Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi

Should this be moved to the mainspace?

Hi, filming began today, so should this technically now be moved? It's four days on Skellig Michael, due to seasonal issues, before they have to move production in Ireland elsewhere (near Derry I think, though maybe it was Kerry considering its proximity to Skellig Michael), where they will continue for a few more weeks I believe. This is not second unit filming - Johnson is directing these scenes, Mindel is shooting them, both of the film's producers are in attendance (Bergman and Kennedy), as well as at least Hamill from the main cast - but it seems this is being shot a few months prior to the rest of the film's apparent shooting schedule (January 2016 according to Making Star Wars, whereas Del Toro claims he doesn't begin till March 2016, though he could be being purposefully misleading). I'm not sure what should be done, so I'm putting it here instead of just jumping the gun and going straight ahead and moving. I have no preferences either way, I just think it needs a discussion before anything is done. Cheers -- Nbdelboy (talk) 16:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Even if it isn't second unit, I don't believe it is "principal photography" which is required to begin per WP:NFF to move to main space. I think the March 2016 date is a safer bet for moving it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:NFF says we need to wait until the film has begun principal photography. Wikipedia's article on this subject, which is linked at WP:NFF, states, "Principal photography is the phase of film production in which the movie is filmed, with actors on set and cameras rolling, as distinct from pre-production and post-production." Granted, second unit photography probably doesn't fit this category exactly. However, if what @Nbdelboy: says is true about filming continuing over the next few weeks with Johnson, Mindel, Hamill, and the producers, I believe that would qualify as principal photography. Given all that, I think that at some point soon, the film will commence principal photography of some sort and it should be moved to the mainspace at that point.-Rmaynardjr (talk) 17:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

But we don't have much info about the film ie a cast. That isn't to say that Lucasfilm hasn't already done that and it isn't public knowledge, but generally having cast members is a requirement to be filming. And Nbdelboy doesn't provide any reliable source supporting the fact that Hamill will be there, or that they are moving elsewhere after filming on Skellig Michael. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The article can be moved to the mainspace if it is notable enough. I've debated that with other eds. and it would likely come down to a !vote. IMO, the time to move it to mainspace is probably close, but not yet. I would rather put it into mainspace sooner rather than later, rather than fend off requests and edits putting it in mainspace anyway. If Johnson is doing directing in Ireland and Hamill is there, then it's hard to call it second unit. That's typically done by an assistant director and has none of the cast. Though it could be a teaser trailer or after-credits scene or something for the E7 DVD. We'll see soon enough. Alaney2k (talk) 22:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I think we should wait until something better comes up. But, wait I've just read "cast and crew members" in the news this and this, but it is not reliable yet I think. Alaney2k is right, they might me filming something like teaser. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 02:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Kelly Marie Tran

I removed the link on her name because it simply re-directed to the same movie article. Let's get a page for Ms. Tran up and link to that. SpiritedMichelle (talk) 20:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Peter Mayhew not on official cast list

On the official production press release Mayhew is not listed, as well as the actor who portrays 3CPO. I'm removing his inclusion until further confirmation. Npamusic (talk) 23:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Good call. Just for future reference, it's C3PO, not 3CPO. A lot of fans, ones much more rabid than myself, would have your head for that blunder. Amccann421 (talk) 17:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

It seems people keep re-adding him to the page using that irritating source based on the off the cuff comment from Kennedy at one of the premieres about the entire cast returning. If people are going to start using that source as gospel, then Harrison Ford should be re-added too, which is ridiculous. I've removed Mayhew once again and added a hidden message asking for editors to not re-add him without consulting the talk page. Cheers Nbdelboy (talk) 20:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Should we mention Joonas Suotamo's involvement in the movie? Confirmed by The Daily Mail that he's the one in the suit during filming for Episode VIII. --Jsngrwd (talk) 18:15, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Since when did Daily Mail become a reliable source? Kailash29792 (talk) 08:41, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Installment numbering

2nd sentence of article says this film is the "ninth" in the series overall; it should say "eighth"...right? Unclemikejb2 (talk) 00:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

No, why? - adamstom97 (talk) 01:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The Clone Wars film counts in the "overall number". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Colon in title

The current page title is "Star Wars Episode VIII." Shouldn't it be "Star Wars: Episode VIII", following suit of the previous episodes? Amccann421 (talk) 17:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC) edit: The production announcement on the official Star Wars website (http://www.starwars.com/news/star-wars-episode-viii-now-filming) uses the colon.

I agree, that seems pretty official to me. Hopefully some others see this and we can get it moved, but I think we need an admin because "Star Wars: Episode VIII" already exists, redirecting here. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I think that the colon was forgone because of our styling on here, which is "Star Wars Episode #: Subtitle". In actuality, they should all probably be "Star Wars: Episode # - Subtitle", but here's not for that discussion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:26, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Good catch. I agree with you, "Star Wars: Episode # - Subtitle" should be the titles. Wonder why they are the way they are. Amccann421 (talk) 07:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Amccann421: If you are not aware, I started move discussions over at the talk for Phantom Menace (see below this section). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I think there is no need to move until Lucasfilm or Disney announce the official name for the movie. There is a redirect in place. No-one will have trouble finding this article. Use the effort to be productive instead. Alaney2k (talk) 14:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Of course, THEN I noticed it had already been done. Whatever. :-) Alaney2k (talk) 14:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

John Williams

John Williams should not be listed in the infobox section until if and when it is confirmed. Otherwise, another composer and conductor may be selected. AdamDeanHall (talk) 23:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

It is sourced to a very reliable, well known magazine. It is confirmed. Do not remove it again, and don't go around calling editors that have reverted you unneeded removals liars again, as you did in your edit summaries. It is exceedingly bad form to call someone a liar when they are adding a reliable source. oknazevad (talk) 00:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Empire is trust-worthy. There is no discussion of some other composer. Until then, we should just stay with what we know. The information is current. Alaney2k (talk) 14:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 04:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Title?

Where's the title. It was confirmed as "Tale of the Jedi Temple". Please change it guys. Broncosman12 (talk) 18:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh my bad that's the wrong title LOL. Broncosman12 (talk) 18:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Leave Out Las Vegas

The Las Vegas article is a fake, as confirmed by people involved with Lucasfilm. Whoever can edit the page needs to get rid of that bit of misinformation. 2605:6001:E7D1:6C00:780C:279D:1AB1:6A16 (talk) 06:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Gugu Mbatha Raw

I have removed her from the cast list, and included a hidden section not to readd her. She has not been announced, and the level of source quality available to say she is in the film, has also suggested she no longer is, that Bel Powley may replace her, and that she has been replaced by Kelly Marie Tran.

References

Potential title

FYI for all, given the recent rumor (which to me look at least somewhat legitimate), I've just created a redirect at the supposed name to this article. Redirects never hurt anyone so it's there if we need it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I have a different perspective about redirects, as shown by my irritation from seeing a link for "Star Wars Episode VII: A New Dawn", and wouldn't support creating more redirects that may all be incorrect and potentially misleading, but oh well. If anything, we may want to consider moving for semi-protection of this page, as people are just too excited for common sense with the title right now. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 11:49, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Darth Botto. I think such redirects are actually harmful, in that they lend credence to unproven rumors, which runs afoul of WP:NOT, and is actually more likely to increase attempts to add the rumored title, not reduce them. oknazevad (talk) 13:15, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Star Wars: Episode VIII - Fall of the Resistance?

I just saw a video clip of a Star Wars poster with an unseen title: "Fall of the Resistance". I don't know if that's the official title, or...I don't know. Anyway, I have seen official titles on the last seven Star Wars movies. So we need to talk further about this "Fall of the Resistance" thing. AdamDeanHall (talk) 21:15, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Did you not see the immediately preceding discussion? It's an unconfirmed rumor at most, and doesn't belong in the article. And we don't need you to list all the titles here. Please respect our competence. oknazevad (talk) 23:27, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion of 3D/Imax/etc... Release Dates

I've noticed a bit of a back and forth going on about whether to include the release of the movie in 3D/Imax/3D Imax/etc... while I agree that the information is unnecessary and probably shouldn't be included, is there a MOS/Guideline reasoning behind deleting it other than @AdamDeanHall: saying that he doesn't want it there? Again, I agree with Adam, but his constant reasoning of 'I said I don't want it' sounds an awful lot like WP:OWN jmcgowan2 (talk) 19:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Fan-made logo

Why is there someone's own work in the infobox, rather than the only official logo released? Was this discussed prior before inclusion? DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 18:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Not that I believe. I didn't realize that when I saw the user change them. I'll restore the old, official logo. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I see that CapLiber also switched out the logo on the main Star Wars page. These are some pretty hefty unilateral actions that really should be discussed prior. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 21:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I reverted him at the main article, as the transparent yellow without a background is unreadable. But the logo here is not made up (even if this particular execution was user-created); the design was used by Disney themselves during one of the presentations revealing the release timeline. It is a real logo, and one that is complete, not just a big Roman numeral. Frankly, I think we should keep it. oknazevad (talk) 00:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd be open to having a discussion about this topic. Though I may err on the side of being against it, I'd like to see what consensus reads as. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 03:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

If it is an official logo then it should be used, as it is much clearer and more beneficial for identification than the simple roman numerals we have. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

It's a recreation of the logo used at the panel Lucasfilm had for discussing the slate of upcoming films. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 05:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

In that case, I think we can use it as long as everyone is happy to. We had a similar situation over at Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 when the initial logo was revealed as part of a larger promotional image. It wasn't usable in the infobox as it was, so we used a recreation of it in the infobox until an official release of the logo was available. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

With that logic, I'm neutral on the matter, as there are pros and cons. So, I wouldn't interfere or object if the recreation were used, but I also wouldn't support it per say. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 06:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

As long as I know that the previous logo was actually used somewhere by Lucasfilm, I'd be okay with it. But like DarthBotto I'm a bit indifferent about it, as the one I reverted to (just the 'VII') is fine as well. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:18, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Clarification.

@AdamDeanHall: This is a genuine question. I saw your last edit (Bad robot not allowed) on this page. Just wanted to ask why that is (as in, was there a press release or something I missed?). Thanks in advance. N. GASIETA|talk 00:19, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Bad Robot Production

IMDB is listing Bad Robot Productions on their company page and on the movie's page as one of the production companies behind Star Wars: Episode VIII.

I would like to know why this cannot be reflected on this article. Every time someone has added the name of the company, one or an other editor has reverted that addition, stating in their summary that either it is not allowed (to add them) or to cite reliable sources.

Following repeated additions and removals, I too removed the name when an IP user added it. I also requested a semi protection, which I see is now in affect.

But it still remains unclear why they cannot be added.

I mean, are we saying that IMDB isn't a reliable source?

Additional sources stating J.J. Abrams staying as a producer/executive producer for the trilogy which by extension means that Bad Robot will be involved.

• Cinemablend
• Making Star Wars
• Digital Spy

N. GASIETA|talk 13:23, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Because J. J. Abrams was not allowed to direct Episode VIII. He is the executive producer of the upcoming film. The only Star Wars film he directed was The Force Awakens. AdamDeanHall (talk) 13:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Even if J.J. Abrams was directing, that doesn't necessarily mean that Bad Robot is involved. The very possibility that Abrams can operate independently of Bad Robot means that adding Bad Robot to this article is an assumption, which isn't allowed. As for IMDB, I've heard it said many times that they are not a reliable source. Something about it being modifiable by site visitors makes it too much like quoting another wiki. jmcgowan2 (talk) 14:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, but I am not talking about Abrams directing the movie. The additional sources I provided (the most recent one being two weeks old) clearly state that he's remaining as an executive producer. Are there any sources disclaiming Bad Robot's involvement? Because if there is not, it would be an assumption on your parts to exclude it from the article.

And since it's founding, Bad Robot has been involved in every single project Abrams has participated in, since he does own it.

So, again, please provide a link to a source stating the company or Abrams will not be involved with Ep. VIII.

N. GASIETA|talk 14:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

You would need a source specifically stating that Bad Robot is involved (other than IMDB). WP:SYNTH states "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Therefore, saying "Abrams is involved in Star Wars VIII" and "Bad Robot is involved in every Abrams movie" falls under SYNTH because we're combining information to come to a conclusion that isn't specifically stated. jmcgowan2 (talk) 14:46, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay. Let's ignore Abrams and his connection to the company for a moment. So, if I'm reading your comment correctly, the only reason Bad Robot isn't listed is because IMDB is deemed an unreliable source by you (and I presume others). Which means that there is no source disclaiming its involvement (much as there is no source explicitly stating its involvement apart from IMDB)? And that's the reason why it isn't included?

The reason why I'm asking is because I am genuinely curious.

N. GASIETA|talk 15:22, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Not having been one of the people to remove it (at least I don't remember removing Bad Robot at any point) I can only speak for myself, but that sounds about right. Without a reliable source stating that Bad Robot is involved, we should not be adding them to the article. WP:VERIFY, and it's related essay WP:TRUTH, basically say that Wikipedia is concerned with whether something is verifiable, not necessarily whether it is true. WP:VERIFY also states that the burden of proof lies on the person trying to add something to the article, not someone trying to remove something from an article. Therefore, until we have a reliable source stating that Bad Robot is involved, it should not be added. On a side note, whether IMDB is a reliable source has been debated extensively Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard (search for IMDB) the general consensus always indicates that it's not reliable. jmcgowan2 (talk) 15:43, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay. Then that clears it up some, since I was not aware of IMDB being deemed unreliable, and since I could not find any source stating that BR would not be involved in the production. I thought I'd missed something huge (i.e. BR parting ways with JJ or Disney or something). But yeah, thanks for your replies.

N. GASIETA|talk 16:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

(After an edit conflict)IMDB is considered unreliable because it is largely user generated; it's been so considered for some time, this is nothing new. Now, as for the latter, asking for a source disclaiming Bad Robot's involvement is asking us to prove the negative, when the standard is always to provide positive proof. We know JJ Abrams is exec producing this movie (which is not really a major hands-on role necessarily, or even usually; exec producer credits are given to anyone who signs the checks paying for the film). But we don't know explicitly if his company is involved, or just him personally. Based on his history, it's likely, but without a source to back it up, that becomes SYNTH. Best just leave it be until something firmer is released. It's not like it needs to be perfect right this second. There's WP:NODEADLINE. oknazevad (talk) 15:46, 4 November 2016 (UTC) PS, Jmcgowan said it as well as I could.

Okay. I was not aware of this. Thanks for clarifying it.

And what about IMDBPro? Because as far as I know, information there is verified by the companies and their PR reps.

N. GASIETA|talk 16:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

For reference on the IMDb matter, WP:RS/IMDB. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you.

N. GASIETA|talk 21:22, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

BTW, since Abrams is listed in numerous sources as an executive producer (the official SW ep VIII website also states it), I will be adding him in the article. It's already added. N. GASIETA|talk 15:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Carrie Fisher Final Role?

Holy crap, I haven't seen this much reverting since I started editing!

We need to discuss whether a comment should be made concerning Carrie Fisher's death and it's potential implications on future movies. Personally, I think we should definitely mention that she passed away, and that she had finished her scenes for this movie. Both of these items are verifiable and have been posted here with references. Whether this should be considered her last appearance is more up for debate, especially since I haven't seen any reliable sources chime in on this. Thoughts? jmcgowan2 (talk) 17:57, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Earthscent thinks that an actor having the features of another actor digitially plastered onto them is akin to the actor physically being there. That's not the case.

Carrie Fisher died when filming was completed, and this will be her only other film role left to be aired. Look at the lead paragraphs of Star Trek Beyond, Absolutely Anything, The Dark Knight. They reflect that their actors, Anton Yelchin, Robin Williams and Heath Ledger, passed away before the film's release. It's her last film appearance (episodes of Family Guy and Catastrophe will air before this film releases), and it's an important thing to note since she won't be returning to physically be there for Episode 9. Rusted AutoParts 18:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

We don't know if General Leia survives Episode 8 (or if the plan was for her to survive and that will be reworked in reshoots), so consideration of how this impacts Episode 9 is moot at this time. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

But Fisher is dead. This isn't saying this is Organa's last film, it's saying it's Fisher's. Rusted AutoParts 18:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

To be a bit of a devil's advocate, I'd point to WP:VERIFY and WP:TRUTH as I did above in a different discussion - Wikipedia is concerned with verifiability, not necessarily truth. What you're saying makes sense, but there are no reliable sources that say so. Frankly, I think a comment about this movie being Carrie Fisher's (not necessarily Leia's) last appearance is fitting and appropriate, but I'm not so sure that it fits with Wikipedia policy. jmcgowan2 (talk) 19:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Please find a reliable source saying this is her last film. Earthscent (talk) 19:47, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

[1] Rusted AutoParts 21:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I think what has been stated here is all acceptable, because it has all been verified in sources (at least what I've read, not entirely sure if all used here do support what is stated). What all is stated, and should, is: Fisher died and had completed her work on this film; this is the last film role she had that has not yet released, so it is her final film role (and as Rusted pointed out, there are a few TV episodes also remaining, so the wording final film role should be used); and it was known that Fisher was expected to be a part of Episode IX. That's all we know, the rest is just speculation moving forward. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I've added the info to the lead paragraph per Favre and my points made here. @MordeKyle:,'please don't remove the info again. Rusted AutoParts 23:16, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm quoting the conversation on your talk page since you like to keep deleting it and making notes on my talk page:

Do not accuse me of edit warring when you are doing the exact same thing that I am. That is absurd. Also, WP:AGF. Thanks.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 23:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

It was very clear by the existing discussion and edit summaries I was placing that info to the lead paragraph. You either didn't read it or ignored it. Rusted AutoParts 23:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

It was apparently not very clear, as you felt you had to make a mention on the talk page after these reverts. Nice try though.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 23:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Again, stop claiming I've done something so horribly wrong. It was not clear in the talk page that this should be added to the lead. Why don't you just relax a little bit and WP:AGF. You don't own this content.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 23:29, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Never claimed you didn't a horrible thing, nor made ANY claims of owning jackshit. Just fed up of not being clearly understood in my discussions and have to re-add or re-remove info I had already discussed and got consensus for. You want me to assume good faith? Goes both ways bud, so I don't appreciate your WP:OWN claims. My very first comment in this discussion included the words "lead paragraph", so I figured I was clear enough. Plus the content that spawned the discussion was being pulled from the lead paragraph, so again, my intentions were fairly clear. Rusted AutoParts 23:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Never claimed you owned it.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 00:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

As an outside observer, yeah, you kinda did. Unless you had a different intention in linking to WP:OWN that isn't clear. That said, let's get back to talking about the article content, not the contributors, please. I think the mention should stay in the lead, as it is a well-sourced fact in the film that appears in the body so is fair game for including in the summary that is he lead. oknazevad (talk) 00:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

If I was accusing him of taking ownership, I would have directly accused him of taking ownership. What I did was the same as saying something to the effect of, "Be careful of WP:3RR." I am not accusing someone of braking 3RR in that sentence, no was I above. Thanks though. It should also be noted that his irritation with being reverted and instantly accusing others of edit warring because of slight amount of confusion is the only reason any of this discussion is taking place. {MordeKyle}  ☢ 00:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

A thorough read of this discussion could've fixed your confusion, but here we are. Either way, like Oknazevad said, let's move back to the content, which was ok'd to be added. Rusted AutoParts 00:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

This is absolutely worth mentioning in the lead. It isn't WP:CRYSTALBALL because, as Rusted AutoParts said, we're not making any claims about the future of the Leia character or Star Wars franchise. CG "appearances" by Fisher do not count. Popcornduff (talk) 06:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Given that there are several sources stating that this was her final film role in the wake of Fisher's death, I would also agree with mentioning that in the lead as well. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Title

Shouldn't we mention here and on other articles that Episode VIII and Episode IX are tentative titles and expected to change? At present this isn't mentioned, and someone completely new to the franchise might be confused. Popcornduff (talk) 07:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

They'll be part of the final on-screen title, so no, I don't think it need to be mentioned. They're not going to be replaced outright, just have a subtitle added to them. oknazevad (talk) 10:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, technically, the consensus is that Episode VII isn't actually part of the Force Awakens' title. And just because the final title, whatever it is, won't replace the Episode part outright doesn't seem to change the point. Is it not reasonable to say that Episode VIII is still untitled at this point? Or at least that its full title hasn't been announced? Popcornduff (talk) 16:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I think wording along the lines of "A subtitle for the film is expected to be announced" would be appropriate. Because, I'm assuming, once we get the title, depending on how it is actually revealed lest we go through TFA discussion again, it will be adjusted here to: Star Wars: [New Subtitle] (also known as Star Wars: Episode VIII – [New Subtitle]). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Cast names in lead

"The last names of the actors are not supposed to be included in the summary of the upcoming film," says AdamDeanHall. Why not? Will it spoil the surprise? Popcornduff (talk) 15:42, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Because the actors are already named in the 'Cast' section, so it is redundant to add their last names in the summary. jmcgowan2 (talk) 12:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

But the lead summarises the body of the article. Duplication is inevitable. That's the point of the lead. Popcornduff (talk) 13:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

But does including the entire main cast qualify as a summary?  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 20:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, I don't know if including the entire main cast is necessary (though it seems pretty standard). All I did was put two actors' names in brackets following the character names (Rey and Luke), so you know who they're played by. That's what Adam removed, but I still don't know why. Popcornduff (talk) 04:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Padme Amidala

Concerning Padme Amidala, you keep adding her name to the Star Wars: Episode VIII page. Surely, this must mean something. AdamDeanHall (talk) 23:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not the one you're referring to, but I don't see what the big deal is considering she is in fact Leia's mother. Calidum 23:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't see the issue with this either. AdamDeanHall what policy based argument do you have for not including this information?  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 00:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I removed Padme from the list but really would like to remove all family information (and other superfluous information). Unless, of course, there is consensus to include all family information. So Luke's, Leia's etc family associations should be listed in detail if Kylo's family associations are being listed in detail. It is so much neater and better to exclude all this extra information. Each character has a page which is linked. Go there if you want to know more about the character. Robynthehode (talk) 08:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to put all Kylo Ren's family members? I think the only one really important is his grandfather, Vader, given that this is what's more important to the character's decisions and behaviour. Facu-el Millo (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

No. You don't even have to mention Vader. It is clear that Leia is the child of Vader, so it uneccessary to put that information. However, it makes more sense to include Padme if you are going to say he is the grandchild of Vader. I.E. Son of Leia and Han, Grandson of Vader and Padme. If you are listing his lineage, you might as well include his grandmother.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 20:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Then let's just eliminate them all. Facu-el Millo (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

We should mention only the relatives that are important for the plot. Leia and Luke are active characters of the story (they are confirmed actors, reprising their roles), and their relation has to be noted. Solo and Vader are not, but there is strong reason to suspect that they will be important for the plot. The first one because a turning point of the previous film was... you know which one. The second one, because having Vader as his role model is part of his character definition, and that is unlikely to change. Amidala, however, was not mentioned at all in the previous film, and I have not heard about Portman reprising her role. If the film is released and she finally turns out to be important for the plot somehow, we may add her, but right now there's little reason for it. Cambalachero (talk) 02:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

None of this is policy based arguments for removing this content. This is all simply a matter of opinion. This information does not harm this article in any way, and is only the difference of a few characters. This really just seems to come down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 02:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Also the "former princess of Alderaan" part in Leia's description has nothing to do with this particular movie. Facu-el Millo (talk) 03:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I would like to point out that we strive to include encyclopedic information in our articles, as much as possible, with little or no more information than what is necessary. Policy arguments don't really have any place here: the question is whether Ren's relation to Amidala is encyclopedic, and therefore worthy of inclusion. It wouldn't be against any policies to include or not to include her, but I too have a problem seeing the real encyclopedic value of their relationship as it relates to this film. With that said, we're arguing over a couple of words stating a well-sourced fact of questionable relevance. -RM (talk) 04:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Again, I fail to see how this is not relevant when you are writing about this characters lineage. You can not say that Vader is relevant to this article, and not Padme. No one here has a crystal ball. Is Vader going to be relevant to this character in this episode? Yep. However, verifiability is more important than the truth on Wikipedia. We won't know the details of the importance of each of these relationships until we see the movie and have reliable sources on this information. So... To say you include certain characters in his lineage because of their relevance to this movie, is a violation Wikipedia policy, specifically WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. If you include a character in the list as part of his lineage, then it would not be very encyclopedic to omit certain characters. Your argument that arguments of policy do not apply here, is just wrong. Wikipedia policy does apply here.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 20:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say that policy does not apply, I said that policy arguments have no place because of these particular circumstances. That said, you brought up a good point. I think Padme's inclusion or exclusion would be fine. I'll be honest, I don't think we really need to include a character's lineage back two generations, especially since neither of his grandparents are expected to appear in the film. So, forget about Ren's lineage on the grandparent level for a second, and accordingly exclude Padme and Vader. Reference instead the fact that he EXPLICITLY refers to Vader as his grandfather in TFA, the context of which paints Vader more as an inspiration or mentor than a relative. There's your line of reasoning for including Vader without Padme. Like I said, we're arguing over a couple words, I don't think it really makes that much of a difference. -RM (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I understand the reference, but this is not an article about TFA. This is an article about VIII.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 21:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Vader is clearly still an inspiration for him. Facu-el Millo (talk) 00:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

You're most likely correct, but we don't know this. This is Wikipedia, not wookiepedia.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 00:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Ben Solo

Ben Solo is the former name of Kylo Ren, the master of the Knights of Ren according to Star Wars: The Force Awakens. He told Han Solo that his son was weak and foolish like his father, so he destroyed him. AdamDeanHall (talk) 17:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

How is this helpful? -RM (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

It's not. At all. The accompanying edits were some sort of screwed up INUNIVERSE junk. We don't write in character Adam. Don't do that again. oknazevad (talk) 23:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

2013 book

There is a 2013 Star Wars book called The Last Jedi by Michael Reeves and Maya Kaathryn Bohnhoff. If there is enough notable coverage about the book, we should create an article for it and disambiguate it with (book). Considering that it did not have an article before, in general use it is secondary to this film and its new title. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Episode IX GameNGuide

The production start for Episode IV in April is referenced with the website GameNGuide. However, this is an unreliable clickbait website that even creates fake news. According to Collider.com, production is not expected to start before end of 2017 [2]. --Christian140 (talk) 18:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

J. J. Abrams is an executive producer of Star Wars: The Last Jedi.

J. J. Abrams is an executive producer of Star Wars: The Last Jedi, yet the article, http://www.starwars.com/news/the-official-title-for-star-wars-episode-viii-revealed, says that he produced the film. J. J. Abrams can't be both the producer and the executive producer at the same time! AdamDeanHall (talk) 22:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you reread your linked article more carefully. Antinoos69 (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

"THE LAST JEDI is written and directed by Rian Johnson and produced by Kathleen Kennedy and Ram Bergman and executive produced by J.J. Abrams, Jason McGatlin, and Tom Karnowski." Rusted AutoParts 00:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Title ambiguous

As was the case with the title of Return of the Jedi, the word Jedi here is ambiguous and could be read as plural or singular. Back then some translated versions opted for one or the other (e.g. plural German Die Rückkehr der Jedi-Ritter (de) and Greek Η Επιστροφή των Τζεντάι (el), singular French Le Retour du Jedi (fr) and Italian Il ritorno dello Jedi (it). The English title may have been kept ambiguous on purpose, but that is not possible in many other languages. I am looking forward to see how this will be handled in the case of Episode VIII. Note that not only the number of titular Jedi but also the gender of the Jedi would be given away by foreign language titles. Iago2¹² 10:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

IMDb (unreliable, I know) lists international titles such as the German Der letzte Jedi, the Italian L'ultimo Jedi, the Russian Звёздные войны: Эпизод 8, and the Bulgarian Междузвездни войни: Последният джедай. I have no idea if these are official title translations or simply IMDb users translating the title themselves. In any case, I don't speak any of these languages. However, I'll keep an eye on that page (If we get a French title, I can translate it). Like I said, I know it's all unreliable, but it's something to note and consider. -RM (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Hate to say this, but this is not a forum, and speculating about the meaning of the title falls under forum material. oknazevad (talk) 16:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

We're not really speculating though. The Last Jedi is ambiguous as a phrase, and the meaning behind it is clearly relevant to the film. IF we were just saying "I think it means this," then we'd be speculating. But it is reasonable to at least keep an eye on international titles as they will reveal more about the English title's implications. -RM (talk) 16:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Implications for what? This is fodder for fan speculation. It has very little implication for the article. Popcornduff (talk) 18:09, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

The official names for The Last Jedi in foreign languages have not been announced yet. If they are on IMDb, it is unconfirmed. The database is also easily editable like wikipedia. The English title is the original title and possibly deliberately ambiguous. Though, interesting to know, foreign titles don't really have implications for the original title. It's just that changes have to be made depending on the language. However, perspectives can be different and still it has no impact on the story. E.g., while the English movie title The Handmaiden refers to Kim Tae-ri's role, the original title 아가씨 agassi refers to Kim Min-hee's role. But the story has not changed. So, it is possible that a foreign title could refer to only one person while the original title refers to more than one. --Christian140 (talk) 08:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh wow, did not expect backlash. This was not meant as random forum blabber and I did not mean to waste anyone's time. All I wanted to say was that we have been given an English title and that we should keep an eye on the foreign language titles to see what the English title means. And no, I would also not trust imdb as a source for these. The official German Star Wars website has a post about the English title for VIII but does not mention a German title yet. Iago2¹² 09:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Star Wars: Episode VIII – The Last Jedi

I removed Star Wars: Episode VIII – The Last Jedi because I cannot find evidence of this alternative title in its entirety. This does not mean that this film cannot be recognized as Episode VIII (the eighth episode), but it is incorrect to provide this as an alternative title. The same problem seems to exist for Star Wars: The Force Awakens. Both of these films have a different titling approach than the prequel trilogy (and the retroactively-renamed original trilogy). Unless there is evidence of this alternative title in full, we should not include it. As an alternative, we can state "Episode VIII" or "the eighth episode" somewhere in the lead section. Pinging involved editors: Robynthehode, AdamDeanHall, Mz7. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I take that back about The Force Awakens. It appears that for that film, the alternative title has been used by some sources, though not in an official capacity. I suppose it may be fair to assume that there will be the same unofficial usage for the next film, but I think we need sources first. Wikipedia follows; it does not lead. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Yep. Thanks Erik. Its about the sources. May very well change but at the moment I have found no source that says the aka title. So it should stay as just the title in the sources so far. Robynthehode (talk) 19:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the "also known as" text should not be included until reliable sources refer to it as such. Lest we start this discussion all over again. I'm adding some text now to help alleviate the editors who will be adamant about this, as well as a hidden note. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I can acquiesce to omitting the full "also known as" text for now (but I advise that if we truly want to avoid restarting that discussion, we should try to extend the consensus from that discussion). I do, however, want to agree with Erik's suggested alternative approach: that the phrase "Episode VIII" or "eighth episode" should appear at least somewhere in the article's lead, since it was used extensively by reliable sources prior to yesterday as the primary means of referring to the upcoming film. Personally, I don't see any reason to believe that The Last Jedi will turn out to be any different from The Force Awakens naming-wise, but I recognize the relative scarcity of sources available at this point in time. How about revising the second sentence to read something like this: It will be the second installment in the Star Wars sequel trilogy following Star Wars: The Force Awakens (2015); in the fictional chronology of the franchise, it will be the eighth episode. Mz7 (talk) 21:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mz7: Please see how I added episode 8 in the lead, but removed the "also known as" text for now with this edit. @Oknazevad: please join the discussion since you restored the text. Google-ing the following exactly, with quotes, "Star Wars Episode VIII The Last Jedi" does not yield any promising results that we could use to source it as an alternate title at this time. Once again, WP:NORUSH applies. If it is meant to exist, the sources will come eventually. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Whoops! You're right, I didn't see the text you added until just now. I'm fine with how it is currently, but I recognize that this can definitely change as more sources become available. Mz7 (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

There is no 'relative scarcity of sources' just no reliable sources that state the aka title (unless someone can refer to them. I have checked). So it needs to stay as Star Wars: The Last Jedi until enough reliable sources state otherwise. This may happen, it may not. And no you can't extend a consensus from one article to another. It really is quite straightforward. Wait for reliable sources, if they appear then any changes can be included. Such a process has not changed in Wikipedia since the year dot. Robynthehode (talk) 21:37, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

There is a relative scarcity of sources in the sense that the title was just announced yesterday—surely the sourcing available right now for The Last Jedi is not as abundant as it currently is for The Force Awakens. I agree with you that it can change when more reliable sources become available. Regarding an extension of the consensus, this article and The Force Awakens show many parallels: the films come from the same trilogy, have the same primary naming scheme (i.e. without the episode number), and are often referred to by their episode number. Come December, if the film has "Episode VIII" in the opening crawl, I argue that the prior consensus extends very naturally to this case. If we cannot extend the consensus, then I'm afraid we'll have to have essentially the same discussion again. Mz7 (talk) 21:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Should we not mention "Episode VIII" at least, seeing as how that is the title that has been used so far by reliable sources? Also, for what it's worth, the opening crawl for the film says Episode VIII – The Last Jedi. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: Right now, the phrase "Episode VIII" appears in the second sentence of the article: ...serving as Episode VIII in the Star Wars saga. Mz7 (talk) 21:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

For The Force Awakens, the 'episodic title' was not used in any official capacity. I think it was on the Star Wars site as part of some headings on a page or two and a bunch of cinema chains listed the episodic title. That's as close to official as it got. But I think it was primarily fans and movie talk sites, etc. and such that used the episodic title. So it more or less became common usage only less common than the title without the episode words. Yet, it did end up in the lead paragraph. Probably the same will happen for this title, and with non-productive back and forth debate. Is it worth resisting? I added the redirect "Star Wars: Episode VIII – The Last Jedi" to "Star Wars: The Last Jedi". At least, we can keep the article title as is. Alaney2k (talk) 21:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

No one is talking about changing the title of the article. The question is the inclusion of an "aka" in the first sentence. As the consensus, following existing guidelines, in the last discussion made clear, the display of the title in the film itself constitutes as valid, significant alternate title that belongs in the first sentence. And the link from Adamstom97, which itself links to the film's director shows that it is in the film itself. Removal is pointless, pedantic, and against guidelines, and again, let's not bother with the slippery slope arguments. oknazevad (talk) 22:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Once again, from the Force Awakens discussion, using it in the opening crawl ≠ an alternate title for the film. But, that can be added to the article, as with The Force Awakens, stating that Episode VIII is featured in the opening crawl. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Do we really have to have this same discussion every time a new Star Wars movie releases? The episodic title is and already has been used by sources. It was officially called episode vii before the title was even revealed. Doesn't that alone mean that "Episode VIII" is an alternate title?

Two well known sources:

http://www.theverge.com/2017/1/23/14357700/star-wars-episode-8-the-last-jedi-title-announced (this one literally calls it an alternate title)

http://www.nme.com/blogs/star-wars-8-last-jedi-release-date-trailers-1882426

Since it has a reliable source, I will go ahead and be WP:Bold and re add. Xilech137 (talk) 04:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

The Verge source doesn't state what you quoted, nor "Episode VIII - The Last Jedi". Also, the NME source, not to be picky, uses "Episode 8" not "Episode VIII". But still, disregarding that, an alternate title should be used by an abundance of sources to show that it is indeed an alternate or "aka" for the film. At this time we still don't have that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I was searching Google directly for it in quotes, and it quoted the Verge article and showed in the summary it said it. After looking further at the article itself, I noticed what it was quoting was an external link within the article, not the article itself. So that is my mistake. But, Episode VIII was the first title for the movie, referred to in multiple official sources, so the fact that it was once used as an alternate title is unquestionable right? Just like in the original trilogy, even though they had their name changed to add the episode doesn't mean they weren't officially once called Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi. But this is all ridiculous since we know Episode VIII will be in the crawl. That alone makes it an "AKA" situation. Xilech137 (talk) 05:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

There's no reason to believe that it wouldn't have Episode VIII in the crawl. This whole thing is ridiculous. Also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KBMuktcY-4 and https://www.instagram.com/p/BPqBSPZBRoo/ BrianBrecker (talk) 05:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

The point is that we can't start naming things until enough reliable sources (in terms of due weight) do. Until then, there's no rush to list any alternate titles. DonQuixote (talk) 05:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree completely now. The Verge is a reliable source. But since I misread that reference, there are definitely not a good bit of, if any, reliable sources calling it Episode VIII: The Last Jedi. Xilech137 (talk) 05:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. None of the opposition, if I can boldly state, are not saying this won't be an alternate title. We just don't have the sources to back it up. The title was revealed 2 days ago, for a release at the end of the year. The sources will come, if it is meant to exist and be noted. Every just always seems to be in a rush to add the info, without having the sources to back them up, or considering WP:V. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Right. And most of the other users arguments are in violation of WP:Crystal ball. Xilech137 (talk) 05:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)