ratings. That's WP:FILM guideline. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:57, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Excellent point, Tenebrae. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have to agree with Favre1fan93. There's a high degree of certainty that we'll be getting professional, third-party analysis of the film in a relatively short period of time. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that strives for historical significance in its coverage, not a newspaper that thrives on breaking news. So the argument that it may be useful for a matter of hours is not a viewpoint supported by Wikipedia's content policies. In fact, WP:RSBREAKING clarifies that it is better to wait a day or two rather than attempt to update a rapidly-changing current event in real time. If the content doesn't serve a long-term benefit to Wikipedia, then it can be seen as a negative form of recentism that unnecessarily clutters the article and may even "degrade its eventual quality". In a nutshell, there's no harm in waiting. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Aye, fair enough. Popcornduff (talk) 08:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Update

This should be updated.

Anonymous173.74.69.112 (talk) 17:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Please be specific with "Change X to Y" to have things changed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Where is the plot section?

I'm trying to find out the story to prevent unpleasant surprises at the theater, but people insists on thinking they are doing a service by playing keep-away with "spoilers". They are what I want to find out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.131.247 (talk) 09:50, 16 December 2015 (UTC) Please add a plot. It has a plot, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.224.229.212 (talk) 10:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

SPOILERS !!!! Jar-Jar returns as the Big Bad whispering in Kylo's ear. Also, Poe is the son of Chewbacca. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.60.58.253 (talk) 10:26, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, as per WP:FILMPLOT. After the film came out here in New Zealand at midnight last night, I came to Wikipedia this morning hoping to read a nice encyclopedic spoiler-filled plot synopsis. Instead, the plot section of this article is now shorter than it was two days ago. --2404:130:0:1000:C4D6:7863:E090:C8C9 (talk) 23:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Hm, actually the plot section is exactly the same length as it was two days ago. Never mind! Probably just no one who has watched the movie has submitted a plot synopsis yet. I read a synopsis on a third-party website, but since I haven't seen the film myself I can't verify its accuracy, or else I would write up a quick summary here. --2404:130:0:1000:C4D6:7863:E090:C8C9 (talk) 23:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2015

Please add European release date of December 16th 2015. RomaniPi (talk) 10:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Please change also the Netherlands release to December 15th 2015 SRich (talk) 10:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done. The release dates in the body are correct and up to date (prior night screenings don't change the release date). Only the country of origin and the earliest days get put in the infobox, which is the U.S date and the Los Angeles premier respectively. oknazevad (talk) 14:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

"rewrote an initial script"

Do we have any of the three writers or any of the producers on the record saying Abrams and Kasdan rewrote Arndt's script? Because in the article I just cited about Abrams saying he has a vocal cameo, he denies Arndt wrote a script: "We didn’t rewrite a script. . . . We had this outline and then Michael essentially said that he needed quite a bit more time than anyone had to write the script. And so Larry and I basically started over and ended up incorporating many aspects of the story, which both of us loved, and we just wrote the script from there."

Since that website is subscription-only, here's a more detailed version from a story the same writer did for a magazine's website:

That script came about, he says, a bit differently than in most published accounts, which suggest Abrams and Kasdan rewrote an initial script by Little Miss Sunshine Academy Award-winner Michael Arndt, whom Lucasfilm announced as the writer in November 2012. When he left the project 11 months later, Lucasfilm president Kathleen Kennedy wrote on the official StarWars.com website that she was "excited about the story we have in place and thrilled to have Larry and J.J. working on the script," adding that "Michael Arndt has done a terrific job bringing us to this point.” Kasdan already had been consulting on the project, the post said. Abrams confirms, "We didn't rewrite a script… We had this outline and then Michael essentially said that he needed quite a bit more time than anyone had [in order] to write the script. And so Larry and I basically started over and ended up incorporating many aspects of the story, which both of us loved, and we just wrote the script from there."

This seems like it would be a complicated change, so what does everyone else think about Abrams' statement? --Tenebrae (talk) 22:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like we could rephrase it as "rewrote an initial outline" with not much problem, adding the above as a reference. oknazevad (talk) 23:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

That might do it. It seems a sensitive change so I want to be cautious. It also just occurred to me to mention that the onscreen credits read: "Screenplay by J.J. Abrams & Lawrence Kasdan and Michael Arndt," which indicates Abrams & Kasdan wrote as a team, and that the Writers Guild considers Arndt a script contributor and not a "Story by" person. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:32, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Are we sure about "returns the light saber"?

In the current edition, the text states, "Rey visits Luke Skywalker...and returns his lightsaber to him". Are we sure about "returns"? I think the final scene showed Luke being offered the lightsaber but not yet accepting it (e.g., perhaps Rey will keep it). If so, I think this should read "attempts to return" or "offers him his lightsaber back". Anyone else have a clearer recollection? Jonathan lampe (talk) 02:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, while an admirable first effort, the plot summary is quite rough, with choppy flow, not so good word choices, and a few details that seem off (like the relationship between the Rebellion, restored Republic, and Resistance. It's going to need some work in general. oknazevad (talk) 02:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

It's going to need a lot of work. Given all the hype surrounding this movie, the plot is probably going to be edited several times over the next few weeks. After the hype dies down is when we will be able to get a solid plot summary up. SpiritedMichelle (talk) 05:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, I took a stab at it, and it's been revised again since. I think it actually looks pretty good. It hits the major details without going overboard, and best aloft all, it's less than 700 words, in line with WP:FILMPLOT. Now, after I see the film again, I'll take another look, but while leaving details open for the sequels, the film doesn't have an over-complex of plots (unlike the prequels). oknazevad (talk) 13:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

You did a good job. I'm just worried about people feeling the need to add in every little detail possible. SpiritedMichelle (talk) 17:02, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, that's why I've been keeping an eye on it. Some things, like Rey's vision in the Force are important, but this could obviously get out of control fast. Let's just make sure we keep to the 700 word limit of WP:FILMPLOT and it should be okay. As it stands, it's pretty complete without being overstuffed.oknazevad (talk) 17:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Kylo Ren

Would someone like to create an article about Kylo Ren? He's been set up as the central antagonist of Star Wars for the foreseeable future and there is tons of information, so far as references are concerned. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 05:31, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2015

The Resistance base planet is D'Qar, not D'Oar. The official names of the planets have been listed online and in Disney Infinity. Don the First (talk) 16:07, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done IdenticalHetero (talk) 16:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2015

"Han is reunited with Leia when he, Chewbacca, and Finn are brought to the Resistance base on D'Oar, where the droid R2-D2 has been dormant since Luke's disappearance.

As Starkiller Base prepares to fire on D'Oar..." - The Resistance planet's name is D'Qar, not D'Oar. Stated in Disney Infinity, and also online officially. Don the First (talk) 16:14, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done IdenticalHetero (talk) 16:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

This article made the Top 25 Report

This article was the second most popular on Wikipedia according to the Top 25 Report with 795,288 views for the week December 6 to 12, 2015. This was the week before the film's release. Congratulations to the editors of this article for the exposure of their work.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  23:49, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Daniel Craig as uncredited storm trooper.

Here's the source. Npamusic (talk) 02:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC) Npamusic (talk) 02:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Plot opening paragraph

"The plot is very similar to the one of Star Wars: Episode IV, with Luke acting as if he was Obi-Wan, Kylo as if he was Darth Vader and Rey as if she was Luke. It's like a reboot or revamped Star Wars: A New Hope. The Death Star is the StarKiller base." That seems highly opinionated and subjective, it doesn't read well for an encyclopaedia. Halbared (talk) 12:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that is cringe inducing. Can it be removed please? Crispy385 (talk) 12:21, 18 December 2015 (UTC)