Template talk:Star Wars/Archive 2

message: I think Sith, Jedi & Stormtroopers should go under organizations while individual characters of high importance can go in the characters section. --NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 21:27, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already a cluttered infobox, and without other adjustments adding a row with "high importance" characters -- probably a dozen+: Luke, Leia, Han, C-3PO, R2-D2, Vader, Palpatine, Rey, Finn, Kylo, Obi-Wan, Yoda, Padme, and then maybe Qui-Gon, Lando, Jabba, ... -- just adds to it. I agree with the underlying idea that it would be nice to make those characters more discoverable, but the broader busy context of this infobox doesn't lend itself to that. I wonder what we might trim out or truncate to give it more breathing room. --EEMIV (talk) 16:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characters and organizations 

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

message: I suggest changing the "Other" film category to make it more clear.  There should be a Sage tab (like there already is), and then an Anthology tab (separate), and then and Other tab with the Clone wars with it. 68.33.17.129 (talk) 15:34, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 15:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2017 

message: Xavier0300 (talk) 19:15, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2018 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: "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 talk•cont 07:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Forthcoming films

message: There are only 11 entries on the  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Planets and moons

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I am closing this request as  Not done: per the discussion above. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2018