Template talk:Star Wars

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to 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)

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). == Other films ==

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)
Other is stupid, since you cannot quantify other, so I changed Other to Animation as you can quantify animation and what animation is. Since you never know if they decide to do another animated feature based Star Wars. DoctorHver (talk) 22:24, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Planets and moons[edit]

There are only 11 entries on the {{Star Wars planets and moons}} template, so I'll propose moving those items here under 'Settings' with a section 'Planets and moons' (with a section break after 'Planets'). The planets and moons template isn't even on the main Star Wars page. Seem okay? Randy Kryn (talk) 15:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Moved per no objections. Looks fine and adds quite a bit of information to the template. Maybe the Planets and Moons template can be deleted per other templates being merged, or left as is for its condensed information usefulness. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Combining all fictional universe articles into a new template[edit]

I've realized that many of the current Star Wars templates overlap each other and are quite short. So, I propose that {{Star Wars characters}}, {{Star Wars planets and moons}}, {{Star Wars species}}, {{Star Wars vehicles}} and the entries in the "Setting" section of this template be combined/split into a new {{Star Wars universe}} template. This way, {{Star Wars}} would focus solely on the franchise media and the all the others fictional universe items would be grouped together for easier use. Thoughts? And please be free to make changes to the proposed templates below. - Brojam (talk) 23:34, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed new template
Proposed modified Star Wars franchise template

Discussion[edit]

  • Great idea, (December 29, 2017 EDIT: but Oppose for now, see below, until the use of both templates on the film articles is agreed to) except I'd change the names to simply "Star Wars Universe" and "Star Wars franchise". The universe template seems well done with maybe a few tweaks (can you please flip the 'Organizations' and 'Character' sections, for both topic relevance and priority sectioning as well as it would make 'The Force' the first entry, which is cool). Nice work. The major problem is that if this passes then it should mean that both templates should be almost every major Star Wars page (such as the films, for sure the films should have both templates). Some editors may object to that under that biolocation guideline, or whatever they call it, and if it would separate the templates that much I personally would have to be against a split. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Since Star Wars is a franchise, there's no need to add it to the title. While I would love for the new template to be simply called "Star Wars Universe" (should be with a lowercase 'u' for universe), I don't think Wikipedia allows it since it's essentially a name we would be creating. Similarly why "Harry Potter universe" was changed to "Fictional universe of Harry Potter". I'm going to wait before making the switch between "Organizations" and "Characters" sections because I don't quite agree with you in terms of their priority and importance. In the current template, "Characters" is first and "Organizations" is in fact much lower so maybe it should to be placed lower. I'll let other editors give their opinions.
The only pages that would have both of these templates are the main Star Wars article and the four list of characters articles (Star Wars, Legends, The Clone Wars, and Rebels). In fact this would greatly reduce the number of templates on many pages, such as Wookiee that has three templates when it really only needs one. Why does the films need the new template as well? They currently don't have the characters template so why would they need species, planets, moons, etc. The terms used in each film's article are all properly linked in the plot and cast sections for the readers, which is more than enough. The template at the bottom of the films' article should not include the items of the fictional universe, but instead the media articles related to the films. - Brojam (talk) 07:45, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Then (EDIT: still) opposed for now if the Star Wars films won't have the universe template on them. The two-template idea thus greatly reduces the amount of information that the films template-section will contain. This is also the wrong time of year to be doing this, as many editors will miss it due to the December holidays, so this discussion should go well into January if any action is to be taken. One but not the primary reason I suggest moving 'Organizations' before 'Characters' is to reduce the clutter at the top of the template that the 'Characters' section brings. And although three templates on a page is fine and far from clutter, the species template will probably be deleted soon because of the merge, leaving only two templates on 'Wookiee'. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:27, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
The films should not have in-universe items in their template. The only thing I could see being worth having in the main template is the characters, so maybe we should add them (those from the films and tv series)? There are many of them, but it doesn't look too bad. And yes, this discussion should go well into January. I figured that since TLJ was just released many will be looking at the Star Wars wiki articles. - Brojam (talk) 06:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
I just suggest that the section "Other" under characters be possibly changed to "Lists"? ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 02:15, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Good point, done. This made me think, should we be separating the Legends characters like that or should they be all together? We don't separate the Legends content in the main template. - Brojam (talk) 07:45, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I like this idea, because this template is very large ... but I'm also hesitant about, for example, the film articles not having a template with the characters, etc. Obviously relevant topics are linked within the articles, but this is one of those templates I actually use to navigate the various articles in this franchise.— TAnthonyTalk 17:34, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

BTW, thanks Brojam and Randy Kryn for the improvements you've been making to this template, including margining in content from the small ones. Brojam I also really like your layout for "Species" in the universe template above, very clever.— TAnthonyTalk 17:39, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
@TAnthony: But currently, the films do not have a template with the characters in them. They used to have one, but those individual film templates that included the characters were just deleted. Maybe we should add the film and tv characters in the main template? - Brojam (talk) 06:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. As for having both templates on the film and other pages, that's just common sense, and should be done and expressly written into this proposal by ignoring all rules (esp. that guideline on biodiversity or whatever its name is). Randy Kryn (talk) 19:22, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Although I don't really like the idea, I'm not completely opposed to making a rule to have both templates on the films and tv series articles. Just not sure many others will want that since the new template is pretty much all in-universe items. - Brojam (talk) 06:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - nice idea. Wikipedia does take a real-world perspective, so the emphasis should be on the production of the films and the franchise. There will naturally be demand for an in-universe navbox of course, but it mustn't get out of control. Perhaps it would be neater to have a link in the top section of each navbox to allow the user to switch between real world and fictional universe navboxes. Cnbrb (talk) 01:54, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Comment: another method worth considering could be the Template:Navbox with collapsible groups, if you wanted to combine real-world and in-universe links into one tempalte. Cnbrb (talk) 18:00, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Suggestion: in the top bar of each navbox, cross-link the templates to allow the user to switch between real-world and fictional navboxes, thus:
Just an idea anyway. Happy new year everyone. Cnbrb (talk) 16:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
We should definitely NOT be doing this. We should never take the reader out of main article space and into template space from a navbox. --woodensuperman 09:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Chbrb, that's a very good idea, although impractical to get past the guards-at-the-gate. The most logical and common-sense thing to do if the template is split in two is use both templates on the film pages, and pages like George Lucas. Bidirectional is a guideline, not a policy, and it has exceptions - the Star Wars films containing the in-universe template would certainly be a clear exception. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Randy for your feedback. It's a pity "we should NOT be doing this" - I only suggested it because I have seen it used on several other navbox templates, so assumed that it was acceptable practice. But with this in mind, I refer back to my suggestion of using Template:Navbox with collapsible groups:

The Real-world or Fictional Universe groups can be shown/collapsed as appropriate to the article, it condenses all SW content into one navbox reducing proflieration of templates, and nobody gets taken out of the main article space. Cnbrb (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Support the idea of a single template for in-universe articles as proposed, and one for the real-world articles. No issue with the fact that the in-universe navbox won't be on the film articles. This is correct per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, and we lose nothing from the current situation, where the different navboxes aren't on the individual film articles anyway. If a character (for example) is in a certain film, then this should ordinarily be linked to from the article, so navbox navigation would be unnecessary. One thing though, links to George Lucas and Lucasfilm should not be given prominence in the "above" section, as it wouldn't be common practice to include these in other navboxes of this type and are only included here as an exception. --woodensuperman 09:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Fixed the George Lucas and LucasFilm links. - Brojam (talk) 02:44, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
  • This does show the inherent weakness of the bidirectional guideline, as including both proposed templates on the film pages is an obvious exception, and would likely be on the film articles. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:16, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
No, there's no exception needed. Any concept that is included in a film would most likely be linked to from the article. We don't need to include both navboxes, which exist to cover gaps in navigation which isn't ordinarily covered through normal linking. WP:BIDIRECTIONAL is a robust and sensible guideline, not inherently weak as you claim. --woodensuperman 11:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per nom, a great improvement over the current situation.— TAnthonyTalk 16:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
  • The Force is not an organization, it's a concept. If this idea "passes" and two templates are formed, then according to some editors (cough woodensuperman cough) The Force cannot be linked within the template stack of any of the Star Wars films. They point to the biolocation (or whatever it's name translates to) guideline, and insist on compliance. This is The Force, the center, the core, the heart of the Star Wars films. To exclude the proposed template containing its link shows there is something wrong with the obviously flawed concept of "bidirectional", and we should really draw some kind of spacetime line here to say "this shall not stand (in other words, an exception to the guideline is obvious)". And may The Force be with all in the New Year! Randy Kryn (talk) 23:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
The force is an in-universe concept, and therefore belongs on the in-universe template, not the real world one. The in-universe navbox should not be placed on real-world articles. If that's the point you're trying to make? --woodensuperman 11:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, and no, my concern is that at present, in the proposed template, The Force is listed as an organization. It of course isn't an organization but a concept. Since I don't think "we" are supposed to change the templates until or if they are exchanged for the present template I was hoping the creator of the proposed templates would change it (probably by re-adding a 'Concepts' section). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I've re-added the "Concepts" section. - Brojam (talk) 04:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Pinging top editors of this template @Adamstom.97, EEMIV, Cartoon Boy, Jedi94, Flax5, TenTonParasol, Rosvel92, and Richiekim: for their opinions on this proposal. - Brojam (talk) 02:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

This sounds like an excellent idea to me. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, this seems like an improvement on the current set-up. If no problems arise it should also provide a good precedent for bloated franchise navboxes in general. —Flax5 16:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the nudge. I support the general notion of pulling a bunch of disparate nav templates together. I've been kind of a Wiki Force ghost long enough that I'm vague on best practices around structure and flow within templates. Caught glimpse a few lines up about where The Force fits in this. Although it shouldn't matter, that particular article is in very good shape in terms of offering up a real-world perspective on the subject (it's really one of only a couple of articles that bring me back to Wikipedia regularly... I need all these damn movies to stop coming out; all this interest in Star Wars is gumming up my Watchlist activity....), and it'd be a shame for it to get lost in the shuffle. --EEMIV (talk) 17:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Since there has been no further discussion for several days and a pretty clear consensus has been formed, I'm going to go ahead and make the changes. - Brojam (talk) 05:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2018[edit]

I am offering the suggestion to change the displayed title on the template for Episode IV from "Star Wars" to "A New Hope". While I know that "Star Wars" was it's original given name in 1977, it's extremely jarring to see the official subtitles for every other film on the template except this single film. I also find it redundant to find the title of the film as "Star Wars", when the template already displays the entire franchise as "Star Wars" itself. I really do feel like it will fit the mood of the entire template better if this simple change were made. Thank you for your consideration, and may the Force be with you! 72.49.222.71 (talk) 10:32, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

And also with you (amen?). I would oppose your good faith suggestion, and I'm assuming this has been discussed at length on several talk pages with the consensus being to keep the name as it, because it is the name of the original film. It's where 'Star Wars' came from. As an encyclopedia Wikipedia should, I usually advocate, stick to real-world names of artworks, and this film was released and became notable under the name Star Wars. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:37, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, this was a much-discussed issue that resulted in, as you can see, the article for the film being named Star Wars (film). I do prefer years to be included in templates like this to eliminate any confusion (as is commonly done in TV templates), but WP Film tends to avoid this.— TAnthonyTalk 17:28, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I am closing this request as Not done: per the discussion above. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Anthology vs Story[edit]

Regarding this: I've restored the template to its "original" state since two editors have objected to the change (myself included), pending further discussion here. When I first saw the change from "Anthology" to "Story", I didn't get that it was a truncated version of A Star Wars Story (it should probably have been italicized Story). It's proper that we not repeat Star Wars in the template, but "Story" alone is so generic that it invites confusion (my first thought was story vs screenplay when crediting writers). We have a perfectly apt real-world classification for the spin-off films, "Anthology", which is well-sourced, and seems more navbox-appropriate than Story, which feels like branding. I know at least one editor agrees with me, but I'm interested to see how the community feels. Thanks.— TAnthonyTalk 14:12, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree that "Story" should definitely not be used, but I think we should have both analogy films and the TCW animated film grouped together as "Other" since for now there are only two analogy films. - Brojam (talk) 14:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
If there must be a change, then I would support Brojam's idea of just having one "Other" section, but I do not feel that there is a strong for the change. As for issue in the heading here, the series of films are an anthology, even if they don't have that word in the title. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:41, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
The films are still largely talked about in sources as anthology films, and I agree that "Story" feels like branding. The fact that they share a subtitle arguable collects them as... an anthology of stories. Though, I think for now Brojam has the way of it. Put the two in with The Clone Wars under other, at least until (if at all) there are enough anthology films to warrant a section out. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol
Have any of you actually looked at the anthology or Anthology film, appearently not because the two films are "apt real-world classification", "the series of films are an anthology", "an anthology of stories" are all false statements. An anthology is "a book or other collection of selected writings by various authors, usually in the same literary form, of the same period, or on the same subject" or "a collection of selected writings by one author." The collection would be appropriate to the media, a book, film or record." Rogue One and Solo whould have more than one story, which they do not. Anthology was the original branding given by Lucasfilms to the standalone films and why some still use the term, so if you don't like using Story as branding then you should have problems with "Anthology". Anthology series is for (radio, TV) casting media to fill a specify time slot. While the article states books, that seems a little bit forces as there is no need/necessity to fill such a slot from the basic media's need (a book or film company could release mulitple movies all on one day). Both movies would actually fit the term prequel even better as Rogue One directly leads into Star Wars: A New Hope, such that there is a joke that it did so well that there is a sequel called Rogue Two: A New Hope. And with Solos being about Solo's early backstory and a main character in the original trilogy thus a prequel (never minding any corporate statements that the main saga is about the Skywalkers).
Google News search brings up "About 35,500 results" for Star Wars Anthology films, "About 32,200,000 results" for A Star Wars Story films, 'About 58,900 results" for "star wars standalone films". Spshu (talk) 18:09, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
When you made this change, did it not occur to you that a kajillion editors watch and edit the main Star Wars article, and perhaps some discussion has taken place regarding our use of "Star Wars Anthology films" across many articles? Some of the sources the rest of us have been talking about in this discussion are included in the Anthology section of that article:

In April 2015, Lucasfilm and Kennedy announced that the standalone films would be referred to as the Star Wars Anthology films (albeit the word anthology has never been used on any of the films titles, instead choosing to carry the "A Star Wars Story" subtitle below the film's main title.)[1][2][3]

We should not be going off on tangents deciding for ourseves what anthology means or how it may apply. And I should note that the parentetical "comment" above regarding A Star Wars Story appears to be unsourced editor commentary, no matter how true it is.— TAnthonyTalk 18:44, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Did you. There was a previous discussion that I was in here just as Lucasfilms was abandoning the term and subtitle "anthology". Since it had been basic dropped in everything I read since. Yes, I did check them to see that I was not completely correct in a complete drop of "anthology". And your snotty remark there to actually check to see that it was made (22:44, 19 July 2018) before discussion started here (14:12, 20 July 2018) 16 hours later. Just because editors cherry and/or randomly picked sources for "anthology" doesn't mean they are the end all and be all for correct common usage. Since they shifted from Anthology to Story, sources announcing the first movie under the Anthology Series doesn't hold water. As per common name 's subsection WP:NAMECHANGES, "When this occurs, we give extra weight to reliable sources written after the name change is announced." So going and quoting the original name for the series and providing sources for the announcement is meaningless.
"We should not be going off on tangents deciding for ourseves what anthology means or how it may apply." You did stating that it is "perfectly apt real-world classification". I have show that you and your supporters done so, not I.Spshu (talk) 21:13, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I can appreciate bold edits like yours, and I'm sorry for my assumptions regarding the Star Wars article change, but you restored the edit here after two editors objected to it, instead of starting a discussion. That said, if "Story" is the direction we end up going in, we have to suck it up and use "A Star Wars Story". "Story" alone is confusing, and to me looks idiotic in this template and in the TOC of Star Wars. Plus, are there sources that refer to them as "the Story films"?
All the sources that I have seen, including all the sites discussing the recent rumors of cancelling or not cancelling since the release of Solo, still refer to them as anthology films (as they should). The fact that they do not say the word "anthology" in their titles is irrelevant. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Rogue One Details Revealed at Star Wars Celebration Anaheim". Star Wars.com. April 19, 2015. Retrieved April 20, 2015. 
  2. ^ Breznican, Antonghy (April 19, 2015). "Star Wars: Rogue One and mystery standalone movie take center stage". Entertainment Weekly. Retrieved April 19, 2015. 
  3. ^ Breznican, Anthony (November 22, 2016). "As Rogue One looms, Lucasfilm develops secret plans for new Star Wars movies". Entertainment Weekly.