Talk:Star Wars

Characters not included under "Star Wars the Clone Wars" Column

The flowing characters were in the television series, but are not under the column "Clone Wars" like they should be -Grand Moff Wilhuff Tarkin -Chewbacca -Greedo -Boba Fett -Qui-Gon Jinn (voice only, and a vision seen by Yoda) -Admiral Ackbar -Gunray -Jar-Jar -Binks -Darth Maul -Shmi Skywalker (as a ghost like figure) -Velorum -Ki-Adi-Mundi -typho -Bail Organa

I might be missing some, but these struck me the most. I can get the appearances in episodes at a later date.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.76.255 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 6 August 2014‎ (UTC)

Community reassessment

Star Wars

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: I agree with the clear community consensus on this matter and will delist based on unresolved concerns over article size, sourcing, and scope.Challenger.rebecca (talk) 13:50, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

To my dismay I am nominating this article for reassessment. Sourcing is the main concern. As can be seen huge amount of sourcing is needed. Other sourcing problems includes lots of primary and fan sources. There is also chart spam over proposed text and other maintenance tags such as "too long" . Also looks as if leads from sub-articles are just pasted here......lots to fix. --Moxy (talk) 15:55, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree- This article has obviously grown a lot since 2008 when it was named a good article. Movies have come out since then and a lot of attention was drawn to the series. It's grown too fast to the point where it was not all quality work. Plus there are too many sub-sections. Why are all the movies described in detail when each has its own substantial article? And since there are multiple maintenance tags, I do not believe it should remain a good article. El cid, el campeador (talk) 13:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree-The thing is that this article focuses solely in the film franchise, instead of focusing on Star Wars as the multi-media franchise it is. The only solution is that this article should be renamed into Star Wars (franchise) and the films should be split into an article called Star Wars (film series) to receive the focus they deserve, and allow the other media (animated series, video-games, comics, novels) to be properly described in the franchise article. We would keep the film tables at the top of the Star Wars (franchise) article and an additional super brief additional paragraph (or two paragraphs maximum) about the films plot overview, but split most of the info regarding the films and their developments into the new article Star Wars (film series), we could also merge the whole sequel trilogy article there instead of as stands right now, having two articles saying the same things about the sequel trilogy in different words, and also explain there the Holiday Special and the Ewoks films as non-canon Star Wars Legends films. I think that's the way it should be solved but no-one listens to my split suggestion, despite how the article here is the one of a film series, instead of the one of a multi-media franchise, the split would also make easier to keep both articles in good status, since both having less information is easier to manage. The article for the The Simpsons (franchise) of how the final Star Wars (franchise) article should look albeit, the SW franchise would have more tables for the media.Rosvel92 (talk) 06:39, 2 July 2017 (UTC)Rosvel92

The suggestion to split the article hasn't gained any consensus, in part because this article is the franchise article and the films having more coverage makes sense per WP:DUE. They're the seminal, most high profile, most influential pieces of the franchise, the part of the franchise that most are familiar with. Yes, it's a multimedia franchise, but to pretend that the other pieces of media carry the same weight as the films is silly. A solution is to reorganize the article, expand reception to cover more than the films. I personally believe that paring down on individual film plots. I'm the past, I proposed to merge the individual film sections into larger trilogy sections, perhaps pare down on film specific development information and leave that for the film articles to streamline the structure—but that also has not gained consensus, per SUMMARYSTYLE, so I doubt it will be wise to implement. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 14:04, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree. Rosvel92 - I agree with everything you said except the film tables. I think they too should be merged, with a much smaller film table replacing them that merely lists the basics on each film. TenTonParasol - The films are certainly the centerpiece, which is why they should indeed be given the most weight. BUT they should not be given the ungodly amount of coverage that they currently receive in the article. A good franchise article is that for the Star Trek franchise; there is a main page which goes through the films, tv series, EU etc., but each of these links to an article covering them in more detail. I believe this style should be applied to the Star Wars franchise as well. Wilburycobbler (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Title	U.S. release date	Director
Saga
A New Hope	May 25, 1977	George Lucas
The Empire Strikes Back	May 21, 1980	Irvin Kershner
Return of the Jedi	May 25, 1983	Richard Marquand
The Phantom Menace	May 19, 1999	George Lucas
Attack of the Clones	May 16, 2002
Revenge of the Sith	May 19, 2005
The Force Awakens	December 18, 2015	JJ Abrams
The Last Jedi	December 15, 2017	Rian Johnson
IX	May 24, 2019	Colin Trevorrow

Title	U.S. release date	Director
Other
The Clone Wars	August 15, 2008	Dave Filoni
Rogue One	December 16, 2016	Gareth Edwards
Untitled Han Solo film	May 25, 2018	Ron Howard

I think we're in agreement that some things needs to be pared out of the films—like specific film development. But we're disagreeing about the methods. I don't think a split is the way to do that. I personally believe you just figure out what's necessary for an overview and leave it here, send the rest to be covered at the individual film articles. I personally agree the level of detail is too much, and should be covered in more summary, but there is no consensus on how much is too much. Even my own proposal, which simply involves cutting things out without a split, has been considered to be insufficient wrt the level of detail.~Cheers, TenTonParasol 18:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Additionally, I'm not sure exactly what you're proposing with the table example. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 18:55, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

The only films table, I meant keeping on the franchise article was the one at the top. The tables of cast, crew, reception, oscars, etc, should be solely on the Star Wars films article (which would mostly be just most of the films section as it stands right now). The Franchise article would be the films table a small overview, and the in other media section merged with the Star Wars expanded universe (but ditching the in other media subtitle)Rosvel92 (talk) 22:23, 2 July 2017 (UTC)Rosvel92

I was referring to the table Wilburycobbler constructed above. I was going to start a separate section about it, but Moxy mentioned there are too many tables. I think the Oscar table should definitely be converted to prose. And I feel like the RT and MC table should go entirely, and that section be turned into a prose summary of reception of the franchise. I think I formerly proposed that the crew table be merged with the first table if possible, seeing as they duplicate information. This would reduce the number of tables from six to three (trilogies, standlone films, box office totals). ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:06, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I've merged all applicable content into the Star Wars (film series) template. The Star Wars article is now much more succinct and to the pointWilburycobbler (talk) 23:19, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted it because there's no consensus! ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:19, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

This thing is like the US health care bill, in that there will never be a consensus on exactly what should be in or out, so I merged all applicable content to the film series article. At the end of the day our only consensus can be between either cutting the crap out, or retaining a bloated article, and we have clearly chose the former. So I decided to be bold. Wilburycobbler (talk) 23:26, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

We've barely had a discussion on it. We could always agree on what information to pare out exactly without splitting it into another article. We've agreed the article is bloated, but we haven't agreed on how to deal with it. There's more than two options. And since I felt the bold move wasn't a good one, I reverted it.~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

A franchise article is supposed to be an overview, not an in-depth analysis. As it is, the article contains waaay too much information about each film in the form of both prose and infoboxes. And it shouldn't even be covering individual films in the first place! That's what the film series articles are for! Again, see Star Trek. Wilburycobbler (talk) 23:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

And I've said I agree. I just don't think splitting the content off into "Star Wars (film series)" is the way to do it. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 00:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't we add the split discussion suggestion at the top of the films topic and at the top of the article? Since I suppose, now is clearly been discussed? Rosvel92 (talk) 01:29, 4 July 2017 (UTC)Rosvel92

Regarding the table bloat, I've just converted the Academy Awards table into prose. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 02:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Way too big

Am I the only one who thinks this article should be majorly pared down? For instance, there is way too much overage of each film that should be split off into its own article. Wilburycobbler (talk) 17:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

The thing is that this article focuses solely in the film franchise, instead of focusing on Star Wars as the multi-media franchise it is. The only solution is that this article should be renamed into Star Wars (franchise) and the films should be split into an article called Star Wars (film series) to receive the focus they deserve, and allow the other media (animated series, video-games, comics, novels) to be properly described in the franchise article. We would keep the film tables at the top of the Star Wars (franchise) article and an additional super brief additional paragraph (or two paragraphs maximum) about the films plot overview, but split most of the info regarding the films and their developments into the new article Star Wars (film series), we could also merge the whole sequel trilogy article there instead of as stands right now, having two articles saying the same things about the sequel trilogy in different words, and also explain there the Holiday Special and the Ewoks films as non-canon Star Wars Legends films. I think that's the way it should be solved but no-one wants to do the split.Rosvel92 (talk) 06:08, 2 July 2017 (UTC)Rosvel92

It's because THIS article is "Star Wars (franchise)" and it doesn't make sense to split off everything into basically separate franchise articles. And the film series is the main thrust and the centerpiece of the Star Wars franchise. They're going to have the most coverage in this article because they're the most high profile, the seminal works, the most influential. If anything, I personally think information should be pared down and smaller pieces of the franchise shouldn't be given undue weight. Do we actually need to put that much sectioning and information on theme park attractions? Do we really need that much focus on video games? Personally, I've been saying pare down plot summary a little more and some development on individual films, possibly merge the sections into trilogy overviews—but that suggestion doesn't have consensus either, and I can understand why. And, frankly, I'm not sure the article is actually that long (there are plenty of other articles of similar length), the article is just poorly structured and difficulty to navigate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TenTonParasol (talk • contribs)

Rosvel92 - I agree with everything you said except the film tables. I think they too should be merged, with a much smaller film table replacing them that merely lists the basics on each film.

TenTonParasol - The films are certainly the centerpiece, which is why they should indeed be given the most weight. BUT they should not be given the ungodly amount of coverage that they currently receive in the article. A good franchise article is that for the Star Trek franchise; there is a main page which goes through the films, tv series, EU etc., but each of these links to an article covering them in more detail. I believe this style should be applied to the Star Wars franchise as well. Wilburycobbler (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Let's just discuss this entirely at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Star Wars/1. There isn't much use duplicating the argument exactly in both places. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 18:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Wilburycobbler making a split and my immediate reversion: neither here nor at the Good article reassessment page has there been a consensus to split this article, so I reverted it. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion for splitting the Star Wars (film series) as it's own article

Made the other discussion, which was basically this same discussion. A subtopic within this same discussion. I also saw the table about the Oscar wins & nominations converted into prose. And I feel no one is going to bother or understand how to read that as prose, everyone will get lost in that paragraph. It was better of as a table. *Honestly the solution is that film series, should be split into it's own article with all the info remaining as it is without further expansion. In the franchise article, only the current main table of all the films would, and each trilogy would be reduced to a brief two sentence description of the timeline for it. *Also I suggest merging the current sequel trilogy article with the proposed Star Wars (film series) article. Rosvel92 (talk) 17:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)Rosvel92

I had brought up the conversion of the table into prose at the GAR and nobody had anything against it for two weeks. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 17:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• I don't think the article should be split. Firstly, there's already a list of Star Wars films and television series, so it'd be completely redundant. Secondly, there's already a ton of sub-articles about video games, about theme park rides, about, frankly, everything. It's one of the most extensively covered pop culture topics on Wikipedia. We do not need more articles at all!
  What should happen is a paring down of details here. Let all those tons of articles do their job instead of over stuffing this overview. oknazevad (talk) 18:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

  To restate my position, this is the same position I've taken the multiple times this split discussion has come up. I absolutely agree this article is bloated. But I do not think splitting it is the solution. It needs to be pared down some and leave some of the more specific detail at the existing sub-articles. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 18:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

  If we split the Star Wars (film series) into it's own article, then the article List of Star Wars films and television series could be easily incorporated into the article for the Star Wars (franchise) article, which would work better than having the list as it's own article.Rosvel92 (talk) 19:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)Rosvel92

  How is a franchise article different from this article and different from the list of television and films? This article is effectively a franchise article, how does paring down information and distributing it amongst the subarticles and rebalancing this article not solve the navigation issues? If "Star Wars (franchise)" exists, what is the primary topic of this "Star Wars" article? ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 20:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

My slightly uninformed suggestion to be ignored at will (apologies but I found these discussions a little hard to follow as to exactly who wanted what).

• Star Wars (with or without franchise in the title). Contains a brief outline of all SW content, main focus on films, also covering the existence of books, video games, TV, merchandise etc etc. Much less detail than at the moment. I would suggest that the trilogies are clubbed together, with links to the individual film articles and a 'brief' outline of the plot arcs and notable info re the reception and impact. I'd also maybe think about pruning some of the tables, certainly the crew one. The objective of the franchise article is to describe the scope and impact of the Star Wars across all media types.
• Individual film articles. No articles in between. However, I'd be open to having intermediate articles on the individual trilogies or possibly a film series article 'if and only if' it doesn't end up replicating the content either here and at the film articles, creating a content fork.

Just a suggestion.Scribolt (talk) 14:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• I would say, that we should create a draft-template for Star Wars (film series) and then edit the article there.
• Then when it's properly edited, rename the main Star Wars article into Star Wars (franchise) and re-arrange it to have less info about the film series, and re-order while trying to mirror the way the article of The Simpsons (franchise) is organized, ie:
• Background (creation (just how Lucas, created Star Wars in the briefest way and a brief description as to what's canon and what' not canon), themes, main characters (film only, ))
• then (films (keeping a table for the films, but a simpler table than the one that would be featured in the main article for the film series), television (with tables too, from the list of Star Wars films and television series that would be merged in), video-games , print works(novels, comics), theme parks), then merchandise. Then Parody works, Then Cultural impact.

The only major difference would be that in the case of Star Wars, the films are more important than the television, and also the video-games are more important.But definitely create a draft article, for the film series to agree on how to edit it. Also the article for the sequel trilogy would definitely be merged into the proposed article for the Star Wars (film series) article, someone should star a discussion there.

Also in an unrelated topic, check the discussion I added to the talk page, of the article about Star Wars Legends, my point is that the introductory paragraph to that article is wrong. Rosvel92 (talk) 14:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)Rosvel92

• Comment I don't think a new article is needed, especially when List of Star Wars films and television series already exists. Part of the problem is that this article regurgitates too much of what exists at the individual film articles and could be tightened up. The statistical data about the films could be moved over to List of Star Wars films and television series so that the list would be similar in structure to List of James Bond films. That would solve most of the bloat issues here at this article. Betty Logan (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

You are right about not needing a new article, when it would be easier to move the excess of information, into an article that already exists. Such as List of Star Wars films and television series article, that could work and solve the issues.Rosvel92 (talk) 16:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)rosvel92

• I think it's misleading to lump television in with the films. Even the Star Trek article doesn't do that. I propose that List of Star Wars films and television series be renamed to Star Wars (film series). Wilburycobbler (talk) 14:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

  Why would it be misleading? The article clearly declares that it also has television series. And, really, the Star Wars films and Star wars series lists are shorter than the Star Trek ones. Frankly, I'd propose moving it to List of Star Wars films and series so that things like web series are less out of place. Television and film are related forms anyway. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 15:03, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

  What I mean is that the article implies that they are of the same level of importance, which is clearly not the case. Also, the film series is important enough for its own article, whereas the TV series are best summarized alongside books and games in the main Star Wars article. Wilburycobbler (talk) 18:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with what you are saying, but to make it more easy, here's how I think we should do it:

• I would say the article for sequel trilogy, is the article that needs to be renamed into Star Wars (film series). Given that it already is an article that only concerns about the film series.

• And I would say everything in List of Star Wars films and television series should be moved. The tables concerning the films into the films series article, and the tables about the television shows directly into Star Wars which now would be a franchise article.

• Then with all info of the List of Star Wars films and television series article, distributed on other articles, we could delete the List of Star Wars films and television series article itself.Rosvel92 (talk) 15:31, 18 July 2017 (UTC)rosvel92

The sequel trilogy article is about the history of the concept of the sequel trilogy. It's about the sequel trilogy specifically, not Star Wars films as a whole. It would just create an issue where we have "Star Wars", "Star Wars (film series)", and then "Star Wars sequel trilogy". You're missing the point that this article, Star Wars, is already a franchise article. There's no way to make this article into a franchise article because it already is. Moving everything from "List of Star Wars films and television series" onto the main franchise article would only further bloat the main article. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 15:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

_____ You got confused, TenTonParasol. It would only be two articles:

• The franchise article Star Wars (it will cease to be bloat, once most of the content regarding the film series gets split)
• Star Wars (film series) (where all of the current sequel trilogy article would be merged inside, so just renaming the current article makes sense).

Once the two articles exist neither would be bloat, so it would definitely be feasible to move everything from "List of Star Wars films and television series" and distribute it across those two articles, in a fit way, without bloating either of them. And then deleting the list article, in order to have only two articles instead of the current three articles.Rosvel92 (talk) 16:17, 18 July 2017 (UTC)rosvel92

Why can't we just excise overdetail in this article, move things like crew and box office tables to the list article, and leave the sequel trilogy article to detail the (admittedly long) development process of that trilogy. No matter what, the sequel trilogy is going to end up at its own article because it has its own long development history. The bloat can be cut down simply by removing overprecise detail that is already currently covered elsewhere in this article. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 16:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I think this discussion is losing its focus. Its aim is to tighten up this article and scale down the content a little. There is an underdeveloped article at List of Star Wars films and television series which can easily accommodate the extra content. What happens thereafter at List of Star Wars films and television series is for the editors at that article to decide—they may well agree splitting the film and TV content is a good idea or they may oppose it—but the primary objective of cutting this article down in size will have been accomplished. Betty Logan (talk) 19:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

-- I think that for the meanwhile it would be okay, to move the extra information into the List of Star Wars films and television series article. *However part of the reason I want to push for the Star Wars (film series) article is to mention in more detail the controversy and enhancements surrounding the Special Editions VHS, DVD, and Blue-ray there. Also having all the info about the film series into the franchise article doesn't even allow to mention necessary simple things like how the main saga films feature an opening crawl, while the anthology films don't have opening crawl. Also the original trilogy is way far more deserving of it's own article than the sequel trilogy, even if the the sequel trilogy also deserves a whole explanation onto itself. But I would argue all the anticipation surrounding the sequel trilogy is mostly because how much we all love the original trilogy, because I'm completely angry at J.J.Abrams for retreading to A New Hope, and ruining The Force Awakens by making it the only un-original film in the series, so far. The whole reason, I want to see The Last Jedi is Luke Skywalker, a character that I'm fan of because of the original trilogy. I think it would be better to create an article for the Star Wars (film series) and just expand there on info about all the films, there's more than enough information to justify it's creation.Rosvel92 (talk) 07:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)rosvel92

We most CERTAINLY don't create or write articles based on a personal assessment of "deserving" or out of personal opinions of a work or personal feelings toward members of the crew. I suggest you read WP:SOAPBOX. The sequel trilogy has its own article because it has its own specific and lengthy information. It was explained to you before, the re-release changes are covered in the individual articles and in its own article, and it's undue to add the information anywhere else. If you really want to make a separate film series article to expand on details you personally think important or to push the important of certain members of the franchise over others, I ask you reconsider. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 12:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

List of Star Wars films and television series should definitely have some of the material from here move there. A good comparison would be with Marvel Cinematic Universe and List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films. Once that's done we can see what else (if at all) should be done. Two side notes. Star Wars sequel trilogy - I see no reason why this trilogy should have its own article, while the original one doesn't. The development of the original one was added here, the sequel should have also been added here (unless we go the other route and split each trilogy's development into its own article, which I'm sure this isn't what we want). Second, I'm also not liking the awards as prose (also just noticed its only showing Academy Awards, which I'm sure this can't be the only one to nominate them). --Gonnym (talk) 20:34, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

___________So far, the idea is to:

• Move the excess of information about the films into List of Star Wars films and television series, so I say we should move the excess of info into that article (and also make sure Star Wars (film series) re-directs there).

The following reasons to do it are that:

• The franchise article as it is right now, because of lack of space doesn't even mention or explain that there was three Special Editions, the 1997, the 2004 DVD, and the 2011 Blu-Ray (which to me is unacceptable, specially when this is supposedly, the article about the films). Nor does it have space to explain how the Main Saga films include an opening crawl, while the anthology films don't among other differences (moving most of the films info to List of Star Wars films and television series would give us space to explain those things). And, I also oppose to each trilogy having it's own article, moving all the films in the series into same article would work better. Everything in the sequel trilogy article could easily be moved into the List of Star Wars films and television series article, and it would work better than as a stand-alone article with lots of repeated info..
• The whole cast and crew, awards sections, they mess the flow of the franchise article, but if they were instead only on the List of Star Wars films and television series article, they would not mess any flow (that's why it should be split).

Rosvel92 (talk) 20:33, 29 July 2017 (UTC)Rosvel92

Why is it of utmost important to mention the Special Edition releases? ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 20:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

@User:TenTonParasol, that's really not the main point of this conversation, don't derail it. Whether the special editions should or shouldn't be added, if that's a point of argument, it should be raised when its relevant. Its not relevant now.--Gonnym (talk) 21:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Alright, I'm just asking as an aside because it was mentioned as a rationale for why we should proceed. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

At any rate, as I said before, I support moving the crew lists off here and generally trimming the article overall. The whole business about the sequel trilogy article and whether or not an original trilogy article ought to exist is beyond the scope of this. I generally think the box office and awards information could also go into a revised List of Star Wars films and television series article. This would cut down a lot of the bloat by distributing it to the other article—and it doesn't require creating a redundant new article. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:32, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

___The main reason I insist so much with the Special Editions, is that if you were to ask George Lucas what's the best or the most canonical version of Star Wars, he would answer the Special Editions are the best and that the Special Editions are the versions he wants people to remember, even if not all fans agree with him. Given the consensus I'll rename the discussion into what everybody seems to agree upon.02:44, 30 July 2017 (UTC)Rosvel92 (talk)Rosvel92

Moving content to List of Star Wars films and television series

Has the consensus been reached. Can we start moving content?Rosvel92 (talk) 02:44, 30 July 2017 (UTC)rosvel92

I generally remind you about advocacy editing, soapboxing, and editing to achieve a particular aim or right great wrongs: WP:ADVOCACY, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:TENDENTIOUS. We don't need a new section, so I removed the heading. I think there's a consensus to move things over to the list, but I think we should do so a little at a time so we can assess it as it's going out. The list article can be restructured and discussed about a restructure over there. What should be moved first? The crew table? ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 03:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I lied! I realized how long the section actually was. Reinstating Rosvel's split, but with a shorter header title. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 03:13, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Regarding this, I imagine that will have to be separately discussed at that article, seeing as there isn't much of a consensus here for what to do about it. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 05:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I've gone over the articles touched about in this discussion and compared them with other similar franchises and their articles. My opinion for the articles would be as follows:

• Main Franchise article (Star Wars):
  • Development: A development of the franchise section - including movies, TV series, publishing, sale to Disney. This will also include the development process of the sequel trilogy. Note: This is -not- the development process of each film. But a high-level overview of how this whole thing came to be. Each film will deal with its own development process (including production, casting, etc). (Reference: Marvel Cinematic Universe#Development vs parts of Star Wars#Theatrical films that deal with the development of it & parts of Star Wars sequel trilogy#Production)
  • Film/TV list - Have only the table from the top of Star Wars#Theatrical films and one for the shows which doesn't even exist. This should be similar to how Marvel Cinematic Universe#Feature films did it, with it actually being transcluded from tables in the film/TV articles. There is no need to talk about the films here as the link will lead them to the List of Star Wars films where they get an overview of the films in the franchise and if they want an even more in-depth article, they can go to the specific film's article.
  • Cast & Crew: The table is redundant to the one found in Star Wars#Theatrical films. If the missing fields are really important they should be added to the table and this one should be removed.
  • All other sections should stay.
  • There are other sections which can be and should be created but that is for a different talk.
• Film list/TV list (List of Star Wars films / List of Star Wars television series):
  • Split the list to a TV and Film list (Similar to List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films and List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series) as there are enough content for each one and they are both different enough in scope (the following sections should be in both articles).
  • Short film synopsis: Take the parts of Star Wars#Theatrical films that have the film synopsis and added them to this article. Split by sub-header for series (original trilogy, sequel, prequel, anthology, etc).
  • Recurring cast and characters: Maybe take the main characters from the series (from List of Star Wars cast members for a Recurring cast and characters section (Similar reference: List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films#Recurring cast and characters
  • Reception: Take the Reception (including sub-headers) section from Star Wars#Reception (Similar reference: List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films#Reception
  • Special Editions: These can be included here (but should be short and explained much more in depth in the specific film's article).
• Delete Star Wars sequel trilogy

While other articles might do this a bit different, please note that the articles I've references have received Good Article and Featured List ratings. Take that however you wish. --Gonnym (talk) 12:38, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

First I will start by moving everything under the sup-topics cast and crew and reception into the List of Star Wars films and television series exactly as it is, as those are the main things that disrupt the flow of the article by giving an excessive weight to the films.Rosvel92 (talk) 13:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)rosvel

I don't have time to respond more to Gonnym, but I do think that perhaps some summary of reception not in this level but incorporated into cultural impact? And, as usual, I protestthe idea that there's excessive weight in the films. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 14:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

There is no excessive weight in the films, they are just deserving of their own article. If they stay here, they would have to be cut down, since then they would have excessive weight compared to the subject of the article, which is about the whole franchise and not about the films themselves (hence the move). --Gonnym (talk) 15:57, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

That's a good first move. Such charts are exactly the sort of too-specific-for-a-general-overview that should be moved. And the destination of the right one. That said, I agree with TTP that it is first and foremost a film franchise (multi-billion dollar box office in the last two years alone and all that), so let's not be too eager to strip out film material from here. And I'm still not sure about splitting TV and film, if only because of the edge cases. For example, the Ewok spin off films were shown as TV films in the US, but were released theatrically overseas, so would they go on the TV or film article? What about Star Wars: The Clone Wars (film)? It was released theatrically, but is actually the pilot for the animated series, and not having those on the same article would be strange. Just things to think about. oknazevad (talk) 14:37, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

We can put them all in the same page and see how it looks but IMO, it will be too much information for one page. And while I understand why it might look strange, its not very different from being on a page for Episode IV and having a link to Episode V. Same thing could be here with something similar to "The animated series was based on the Star Wars: The Clone Wars (film) that served as its pilot". And while the Star Wars franchise is based on the film series, and no one here doubts it, its just way bigger. Having a separate article for the film is actually serving the propose you are advocating for, its giving more weight to them, compared to the other subjects which don't get their own article and are all in this one. If the films would have stayed here, their material would have to cut to make the article readable. --Gonnym (talk) 15:57, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I think. I think like splitting off the television and films is a good Idea, obviously still summarizing them here, but the article is a film and television series article, together, and I think that lier should remain such, perhaps renamed to "film and series" article, but the exact structuring of that ought to be discussed over there, I think. What I mean about reweighing the article, I'm worried that expansions are going to make things like the television series, theme parks, print media on the same level as the films, but they're not. And, general, yes, this discussion is about cutting down the article in GENERAL, not about reducing film information. Moving everything about the films off this page while INCREASING coverage of other aspects is indeed making the films less weight. At any rate, I do oppose expanding anything at all at this time. I think personally, any discussion of canonicity of elements ought to be taken out, or reduced greatly, if it's still there. I'm mobile and checking is hard. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 16:48, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean. Are you in favor of moving the film and tv info or keeping them here? If you are in favor of the move, why do you want them also being here? A very short summary should be enough, with a link for further reading in list article (similar to what I've just done with the theme park section). In that article they will have all the info relevant to the film series (and TV if thats the idea). Also, this article - Star Wars really isn't about the films, its about the franchise in whole, with the films being the major playing in it, but not the only - it including television series (which under Disney gain a much bigger role), comics and books, attractions, toys, culture phenomenon (to the franchise, not the films), and yes, even what is cannon and how it changed (which effects every aspect of the franchise). --Gonnym (talk) 17:18, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

In the process of this move and incorporating information, again as usual, I don't see why we NEED to mention the special editions here since this article doesn't even have a home release section, which I mention because it's coming up, avoid adding information without references. That doesn't help. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 16:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Please note that the move of material from this article needs to follow the guidelines at WP:Copying within Wikipedia to avoid any copy violations. I know that some of you will be aware of this but thought it worth mentioning anyway. There are several editors and admins who can help you with this if needed. MarnetteD|Talk 16:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

In regards to the expansions and table additions, there's nothing in the above discussion about EXPANDING the article or adding tables. The entire discussion, from the GAR to the above, has been about reducing the article. We don't need new tables, we especially don't need tables for theme parks because that's giving them undue weight. The article is too long as is, and we're discussing how to reduce that. Cutting down on some parts and removing some tables only to expand others and add NEW tables is not helping toward that. Frankly, if anything, the addition of the theme parks table should've been discussed here first. But it wasn't. Ditto with the major expansion to thay section which was later split off immediately after. Any expansion ought to be discussed as the main concern here is reduction of the article overall. NOT just reduction of film related elements. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 17:11, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that isn't how wikipedia works or even the purpose of this discussion. The current discussion is about dealing with the film and tv sections. The GAR is a different one (which in my opinion is still a long way a head). As for adding data that you don't like, explain why? Am I giving undue weight by adding a table with 10 lines in this article? You complained before that giving them a VERY short description was too much (even though other GA articles similar in nature have done that), so I very shortened it to a table. If you want to cut something, I believe the prose section should be cut, or at least edited down. The franchise page, how I view it, should be a top level summary of all things that make it a faction, be it films, tv, comics, and yes, attractions --Gonnym (talk) 17:25, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll answer both comments here. I am absolutely for having the film tables taken out. I don't think they ought to be here. I think that film sections ought to be reduced so that there's less film-specific production info. I'm just clarifying I don't think we should do something like reduce everything under the current "Theatrical films" section into one really bare bones section. That I think should never happen. The films are the primary thrust of the franchise, so to reduce them essentially to a minuscule section and a see also link definitely does not adhere to WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Even if in recent years the theme parts and print media and toy have become bigger, in the franchise's history as a whole, they have never had the exposure and attention that was given to the films. At the same time, no the GAR isn't actually separate, we should be addressing all issues at one time, and it's my understanding that this discussion came out of long-standing opinion that the article is way too long—which was also brought up at the GAR—and long-standing belief that the article has too many tables—which was also brought up at the GAR. Why do we need a table with the debut dates of the theme parks and attractions? Why are the themes parks so important that we need to put in a table, when the article was felt to have too many tables? The theme parks aren't that important in the grand scheme of the franchise's history. And this was not a "short" description of the theme parks. That's devoting whole sections to each attraction, which isn't what this article needs. I agree the this article should be a top level summary of all things, however, we need to consider WP:WEIGHT. Why are we making the theme parks more important? Making a table listing every single debut date, especially when there's now a separate article for that list, and main article for each attraction, just isn't doing top level summary. It's the same exact problem as having the crew list here! What I'm seeing here is that you understand that the film and television stuff can be dealt with more in detail at other articles, but you aren't understanding that the same goes for other parts of the franchise. Everything about this discussion has been splitting, so I think it's inappropriate to take advantage of it to expand. I have approached this entire discussion as about reducing the article as a whole, but it just happens that much of the bloat is in the film section—never at any point did I believe it was about film and television specifically. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 17:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

About the theme park tables. My 5 cents is that the main issue was never that there was too much tables within the article. The problem was that -there was too much tables about the films within the article- and that disrupted the flow of the article. The tables about the theme park, don't disrupt the flow of the article in the way the tables about the films did, so it's okay to keep them. That's my opinion. However I think that the table should distinct between the cancelled attractions, and the still running attractions.Rosvel92 (talk) 05:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)rosvel92

The original comment from Moxy at the GAR is "there is also chart spam over proposed text", which isn't a comment about the tables being only about the films, but rather that there are too many charts in general. I have no idea where you're getting the idea that the issue is that all the tables were film related. The initial issue is that there were too many tables, period. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 12:02, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Setting section

We don't need headings for everything, the section isn't that long. And, also, like, even if we do reduce the plot section out in the other sections, we do not need to devote THAT much description to the setting. There is no reason to go on and on about parts of the galaxy "being governed instead by the Hutt gangster clans, professional bounty hunters and crimes such as slavery exist on such planets" because it's not important to the understanding of the franchise and the setting as a whole. We don't need to go into detail here about the mechanics of Order 66 because that's what the Revenge of the Sith and Clone Wars (Star Wars) are for. We don't need to go into detail about the rule of two because that's covered at Sith. I agree we need to cut down on plot in the "theatrical films" section, but we can achieve that without having a massive bloat of the setting section. The actual plot details are covered at the respective film articles, which are linked well throughout the article. I suggested a reduction down to what was really necessary, and linked to other articles where things could be more described in detail. It's too much plot. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 19:30, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm with TenTonParaso on this one. I'd even trim it more than he did just offering the basic setting of what Star Wars is and not the setting for each film, as if you go down that road, its not only the 3 trilogies, but the stand alone films and the TV series (and this is without touching on the cannon books and comics). Instead, the basic setting which is the first 2 paragraphs is really enough. Each film/TV/Comic article will later give their plot. --Gonnym (talk) 19:33, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I have no objection with restoring down to the original two paragraphs. I was afraid cutting it back down to those two would be overly aggressive of me, so I opted to jump to compromise position with cutting down the addition of the trilogy political settings. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 19:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@Rosvel92: at the moment, per the above, it's likely the setting section will need to be cut down again. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 21:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I think I'll take the chance here to also say that we don't need three (unsourced!) paragraphs detailing the intricacies of the canonicity of works. That can be detailed at Star Wars canon, and it's been explained to you multiple times, Rosvel, across articles to avoid undue emphasis on the canon-Legends split. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 20:19, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I do see your point there was too much about the fictional eras there. However I wanted to suggest to left the setting as it is, plus this added text explaining the Skywalker focus of the saga, and replacing how the canon is explained. And emphasizing George Lucas contributions to the saga, the current canon, how the Star Wars Legends were discontinued and how the films work in relation to all other media. Feel free to change it if you disagree. But I would the introductory to early on explain what is canon, and what is not.05:01, 2 August 2017 (UTC)Rosvel92 (talk)Rosvel92

I'm removing your pasting the content of the section here for ease of discussion. First of all, seriously, it's not "Setting" so it makes no sense to put it up there. Frankly, we... don't really need to emphasize Lucas' contributions to the saga since, well, the section detailing the films and everything else already makes it clear. And it's an overemphasis, again, on in-universe status of individual pieces of media. And, from a grand scheme of things, as far as summarizing the franchise goes, the canon-Legends divide isn't actually all that important, so it doesn't really need to be explained in such great detail. It's all covered in the separate article anyway. Additionally, this is a summary page, so devoting a whole section to explaining the Skywalker saga is... well, not exactly summary. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 12:00, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Sources

Going to take some time to add and replace fan sources this weekend. Would love some help in this regard.....going to set up a star wars sandbox later today.....will link it up here.--Moxy (talk) 17:32, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

In other media section

I overhauled Star Wars expanded universe earlier this year, trimming and citing the equivalent subsections of Star Wars#In other media as overviews/intros to the redundant but slightly more robust sections under Star Wars expanded universe#Works. My plan was to eventually trim the "In other media" section here further (all the existing info should already be in the Star Wars expanded universe article), which should help with the size issues of this article. Perhaps even down to a single overview paragraph/section, but we can discuss. Connected to this, I've opened discussion at Talk:Star Wars expanded universe#Refine format and possible rename. There have been ongoing discussions about the possible confusion between "Star Wars expanded universe" and "Star Wars Expanded Universe", and a rename may also be in order due to the article's evolved scope.— TAnthony^Talk 17:35, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I've commented over there but I'll just summarize a few notes - this article should be the top level Star Wars article with a top-level, detailed-view about all things Star Wars and which leads to other sub-articles about the relevant topics - films, tv, comics, etc. Your current plane makes the other article somewhat the same as this one in that regard. --Gonnym (talk) 20:47, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Except that if this article went into detail about every media category, it would be pretty ungainly. But I could see trying it and then splitting off topics only as necessary.— TAnthony^Talk 16:18, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

High level detail, not specifics. Like I've given before as an example, Marvel Cinematic Universe has done a pretty good job with that, and they too have a franchise composed of a lot of different parts. --Gonnym (talk) 17:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Obi-Wan film

As of today, it is official that the studio is developing an Obi-Wan Kenobi centered film. This needs to be added to the page.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 19:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)