Talk:Star Wars

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good articleStar Wars was one of the Media and drama good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 20, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 29, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 29, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
January 13, 2006Good article nomineeListed
July 15, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 18, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
February 21, 2007Featured topic candidateNot promoted
May 31, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
April 6, 2008Good article nomineeListed
April 17, 2008Featured topic candidatePromoted
July 12, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
October 18, 2017Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Characters not included under "Star Wars the Clone Wars" Column[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 02:54, 6 August 2014‎ (UTC)

Time for a split off Anthology article?[edit]

With quite a bit of content at Star Wars#Anthology films covering the two released films and all the speculation about the future, and with those orange tags here on the main article, I'm wondering if it's time to split much of that content to a new article. I created redirects, like Star Wars Anthology Series, a few years ago figuring the time would soon enough come for it to be its own notable topic, and I think that day may be here. I won't do this if there's strong consensus against it, so let me know your thoughts. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:44, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Seems sensible. I don't have any strong feels either way, but it seems sensible. It'd also be a good opportunity to tighten up against spec and rumor mill. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 20:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Not yet - there is mostly speculation and excess in that section. I don't think we need that yet. Also, the prequel films section is similarly sized, yet they don't have their own article, with all of that being covered here as well. R9tgokunks 20:58, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
That didn't occur to me. The prequel trilogy could probably use a split-off article, I think. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree the film section is getting too out of scope. However, I do feel there's no need for an 'Anthology films' article of it's own, as all could perfectly fit into the already existing list of Star Wars films and television series article, I even think the current sequel trilogy article should also be moved in there (specially because there's lots of redundancy between this Star Wars article, the list of Star Wars films and television series and the sequel trilogy article. And I don't think the articles are consistent with each other at all. info that should be within a single article is akwardly split across 3 articles).Rosvel92 (talk) 09:27, 29 June 2018 (UTC)Rosvel92

─────────────────────────In response to the proposal that "sections about Theatrical films be split out and merged into the article titled List of Star Wars films and television series", I'd have to vote against. We can make the summaries on the main page more concise without adding to a page that's just supposed to be a "list". There are already prominent links to the main film pages (and one for the sequel trilogy, so perhaps an "original trilogy" and "prequel trilogy" article should be created as well). This article should briefly summarize the history of each film production, its plot, and other specific articles can host more detailed information. UpdateNerd (talk) 12:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

-- The thing is that this article is the one that should be about the franchise. This is the article that should be just a list of the films. Curently this article is out of scope focusing too much on the films and not enough in the franchise. The current article is trying to be about the franchise and the films and I don't think it works.

  • To be honest, concerning the films all this article needs, is the current intro and the film tables, and maybe a brief plot overview of each Star Wars sub-film series. The list of films article should be the one with all the details, and this should be just the tables. The semi-detailed plot overviews should be moved to the list of Star Wars films and television series, also the whole sequel trilogy article could easilly also be merged into the film series article, too. The article about the films should be more detailed about the films, currently the article about the franchise. is more detailed about the films than the one meant to be all about the films.
  • Moving most of the content regarding the films there would also help reduce the trafic on this article, which would be nice, and also because honestly the film sections needs more subtopics than the ones this articles can actually afford. Moving the content there would help a lot.Rosvel92 (talk) 08:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC)rosvel92
The films are the primary installments of the franchise, so it makes sense to spend a significant amount of time covering the films. I don't think plot summary should be moved to the lier article. I agree that trimming is warranted, I don't agree with this proposal. The most important part of the franchise is the films, so it makes sense that the films are weighed a little more in the franchise article. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 12:24, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • As I've status elsewhere several times, this article should be the franchise overview article. A good example of how this article should be is Marvel Cinematic Universe. The main film article should be a "list of film" article and for television a "list of television series". --Gonnym (talk) 07:37, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Don't think the Marvel comparison is a good one. Star Wars is, first and foremost, a film franchise. The MCU is based on a pre-existing (comic) series, so it justifies a separate article. SW doesn't, at least not in the ways proposed so far. UpdateNerd (talk) 08:13, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
That argument has been rehashed so many times, it just doesn't matter what Star Wars is "first and formost". This article is about the franchise, not the film series, that's why the film series has its own article. The only reason this article is going nowhere is because of this mindset that just doesn't want to let go of the previous primary topic. Also, if you really want to get into the semantics, for most of the franchise history, books and comics and toys were the main, with 3 films living only in memory. --Gonnym (talk) 10:37, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
The article is about Star Wars generally, and it's a film franchise. UpdateNerd (talk) 10:48, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
You clearly are not understanding you are using terms incorrectly. What you call "generally" is in essence the Media franchise, a "Film franchise" is an essence a Film series (go ahead, click on film franchise and see where that takes you). This article talks about the "thing" that is Star Wars, its history, development, cultural impact and the pieces that make it up - the films, television series, books and comics, toys, games and theme parks. But have fun making this article never get promoted. On a related note - if anyone does take this issue to a real RFC, please ping me. --Gonnym (talk) 11:40, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Splitting the main Saga films, instead of an split off Anthology article?[edit]

How about instead of splitting the Anthology films into their own article, we instead move most of the information about the Main (Skywalker) Saga into the Sequel trilogy to turn the sequel article into an aticle about the whole Star Wars (Skywalker) main saga, and then getting the sequel article retitled Skywalker Saga for practical reasons, then with the additional space maybe the whole list article can be merged again into the franchise article or not, as I believe the list article is not needed unless it gets expanded with more info from this article, which no one wants to do. With a shortened film section, the television tables could also fit here, as they are supposed to belong in this article, since this article is supposed to be about the Star Wars franchise as a whole rather than only about the film series. The templates for suggesting splitting content:

Rosvel92 (talk) 00:06, 21 September 2018 (UTC)Rosvel92

My response, personally, remains as above. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 00:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
This article should not be the "main series" article. It's the franchise article as a whole and it's not wonder this article will never reach any good status in its current condition. Also, there I'm pretty sure there is no need in even splitting the film series from one another. So in response to your proposal, if it moves the films into a film article, I'm for it, but it really should be into a list article of all films, as I really doubt that splitting Star Wars film article into so many sub-article is really required. --Gonnym (talk) 07:34, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
The steps in the proposal above are inadvisable. It's too complicated to edit an article with the intent of having it moved. If need be, create a 'Star Wars episodic saga' article that combines info on the three trilogies then merge the sequel trilogy article. I also advise against naming it something that's only been used in a single announcement. Keep it more general. UpdateNerd (talk) 08:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps the steps, I've suggested could be improved, but most of us seem to agree that this article will never reach a good status, unless more content from this article is moved to the articles about the Star Wars film series. Also I agree, with what you are saying that most should be moved into a film article, given that there are already two articles about the Star Wars films, I believe the content should be moved into those and that no new articles should be created, the two film related articles that already exist and on whom the content should be moved across, are Sequel trilogy and List of Star Wars films and television series.

  • Maybe just rename the sequel trilogy article, into Star Wars main saga (Skywalker Saga) or Star Wars original, prequel, and sequel, trilogies (or any agreed suggested name that is fitting), and copy and paste the content regarding Episodes I to IX that's here there, and start from there.
  • Or maybe for the meantime all the content regarding the films, should be copy/pasted into the list article, while this article reduced into only the introductory four paragraphs and the film tables. Rosvel92 (talk) 14:54, 21 September 2018 (UTC)rosvel92
You need consensus before doing any big reformat edits. But I don't think a clear or logical solution has been suggested (see my above comments), so I don't think it's time to begin collecting votes yet. UpdateNerd (talk) 18:23, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Splitting to Star Wars (film series)[edit]

The user Gonnym, made a very good case about why moving the info concerning the film series. This article is about the media franchise (which is everything, including the films, videogames, comics, novels, etc) and another is the films article, which solely concerns about the films. The current super detailed level of info about the film series doesn't belong into this franchise article, it belongs in the article about the film series, which is currently empty and is called List of Star Wars films and television series. So the solution is to move most of the info regarding the films into the list of films and tv article, in order for ths article to cover the franchise more properly (not just the films), and also so the films can be covered more properly (the special editions are not even mentioned which makes the article incomplete and weird). As the article is right now it will never achieve good standing and the article about the film series will also never achieve good standing, because curently none is covering the topic it should be covering.Rosvel92 (talk) 02:15, 22 September 2018 (UTC)Rosvel92

I'm against, because I don't think it sounds like an improvement. Would support a plan to overhaul the page that addresses concerns I've stated above. UpdateNerd (talk) 03:02, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
As I've stated above. While I absolutely believe paring down the film section is absolutely warranted (and I've said this since the GAR that delisted the article in 2017), the fact that the franchise is most primarily a film series, it makes sense that films have more weight in the article. I do not believe splitting off information into yet another article in the article confusing morass of the topic tree and bloating the article with information about secondary parts of the franchise—and given history, it will be bloated—will help the article. Special editions, as stated multiple times before, don't actually carry that much weight, especially in terms of franchise overview.
I've previously suggested cutting down plot summary to a handful of sentences per film (the plot summaries are just way too long for this article) and covering the films in groups rather than each individually, i.e. cover the development of the original trilogy all at once and leave granular especially very film-specific detail to individual articles (we don't need information like the specifics of the Rogue One timeline here), but there hasn't been consensus for that either.
Also! Rosvel! Can we stop adding new talk sections with overly long titles to the middle of the talk page? I shortened the header. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 04:25, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Please do not make changes associated with this discussion while they are still under discussion! ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 12:39, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
In any case, I propose that all the film and series tables get moved to List of Star Wars films and television series. Such a page is the ideal home for such charts, not this already lengthy article. UpdateNerd (talk) 18:51, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree that the tables this detailed ought to go. I opposed the theme park tables when they were added, and it's generally noteworthy that one of the concerns brought up at the GAR was "table spam". However, I see merit in a simplified film table that covers ALL the films at once (including TCW and the anthology films) at the beginning of the film section and a simplified television series article combining the live action and animated series tables at the beginning of the television series section. I see no reason to have them separated like that, it's especially absolutely stupid with TCW, and I still am not sure why the two tables were separated into five tables way back. The short of it: I wouldn't necessarily be sad to see the tables go, but I think at this stage, I'm going to advocate for simpler tables that replace currently five tables into two because I also advocate for paring down and merging all the subsections for individual titles into sections covering larger units. Simplified meaning like, using the films as an example, nix the composer and initial distributor column, I'd even say nix producer. Have just those first five columns. The television tables do not remotely need the setting and canon columns. Pare down the tables to give the most pertinent information, leave more details information to the tables in the lists and the individual articles.
I absolutely believe the theme park attractions table needs to be nixed, though, and replaced with a prose overview. That level of detail is just unnecessary, especially when there's a list article. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 19:26, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
I know it's hard for you to grasp what an "overview" is, but that's just it. This is an overview article about Star Wars in general. The table is just that, while its list article has more detailed information, as that's how Wikipedia works. Shocking, I know. --Gonnym (talk) 20:21, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm of the opinion that tables are more handy in a list, which already reads like a database (albeit something Wikipedia is NOT). The main article is about the franchise generally, and should introduce its conception, historical context, themes, etc. without getting lost in all the sequels, spin-offs, etc. A separate article for prequel trilogy makes sense (as well as condensing prequel/sequel sections into overviews), although a separate article is prob not needed for the original trilogy or entire "Skywalker saga". Since SW is primarily a film franchise the article doesn't need to be generalized to its mixed media marketing, which seems to be the proposal here. UpdateNerd (talk) 20:34, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Given the length of the article, I don't think removing the tables entirely would be beneficial. In a less detailed version of the table, rather than an exact replica of what exists at the list article (I absolutely disagree the tables should be transcluded from the list), they would be useful to summarizing the films in a single list that does include the sequels and spin-offs. It's useful to list them all once, together, someplace. A simpler table like this, I believe would be appropriate because it focused on the information readers may most likely wants and presents it in one table rather than three. And I believe that because having them all listed together at the top of the film section would be providing precisely the necessarily context to all the other information. To clarify, I do think some coverage to other mixed media marketing is absolutely warranted, and I believe that the television, print media, and basically everything under expanded media needs to more properly cover also their publication history. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 20:55, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
The only downside of a big table at the top is that it takes longer to get to the conception of the original film, which could easily be resolved with a sentence in the lead. I pretty much agree with you: three tables are the only that are necessary: theatrical films, TV movies, and TV series. Simple tables for this article, more complex ones on the "List". Also, I don't believe gathering consensus is needed for making that basic change, as it requires none of the suggested complex overhauling. Cheers UpdateNerd (talk) 21:07, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Considering the tables is an apparently contentious thing, given how often they're changed. I'd still say give it a few days. Also, I've posted neutral notices at WP:FILM and WP:STARWARS to see if anyone cares to have any input on the matter. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:16, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Though I can't believe we are STILL talking about this, I see Gonnym's point and wouldn't mind a trim of the film sections here in favor of the film and TV list. I think the historical opposition to this in general has been, no offense intended, because of Rosvel92. He means well, but makes sweeping, disruptive and often redundant edits that are sloppily written, fixates on what is canon and what is not, and continues doing so after repeated reverts and pushback. 99% of the edits he makes need to be corrected by other editors, both the content itself as well as basic grammar and spelling. I'm willing to see what Gonnym can do, but I violently object to Rosvel92 actively participating. Sorry.— TAnthonyTalk 02:17, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

To clarify, I wouldn't mind seeing a trim either. Just as long as it isn't a wholesale split the entire section off into those lists and leave like three paragraphs to cover the entirety of the films. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 02:48, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

What needs to be moved are the words in the section about the films series, the tables are the only things that should, absolutely, 100% remain for the television shows, for the films, and for the theme park rides, because the topic of this article is the whole Star Wars (franchise) (instead of just the film series), because this is the Star Wars (franchise) article, this article must cover everything, the films, the television series, the videogames, comic, books, theme park, and the merchandise (maybe the films section can receive a little more extended than the others, but not to the current degree where as it stands right now, this Star Wars (franchise) article is easilly confused with the Star Wars (film series) article, to the degree that Star Wars (film series) redirects to this article about the franchise, instead of redirectiong to the actual article about the Star Wars film series (which currently is List of Star Wars films and television series).

What Gonnym and me are complaining , is that the article as it stands right now, is out of scope, because it, is focused solely on the film series, instead of focusing on the franchise as a whole. I have said multiple times, the solution is to move sections about the film series section into the actual article about the film series (which currently is List of Star Wars films and television series). Keeping the article as it is right now is violationg the out of scoop guideline, because as he said this is an overview article.

The purpose of the franchise article is to say that there is more to Star Wars than the films, but as it stands the vibe the article gives is that Star Wars is only the film franchise and everything else is just crappy tie-ins. The sections regarding television series, videogames, comic, books, theme park, and the merchandise, should not be shrinked to make more space to cover the films, curently the section about the book, comics and videogames are not properly done, because any time someone tries to do them properly, they are reverted to expand the already overlong section about the films (which can be as long as it needs to, but in the article about the film series, not in this one). Attempting to shrink the film section is pointless, because shortly after someone will come and extend it again into a problem the film section has outgrown this article.

The solution is to move the individual subtopics of each film to the film series article. Because as it stands right now the excessive lenght of the film series section disrupts the flow of the article and makes the article like the film series article, instead of the franchise article it is supposed to be.Rosvel92 (talk) 04:19, 23 September 2018 (UTC)rosvel92

OK, so you're proposing that Star Wars only broadly cover the films (with some weight given to the original trilogy), and that List of Star Wars films and television series be renamed to something like Star Wars films, where they are all addressed at about the level they are currently represented in the "main" article. I would support this revised proposal, and suggest that the Star Wars (film) later be moved to Star Wars (1977 film) to further disambiguate it. UpdateNerd (talk) 05:41, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Hold on, whether articles are getting renamed is a whole other discussion.
To respond to Rosvel. Honestly, the reason attempts, particularly your attempts Rosvel, to expand sections that aren't the films section get reverted is as TAnthony stated: they are often riddled with poor spelling, poor grammar, and sometimes they're clearly copied and pasted from some indeterminate source. If not that, there's also often a tendency toward table spam (I don't know who it was, but the film tables used to be a single table and now it isn't anymore, we do not need tables for everything, table spam is literally one of the points the article was delisted for) or some overemphasis on continuity or minutiae (again, because it was mentioned before, the special editions honestly don't need to be mentioned here and historically you keep trying to add them back in). As I said before, I don't oppose trimming the films section or expanding the others, I have not suggested trimming the other sections at all, I've just seen what specifically Rosvel is proposing and it is not helpful.
I think we're on some sort of agreement to, though, pft, everyone in the discussion has been saying "trimming to more broad coverage of the films is acceptable" the entire time. I just absolutely oppose the specific way Rosvel wants to do it, and I additionally oppose Rosvel being one to do it. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 13:47, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
@UpdateNerd, yes, exactly. This article covers Star Wars as a whole, development, history, impact and various other media, with tables transcluded from sub-pages. The sub pages, each dealing in more detail about that specific subject - films, tv, books, comics, games, etc. I keep giving the MCU article as an example, as that is one of the best ones available on Wikipedia, with a good article tree and minimizing redundant information appearing in multiple articles. --Gonnym (talk) 15:06, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree with @TenTonParasol that we don't need a bunch of tables added to this article. If they are already included in the linked "sub-pages", then including them here would be nothing short of redundant. UpdateNerd (talk) 18:04, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
As for what article gets what content, I've created a chart of how I think the flow should go (this is based on current articles and content) which can be seen here - User:Gonnym/sandbox/StarWars (UpdateNerd, you had to click 1 second before I published?) --Gonnym (talk) 18:06, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Actually, that is the exact opposite of redundant. Again, an overview is supposed to give you a short summary (high-level one) of the topic. The tables are just that, a quick summary. If we take the film table as example - it shows film names, release dates, top-level crew. What it does not show is the story of the film or a detailed production of each film. That goes into a film series article and into a specific film article. Without the tables you'll have to write that information into prose (which is less reader friendly imo), but cut it either way, you'll still have to talk about it, so I'm not really sure how you two see the final product. --Gonnym (talk) 18:10, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
I've already stated my support of three (not-split-up) tables: theatrical films, TV movies, and TV series. They do eliminate the need for stating the release dates, box office etc. in prose form. But I don't think we need one for theme park rides, video games, or all the other minutiae. Maybe you could narrow down which tables you're proposing. UpdateNerd (talk) 19:19, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm basically, again, saying that this is not the film or film and TV over article, but the franchise article. Theme parks, video games and anything else is part of that. Specifically, I don't think a video game table would fit here as it's just too many to list, same with books and comics. That said, they still need a section in this article. Looking at this article again, the only table not a TV or film table is the theme parks ones and that is pretty small. If this whole conversation is because of that one table, I'm impressed. --Gonnym (talk) 19:30, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
I generally agree with UpdateNerd, and frankly, I really don't care about the theme park table anymore. I don't think it's necessary and can be sufficiently covered in prose—and a prose portion of that section does still need to be added—but I don't care anymore about it. And, again, nobody is saying get rid of the sections for the other stuff. Nobody has said that at any point, it's just resistance to how much material under theatrical films ought to be removed. I actually think a lot of them can stand to be expanded. I agree with UpdateNerd that I agree to three not-split-up tables between Theatrical films, TV movies, and TV series, and no more of the five table nonsense for that.
I'm having a hard time following your chart, but I do disagree that the television movies and Lego films need their own article. But generally splitting the list article is a separate discussion to be had over there.
Seeing as we're generally in agreement about at least combining the tables for theatrical films and television series. Should we implement that right now? I'm linking again to my proposed for the film table. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 19:39, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't see where we were in agreement in combining tables for films and TV series, or even where that subject was even brought up. Regarding the chart, each top level square is a high-level topic, some have examples under it so you'll understand the scope. Regarding your film table, while I'm not a fan of the current colored table, this one has some accessibility issues with the section headers mid table. --Gonnym (talk) 19:43, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Ah, I apologize. I proposed that as part of article clean up that the tables be combined farther up toward the top of the discussion in my second reply. UpdateNerd asked before what your ideas on the tables were and agreed on combining the three tables for theatrical films into one table, and so on, and since you hadn't commented on the matter, I wrongly assumed you had no objection to that proposal. Mm, I understand the chart now, but I still don't understand how exactly it's helpful in determining how much to clear out here and how best to expand the other sections and where. And, I had structured it that way because it's the common way of structuring it (even on Marvel Cinematic Universe). Is there a different way to structure the table to circumvent accessibility issues (which I assume means we need to stop with the colspan also on the individual boxes as well)?
Okay, to step back a bit it is my understanding that we all agree that the film section needs to be trimmed down to a broad overview, but at least I agree that other sections warrant expanding. And I'm fixating on this table thing bc it's the easiest cleanup step to start with: how to handle the tables and the fact that the current theatrical film set up means we have weird tiny tables for TCW and anthology. I think we should do this a step at a time. Figure out the tables first, then look how to handle the theatrical film section (what to cut, how to cut it, possibly merging the trilogy sections into one large section rather than three subsections each), then move to television (figure out that table, where to expand, etc), then the other sections. Argue about one thing at a time? Because trying to talk it out all at once definitely hasn't worked before. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 20:37, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Strongly think that this conversation is getting out of scope. I need a flow chart to understand that flow chart. I think we have two editors, @rosvel92 and @Gonnym, with highly complex but different ideas for the article, but they claim to be in agreement, so it just confuses the proposal. @TenTonParasol and I have been dedicating a lot of time just trying to understand the shifting proposals and suggesting ways of improving them. I keep trying to start a consensus vote on a simple but broad decision so we can move on, but it seems we're back at things needing to be restated. I suggest that @rosvel92 and @Gonnym discuss their ideas without intervention, perhaps on one of their talk pages, and come back here with a more realistic proposal. Alternately, choose one idea for this consensus conversation, not reenvision every SW article. UpdateNerd (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
That's, in my opinion the main problem though. Focusing on this table or that section is a band-aid on a much bigger problem, which is that the Star Wars articles as a whole are a huge mess (to put it politely). What you want to do is good and will work, but it's working backwards. The reason why I was talking before about transcluding the table, as that the table info should not even come from this article, but from an article discussing the films. The best approach is for each section to summarize the article from which it came from, not for each section to be written as if there is no other article about that. By first determining what our main Star Wars pages are and then working on them, we will be able to determine how best to write this article and what needs to be here and in what order. --Gonnym (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
You need to be more specific about a self-contained step in what you envision as part of your larger plan, that will be an improvement even if the other parts aren't favored in the future. What do you mean by "transclude the film tables"? How are they not already? UpdateNerd (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
I think I was as specific as one can possibly be. The sub-articles need to be agreed upon and their scope defeind. That is the most basic step. Then the second step is to actually fill them in with content. A step later will be to see what content from those articles goes back here in summary version. As for the tables, only the first one is, the clone wars and the two other stand-alone ones are written in this article. --Gonnym (talk) 21:44, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

─────────────────────────────────── Frankly, I agree Gonnym has been pretty clear. Like, I agree we should write these sections as if there's a more detailed article elsewhere, which is why I say we shouldn't transclude the table. A simple version of what exists at the list should exist here purely because the other article exists. I'm saying: we have a simplified table here because there will be a more detailed table at the list (and it means we won't have the weird TCW and anthology tables here), we cut down the plot summaries because there will be plot summaries at the individual articles, we trim out small details like casting dates and very specific production information because that will be at the individual articles or the list article. I think we should be summarizing as we move information to the list article, working down the article from top to bottom (taking the trilogies as one section) and doing copy-edits working down. Rather than trying to handle all of the information and split it off at the same time. I don't really know what scope needs to be determined for the sub-articles really, because your chart doesn't look that different to me from what it currently is, except in that the list article is split into smaller article. It whether or not the list article should be split itself is another matter to be discussed later. (Though, I would support splitting it into two lists, List of films and List of television films and series, because I don't see why television films or Lego stuff warrants its own article. Just handle everything TV in one list.) I feel like we should treat the list article as is like the primary article, start moving information to that article, then determine if that article needs to be split further at a later date. Take the chunk of original trilogy, say "this as going to the list article", figure out what of this remains at the main article, write an overview summary of that, move the information to the list, replace with summary, move to prequel trilogy. If by the time we get down to television films it's clear the list article needs to be split, then split the list article. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Because the Lego Star Wars have films, shorts and TV series in them, so how does that fit into a List of TV series article? I could see if you want to add the TV films with them, but again, those are also different. The point of articles is not to reduce the size of the info, but to manage scopes easier - both for readers and editors. Also, I didn't show the complete list of articles that Star Wars have. In my chart I removed pages like Star Wars sequel trilogy (which should be merged into the films article). I also split the films from the TV (currently they are in the same article). If you also notice, pages like Comics and Video games have 2 articles basically talking about the same things - these sort of things happen when the article scopes are not clear to editors. Commenting about transcluding, it just makes it easier to control the data. Instead of two tables with the same info and needing to update both each time something needs to be updated (new info, broken ref, accessibility layout changes, etc), you just update it once (and watch it once for vandalism) and it gets updated everywhere you use it. --Gonnym (talk) 22:36, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
@Gonnym, other than deciding between simpler or more complex tables, is that basically what you're proposing?
As I see it, the proposal does involve eventually requesting the removal of "List of" from the title of the other article. If we cut everything at its current length from this SW page, it can just be pasted in & gradually reworked. Not much extra writing needs to be done, just the broad overview for this page. The individual movie articles are the places for further details. UpdateNerd (talk) 22:52, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
I didn't even talk about tables, I think the film tables are fine as is (unless I missed something). I'm proposing splitting the films and tv data into 4 articles - theatrical films, TV series (including the one web series), TV films (if we really want, it can go with the TV series, but I believe the TV series article will be pretty big as is) and Lego Star Wars. No trilogy stand-alone article. Then move all plot-related information those articles. Leaving here the development/history of the franchise - very high level film development, but nothing film specific. Those should be moved to the film/tv articles. A table with the summary should be left here (hopefully transcluded as explain above why). The film article will look much more like this current article, but it would have the advantage of not having to share space with items which are not relevant (like Theme parks) and also have all trilogy information in one article and not split between 1,2 or 3 different ones. That's a very general idea - of course things will get into finer detail once stuff gets started. --Gonnym (talk) 23:02, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Ah, you're proposing splitting out to four new articles, and not into the existing one as the "split-out" tag on the article & title of this talk section suggests. Trying to get these ideas put into more explicit terms so newcomers to the conversation don't have to mine the paragraphs above. UpdateNerd (talk) 23:14, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Drafts[edit]

Just joining to give my opinion since I had recently discovered the mess of the Star Wars articles and started work on drafts to try to improve them to match the quality of other big franchise articles like the MCU and the Wizarding World (which I created last year and got to GA status). I think it's clear that this article needs to be trimmed to serve as an overview of the franchise with more specific and detailed information found at separate films and tv series articles. I agree with Gonnym that we first need to determine the scoop and structure of each articles and then we can focus on the actual prose. If any of these changes are going to get approved, we need to work in drafts so people can see the outcome. Simply making multiple major edits will just be quickly be reverted. So I propose that we agree to a structure for those three articles and then work on the prose.

I've started three main drafts User:Brojam/Star Wars, Draft:List of Star Wars films, and Draft:List of Star Wars television series. Please have a look at the three drafts and let me know what you think of the structure. I think I've followed what you guys have been discussing with a films table very similar to what TenTonParasol proposed. For the films, I've divided them between each trilogy and then grouping the others (for now until more are produced and can be grouped into different sections) into an "Other films" section. For the tv series, separating them between animated and live action since we cannot separate them by continuity because that violates WP:INUNIVERSE. I'm not really convicted that the three television films need a separate article. They can easily be mentioned in the main franchise article. For the Lego films and series, maybe a parodies article, but they definitely do not belong with the other SW tv series.

I've also been working to cleanup the SW cast members list by separating the film and tv actors into two separate lists (Draft:List of Star Wars film actors [almost done] and Draft:List of Star Wars television series actors [need some help]) but we can look at that later. - Brojam (talk) 22:57, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly the way (with finer tuning once we get this agreed upon). Also, thanks for joining in. --Gonnym (talk) 23:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Looking over it quickly (I'm short on time right now), frankly, these drafts are literally what I had in my head, just with expansions to the television section and (assuming what's currently here will exist under Other media) the outside media sections. I to answer about the Lego parodies, I really have no idea where they would go, and I thought the easiest solution would be as a television item it be covered under there, though I often think it should just be nixed out of the list altogether, but I doubt anyone else sees it thatway. I would support two lists, and the main article in the style of that draft. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:10, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
I just realized that Lego Star Wars pretty much acts as an overview for all the Lego tv series and films so no new article is need. - Brojam (talk) 01:36, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree all up to making the film section broad on this article, and moving the excess of info to the List of films article, then I got confused. But after seeing the draft pages, I can say I was ultimately pushing for something similar to what Gonnym and Brojam are proposing, even though, I honestly didn't know how to do it or push for it. I had no clue as how to do it, they seem to have a more clear idea of what they want to do than me, so I fully agree they should lead. The Lego movies should be placed into Lego Star Wars.Rosvel92 (talk) 01:50, 24 September 2018 (UTC)rosvel92
Not trying to be difficult, but fleshing out the lead on the Star Wars draft would really help define why that version of the page would more adequately introduce the franchise than the current article's structure. It's also unclear why there are separate film and TV sections with nothing but tables. See WP:PROSE. Thanks UpdateNerd (talk) 19:18, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
That version of the article structure puts the development of the films in the same place, reducing the number of sections that can be bloated and forcing detail to be trim and summary to be tight. Allowing for "list of" sections also allows for works to be listed in a way that helps contextualize the article without disrupting the flow of prose heavy sections like development sections. As far as why there's sections that's entirely tables, see farther down the MOS you linked to the list of works section ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 19:51, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
I can totally see how having all the lists of titles together in one place would be helpful, but a "List" article already exists, which ought to be the place to put those. I know, I know, I need to study the draft more to understand its logic, but it's much less intuitive to understand the Contents list than on the current live version of the article. UpdateNerd (talk) 20:17, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
It all boils down in the end to scope and the amount of details each article tier should have. So at the highest tier level (#1) you have Star Wars, the franchise page. This shouldn't even discuss the development of a specific film, but talk about how the franchise came to be, with the ups and downs, and the various media that came along. Then you have various List of articles (#2). These talk about a specific topic, so List of Films, will talk about the development of the films and a very brief synopsis of each film. But even here, the topic is still high-level, so a specific film will only have a summary of that film's important information. Then you have the specific film (#3), here you go into the details of each film (casting, writing, production, films, release, etc) and a detailed plot. Each top level is a summary of the previous level. The reason why you don't jump into the lead of any article (not even just the franchise lead), is that the lead (WP:MOSLEAD) is a summary of the article. How can you flesh out the lead before you finish an article? --Gonnym (talk) 20:30, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
That is perhaps the case, but I suggest waiting for the "List" to be broken out to Star Wars in film and Star Wars in television before migrating the sections. Cheers UpdateNerd (talk) 20:39, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Since there didn't seem to be much standing in the way of this, I've gone ahead and processed a migration. It's easily reversible per the edit summaries, but I think it represents what has been opined by many editors. There was already an overview section, enough to cover the films and point to the List. I thought it was important to at least summarize the original film's conception. I think a spoiler-free summary of the Skywalker saga could also be provided here. If this change rides out, the TV section could then be split out, although...
What about leaving the TV material here, and deprecating it from the List page? Then that page could simply be renamed Star Wars in film (removing a level of section complexity). We can always split out the TV material from this page later if it gets too out of hand. UpdateNerd (talk) 01:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

──────────── I've reverted @UpdateNerd: because I felt that the simple just cutting everything and moving it did not reflect the drafts and is just leaving the main article in a very, very under-populated limbo space where there's was ZERO information about the films and shows, and these cuts and moves are muddying the request for split process at the list. Generally, now that I've really sat down and looked at the split discussions over at the list. It's all.... very confusing how the attempt to implement this has gone so far, and sort of makes me question if UpdateNerd understands the structures of the drafts. @Brojam: since the drafts are under your userspace or in draftspace and were primarily edited by you, I'm wondering how you think it best to proceed. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 00:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

All for incorporating the best parts of Brojam's draft, but wouldn't it be easier to build up from a minimal section on the topics, rather than try to arrive at it by replacing sections bit-by-bit? UpdateNerd (talk) 01:18, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
I think the best way to go about this is completing the three drafts (which Gonnym and myself have been discussing and have started working on). Once they are done and we are all happy with how they look, we can go about moving the film and tv drafts to the mainspace and replacing the contents from this article with the stuff from here. TenTonParasol and UpdateNerd, you are both welcomed to join in on completing the drafts. Just have a quick read at the discussion at my talkpage to see what we are currently working on. It's important to note that we aren't just simply copying and pasting the info currently here and pasting in the draft, but more so condensing the info to only include major production details and making sure everything is properly sourced. - Brojam (talk) 03:40, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Awesome. I'll take a look when I have a little more time in the upcoming week, but I absolutely agree with that process. Especially in the condensing and sourcing before adding it in. I do sort of wish I knew about the user talk discussion earlier though, because I was waiting for that exact thread to happen here. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 03:52, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the films section on the franchise article, I don't think each individual film should have it's own subtopic, leave that to the films article. In the franchise article, I think subtopics should be distributed this way:

  • Theatrical films
    • Main series
      • Original Trilogy
      • Prequel Trilogy
      • Sequel Trilogy
    • Self-contained films
      • Animated film
      • Anthology series

There's absolutely no need for each film to have it's own subtopic in the franchise article, leave that to the films articleRosvel92 (talk) 14:37, 30 September 2018 (UTC)Rosvel92 (talk) 14:36, 30 September 2018 (UTC)rosvel92

I also think that copying everything from this article into the other is fine, as it will all be eventually replaced with the other drafts. Is more of a temporary solution, to reduce he info about the films in the franchise article and to make it closer, to what it should be until the drafts which will be the definitive solution, are done.Rosvel92 (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2018 (UTC)Rosvel92

───────────────────────── Coming from this. Like I stated, the Star Wars article is about the franchise and the List of Star Wars films and television series article would overwhelm that article. We have WP:Spinout articles for a reason. The list article is one example of a spinout article being needed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:25, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Following up here as well; even though it pertains more to the List article. The proposal is based on the fact that the prequel and even the original trilogy don't have their own articles, which would be redundant from this SW overview, the list, and individual title articles. I proposed based on some prior discussions that the List of film & TV be split into one on film and one on TV, but that was before that article was filled with more detailed sections migrated from this overview. Perhaps we should reopen the discussion to split film/TV, but I don't think the individual sequel trilogy article is justified without a new proposal for ones on the original & prequel trilogies as well. UpdateNerd (talk) 02:36, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

A prelude with more continuity[edit]

In the article's introduction, when there's a sequential listing of all the films that have come out, there is only mention of Episodes IV, V, VI and VII. It would be more likeable to also mention Episodes I, II, III, VIII and IX. Besides, it would be much more intuitive and clear if the films will be mentioned with their episodic names (for example, Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back instead of The Empire Strikes Back) with notes attached about their initial distribution titles. CapLiber (talk, contribs) 07:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

No longer the third highest grossing media franchise[edit]

it's the fifth now — Preceding unsigned comment added by 102.134.154.48 (talk) 23:34, 5 October 2018 (UTC)