This article is within the scope of WikiProject Star Wars, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Star Wars saga on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.
Grimes, Caleb; Winship, George (2006). "Episode IV: A New Hope". Star Wars Jesus: A spiritual commentary on the reality of the Force. WinePress Publishing. ISBN1579218849.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik (talk • contribs) 16:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I know there are no other individual films whose official release titles were Star Wars, but...
I told a coworker of mine (not a Star Wars fan) today that I was planning on seeing "Star Wars" after work and she knew what I was talking about, but if I said I was planning on seeing "Rogue One" she probably would have had no idea. And when the Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me trailer said "If you see one movie this year, see Star Wars", it was obviously referring to The Phantom Menace.
Depending on context the title of this article could refer to any of at least nine films that have thusfar been released, since all of them have almost certainly been casually called "Star Wars", and they are all films.
No objection - seems like a good idea. Maybe you'd like to propose wording here first, just so there's some agreement before the article gets edited. Cnbrb (talk) 20:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
How about This article is about the 1977 film. For other films whose titles are frequently shortened to "Star Wars", see Star Wars#Theatrical films.? Perhaps For other films in the same franchise whose.... Sorry, I'm really terrible at the disambig headers. Whenever I need one I can never figure out where they are wihhout trying to think of an article that probably already uses one and copying from there. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
You could get yourself tied in knots trying to be over-specific. Can I suggest:
That should cover all possibilities without getting into difficulties about how to word it. What do you think? Cnbrb (talk) 09:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I've seen similar notices on other articles, but I'm not a fan. The present title of this article is not going to be confused with the majority of entries on that list. How about For other films called Star Wars, see Star Wars (disambiguation)#Film.? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I think the term Star Wars doesn't only refer to films - it can also refer to the over-arching franchise (i.e. the Star Wars article), and anything that falls under that title, which is why I think it's best to point to the disambiguation page. Alternatively it could link to the the main Star Wars article:
This article is about the 1977 film. For other uses, see Star Wars
It's very simple and unlikely to get embroiled in an edit war about what should and should not be included. Cnbrb (talk) 12:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
When I said "the present title of this article", I meant "Star Wars (film)"; this can't refer to anything but films. The only reason I think this article needs a head is the existence of other films with the exact same (colloquial) title, and I can't imagine anyone edit-warring over whether or not to include a "#Theatrical films" in the note. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Makes more sense imho and sounds good. PS: I completed your signature, you had signed using one ~ too many ;-) Regards SoWhy 20:27, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Agree. The 1977 film has lost its claim of PRIMARYTOPIC for "Star Wars". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose The article is already disambiguated per WP:NAMB. It is the only Star Wars film that is referred to as "Star Wars" in reliable sources i.e. all the others are referred to by their episode numbers or subtitles. There is zero evidence that the current name is leading to confusion.The comment by SmokeyJoe does not make sense to me because the primary topic is at Star Wars, not here. If this article were at the primary name then obviously it would include a hatnote, and it does. Obviously it is not a big deal if there is a hatnote or not but if one is added it will probably be repeatedly removed by gnomes because it would be redundant. Betty Logan (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Conversely, there is zero evidence it is not leading to confusion. :-) Cnbrb (talk) 11:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
That's a logical fallacy. The burden of responsibility is on the person claiming that it is leading to confusion. DonQuixote (talk) 14:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Lighten up, this isn't a courtroom drama. Cnbrb (talk) 16:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
If someone had just gone ahead and added a hatnote I would not have removed it nor would I have initiated a discussion about it, but since a discussion exists I simply provided my interpretation of the guideline. Ultimately though it makes no difference to me personally whether or not there is a hatnote at the top of the article. I was just pointing out that given its redundancy it is likely to be an unstable feature. Betty Logan (talk) 16:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I'll be quite happy if there is no hatnote, but my personal view is that, on balance, it's a good idea and useful to some readers. But I suspect that, as with all Star Wars-related articles, small, sensible ideas like this are usually more trouble than they're worth. :-) Cnbrb (talk) 17:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
When was the film first released in Europe? This would include the UK. There is always a delay in an American film being released in Europe, to allow for the dubbing to be made. So the release is later in the UK (because it's part of Europe)(at the moment) than in America. ixo (talk) 18:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Actually in the UK movies usually come out at the same as the US. However this wasn't always the case. Either way IMDB has the release dates. Canterbury Tailtalk 18:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
That's quite a modern development - I think it was Attack of the Clones which really brought it into standard practice. Just to add to the confusion, in those days films began in London's West End and only subsequently rolled out to other cities, suburbs and small towns over the following weeks. This says the West End debut was 27 December 1977 but because of the rollout you often see January 1978 given. Timrollpickering 18:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Reading this entry tonight, I was wondering about the accuracy of the term "space opera" to describe the film series. The linked article"Lucas: Star Wars Is Not Sci-Fi", which attests that the series is not sci-fi but rather related to psychology and mythology (arguable though the psychology claim might be), as well as Lucas' ongoing friendship with and devout admiration for mythologist Joseph Campbell, lead me to wonder if a different term might be more appropriate. Lucas is insistent that it is set in the past, it exists in a different physics, and the storyline is more reminiscent of ballads and epic poems. Could it more rightly be called a "epic tale set in space"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danicapaprika (talk • contribs) 01:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
The name "Star Wars" is hugely ambiguous and not what the film is neither the official name for the film nor what that film is most commonly called. I don't know how and why this film dropped it's subtitle and every other film I've come across on here hasn't but this is by far the worst film you could drop it for given the unparalleled amount of content out there under the Star Wars name. All common sense dictates this being moved to "Star Wars: Episode IV – A New Hope". Robo37 (talk) 14:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
@Robo37:, This has been brought up and denied so many times. See WP:SNOW. It's not going to happen. --bojo | talk | contribs 14:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Okay, this has been reverted multiple times but we need to make a call on it. I'm of course referring to the continuous linking and reverting of stolen plans. Now established editors keep reverting this and IPs and new editors keep adding it in. I don't believe it's a continuous campaign to add it, just natural editing. So why does it keep getting reverted?
wasn't the case when the movie was made, only a recent event and not directly appropriate
Unnecessary information, not relevant to this film or needed to understand the article
So is it the consensus of the editors here that this shouldn't link to Rogue One? I think we need a formal consensus one way or another to prevent the continuous editing of this. Canterbury Tailtalk 11:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Agree. Rogue One is actually mentioned and linked in the intro paragraph, so it's already covered. There may be scope for additional discussion of how the film's narrative fits into the sequels and prequels later on in the article, but constantly linking the stolen plans that way doesn't really help the article. It would then follow that any vague reference to the events of the prequels should be wikilinked, and the article will be littered with confusing Easter egg links. I've added a hidden comment requesting editors not to add this link. Cnbrb (talk) 12:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Exactly. Those Easter Egg links are a plague on Wikipedia. They are put by editors to feel clever but they do not help the reader at all. On many devices, you have to click to know where the link goes and it's usually not helpful anyway. Additionally, Wikipedia follows a real world perspective and this film predates Rogue One.Mezigue (talk) 13:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I have just modified 9 external links on Star Wars (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.