Template talk:Star Wars

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Forthcoming films[edit]

@Cartoon Boy: I probably should have opened this discussion before I reverted you just now regarding whether to use future dates or the word "forthcoming" next to upcoming saga films. The TV and Book WikiProjects follow WP:CRYSTAL pretty strictly, mentioning upcoming release dates in articles but (in my experience) not categorizing works as "2017 British drama series" or "2018 American novels" until they have premiered or been published. It is also commonplace to use "upcoming" or "forthcoming" in related navigation templates. I just looked, and The Last Jedi is in Category:2017 films and the untitled Han Solo film is in Category:2018 films. I'm not sure if this is because the Film Project is a little more relaxed, or the Star Wars fanboys are just pushing the envelope (you know how excited we get LOL). Anyway, I thought this was a no-brainer, but if others chime in that we should have the dates in this template then fine. I am going to bring this topic up at the Project level though regarding the articles themselves, please join in that discussion as well. Thanks.— TAnthonyTalk 16:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

From my experience, the Film Project just seems to be more relaxed on this issue than TV is: MOS:TV has WP:TVUPCOMING that talks about not adding years until a show begins airing, but I don't know if Film has an equivalent. If the decision is to not include dates for upcoming films in the template, then they should just have nothing beside them. Either say what date it was released, or don't say anything at all. Listing a film here as "forthcoming" just seems silly to me. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
"Forthcoming" does not look good at all; I would suggest reverting back to prior to this new grouping of the three trilogies and the removal of the scheduled release dates. "Saga" does the trick nicely and like what Adamstom.97 stated, either have the tentative dates or nothing at all. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 07:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Other films[edit]

I don't see the point in having an extra category for one film. I believe it gives more clarity to the reader by grouping all the spin offs together. Wilburycobbler (talk) 12:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for opening this discussion. I tend to agree and am fine with this change. The "Anthology" moniker is also basically branding, and should necessarily warrant its own sectioning separate from the animated film when we're talking about a total of three films. — TAnthonyTalk 14:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Legends television[edit]

adamstom97: Our last discussion was different in that I wanted to merge all television without distinction. In my latest edits, I retain a clear distinction between canon and legends television. This new distinction consolidates the media types while helping to clean up a scattered and bloated template. Wilburycobbler (talk) 15:25, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

adamstom97 is referring to the "canon" discussion itself, which has been had multiple times. Basically, the concept of canon is in-universe and we should not be categorizing or organizing Wikipedia articles around it. We've agreed that Legends material should be separated/designated to make better sense of the material, but for the most part there should never be "canon" sections in articles, lists or templates. Canon material is the default for Star Wars material, it does not need to be separately identified. The canon vs. non-canon situation is described as necessary in relevant articles, and the non-canon material is separated or otherwise designated where not doing so would be confusing to readers.— TAnthonyTalk 15:37, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
There needs to be a way of grouping the various media types together while letting the reader know what they are classified as. Otherwise the template is in a messy and confusing state. If there is an objection to using the "canon" classification, then perhaps just label legends as a subheading of television. Same goes for the films: if the Clone Wars movie isn't a spin-off, we simply need a new label that will fit all non-episodic films. I am at a loss as to why this seems to be such an issue. The current template is a headache and eyesore. I will do another revision attempting to address the objections. Wilburycobbler (talk) 18:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree with some of your ideas, and yet part of your latest edit was a repeat of the Other vs Anthology setup that has already been objected to by other editors. And I also don't think Production belongs under Cultural Impact. Can you try one change at a time, and try to address editor concerns? I actually prefer your breakup of the Legends section.— TAnthonyTalk 18:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
I've restored your change of the Legends section, which is an acceptable bold change that no one has specifically objected to as yet.— TAnthonyTalk 18:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
With the production section in mind, I wonder if the films should be separated into their own template? Or maybe one template devoted to the films, one to television, and one to books, comics and games. Or something like that. As it is, there are a lot of topics covered in this template. Wilburycobbler (talk) 18:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
If we were to split this template off into smaller templates, then we lose the connections between the different media which I think are reasonably important. If someone is reading about Rogue One, for instance, it would be reasonable to assume that they also may be interested in Rebels and it would be good to give them an easy link for that. At this point, I think Star Wars as a whole is still considered to be Star Wars, not a collection of Star Warsy things that would indicate separate topics. Yes, this is a pretty big and crowded navbox, but as long as we keep it clearly organised then there shouldn't be a problem.
On that note, there should not be a Legends subsection of Television here. I have explained numerous times why the Legends vs. non-Legends issue is not a problem of canon (I agree that canon is trivial as far as an encyclopaedia is concerned), but of Disney creating two distinct entities that we should be keeping distinct as well. And that becomes even more important here, where you are trying to say that Legends is some sort of child of the Star Wars TV shows, which is just wrong and confusing. Legends is its whole own thing that happens to have TV shows as part of it, along with lots of other things. That is why it should have its own section, with its TV shows as a subsection of that.
You say there "needs to be a way of grouping the various media types together". Why? Because that's what you want? If Disney considers the "Star Wars TV shows" and the "Star Wars Legends TV shows" to be separate things, then so should we. That distinction is not made on media types, so why should we be deciding to make our own distinction based on some other criteria? That would be unencyclopaedic. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
I know that we typically designate every newly non-canon work as Legends, but have any of the official announcements actually branded any media other than novels as Legends? I'm definitely an advocate of separating Legends material within articles and lists, which mitigates story confusion. It also sort of reinforces real-world chronology since canon works were/are produced in specific time spans. But I don't know that this argument is still valid when talking about navigation templates. They are for navigation, not for presenting information, organization of a topic, or establishing hierarchy, like a table in an article might be. We only organize topics in a nav template to aid in making sense of its entries, and the sophistication of this organization only increases as the number of entries do. I kind of think that in the case of the TV entries, they should simply be mixed together, by date. There is really no value in designating which are canon and which are not in this context, which is essentially what we are doing by separating the Legends brand. Navboxes are not the same as articles.— TAnthonyTalk 00:31, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
RE: adamstom97 No, as I have explained before, the real world yielded certain productions, and our job as Wikipedians is to document that in the context of our articles and templates. Many of these projects existed for decades before Disney created their new canon system. If anyone, it is you who are insisting on a certain classification. I've compromised by making the Legends TV projects as a clearly-labeled subset of the overall TV section (not a "child" of the TV shows) yet you still insist on a confusing and bloated system of organizing this stuff. As for dividing the template, I was thinking along the lines of how Wikipedians have handled certain other cultural juggernauts, where the films/TV/other media are on one template and the setting/cultural impact/production are on another. Wilburycobbler (talk) 00:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
TAnthony, the Legends banner will only have been physically applied to anything that has been re-released since the change, and I'm not sure if that has been the case with anything other than the novels. But, the announcement groups all the old EU stuff together, so even if we decide that this stuff is technically not Legends, it is still part of the separated EU which we have been labeling Legends and should all be kept together. Regardless, that seems to me to be a discussion for another place. Like you say, the navbox is just for making things easier for people to navigate around the various articles. To do that, we can group things together and do a bit of organising to make things clearer and simpler. We could have all the films and TV shows lumped together, but it is easier for readers to navigate if we make that obvious division there. Likewise, we could have all the Star Wars and Legends stuff mixed together, but again we would be mixing together separate things that are clearer when kept apart. We shouldn't be implying that the old EU stuff "goes together with" what we know as actual Star Wars when we keep them separate everywhere else.
Wilburycobbler, the production of all these projects happened in the real world, yes. The division and classification by Disney also happened in the real world. You want us to ignore the latter because you don't like it, but it isn't up to us to make those decisions. We need to reflect that they were made (by including them in the navbox) and that they were later re-classified (by dividing them appropriately). Take Template:Batman in popular media as another example: all of the films with Batman are just films about that character. Ignoring in-universe, canonical issues, they should all be listed together. But they have been officially classified as separate franchises, and so are rightfully separated into those. You could argue, "Batman & Robin and Batman Begins were only put in different franchises because they have different continuities. Wikipedia doesn't like talking about canon, so we should ignore that and lump them all together!" But we shouldn't be thinking like that. The decision was made to create different "sub"-franchises, and we reflect that there. So, the same should apply here—Disney segregated off the EU content, so we should do so as well. It doesn't matter what their criteria was for doing it was, what matters is that they did it, whether you like it or not. Also, this template is nowhere near what those crazy big music ones are. I think splitting this one up would be premature. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:53, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Adam, I have no problem with Disney's decision, and by starting this discussion in the first place I made concessions to our last discussion on this subject. I don't see what the problem is with having all the films together, TV together, etc. but designating what is legends. Putting the legends stuff into its own section is bizarre, because it comes across as if it is some brand new product that can't be classified as a film, TV, book product, etc. and of course inflates and muddies up the template. The Batman example is irrelevant to this particular discussion, because unlike our last discussion, I am not arguing that everything be listed together without distinction. But just for the sake of argument, those projects were made from the get-go with the intention of being different. In contrast, the Legends continuity was a re-branding of pre-existing content. Wilburycobbler (talk) 03:09, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I have a lot of different reasons based on feelings and implications for why I personally feel that your format is just unnecessarily confusing, particularly for people who don't actually know how all this stuff works (i.e. the people we should be catering for), but I am going to try and keep this logical. As we have already discussed numerous times, officially there are two separate things: Star Wars and the EU/Legends/[whatever]. So we have articles that make up the entity that is Star Wars. We have articles about the making/details of the entity that is Star Wars. We have articles that make up the entity that is Legends. And we have article about the cultural impact of Star Wars, in this case referring to both the entity that is Star Wars and the things that were once considered part of Star Wars and so also had a part in the cultural impact. The most logical order for those four sections to then be presented is to have the entity that is Star Wars (arguably what people will be using the navbox for the most), and then the making/details of that, and then the cultural impact that it has had. And then, with the entity that is Legends, it should come before the cultural impact since the latter applies to it as well. And that ordering is this one here.

As for this making it sound like Legends is some sort of medium akin to film and TV ... no. For one, there are more sections with non-medium titles than there are medium-titles. Do we think people are going to get confused because they think "Setting" is some new medium they hadn't heard about? Also, the title is clearly in italics to note that it is the name of something, and it is linked to a whole article explaining what it means. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:57, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying and agree that a distinction has to be made. But we also must have things logically categorized according to what they actually are. So, for example, the Droids series is a TV series and it is categorized as Legends, so it would go under a Legends subset of Television. This satisfies both your and my concerns.
However, you are incorrect in asserting that Legends is a wholly separate entity from the Star Wars franchise. It is, as my idea for the template reflects, a subset of the Star Wars franchise. To quote the 2014 announcement: "While the universe that readers knew is changing, it is not being discarded. Creators of new Star Wars entertainment have full access to the rich content of the Expanded Universe. For example, elements of the EU are included in Star Wars Rebels. The Inquisitor, the Imperial Security Bureau, and Sienar Fleet Systems are story elements in the new animated series, and all these ideas find their origins in roleplaying game material published in the 1980s." Wilburycobbler (talk) 19:47, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Droids is still under a "Television series" header though. As for that quote from the announcement, that just says that new creators will be borrowing elements from the old EU but are not beholden to it, sort of like how the Marvel Cinematic Universe freely borrows characters and concepts from the comics, but is not beholden to them and really tells its own stories. Speaking of the MCU, Template:Marvel Cinematic Universe is another example that I would compare this to. It could be completely ordered by media type (without the MCU-inspired heading at the bottom) and it would be technically correct, but for a subject where the creators (not just the fans) but so much weight behind what is canon/in-continuity/connected—for real world production issues rather than just fanboy fantasy stuff—it was agreed that we should note to readers which things are considered to be sort of separate. So we list everything that is considered to be part of the MCU by media, and then the things that are considered to be sort of separate by media. We still have everything there—we aren't removing things from the template because of canon. But we are indicating to the readers which things go together and which things are sort of something else, based on what the creators have told us. That is why this template should list all the Star Wars links together, by media, and then the things that are sort of something different (but still fit into the template), by media as well. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:23, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
The big difference is that Legends is not a separate franchise. In fact, it's the complete opposite of the Marvel situation; Rather than media being inspired by the Marvel films, the current Star Wars EU is inspired by the success of the old Star Wars EU. Even the prequels were partly inspired by the success of the early EU novels. It is intellectually dishonest to claim that Legends is something separate when it has served such an important role in the overall franchise. Wilburycobbler (talk) 15:13, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
It is alright to have an appreciation for the old EU and what you think it means in terms of the grand scope of Star Wars, but as far as Disney is concerned they are still separate things. Not separate enough that I think the Legends stuff shouldn't be included here at all, but still enough to give them their own subsection within the wider franchise. The reason I brought up the MCU example is that Marvel made a big deal of what is canon to the MCU and what is not, which we followed due to the real-world production implications. Here, Disney made a big deal of what is true Star Wars and what is not, which again has real-world production implications, so we should again follow that decision. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:30, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Your concept for the template has no basis in real-world production implications. As I have noted before, you are refusing to see this outside of an in-universe perspective and corporate branding. Those things are certainly important to note in the template (again, my intention with this discussion was to make a compromise), but in no way do they justify an entirely separate section. I linked you the article in which Disney made its position clear, yet you continue to insist they are saying something they are not. Wilburycobbler (talk) 02:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Corporate branding is from the real-world, and should at least be considered. The creative and production-implications of how Disney's Star Wars interacts with the EU and discards its influence or uses it as source material is also very much from the real-world, and should more-than be considered. All of that is laid out pretty clearly in the article that you have helpfully linked to. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:24, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Let me put it this way: you are trying to say that Legends is a subsection of the Star Wars TV shows, but it is a subsection of the franchise as a whole—there is Star Wars, and within that overall franchise there is a group of projects (not just TV shows) that have been identified as Legends. In translating that to the navbox, we have the overall template (the overall franchise) and then within that a section on Legends (a section of the franchise, as identified by that official source we have). - adamstom97 (talk) 05:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
You and I are in agreement that a division should be noted, but your idea of how to go about it only serves to confuse readers and make the template larger and more complicated than it need be. No one is saying that Legends is a subsection of the TV shows. In our previous discussion, I proposed putting all media together in their various categories and letting the individual articles specify canon or legends, but you insisted Legends be a part of the template. That's fine. Let's just go with the compromise I have proposed in this discussion (by specifying Legends in appropriate subsections if need be) and then drop it. Wilburycobbler (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
You are the one that is confusing readers. You say "No one is saying that Legends is a subsection of the TV shows", but have a look at the template now: Legends is literally a subsection of the TV section. This is why I think this is so important—if this template is how casual readers find information about Star Wars, then the way we organise will have a big effect on that. Hypothetically, if we were to decide as a community that we didn't think the prequels should be listed alongside the originals, and hid the links to those films at the bottom of the tempate away from the film section, then that could have a massive effect on readers, at least causing quite a bit of confusion.
That is why I feel Legends should be noted here, to make everything clear to the readers before they go reading through all the articles trying to figure it out. And what is Legends to the wider franchise? A "sub-section" created based on several creative and corporate decisions. So how should a sub-section of Star Wars be represented in the Star Wars navbox? As a sub-section of the Star Wars TV shows? No, it should be a sub-section of the Star Wars franchise. I don't think that is too much to ask. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
It's a way of both specifying Legends and grouping media types into their respective categories. It's a much clearer way of presenting the information than putting all the Legends stuff off in its own section. Wilburycobbler (talk) 17:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
As soon as you say that Legends is a sub-section of the TV shows you are just making everything more confusing. Legends is not a sub-section of the Star Wars TV series, and so should not be used as a sub-section of them in the navbox as you have done. That seems pretty logical and straight-forward for me to say. Honestly, if you can't give me a good reason for being so clearly wrong and confusing then I'm going to have to assume that you just don't like my way and aren't going to be reasonable at all. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Disney and their branding should not necessarily be dictating how we organize our content, and again, nav boxes are different than articles. Let's face it, when we separate Legends material out we are defining what is canon and what is not, no matter how we are otherwise justifying it. It's an extra, unnecessary layer of complication in a navigation tool. I just took Wilburycobbler's edit to the next level and bundled all the TV links together to see how it plays. It doesn't seem like a big deal to me.— TAnthonyTalk 02:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

"Let's face it..." um, no, I have explained many times already why this is not the case, and I am happy to do so again. But I think we should keep the discussion to a single place, so can we just stick to the newest section rather than starting another thread on essentially the same thing? - adamstom97 (talk) 10:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I inadvertently added my comment to a previous section. But this is no longer a "discussion", it is an endless back and forth between two editors who will never agree. Hopefully someone else will chime in. In any case, I know you've explained why Legends needs to be separated in this navbox, and that's fine, but I'm saying that the layout and organization of a Wikipedia navigation tool does not necessarily have anything to do with how Disney brands the franchise. I think the current Legends-separated version is fine, but I don't see how it helps navigation, since it is basically a collection of pre-2014 works in varying media. If the average reader is looking to navigate to one of the Ewok movies, they go to Television and ... it's not there. Does that reader even know what Legends is to know to look there? Do we really need to add that layer of sophistication? I know you think it's important that we designate this material separately, but why? "Because Disney does" is not a good enough reason when we are talking about a template, considering it is a handful of links that fit well into other sections based on real-world media and chronology. And the company's rebranding was predicated on their desire to create new storylines. We can harp on the "main franchise" and "the Legends works" as if it's some important distinction, but we're really saying "the canon material" and "the newly non-canon stuff". We don't usually concern ourselves with story or canonicity in navboxes unless we have a real necessity to break up giant sections of links. I'm sure other franchise navboxes do get into this sort of thing, but then I doubt they have been noticed by any mainstream editors outside of the fanbase.— TAnthonyTalk 14:25, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
The navigation should reflect the articles that it links to; you wouldn't put a link to Rebels in the film section, that would just be wrong and confusing. Likewise, we shouldn't be placing links in such a way that they are still "correct" but imply something else, or are not the clearest. If we accept that the Legends distinction is noteworthy for Wikipedia and should be discussed in the articles (which it is, due to the real world production implications rather than canon or anything like that), then we need to make sure that we don't contradict that anywhere, and we do our best to help clarify the difference anywhere we can. Legends is not the equivalent of "non-canon", it is a separate entity within the franchise. Saying that this is just about canon is yet another disingenuous attempt to ignore all the policy-based reasons I have given for making this distinction. One more time: this has nothing to do with canon, and is not just about Disney's branding. I don't know how much clearer I can make that, especially when you refuse to accept the examples of similar situations I have given, on the basis that you don't want me to be right. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
What exactly are we "implying" that is so incorrect by ignoring Legends in a navbox? We are separating links by real world media and other classifications, there is no confusion. The separation in a nav box is more likely to create confusion. Legends may be notable in the context of production or story but I don't see its value here at all. None of the justifications above seem particularly valid to me. In my mind you aren't seeing the difference between articles and navigation templates in this regard, and that's fine, I had no delusions that I'd be able to convince you of anything. And which of us is it that wants to be right so badly?— TAnthonyTalk 00:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
And where is it established that the old TV and multimedia are actually branded as Legends? It would help to know that.— TAnthonyTalk 00:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Also, no one is saying we should put a TV show link in a film section or any such nonsense. How does the current Legends navigation "reflect the articles that it links to" if those articles are not in a specific Legends category? You're grasping at straws. Navboxes are not meant to provide information or even context, they are mreant to navigate among articles. So we need not use them to "clarify" content. Especially something like why Droids is different than Rebels. But I suppose there's no use in us going back and forth until some others stop by.— TAnthonyTalk 03:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
When we put things together, we are implying that they go together. Given the fact that navboxes are meant to show people similar articles that they may want to read, we need to at least get that right. The reason I brought up the "nonsense" TV example is because we can't just ignore what the articles are. Why do we sort the TV shows and films out? Because they are different things and we need to reflect that. Since the Legends are different things, the same logic applies. And as I have already explained, I do not know if the TV shows and multimedia have been officially referred to as Legends yet, but even if they have not they are still part of the old EU, and as long as we are using the terms EU and Legends interchangeably (which is the case at the moment), then we should to. Like you say, it isn't up to us to get into all those details.
Now, you guys need to put yourselves in the shoes of somebody who doesn't know all of this stuff like us, because again, that it really the point here. Perhaps someone has seen one of the films and is reading the Wikipedia article on it, and in the navbox sees that there are Star Wars TV shows and wants to learn a bit about them. They click on the first series, Droids, and learn all about it. What have we, by labeling that show as a Star Wars TV show and associating it with the films, just done? We have mislead and potentially confused a reader by making them think that they are learning about a TV series that is connected to the Star Wars films when that is actually not the case at all. Now, think of the same situation but with the Legends shows separated out. The reader will read about the connected TV shows (The Clone Wars and Rebels). So far so good. They then see this other section called Legends, which has some more TV shows in it. "That's funny, why are some of the TV shows in a different section down here?" The reader will then click on the title of that section, Legends, and be taken to an article that explains exactly why that is. With the confusion cleared up, they can choose whether they want to navigate through the Legends TV shows as well, or not. In doing this, we have successfully directed a reader to articles they want to read, and helped them decide about a group of others. In short, we have improved the reader's ability to navigate the topic and reach the articles they want to reach.
I'm not trying to say that this navbox should be providing extra details or context, I know full well that this is just for navigating between the articles. But we also need to make that navigation easier for the reader. That is why we separate the links into logical sections with helpful headers, so we can help them find articles they may want to find. Otherwise we should just lump all of them together and make the reader go through each article until they find the one they want. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I think that's the crux of our difference of opinion: you think that separating six TV series into two separate sections helps navigation, and I don't. I honestly, totally do understand your point of view. But ... so we have led the reader to believe that Droids is "connected to the Star Wars films"? Well, it is. It features characters from the films, occurs in the seemingly same universe, and more. Oh wait, it occurs in a different continuity? Disney sells it with a different color stripe on the DVD? Oh no. I'm so confused. I can learn about those nuances in the articles themselves, which we've filled with explanations of what Legends is. To me it's more confusing to see a nav box and wonder why the TV shows aren't all together. Yes, anyone will see Legends and immediately get that it's some separate product line, but why are we assuming that a reader who is interested in reading about these shows needs to be hit over the head with what is "associated with" or "connected to" what at that level? That's storyline thinking. And there are six links. Navigation templates provide navigation between related articles. Droids and Rebels are related; they are animated TV series featuring Star Wars characters.
Hahaha I think we can go back and forth forever adamstom97 ;) In any case, I don't think either way is particularly detrimental.— TAnthonyTalk 05:16, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I think we both agree that either way would work, and just have different opinions on which one is going to be most useful to readers. I'm going to go ahead and merge the Legends content back in with the rest of the stuff and withdraw from this debate for now, but with the intention of revisiting this in the future, as I still feel quite strongly about having them separate. Just to be clear, I absolutely do not support making Legends a sub-section of the television series, which is so obviously wrong I find it hard to believe that our colleague Wilburycobbler was being serious when arguing for it. Other than that, I wish you all the best. Until next time, adamstom97 (talk) 11:50, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
TAnthony, that is exactly what I was arguing in a previous discussion! It makes so much sense that I find it hard to believe that our colleague adamstom97 is being serious in arguing against it. ;) Wilburycobbler (talk) 15:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Ordering of films, series etc[edit]

I see someone's already tackled a recent re-ordering edit (thank you), but I thought I'd just mention the WP Manual of Style on this one - according to MOS:REALWORLD, "ordering works by their fictional chronology, rather than the actual order they were published" is discouraged. Wikipedia has a "real-world perspective", rather than an "in-universe" perspective, so films such as the Star Wars Saga should be ordered by date of production (1977, 1980, 1983... etc) not by fictional sequence (Episode I, Episode II.... etc). Cnbrb (talk) 17:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2017[edit]

I suggest changing the "Other" film category to make it more clear. There should be a Sage tab (like there already is), and then an Anthology tab (separate), and then and Other tab with the Clone wars with it. 68.33.17.129 (talk) 15:34, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 15:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)