Talk:List of Star Wars television series

Rangers of the New Republic is not cancelled.

It appears so many have taken what variety said out of context. Rangers is not in active development doesn't mean cancelled it means it hasn't started production yet unlike Ahsoka which started pre-production and the Book of Boba Fett which is in post-production, it exists as a concept at present as the crew, producers and writers are focused on the three other shows. Variety and Hollywood reporter both referenced the show as still being in the pipeline only weeks ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.44.58.150 (talk) 01:37, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

No where in article do we say it's cancelled. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Bad Batch Season 2 Release Date

I don’t think September 28 should be listed as the official release date, at least not yet. It’s only been revealed in an ad on Disney+ from a few days ago, which seems to have been corrected since then in a matter of hours.

There is a good chance that this could have been a mistake on Disney’s part, and that the release date isn’t as said in stone as people think it is. Heck, it’s not unheard of for Disney to change the release date even after an official announcement has been made, such as when they pushed the premiere date for Obi-Wan Kenobi forward two days to May 27.

Also, aside from the previously mentioned ad on Disney+, neither Disney nor Lucasfilm have made any official announcements of any kind. Additionally, this release date has only been reported on by websites like Collider and Comicbook.com which are frivolous fan orientated clickbait sites, and are thus not reputable sources.

It would be better if we wait for more reputable sources, such as the Hollywood Reporter or IGN, to weigh in, before jumping to conclusions.

Look, I want to see the Bad Batch Season 2 as soon as possible as much as the next person. But there’s nothing I hate more than false hope for a release date, especially when said release date is inaccurate. I’m only trying to make sure people don’t set themselves up for disappointment. Ascarboro97 (talk) 22:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Transclusion of critical reception

@Indagate: Please show me either 1) where you gained a consensus for a new status quo, or 2) the policy that states how no reverts in six weeks can be the new status quo for a change of 19-month-old content. -- Alex_21 _TALK 07:07, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Six weeks and many editors seem implicit consensus, plenty of time and people who've edited without objecting. What is your objection? Indagate (talk) 07:57, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Correct, to a degree: per WP:SILENCE, [c]onsensus can be presumed until disagreement becomes evident, which is the situation here. I recommend you self-revert until you gain a clear consensus.

My disagreement stems from the fact that, as you've already read, transclusion here is simply unnecessary. Editing should be intuitive to editors who don't understand the technicalities of Wikipedia, notes or not, as well as the fact that transclusion puts a greater load on loading the article then simply having the content on the article. We transclude episode tables because of the great amount of data being transcluded (each episode can have up to 8-9 parameters of data, for 10-20 episode seasons; that's 80-180 parameters of data being transcluded), whereas this is simply four parameters being updated. It is not difficult to update; this is simply a mountain made out of a molehill. -- Alex_21 _TALK 09:08, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Disagreement by one editor though

The difficulty to update isn't really the issue, it's easy but still an effort to update the figures here and same rows at the series actual article, so they would become out of date and inconsistent, Rotten Tomatoes isn't static even for things released years ago. Indagate (talk) 10:10, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Disagreement by one and support by none, meaning you no longer have "consensus by silence". The point still stands that it takes more computing power to include the transclusion; let me explain it for you. When the server loads the {{#section}} tag in this article, it has to search the entire article for The Mandalorian for the <section> tags there, to then display the content here. This makes sense when you're transcluding a sufficient amount of information such as episode tables; it does not make sense to put more load on the server simply for four numbers, instead of just having the four parameters within this article's code itself. Updating a number on two articles is not an effort. -- Alex_21 _TALK 01:52, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Any other questions before I restore the content? -- Alex_21 _TALK 04:11, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for explanation but 786 bytes was removed from this article and that isn't just four numbers. Updating figures across two articles is double the effort as one, people will just update one instead of searching where else that figure is on WP.

Status quo should remain, alternative dispute resolutions are available if you want. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 07:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

It is not effort. It's two numbers. Updating two entire episode tables, that would be effort; not four parameters.

I also agree the status quo should remain; however, you no longer have silence by consensus, or any voiced support, and thus the status quo is that of the 19-month version. -- Alex_21 _TALK 12:37, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

It's far more than two numbers, approval percentage, number of reviews, and access date should be updated, across three seasons, so more than two numbers. Indagate (talk) 12:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Very minimal information, compared to having to transclude another entire article solely for those numbers. They also appears twice in The Mandalorian § Critical response, once in prose and tabular format each, and there seems to have been no issue updating each statistic as it appears in multiple locations. -- Alex_21 _TALK 12:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

That's one article so can update in one edit and clear that it would need updating as near so big difference, access-date only has to be updated once Indagate (talk) 13:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

And yet, the "approval percentage, [and] number of reviews" both need to be updated in two locations, across two* seasons, which was the exact reason given for not having it in multiple locations. So can we duplicate information or not? -- Alex_21 _TALK 13:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Big difference when its across multiple articles so can't be edited in one edit. That would make the prose harder to edit as template calls around each number in paragraph, big difference to transclusion marks at the start and end of a table Indagate (talk) 14:22, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion of shorts

@Alex 21: You moved over the two Disney+ short films from List of Star Wars films. Despite being produced for television (as three features have also been), the shorts aren't series; they are films. Thus their previous placement on the films list seems more appropriate, but can be discussed. UpdateNerd (talk) 01:50, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Correction, I moved over one; "Zen – Grogu and Dust Bunnies" has been listed here since its release, thus I only removed it from the films article given its duplication. As for the one I did move, Biomes and Vehicle Flythroughs were released together, and the only difference between them is the number of releases there are for each; Biomes one and Vehicle Flythroughs two. This also conforms with other shorts being listed in this article. Furthermore, the source used for the two releases makes no references to them being films, and instead classifies them as shows; Quote: That included two new shows, Biomes and Vehicle Flythroughs. These two shows are probably fairly self-explanatory by their names, but they take you as the viewer through various locations in the Star Wars universe. -- Alex_21 _TALK 04:29, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I can see where you're coming from, but the Grogu short in no way constitutes a series; neither does the singular Biomes short even if it was released the same day as a series. The source is of mediocre quality and got the details wrong. UpdateNerd (talk) 04:57, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

And yet there's been no disagreement or contesting of Zen's inclusion here since its addition. None of these are either films nor series, but, as you said, they were all still produced for television, hence it makes sense to include them in an article for television moreso than in an article for films. We can also debate the details of the source, but it's the source that's supported the inclusion of both releases on Wikipedia up until now; for what it's worth, both releases are listed under "Series and Specials" on Disney+. -- Alex_21 _TALK 05:10, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Just because something hasn't previously been contested doesn't make it correct. The obscure source (about the best that can be found for these deep-cut titles) is irrelevant compared to the official classification on Disney+. However, a special—or a short—is still a film despite not being feature-length. If being produced for television is the distinguishing characteristic, then the Holiday Special should be included here and the articles renamed to List of Star Wars television films and series and List of Star Wars feature films. Unless that happens, if something wasn't produced as a series then it shouldn't be included here. At this point though, it should be left to other commenters to form a consensus. UpdateNerd (talk) 05:38, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm all for moving the television films (Holiday Special and Ewok films) here and renaming the pages. It would actually align a lot more with the organization over at Star Wars. - Brojam (talk) 06:27, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Yet as far as I can tell, no sources have been provided that classify any of these three entries as films. If the official classification on Disney+ is what's important, then as I said, they're under "Series and Specials". If there ends up being a clear community consensus to re-organize and re-title the article, then by all means. -- Alex_21 _TALK 07:40, 10 April 2023 (UTC)