Talk:Star Wars canon/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Pretty sure Battle of Yavin is canon

The most recent edit (changing the table list to a bulleted list) cites the ABY/BBY (after/before Battle of Yavin) as non-canon. However, the Battle of Yavin occurs during A New Hope, which I've taken to believe as canon, so what's going on there? Is there a reference to it not being canon? Epic Wink -- (talk) 14:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

And just a further note, some novels (which I'm pretty sure were canon as they were published after Disney acquired Star Wars) were removed without citation. Epic Wink -- (talk) 14:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted this drastic edit pending discussion. You are correct that the battle is canon, but I'm wondering if the dating scheme based on it has been explicitly used in the "new canon". Yes or no, the spans before or after that date are indeed unsourced in this article, and should be. Whether the dates remain or not, I think I prefer the current table format, but that should definitely be discussed and we'll see where that leads us.— TAnthony^Talk 16:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Even clearly labeled as an "in-universe" time difference, I think a general readership would be better served by changing that to something further out-of-universe, e.g. "Years before the events in Star Wars A New Hope." BBY/ABY-ness seems an unnecessary in-to-out-of-universe conversion. --EEMIV (talk) 17:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

BBY/ABY can still be used as short hand, with a note explaining that they refer to before and after the events of the original film, respectively. Besides, there is already ordering based real-world release, so I don't really see the point in trying to make the in-universe timeline "further out-of-universe". - adamstom97 (talk) 22:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

The Star Wars Wikia page uses years since the events at the start of The Phantom Menace. If we were to use that, we could do away with the suffix and just contain a number in the in-universe date column (eg 1977 | 32 | A New Hope | Movie) -- Epic Wink (talk) 05:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The problem we are going to have (if there is no longer an "official" dating scheme) is that these kind of calculations are original research. And I'm sure in many cases it will rely solely on a phrase of dialogue in a novel, like "10 years ago when Vader told me he was my father". I think the in-universe timeline approach in List of Star Wars books and List of Star Wars comics is helpful to readers because there are so many works, but we may have to eliminate dates altogether for new canon material and just keep the works ordered properly, which should be citeable.— TAnthony^Talk 14:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

If we are going to give any in-universe timeline, it should be before and after the original film, not just after the earliest set film since that can change. Also, simple calculations are allowed if they must be in order to sort out where in the in-universe timeline something falls. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, BBY and ABY terminology has never been used outside of Legends. DarkKnight2149 23:18, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

George Lucas Opinion about the canon according to Dave Filoni

I believe this quote should be in the article unless someone finds a quote of George Lucas saying his own opinion. It's the opinion of the creator of Star Wars, and it's the most recent, I could find.

George Lucas opinion about the canon

Watch the video interview around the minute 41 mark, Dave says:

"It's a funny thing having been here a while and actually telling Star Wars stories hmm... I'm in like a very odd unique position. Which is that... There is this notion that everything changed when everything became Legends, and I can see why people think that but you know having worked with George (Lucas), I can tell you that it always very clear, and he made it very clear, that the films and the TV shows were the only thing that he considered canon, that was it. So everything else was a world of fun ideas exciting characters, great possibilities but the EU(Expanded Universe) was created to explore all those things. And I know and I fully respect peoples opinions about it that some of the material said the next canon part of it hmmm... Ok, but like from the filmmaker world that I was brought into the TV series and the films were it. So it was not a big change for me when everyone was saying everything is Legends status. I'm like yeah that's what I always understood it's all Legends status what I've been able to do in Clone Wars is the same thing that George was doing in the prequels, which is like Ayla Secure. Ayla Secure gets pulled out of the comic books and now she's walking in the Jedi Temple. In Clone Wars there were several things from the Expanded Universe that hey we need a gang, we need another kind of mafia group not just the Hutts, hey Back Sun that exists..." -Dave Filoni on a video interview published by the Official Star Wars (Youtube) Channel on August 12, 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosvel92 (talk • contribs) 05:40, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

References

Kindred spirits

Kindred spirits needs to be added , it takes place during the clone wars and is released on july 21 2015 BadilYerak (talk) 08:53, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

We got the Star Wars timeline wrong in the articles books and comic articles?

According to this tweet by Pablo Hidalgo, instead of Before and After the BBY and ABY, it should be Before Star Wars 4 (BSW4) and After Star Wars 4(ASW4) because in-universe it doesn't make any sense for the battle of Yavin to hold so much weigth, specially when Endor and the Empire Day, are much more significant in-universe dates, and Star Wars 4 as the measuring only works as an the out of universe time frame because it was the first film, but no in-universe. https://twitter.com/pablohidalgo/status/795361197490991104 Should we change all the articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosvel92 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, I think the only thing really worth deriving from this is that in-universe timeline and treatment of subjects should be only a fleeting component of how we treat Star Wars topics at Wikipedia. Out-of-universe, real timeline production information is the gold standard, not e.g. subject to relatively fickle changes by producers and executives. --EEMIV (talk) 16:48, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Isn't the Han Solo comic considered canon?

Think it is. I see pending work Darth Maul has recently been posted with Doctor Aphra. Also believe there's a pending Thrawn novel...just saying. Can anyone confirm or update? One solution (talk) 01:32, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

This doesn't answer the question regarding the 5-part Han Solo comic, but it was a great video to watch. Unless you posted the wrong link? One solution (talk) 02:41, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there will be an upcoming Thrawn novel, and yes, you are correct about the Han Solo comic being canon. DarkKnight2149 23:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

LIVID about how the list order was changed!!!

I am absolutely LIVID that the list of new canon works has been put in release order instead of chronological order. What was the thinking in doing this!? This was one of the most comprehensive lists out there for following the series chronologically, and someone just decided that that was irrelevant. Why has this happened? EDIT: I guess it's just that they've removed the "in-universe timeline" column. Release order was always there. This makes it so much worse! Why was that removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ETRossier (talk • contribs) 17:12, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

As the person who removed it, it's inappropriate to organize information based on an in-universe timeline. Wikipedia approaches subjects from an out of universe perspective, that is, a real-world production standpoint. (Please see WP:INUNIVERSE.) Because the BBY and ABY dates are purely fictional, the information should not be organized as such. It is not Wikipedia's goal to include every bit of information and trivia about a topic, but rather to present the information in as broad and encyclopedic manner as possible. Such in-universe dating skews close to trivia, to fancruft (see WP:FANCRUFT), and overly technical information that is inaccessible to people who are not members of the Star Wars fan community. In short, yes, the in-universe timeline is indeed irrelevant from an encyclopedic and out of universe perspective. If you wish for a list of canon media organized by in-universe chronology, I suggest Timeline of canon media on Wookieepedia. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 17:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

As it says on the INUNIVERSE page: "It is acceptable to include both the fictional timeline and the real world timeline, providing that the distinction is not ambiguous; the real world time line should take precedence." I think the headers took care of any ambiguity, so I think we we're fine. Additionally, in my humble opinion, if having an article on Star Wars Canon and a list of it's works isn't fancruft, then I don't think that having the additional column for the proper order is crossing any lines. The timeline you linked from a fanpage would be the very definition of fancruft, however, as it is way too technical and involved in the content to be accessible to a casual viewer such as myself. ~Thanks for responding and indulging the conversation. E T Rossier 172.85.28.68 (talk) 19:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I, as an individual, tend to have a bit of a high bar from time to time. While using in-universe chronology is acceptable, it's still subject to whether it's prudent. The issue here is whether or not it's still appropriate. As indicated by several discussions above, the BBY/ABY dating isn't even associated with the canon material and has never been used outside of Legends. This both brings the snafus of applying an in-universe chronology not even consistent with the material itself and then that said in-universe chronology is very malleable, subject to sudden change. These issues are avoided by not having the dating to begin with. The subject of the Star Wars Canon itself isn't really fancruft, it's a subject that has been remarked upon by many third party sourced, especially since the introduction of Legends. (This article may not properly reflect it right now, but the topic itself stands.) Adding an BBY/ABY timeline is difficult because such dates are hard to source anyway, and they don't necessarily add overly much value to the article. The timeline of Canon media can be linked in the external links, and that sufficiently covers it. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 20:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with TenTonParasol, both because of the in-universe angle and since the BBY/ABY dating scheme is Legends-based (and this is a canon material article). Plus, I think much was original research based on editor calculations. In any case, I was also going to suggest Wookieepedia as the perfect place for an in-universe timeline to be maintained.— TAnthony^Talk 22:03, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Also agree with TenTon and TAnthony. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:55, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I should point out that List of Star Wars books and List of Star Wars comic books are also organized by in-universe timeline, but I have never had the strength to tackle either one LOL.— TAnthony^Talk 15:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I just wanted to say I am also disappointed in this change. There are lots of pages about fictional universes that include an in universe timeline. It's an added point of reference that is easy to understand for even the casual fan. The page that has been mentioned to go to instead is an overly meticulous timeline that is quite intimidating to get through. I always appreciated the ease of looking at this page and am disappointed the only reason I read it is gone. Morph1138 (talk) 01:44, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I would not object to a sortable column (in the far-right position) that somehow helped identify the novels' chronology among themselves, providing the information was sourced. The problem is, there is currently no accepted system of dates or points of reference used by the publishers or in the texts for this purpose. All we can source at this point would be (in some cases) which works occur before/after/between other works. For example, this source establishes that the novel Star Wars: Ahsoka takes place between Star Wars: The Clone Wars and Star Wars Rebels. I don't know how we would begin to translate this information to the table in a manner which could be sustained moving forward, and some may argue that it is unnecessary because this information can be found in the individual articles. Plus it still may fail the in-universe litmus test. The bottom line is that Wikipedia is, indeed, not a reading guide and those looking for a storyline order for the novels can look elsewhere on the web and find the information in a list.— TAnthony^Talk 19:52, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I would also like to note that Timeline of canon media on Wookieepedia may seem daunting at first because it lists individual comic issues and TV episodes, but it has ingenious functionality to hide categories of works by clicking in the related boxes at the top. This far outclasses anything we could provide here anyway.— TAnthony^Talk 19:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• Official Source, at least for some of the books we have this source coming directly from the book publisher Del Rey, but it doesn't include books published by other publishers, nor the comics, but at least it's a source someone should add in the article of the books somewhere, although I'm not exactly sure where: http://www.randomhousebooks.com/campaign/star-wars-timeline/
  • Suggestion, instead of Before and After the BBY and ABY, we should change all the articles to Before Star Wars 4 (BSW4) and After Star Wars 4(ASW4) because according to Pablo Hidalgo from Lucasfilm story group, the Battle of Yavin doesn't make any sense to hold so much weight, to be the in-universe starting point of the time-line, specially when the Empire Day and The Battle of Endor are much more significant in-universe dates, and Star Wars 4 as the measuring only works as an the out of universe time frame because it was the first film. Should we change all the articles? https://twitter.com/pablohidalgo/status/795361197490991104 Rosvel92 (talk) 11:10, 22 December 2016 (UTC)Rosvel92

I am inclined to agree with Morph1138 regarding the usefulness of the inclusion of in-universe dates and the shared disappointment I felt when I saw that it was gone. Although Del Rey and other sources may have a timeline, of sorts, that includes their published material, additional content (such as comics, video games, TV shows, etc.) are not included in their timeline. If the exclusion of in-universe dates is to avoid maintaining a "reading list", then I would question the value of having a list of canon altogether. In my opinion, the list was created because a noticeable information gap was observed following the acquisition of the Star Wars franchise, and the list was intended to be useful to those trying to determine canonical works. While I understand that BBY/ABY may not be ideal, and is not currently referenced explicitly, it was a commonly understood (and implied) timeline. Simply removing the timeline seems unhelpful and makes the page less useful as a resource. Now if the franchise were to establish a new calendar, based on ASW4/BSW4 or otherwise, then by all means it should be used. However, in the meantime, it seems wise to use the commonly understood timeline that is still based on events in established canon. —Aenaphos (talk) 19:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

As I noted above, Timeline of canon media exists (and is maintained) at Wookieepedia and far outclasses anything we could do here. You're still thinking of this as a Star Wars reading guide, but it's an encyclopedia list that needs to comply with certain content policies and guidelines. Even though it is in-universe, there is more of argument for BBY/ABY dating in a Legends list because the publisher maintained such lists in its own works. But it is very crufty here and I really don't see a way of justifying it within policy.— TAnthony^Talk 20:05, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Additionally, I understand that exact in universe dates may no longer be feasible, but I have a VERY hard time imagining we couldn't come up with sources for a chronological ordering. I do understand that the purpose of wikipedia is not to cater to fans, but we really are pulling the plug on what I'd imagine is the most useful functionality of this article. A far-right sortable column would solve this. We'd be following the guidelines of keeping publication dates the primary focus, while keeping the readers informed in a way that truly matters to them. As for using a system such as "ASW4/BSW4", I don't think that's the best way to go, as only one guy with limited say suggested it. However, we should develop a standard to be used across these articles, as acknowledgment of the ordering of events is most definitely inevitable. ETRossier (talk) 15:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Well yes, Rosvel92 just provided this source that orders the Del Rey books, and individual sources for the novels themselves usually establish where they are in the timeline. But how do we translate this into sortable information? We can obviously number them 1 to 50 or whatever, but then you are updating the numbers practically every time a new book comes out, which is what I meant about sustainability. It seems ugly and messy, and I have not really seen it done before.— TAnthony^Talk 16:18, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

In most cases I think an external link would be provided to the timeline for the reader's reference, which I will at least do now.— TAnthony^Talk 16:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

You're correct, and numbering them 1 through 50 would be nothing but a band-aid solution. However, the real issues lies in the fact that we need a valid and sourced way to label in-universe chronology. This is an issue that is by no means limited to this article. It's completely nonsensical to purge all Star Wars articles of anything with in-universe dates, so a replacement is necessary. Someone suggested that years from The Phantom Menace could be used, but that has it's own issues, such as requiring a degree of original research. Maybe the "ASW4/BSW4" is a viable option. I don't know. What I do know is that completely distancing from chronology as a whole is not at all beneficial to the readers. ETRossier (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I still don't agree that there is a need for an in-universe chronology and that the value of the article is null if there is no in-universe chronology. The article is about the scope of the Star Wars canon and the history of the concept. Readding something in because it's ostensibly the "most useful functionality of the article" seems to me to be catering to fans, especially when one can easily put both the Del Rey and Wookieepedia timelines into the external links section. From the perspective of the broadest audience possible, I'm not sure why an in-universe chronology is of the utmost importance and why such information would matter beyond, say, the fan base. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 17:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I've notified the WikiProject, as it is becoming a discussion on such dating across all the articles. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 17:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• I also support having a column for in-universe year, and would not be opposed to either re-sorting the table back to in-universe or having two tables. For questionable entries: Ahsoka is listed as 18 BBY on Wookieepedia. If a valid source can not be found for that, I would suggest adding it to the table with a hidden data key as 18, and then either leave the column empty or add a footnote stating that it takes place between such and such. To those arguing against FANCRUFT, I generally agree, however, I believe that in-universe timing of one of the largest franchises on the planet is of general interest to a significant number of readers interested in the subject. Assuming it can be verifiable, I don't think think we should discount that in favor of ignoring all FANCRUFT (which is an essay anyways). For one reading the plot of a given article, they are likely to be interested in other books which come before or after it in-universe. This article should be there to offer help in understanding the Star Wars canon, both in general terms and in-universe.--Odie5533 (talk) 18:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

And here lies a major root of the problem. Sure, maybe a good portion of this is catering to fans, but when the demographic of "fans" is numbered in the tens of millions (which would be a low estimate, based off sales), the cultural relevance needs to be put into account. We end up in a "follow the spirit or word of the law" kind of bind. ETRossier (talk) 19:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Why don't we use the Lothal Calendar (which is canon)? The Battle of Yavin for example took place in the Lothal Year 3277. 85.255.150.186 (talk) 19:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

The cultural relevance of the in-universe dating? The cultural relevance of the franchise itself does not filter down to every detail. And tens of thousands fans does not automatically mean that all automatically know or care about in-universe chronology. Both the spirit and the word of the law, in my interpretation, both suggest that this sort of minute and technical, inside baseball detailing is not necessary to be included in the article. Personally, I do miss that sorting key dearly, but I don't think it's appropriate to include, and its inclusion is a nightmare to put in. Additionally, to the alternatives, the Lothal Year system is even more trivial and even more unverifiable, as is the BSW4/ASW4 systems. As for reader interest in which novels come before for after, to quote TAnthony earlier in this discussion, "The bottom line is that Wikipedia is, indeed, not a reading guide and those looking for a storyline order for the novels can look elsewhere on the web and find the information in a list." Lists that can, and currently are, linked in the external links section. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@76.76.169.74:, in response your comment made at my talk page (diff), I invite you to read the above. I did not say that I removed it because it was not useful, but because it was inappropriate, difficult to verify, in-universe, bordering on fancruft, and not applicable to the canon. As also mentioned above, Wikipedia is not a reading list, and if a reader wishes to know the in-universe chronological order, it is often listed on each individual article what comes before and after (if one exists) and other sites, such as Wookieepedia and Del Rey, which is linked in the external links section.

@Aenaphos:, I invite you to read the above and participate in discussion. As, again, the purpose of this page isn't to provide a reading list and the other arguments made here toward the removal of the BBY/ABY dating. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 18:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Considering this is a page about what is canonical, I think it is reasonable to have a "canonical listing", in whatever form is most suitable for that. I know it seems like a pretty in-universe thing to do, but this article is a pretty in-universe focused article anyway. And I think that how all the shows and books and stuff fit around the films is reasonably notable as well. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Part of the issue is that the BBY/ABY dating isn't canon. And just because the current state of the article is a little too in-universe, it doesn't necessarily mean the article should slide further into it. Really, the best I think could be done is add a description parameter to the list, giving a one line summary of the work, noting "Set between Revenge of the Sith and A New Hope" or whatever. It isn't exact years, and I think it's still a little much to be listing here, but that's the best I can come up with right now. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 16:35, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• I tried to save the fictional timeline order of the list by adding a reference row for the timeline sources, and sourcing half of the media with the Del Rey Timeline, although the sources need to be shortened since all redirect to the same link (don't know how). I also added a note saying all the media, without a legit source regarding their placement in timeline, simply will be listed as unknown placement in timeline. It's the only way to have the whole thing in order, but the I guess, the lower half might need an individual sources for each book, as long as we have 75% sourced, we can get away with placing non-sourced things but is an improvement?Rosvel92 (talk) 13:30, 28 January 2017 (UTC)Rosvel92

I've reverted it because the implementation of such isn't actually all that useful, seeing as half the list isn't even given dates and there's no sortable values for the fictional timeline, which defeats the purpose of having it. And as has been the argument here, this sorts the information by in-universe details. Also, bonding films is importer usage of bold per MOS:BOLD. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 16:35, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Only reason I came to this page for reference was because of the timeline. Since it doesn't appear to be coming back, I'll remove this site from my bookmarks. Seems a real shame that something people use as reference on a site built for reference has been taken away. This is one of the reasons I use Wikipedia less and less all the time. Morph1138 (talk) 07:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

How is it though, when the BBY/ABY designations were not sourceable and something Lucasfilm didn't even use, and represented an WP:INUNIVERSE perspective of the canon? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@Morph1138: As someone interested in Star Wars we'd love to have your participation in improving articles, and I'd be happy to assist you getting up to speed on editing if you need. As far as the timeline goes, the Wookieepedia timeline of canon media is a detailed resource (probably exactly what you are looking for) and something we couldn't do to such a degree within the policy restraints of Wikipedia anyway.— TAnthony^Talk 17:35, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Merge in Holocron

We should merge the article about The Holocron database into this article, it's better detailed here and we are like a two or three sentences away from doing so anyway, so no point on it being described the same in 2 different articles.Rosvel92 (talk) 15:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Rosvel92

Yes, that's probably a good idea.— TAnthony^Talk 16:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Do it yourself, I suppose. I would merge it myself but I don't know how to do it.Rosvel92 (talk) 03:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)Rosvel92

Oppose, because the term is best known for its in-universe use, from which the out-of-universe use derives, and the out-of-universe version is actually too obscure to be the main topic. Indeed, way too much is made of it here, being that referring the Pablo Hidalgo as "keeper of the holocron" was a joke, a reference to the in-universe use. The term should not be redirected to an obscure-to-all-but-obsessive-fanboys internal database that's outdated and insignificant. It's actually quite UNDUE. oknazevad (talk) 14:14, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Changed my mind. I redirected Holocron because a) it really didn't have anything that wasn't already here, b) this article provides much better context and c) the Holocron article was hopelessly outdated, being it didn't even mention the reboot at all, which is the single most important event in establishing what is canon. In short, I agree it was totally unneeded.

That said, I still think it's a n absolutely terrible redirect target, because the now outdated database is incredibly obscure compared to the in-universe objects that have appeared on screen in Rebels; just that alone makes them more notable. oknazevad (talk) 14:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

The section does mention the fictional objects, and perhaps that info could be slightly expanded. But with the prevalence of sources, it seems like the real-world database, though defunct, trumps the fictional items. Where would you expect a redirect for the objects to go, Jedi or Sith? We could certainly decide the primary topic and then create an alternate redirect like Holocron (database) or Holocron (fictional artifact), but without a decently sourced explanation of the artifacts I don't see the point.— TAnthony^Talk 14:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Star Wars film series own article

While Star Wars is centered on the films, by this point it's clearly more than the films, why can't we have an article titled Star Wars (franchise) (films would be mentioned but it would only be a table of all the films and a small paragraph) and split everything detailed about the film series in an article titled Star Wars (film series)? What's the need to cram everything on a single article when the franchise is way more than the film series. We should do it like The Simpsons (franchise) which does encompass everything including the series but it does so in a single paragraph, and then The Simpsons it's exclusively about the show in detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosvel92 (talk • contribs) 15:39, March 12, 2017 (UTC)

The Star Wars article is meant to be the franchise article, and the bulk of it concerns the films. I'm actually actively cutting down the "Other media" section as I work on the expanded universe article; it should be an overview, with more detail in the expanded universe article. I'm not sure how else you would expand the topic in a "film series" article, since each film article is already robust. That sounds like it would be redundant.— TAnthony^Talk 18:11, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

-The main franchise article would be the setting paragraph, plus a table of the films with a one paragraph un-detailed description of the whole series, and below everything on the other media section exactly as it is now, but I think we would merge the Star Wars canon article in there somewhere, and the List of Star Wars film article would be merged into the franchise article too, because it would be better to list the films besides the context, maybe we could even merge the cultural impact there to round the whole "Star Wars (franchise)" article. -The film series article would be everything concerning the film series exactly as it is edited right now and nothing else.

-Just look at how The Simpsons (franchise) article works in comparison to the one of the TV show, Star Wars needs an article for the media franchise as a whole and another for the films. Star Wars legends would still require it's own article though.Rosvel92 (talk) 21:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)Rosvel92

The reason The Simpsons article is set up like that us because the Simpsons television series is a single entity, which the Star Wars film installments are not. What you're proposing is splitting hairs, and you're spreading information out from its context without any rationale as to why this new structure is better. The main Star wars article IS an article on the media franchise as a whole, so I don't understand why you believe there needs to be an article for that. And, there's no reason to have separate articles in the film installments. The films in their groups do need to be better summarized in the main article, but that can be done in the main article, and each film is already sufficiently covered in its own article. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Selectiveness in episode numbers on titles

Why are episodes in the prequel trilogy in this article (as a number of other pages) being given their own titles but the originals stripped off of them? Since when were these films not released in their episodic titles? On the subject of episodic titles, why are people resisting the fact that A New Hope was known as "Star Wars" only until 1981? People going against this cited posters- far from a reliable source. They then claimed WP:COMMONNAME, which also goes against the argument of calling it "Star Wars." Another user pointed this out when proposing a revert to A New Hope. He pointed to a number of sources satisfying WP:COMMONAME and another vote occurred with about two thirds voting in favor of stripping the film names off their titles. As I interpret it- as in a number of countless cases on Wikipedia- that it's just because the majority of users prefer it that way.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 01:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

As far as this article is concerned, it's following how the nomenclature elsewhere in the project, i.e. the films' article titles, are given. This article will follow that until a new consensus across the project is established. Following what the articles themselves are called is to prevent constant reversions and edit warring over this very issue. "Since when were these films not released in their episodic title?" Generally, the theatrical posters showing The Empire Strikes Back, to pick one, does actually indicate it was released as such. It's also worth nothing, as was pointed out at the move discussion, that many sources in that table do not actually satisfy the RS criteria. As far as this article is concerned, again I state, it is best that it use what the article titles themselves are. To get that changed, that requires another series of move discussions for each of the three original trilogy articles. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 01:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Source for canonized Legends material

This article might prove useful if anyone wants to write about the Legends things that became canon. http://www.ign.com/articles/2017/05/04/13-star-wars-expanded-universe-concepts-that-have-become-canon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosvel92 (talk • contribs) 16:23, May 5, 2017 (UTC)