Star Wars has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Contents
- 1 Separate articles for "Original Trilogy" and "Prequel Trilogy?
- 2 Characters not included under "Star Wars the Clone Wars" Column
- 3 Typo
- 4 New Star Wars canon
- 5 American?
- 6 Move discussion in progress
- 7 Status
- 8 Episode ordering in infobox
- 9 Prequels
- 10 This article made the Top 25 Report
- 11 Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2015
- 12 Article Hatnote
- 13 Should there be a section on the (original?) plan for four trilogies?
- 14 Disney did NOT use Lucas's ideas
- 15 Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2016 of Star Wars by EvanB4fun
- 16 Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2016
- 17 Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2016
- 18 Orphaned references in Star Wars
- 19 Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2016
- 20 Star killer base needs it's own article
- 21 Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2016
- 22 How should information be handled regarding the "new" Star Wars continuity?
Separate articles for "Original Trilogy" and "Prequel Trilogy?
It appears the Sequel trilogy has been given its own separate article, it seems strange the other two well establishes trilogies don't have there own, and it would make the Star Wars page (as in the franchise) less long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dazeezes (talk • contribs) 23:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Characters not included under "Star Wars the Clone Wars" Column
The flowing characters were in the television series, but are not under the column "Clone Wars" like they should be -Grand Moff Wilhuff Tarkin -Chewbacca -Greedo -Boba Fett -Qui-Gon Jinn (voice only, and a vision seen by Yoda) -Admiral Ackbar -Gunray -Jar-Jar -Darth Maul -Shmi Skywalker (as a ghost like figure) -Velorum -Ki-Adi -typho -Bail Organa
I might be missing some, but these struck me the most. I can get the appearances in episodes at a later date.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.76.255 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Typo
In the plot overview section "escape from the blockade and plea her planet's crisis" should be "flee her planet" not "plea her planet". I know, correcting a typo, but it's Star Wars; Star Wars is important, and it's a semi-protected article as well.
New Star Wars canon
Since everything in the Expanded Universe (EU) is now published under the banner of Star Wars Legends, and is no longer canon, should we start updating related pages to remove the Legends content and place in anything canon? ReddyRedCP (talk) 23:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
American?
Should the Star Wars franchise be called American, given that the first and best film in the series was a British film?Royalcourtier (talk) 10:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- No all the films have been funded by US film companies and the convention is (I stand to be corrected) that it is the funding company 'nationality' that is used Robynthehode (talk) 10:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- We don't apply "conventions" on Wikipedia because this would constitute WP:Original research. We use sources to substantiate claims and the highly respected American Film Institute classify the first film as a British-American production. This could well be anomalous though, so it would depend on what the WP:WEIGHT of sources have to say on this matter, and also what the other films are classified as. Betty Logan (talk) 11:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, yes that is what I meant to say. My use of the term 'convention' was that was what the sources said - their convention was to categorise films on the basis of the funding organisation. I may be wrong but Star Wars is certainly not a 'British' film despite being the live studio action being filmed in a British studio. Robynthehode (talk) 12:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- If I may re-open this discussion, the UK Government invested £25m into The Force Awakens - even though this is just 1/8 of the budget, would this be viewed as the same as a funding company? If so, I feel that would qualify Ep VII at least to be classed as American-British. Cooltrainer Hugh (talk) 01:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Cooltrainer Hugh: Yes, The Force Awakens qualified for a rebate under the British Film Tax Relief scheme. For Disney to access the scheme the film must qualify as a British film under the culture test or as an official co-production under one of the UK's film production treaties (you can read about the scheme here). I doubt The Force Awakens qualified under the culture test, so it was likely produced under a co-production treaty. If this is the case it will be mentioned on the copyright notice after the end credits on the film. Betty Logan (talk) 01:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- If I may re-open this discussion, the UK Government invested £25m into The Force Awakens - even though this is just 1/8 of the budget, would this be viewed as the same as a funding company? If so, I feel that would qualify Ep VII at least to be classed as American-British. Cooltrainer Hugh (talk) 01:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, yes that is what I meant to say. My use of the term 'convention' was that was what the sources said - their convention was to categorise films on the basis of the funding organisation. I may be wrong but Star Wars is certainly not a 'British' film despite being the live studio action being filmed in a British studio. Robynthehode (talk) 12:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- We don't apply "conventions" on Wikipedia because this would constitute WP:Original research. We use sources to substantiate claims and the highly respected American Film Institute classify the first film as a British-American production. This could well be anomalous though, so it would depend on what the WP:WEIGHT of sources have to say on this matter, and also what the other films are classified as. Betty Logan (talk) 11:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Star Wars (film) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 07:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Status
Does this article have the qualifications of good article?JerrySa1 (talk) 21:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Episode ordering in infobox
Alright, to avoid this becoming an edit war, @Adamstom.97 and HurluGumene:, I'll take it here. So should the episode order in the infobox be by chronological order from I-VII, or by production order so it'd be IV-VI, then I-III? Zappa24Mati 04:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- Obviously, the episode order should be by chronological order from I to IX for the release year order is no relevant!!! Indeed, each film's release year is specified in brackets...! HurluGumene (talk) 04:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- Per WP:Real world we deal with the out of universe facts, not the narrative, which means we use the physical production order (which is chronological for us) not the episode setting order (which is chronological for the characters). This has been discussed before, and the result is always the same. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:34, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- I still totally disagree with this irrelevant physical release order in the infobox... HurluGumene (talk) 04:50, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- Well I am afraid that Wikipedia's guidelines trump your personal opinion. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- I still totally disagree with this irrelevant physical release order in the infobox... HurluGumene (talk) 04:50, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- Per WP:Real world we deal with the out of universe facts, not the narrative, which means we use the physical production order (which is chronological for us) not the episode setting order (which is chronological for the characters). This has been discussed before, and the result is always the same. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:34, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Comment I agree with Adam. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a fan wiki so it should adopt a real-world perspective. The production order should take precedence over a fictional narrative. Betty Logan (talk) 19:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- IV-VI, I-III, VII-IX listing the years in parentheses afterwards. This is the real world. We don't live a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Comment – I agree with Betty and Adam. There is no advantage to changing this to episode order. The production year is in parenthesis, so the way it was ordered is clearly evident to anyone visiting the page. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Comment - I agree that the films should be listed in the order of their release, so IV-VI, then I-III, then VII and onward. However, I do understand why the order is disputed... it is really odd to see a list ordered as 4,5,6,1,2,3,7,8,9. Perhaps the order would be less confusing if we removed the episode numbers. The Wikipedia pages for the prequel trilogy films are the only pages titled with the Episode numbers (the original trilogy pages are titled "Star Wars (film)," "The Empire Strikes Back," and "Return of the Jedi."). Also, the recent digital release of the films refers to each film as "Star Wars: [Subtitle]." And as soon as the subtitle for "The Force Awakens" was revealed, Disney and Lucasfilm stopped referring to it as Episode VII. It seems as if the current trend is not to use the episode numbers, only the subtitles. This might avoid confusion and a tendency for people to try to change it.-Rmaynardjr (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Comment - I agree that the films should be listed in their production order per the reason given by adamstom97. Unfortunately an editor HurluGumene is letting their opinion lead their argument rather guidelines and consensus. There is nothing 'obvious' about what the order should be you have to refer to Wikipedia guidelines and consensus. Robynthehode (talk) 08:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Suggestion we could separate them into two sections. One for episode order and one for historic order as they were released.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 00:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Comment - Another user changed the order again to reflect the chronological order of the series... I made a suggestion awhile back in this topic about removing the episode numbers from the film titles in the infobox. I feel as though people may be less likely to change the order of the list if that list doesn't appear out of order. If we change the titles to simply be "Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith," for example, then the list won't seem to be incorrectly ordered. And while this idea would mean no episode numbers in the infobox, I would like to point out that Lucasfilm's most recent release of the films, the digital release back in April 2015, only referred to each film by its subtitle, and the official title of the most recent release is "Star Wars: The Force Awakens," so there is a precedent set by Lucasfilm to drop the episode numbers. -Rmaynardjr (talk) 14:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- Not sure that idea will fly or not, but if it is considered, I would further suggest dropping "Star Wars" from each title as well and just list the subtitle (Revenge of the Sith, Return of the Jedi, etc.). --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Prequels
"Nevertheless, the prequels, which were only still a series of basic ideas partially pulled from his original drafts of "The Star Wars", continued to fascinate him with the possibilities of technical advances would make it possible to revisit his 20-year-old material."
That is not a good sentence.
81.104.234.59 (talk) 04:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Reworded it. -Rmaynardjr (talk) 05:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
This article made the Top 25 Report
This article was the fourth most popular on Wikipedia according to the Top 25 Report with 693,512 views for the week December 6 to 12, 2015. This was the week before the release of Star Wars: The Force Awakens. Congratulations to the editors of this article for the exposure of their work. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 00:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- For the week December 13 to 19, 2015, this article was the second most popular on Wikipedia with 2,643,442 views. Ten other franchise related articles made the Top 25 during the week Star Wars: The Force Awakens was released. Congratulations again to the editors of this article. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 17:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2015
The six films have become this week the seven films. Leydorn (talk) 19:39, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- The phrase "six films" appears 10 times in the article - I'm not sure which one you want to change but AFAIK the new film has yet to be nominated for a major prize, so uses such as "All six films were nominated for or won Academy Awards" would need changing to "the first six of the seven films were nominated for or won Academy Awards" and every other use of "six films" modified accordingly - perhaps you could suggest appropriate wording for each instance? - Arjayay (talk) 21:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. sst✈(discuss) 05:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Article Hatnote
Not being that familiar with the subject, I found the following confusing:
This article is about the film series and media franchise. For the 1977 film, see Star Wars (film).
and would suggest the following:
This article is about the film series and media franchise. For the 1977 film (the first film in the series), see Star Wars (film).
Mb66w (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- "For the 1977 film" could sound like an unrelated film but I think the suggested text is too long for a hatnote which also links to a disambiguation page. I have changed it to "For the original 1977 film, see Star Wars (film)." [1] PrimeHunter (talk) 19:24, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Should there be a section on the (original?) plan for four trilogies?
(I am new to Wikipedia; this is my very first posting, so please forgive me if I inadvertently violate any guidelines.)
I was wondering if there should be a section on, or at least a discussion of, the (original?) plan for four trilogies. Some backstory: I've attended two Westercons in my life. They were either the 1978 one in Los Angeles and the 1979 one in San Francisco, or the 1979 one in San Francisco and the 1980 one in Los Angeles.
At the first one I attended there was a panel/presentation about Star Wars. The representative from Lucasfilm said that they had plot outlines four trilogies, and had decided the first movie should be about the first story in the second trilogy.
At the second one I attended there was again a panel/presentation about Star Wars. This time the representative from Lucasfilm said that the plan was for three trilogies; there was no mention of it being changed from four trilogies.
(At one of those two Westercons, probably the one that took place in 1979, they showed some previews of "The Empire Strikes Back.")
I recently did a web search on the phrase "star wars four trilogies" and found these articles that are supportive of the "there were going to be four trilogies" idea:
http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/george-lucas-once-envisioned-four-star-wars-trilogies-20121219
http://www.starwars.com/news/the-long-winding-and-shapeshifting-trail-to-episodes-vii-viii-ix
(Contains the text '“You know, when I first did this, it was four trilogies,” Mark Hamill recalled in 2004, speaking of their conversation in 1976.'
There are of course other articles that contradict the above, such as this one:
http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/watch-what-mark-hamill-said-about-luke-skywalker-in-star-wars-episode-7-29-years-ago-20121103
that contains the text: "in 1983, Mark Hamill was under the impression that there were going to be three trilogies." (Although that might not be a contradiction, but rather an affirmation that the plan had changed from four trilogies envisioned in 1976 to three in 1983.)
Anyway, I thought the article on Star Wars should contain some reference to the (original?) plan for four trilogies, but I'm not sure how to make that happen.
SteveChessin (talk) 17:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Disney did NOT use Lucas's ideas
In the section on the development of the sequels it says that Lucas wrote the outline of the story in 2011, and that Disney went on to use it. This is not true. VII is not based much on Lucas's ideas at all. See http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2015/05/star-wars-vanity-fair-the-force-awakens/392669/ for instance. They ran with his ideas initially and then did their own thing. 98.247.93.88 (talk) 04:06, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2016 of Star Wars by EvanB4fun
I request to edit the Star Wars Wikipedia page to add a sentence to the plot overview of the prequel trilogy.
This is the part I wish to edit:
"While Palpatine re-organizes the Republic into the tyrannical Empire, Vader participates in the extermination of the Jedi Order, culminating in a lightsaber duel between himself and Obi-Wan on the volcanic planet Mustafar. Obi-Wan defeats his former apprentice and friend, severing his limbs and leaving him to burn to death on the shores of a lava flow."
This is what I will edit it to be:
While Palpatine re-organizes the Republic into the tyrannical Empire, Vader participates in the extermination of the Jedi Order, also known as Order 66, culminating in a lightsaber duel between himself and Obi-Wan on the volcanic planet Mustafar, where Vader is sent to eliminate the Trade Federation. Obi-Wan defeats his former apprentice and friend, severing his limbs and leaving him to burn to death on the shores of a lava flow."
As you can see, I added the two parts "also known as Order 66" and, "where Vader is sent to eliminate the Trade Federation."
I source the movie, in the scene where Darth Sidious sends a hologram to servant clones with the command to "Execute Order 66," who attack and wipe out most of the Jedi Order. One other source I use for my second addition is the scene where Darth Sidious tells his new-found apprentice, Darth Vader (previously Anakin Skywalker), to go to Mustafar to wipe out the Separatists. He closes all of the doors shut with the force and starts attacking Viceroy Nute Gunray and all of the other Separatists in the room.
Thank you for your time.
EvanB4fun (talk) 03:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)EvanB4fun
EvanB4fun (talk) 03:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- I think "also known as Order 66" is ambiguous in the proposed sentence—does it refer to the Jedi Order, the extermination, or Vader's participation in the extermination? (I know what Order 66 is, but that sentence is ambiguous, and wouldn't help readers who don't know what it is.) /wiae /tlk 01:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
- Not done - The proposed changes are more ambiguous, and not clear for people un-familiar with the Star Wars universe. I strongly believe that the current wording is better than the proposed version. In addition, the details added are likely not worth noting in a plot summary. --allthefoxes (Talk) 05:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2016
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2488496/?ref_=nv_sr_1 for external sources 206.87.19.217 (talk) 21:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
- Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Datbubblegumdoe[talk – contribs] 23:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2016
82.219.205.237 (talk) 14:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC) star wars really happened and the planets are far away. Ewoks and Wookies are bears and Jedis have evolved into humans. space ships are cars
Orphaned references in Star Wars
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Star Wars's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Dreams":
- From Star Wars (film): Empire of Dreams: The Story of the Star Wars Trilogy. Star Wars Trilogy Box Set DVD documentary. [2005]
- From Star Wars sources and analogues: Empire of Dreams: The Story of the Star Wars Trilogy (documentary). 2004.
- From Comparison of Star Trek and Star Wars: Empire of Dreams: The Story of the Star Wars Trilogy. Star Wars Trilogy Box Set DVD documentary. [2005]
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 11:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2016
James121202 (talk) 01:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC) James121202 (talk) 01:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Betty Logan (talk) 01:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Star killer base needs it's own article
I propose somebody write the article on Starkiller Base. I would have done it myself, but as people probably know, I'm currently too busy working on other Star Wars pages to be creating this.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 23:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Opposethe creation of an article for Starkiller Base. It is not notable enough for its own article and would be real overkill for Wikipedia. This is not a Star Wars fansite Robynthehode (talk) 23:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
This is not a proposal in the sense there is vote process on weather the article should or should not be created. I am proposing in the sense that I need someone else to create it instead of me as I'm busy working on other pages. The rest of the comment is irrelevant.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 03:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2016
Change the picture of the X-wing in the Legacy section to one that shows it from a better perspective (like this) and change the caption to "A full-scale X-wing fighter mockup at the SM Mall of Asia."--Quarax (talk) 17:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
How should information be handled regarding the "new" Star Wars continuity?
With most of the expanded universe now considered "non-canon," and also taking into consideration that lots of information regarding the Star Wars franchise on Wikipedia is derived from the "Legends expanded universe," how should we proceed? For example, it may confuse readers to learn of Han and Leia's twin children, which is now non-canon, while The Force Awakens, canon, contradicts this by having Kylo Ren as the sole child of the two (or at least, as far as we know). Should non-canon information be pushed into a new "non-canon" section and be cut down? I'm not quite sure what the policies are on these matters, if there are any. ReddyRedCP (talk) 20:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- We shouldn't be focusing on canon vs. non-canon in-universe trivia at Wikipedia, but we do need to make sure that readers understand when we are talking about Star Wars and when we are talking about Star Wars Legends, as those are two separate real world entities. The end result should be similar to how comics do it: the primary topic of the articles is the main continuity (Star Wars), with an other continuity section near the bottom (Star Wars Legends), unless of course the entire article is focused on a Star Wars Legends property, in which case it needs to be made absolutely clear to readers that that is what they are reading about. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)