Talk:The Empire Strikes Back

Is there a difference between the running times of the original version and the special edition?

The running time of the original version is 124 minutes, while the running time of the special edition is 127 minutes. Is there a difference? AdamDeanHall (talk) 16:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe to add some new scenes, maybe? 202.160.16.80 (talk) 01:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Later released as?

Why does the article say "later released as"? This film has always had in its opening crawl as "Star Wars Episode V The Empire Strikes Back." The promotional posters read "Star Wars The Empire Strikes Back." Why on earth were all the original trilogy films moved? All six Star Wars movies should be "Star Wars Episode (number of episode): Specific movie subtitle." Lucas officially changed the title of the 1977 movie within a year of releasing it and Empire and Jedi were released under their full titles. I propose that these changes be done immediately. All three articles were at their full titles for years. All modern fans know them by their full titles. The only people I've seen that refer to the original trilogy as "Star Wars", "Empire Strikes Back", and "Return of the Jedi" are people who watched the movies in the 1970s and 80s. Today people refer to them by their full titles, or for short, their respective episode numbers or subtitles. Emperor001 (talk) 00:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Titles Issues

Umm, I'm pretty sure this was released in theaters as Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back and not just The Empire Strikes Back. The same goes for "Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi". Also the claim "The title, number and episode never actually appeared until after the release of "The Phantom Menace" is incorrect. Despite popular belief, the films were not given numbers for the 1997 Special Editions, nor the 2004 DVD releases. Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope was just called Star Wars in 1977, but was given its number and subtitle for it's 1981 re-release. Empire and Jedi were originally released with their respective numbers and subtitles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 00717F (talk • contribs) 16:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

This is correct. The original movie didn't have an episode or the subtitle "A New Hope". The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi were both released with the episode number. S806 (talk) 01:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that is correct. The vintage poster on IMDB for instance just reads The Empire Strikes Back, with Star Wars sort of wrapped around but not mention of episode. EDIT: heh, it's the same poster used on this page. Mezigue (talk) 15:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

But it is true. I have the original theatrical release movie, it says Episode 5 in the movie. Empire and Return both had the episode number in the original release. S806 (talk) 15:29, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you talking about the scrolling text at the beginning or what's written on the box?Mezigue (talk) 17:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The original title of the movie [1] IMDB says "Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi" (original title). It has always been that. S806 (talk) 17:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

As well as Empire strikes back. S806 (talk) 17:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not just about using the official title for the article title. WP:CRITERIA comes into play as well. For example, Borat is officially a much longer title, but it is simple and doable to render it in the current state. Similarly, The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi are universally recognized in their concise states; additional detail is just extraneous and can be mentioned in the opening sentence. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that the page be moved to "Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back", however the actual title needs to be the first thing in the header lead, and at the top of the info box. Those have always been the official titles, and the page needs to reflect that. S806 (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the infobox, but I think it is appropriate for the opening sentence of the lead section. (Think about actors' Wikipedia articles; full names in the opening sentences, but common names in infoboxes.) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The full title and the four word title have both been in the lead, in bold, all along. What's changed is which one is first and which one is second. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we put the true title first, and what it's also known as second. It's the way titles work.S806 (talk) 01:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

They were released as The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi and the episodes numbers were incorporated into the titles much later. I have no idea why you claim otherwise when all the posters, trailers, VHS sleeves and reviews of the time document this! Mezigue (talk) 20:42, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

This isn't true. The only one that was released without an episode number is the original star wars. Evidence "With this new backstory in place, Lucas decided that the series would be a trilogy, changing Empire Strikes Back from Episode II to Episode V in the next draft." Star Wars S806 (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

What is that sentence and how does it prove anything? And what is this "original theatrical release movie" you claimed to have yesterday? What format is it and what does it say on the packaging? Mezigue (talk) 14:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with S806, Empire and Jedi were originally, theatrically released into theaters with their Episode numbers and subtitles, regardless of what the posters, trailers, VHS sleeves, reviews etc. say. The only film, in all of Star Wars, that wasn't released with a number was the original Star Wars, which was given its number and subtitle for the 1981 re-release. From May 21, 1980 to May 19, 2005 all Star Wars films were released with a Title, Number, and Subtitle. Saying "The Empire Strikes Back (later released as Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back)" is like saying "The Phantom Menace (later released As Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace)"! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 00717F (talk • contribs) 04:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

No it isn't, because The Phantom Menace had Episode I on the posters, trailers, etc., at the time of its first release, and The Empire Strikes Back did not. A film is known by the title used in the promotional materials. That is the WP:COMMONNAME. Very few in the public notice if the title on the film itself is different. So the lead is quite accurate. - Gothicfilm (talk) 06:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

"Empire and Jedi were originally, theatrically released into theaters with their Episode numbers and subtitles, regardless of what the posters, trailers, VHS sleeves, reviews etc. say." Are you actually serious? They were secretly called something else than what they were called? Mezigue (talk) 09:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Both of you aren't listening. It doesn't matter what the posters, trailers, etc., call it. They were both released into theaters as Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back and Star Wars Episode VI: Return Of The Jedi. You want proof? Go to any thrift shop and pull out a VHS from the 80s. The number and subtitle will be there, I promise. They weren't released just as The Empire Strikes Back and Return Of The Jedi. And yes Mezigue I am dead serious. And no they weren't "secretly called something else". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 00717F (talk • contribs) 16:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It's you who isn't listening. You need to read WP:OFFICIALNAMES and WP:COMMONNAME. - Gothicfilm (talk) 20:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Like this VHs from the 80s of The Empire Strikes Back or this VHS from the 80s of Return of the Jedi you mean? Mezigue (talk) 00:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, if you buy then play those home vidoes, the opening crawls will clearly say "Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back" and "Star Wars Episode VI: Return Of The Jedi". I bet my bank account on it. And no Gothicfilm, I don't care what the rules say, the official titles of these films are in the opening crawls in their original releases! Bite it!00717F (talk) 00:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Well yes, it says the episode number before the title in the crawl, but it wasn't part of the title back then. Hence not appearing anywhere else until the 90s. Mezigue (talk) 21:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested move (October 2014)

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. (While respecting the thoughts of the editor who requested that the discussion be given more time, it is clear that the current discussion will not result in a consensus to move the page, and I would add that these discussions are not votes and that canvassing is frowned upon.) If there is evidence that consensus has changed or new evidence is introduced that is relevant to naming policies and guidelines, please initiate a new request at that time. A multimove request would also be advisable in that case. Dekimasuよ! 00:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

---

The Empire Strikes Back → Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back – The second film is commonly referred to by this title in official media. AdamDeanHall (talk) 23:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per discussion last January, which had a pretty strong consensus for the current setup. Per WP:CRITERIA, recognizability, naturalness, precision, conciseness, and consistency are criteria for article titles. these shortened titles are still recognizable and concise and more natural. (As in, nobody says, "Have you seen Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes back?") Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose moving as per Erik, and as per WP:OFFICIAL, which says that we don't use official names just because they are official, but only if they meet other criteria. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 07:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support I give Official website as per: https://www.starwars.com/films/star-wars-episode-v-the-empire-strikes-back YODA ✍♪ 12:20, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - for same reasons as above. Why make things complicated? Mezigue (talk) 15:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Erik Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Erik. This was discussed at length and resolved last January. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I oppose the rename as well. However, you falsely claimed it was originally titled without the episode number, that is not true. It always had the episode number in its title. S806 (talk) 01:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:OFFICIALNAMES, i.e. WP:UCN. This proposal is as clumsy as it is stupid. —  AjaxSmack  02:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per official names vs common names. current article name is the common name, and is A valid name for the movie.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support as that's the current title. GoodDay (talk) 13:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support It was never "retitled" and always known as it's title episode. I have copies of the original theatrical editions on DVD and the screen crawls refer to them by their episodes. Even Star Wars Episode IV was known as "Star Wars" only till 1979. If it's not possible to change them to their official names, I support adding what their official names are.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 23:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. The Star Wars Episode V thing is fairly new. It was never commonly known as that on its release and I doubt whether it is even today. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Motion to postpone poll closing date I am requesting this poll closing date be postponed by another ten days from now since this issue seems to be raised a number of users on talk pages regarding the dubious claims that these movies were "later released as.." but seem to unaware of this poll. if it's closed within the next few days, it would not be considered a fair vote. Thanks.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Title and infobox name

There is currently a debate about whether the original title should be first in the lead, or it's shortened title. I think it is inappropriate for the shortened title to be first, as the title is the title. Not only is "Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back" the current title of the movie, it is also the original title. S806 (talk) 01:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Under WP:BRD, you discuss a change on the Talk page, not put in what you want. You have been given a WP:3RR warning. I'm restoring the page to the agreed upon version, arrived at through long discussion last January. Read WP:CONSENSUS. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Return_of_the_Jedi#Article_name_in_lead This is your "long" discussion? S806 (talk) 01:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

The link to the discussion is right there in the first sentence. Here it is again: Talk:Star Wars (film)#Requested move. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

This is NOT a discussion about moving the page. Your 'consensus' doesn't count here. This is a discussion about the lead. S806 (talk) 02:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to match the title of the article. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Tell that to Borat. S806 (talk) 02:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I propose we have the lead read as "Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back (also known as The Empire Strikes Back)". S806 (talk) 02:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. The current lead

The Empire Strikes Back (later released as Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back)

is the most accurate. It was agreed to in long discussions in January 2014. "Later released as" refers to trailers, posters and all other promotional material, not the film itself. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

The movie was always named "Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back" S806 (talk) 02:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

That was not on its trailers, posters or any other promotional material when it was released in 1980. Thus it is not its WP:COMMONNAME. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME doesn't reference leads, only page names. Please, please stop being so dishonest. S806 (talk) 02:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to match the name of the article. Try reading WP:AGF. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Many leads don't match the article title, see Borat. S806 (talk) 03:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

That's an issue with that page. Hardly a model to follow here. See WP:Other stuff exists. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

You still haven't given a valid reason why the movie title shouldn't be first in the lead based on wiki policy. S806 (talk) 03:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Already debunked as a valid reason, only applies to article names. S806 (talk) 03:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, though we do have examples, such as Pancho Villa, where the first name given is the full legal name. however, it was also his original name, and pancho villa is both his commonly known name and ONLY a nickname. if this movie was very commonly known as "TESB" or "Empstri", they would never go first, but second or third, as nicknames. Empire Strikes Back is (or was) a valid name for the film, and the most commonly used, so it can go first, with the full official name second. perhaps When the Pawn... is an example that applies here.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

In every single example given in WP:COMMONNAME, the lead always starts with the real name, not the article title. This is exactly like all those examples, and should follow the same format. S806 (talk) 05:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose The current lead is the most accurate, as per WP:COMMONNAME for original release. Hughesdarren (talk) 22:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Support It was never "retitled" and always known as it's title episode. I have copies of the original theatrical editions on DVD and the screen crawls refer to them by their episodes. Even Star Wars Episode IV was known as "Star Wars" only till 1979. If it's not possible to change them to their official names, I support adding what their official names are.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 23:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

As can be seen just above, the full title is and always has been in the lead, in bold. And it doesn't say it was "retitled". - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• Obviously what I meant was that the first statement on the article says retitled. As for the infobox it should still keep the official names. And that goes not only for films but official names in general per say.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 20:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

No, the first statement on the article does not say "retitled". It means something when you put a word in quotes. And is it really that difficult to avoid putting your response inside someone else's signature? - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

What is "a DVD of the original theatrical editions"? DVDs weren't invented until long after The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi were released! Are these pirate editions basically? Mezigue (talk) 00:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Umm are you not aware that the original theatrical editions of Star Wars were were released on DVD by Lucasfilms in 2006? See this commercial I am referring to those and they are not considered "pirated" if the company released them despite being copied from laserdisc. I do have the 1997 editions of Episode V & VI on DVD, also copied from laserdisc but those are considered "pirated" simply because the company did not release them.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 20:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• Suppport: Use the full title. That has always been the official title; the opening crawl has always had it. If anything at least changed the wording from "later rereleased" to something like "also known by its full title" since unlike A New Hope Lucas never changed this title. Emperor001 (talk) 03:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. The current lead is accurate. The words Star Wars Episode V were incorporated in the title long after the initial release, as vastly documented. Mezigue (talk) 09:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

No the words "Star Wars Episode V" were not incorporated into the title. The opening crawl has always said "Star Wars Episode V The Empire Strikes Back." Marketing ads always had "Star Wars" in them. "Episode V" was not mentioned in marketing until the prequels came out but it was always in the opening crawl. Last time I checked X2 was still at X2 as that was what was (and still is) in the opening credits even though the marketing ads said "X2: X-Men United." As the opening to this movie said "Star Wars Episode V The Empire Strikes Back" that is and has always been the title. People just ignored the "Episode V" until the prequels. Emperor001 (talk) 23:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

It was in the crawl but not in the title. Mezigue (talk) 23:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The first part of the crawl is the title. All six movies contain "Star Wars Episode..." then the individual number and title. All six are Star Wars. All have their own numbers and subtitles. Under that logic the prequels should be under just their subtitles (e.g. The Phantom Menace) but all are at their full titles, so the originals should be that way too. Emperor001 (talk) 01:16, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

That was not on the trailers, posters or any other promotional material when the original three films were released in 1977-1983. Thus it is not their WP:COMMONNAME. The prequel episodes did use the numbers in their promotional materials. So stop saying both series are the same. They're not. This has been explained repeatedly. You're just making the same point and refusing to accept WP policy. Read WP:OFFICIALNAMES. The voting period is over. Time to move on. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I will make one final comment before signing off (it looks like I'm outnumbered here). Re marketing materials: based on what I've heard about George Lucas he always considered Star Wars one movie divided into six chapters (now with a 7th on the way). As to the marketing materials, it would look kind of awkward to advertise the second movie as Episode V, so while he considered the official title "Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back" he only advertised it under the short title because it was a good marketing strategy but still slipped the full title into the movie. When the prequels came out it was then feasible to market the original trilogy films under their full titles. I also checked over WP:Commonname and found this quote: "it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." Marketing materials would be reliable sources for the film's common name in the 1970s and 80s but today's marketing sources as well as other official sources use the full titles. I recognize that WP is not to always use the official title (unless that is the most commonly used name) and in this case there is a some-what generational dispute: older fans know these films by one title and younger fans know them by another. Emperor001 (talk) 19:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• This has been resolved above, there needs to be a ban on opening the same discussion within a few weeks of the previous. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The problem with your proposed rule on a ban is that some of us missed the previous discussion. I don't sign onto Wikipedia as frequently as I used to so I did not notice the proposed change to the short title until it was already made. People had debated using the short titles and until this past year the full titles vote always won so I didn't bother checking. Then when I randomly saw the changes made I wished to make my views known. Emperor001 (talk) 19:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Your one movie of six chapters reference can be found in Disc two of Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 20:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Can I just add that the original registered trademark for the film was Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back, per the U.S. Copyright Office See here --Tærkast (Discuss) 20:39, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Er, that page states that the title is "The Empire Strikes Back"... Mezigue (talk) 08:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose: The current lead is misleading, the film was not "later" released as Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back, it was originally released as Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back. Stating that the film was "later released as Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back" is simply not accurate. Yes, some promotional material simplified the title to just "The Empire Strikes Back" (or Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back") and the "commonly recognizable name" may very well be the shortened "The Empire Strikes Back" (arguably it's just as commonly recognized as referring to Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace as "The Phantom Menace" or simply "Episode I," which remains under it's full extended title) but the full title upon it's release was Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back (it was not later released as such, it was originally released as such). I was there on opening day in 1980 and it was "Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back." Saying that it was "later released" under that title is not accurate, it was "originally released" under that title. Even if the page title stays as the common name of "The Empire Strikes Back," the lead should be rewritten to avoid confusion as to what title the film was released under (unlike 1977's "Star Wars," which was later re-released with the title changed to "Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope," this film was originally released with the full title.). Statler&Waldorf (talk) 21:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

This has already been said and answered above. The trailers, posters and other promotional material used The Empire Strikes Back when it was originally released in May 1980. Thus that is its WP:COMMONNAME. Read WP:OFFICIALNAMES. And the voting period is over. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The common name is not in dispute. I don't think anyone questions the common name of the films. What is questionable is whether or not the lead is accurate in saying the Episodic titles were later added. In Return of the Jedi, Episode VI was most definitely part of the registered title with the U.S. Copyright Office, whereas a case could be made for Empire, whose application listed both The Empire Strikes Back and the full Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back title.--Tærkast (Discuss) 23:23, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

We don't go by that. The Episodic titles were later added to the trailers, posters and other promotional material when the film was re-released. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Once again, the common name is not in dispute. For the episodic titles, you can make a case for Empire but not for Jedi. According to the BBFC, Jedi was indeed originally released as Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi, See this link and the US Copyright Office link [2]. To suggest that it was later released under the full title is misleading, that's the inaccuracy being referred to. It's a misstatement. The article titles can stay as they were, however, they need to accurately reflect the information of their release.--Tærkast (Discuss) 20:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

We don't go by that. And the BBFC link you give is not even referring to the film's original release, but the 1997 release. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

No, it indeed refers to the original release if you click under details. Jedi was always known under its full title. --Tærkast (Discuss) 13:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

No it wasn't. Virtually no one in the public is aware of it's copyright title, etc., which is disputed anyway. The film is known to the public by the title on the trailers, posters and other promotional material when the film is released. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that the common name is "The Empire Strikes Back." I'm disputing the phrasing in the lead, which is misleading. The franchise name and episodic number may have been added later to supporting promotional materials (trailers, posters, merchandise, etc.), but they were not later added to the film itself. The film was not "later released as Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back," the film was originally released with that title (even if the accompanying trailers, poster, and promotional material used the shorter title). Statler&Waldorf (talk) 02:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

As stated near the top of this thread, "Later released as" refers to trailers, posters and all other promotional material, not the film itself. This is consistent with WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIALNAMES, and it works best for the lead. We're not going to describe the details of the Star Wars crawl in the opening sentence of the article (though it should be in the article itself). - Gothicfilm (talk) 06:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

The current lead reads as follows:

• "The Empire Strikes Back (later released as Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back) is a 1980 American epic space opera film..."

I think the phrase "later released as" is misleading, as it could be misinterpreted to imply that the title was changed after it was originally released (which is something that happened with 1977's "Star Wars"). I think a more accurate lead would be one of the following:

• "The Empire Strikes Back (also known as Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back) is a 1980 American epic space opera film..."
• "The Empire Strikes Back (released under the full title Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back) is a 1980 American epic space opera film..."
• "The Empire Strikes Back (released as Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back) is a 1980 American epic space opera film..."
• "The Empire Strikes Back (titled on-screen and in subsequent promotion as Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back) is a 1980 American epic space opera film..."
• "Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back (commonly referred to as The Empire Strikes Back) is a 1980 American epic space opera film..."
• "Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back (original promoted as The Empire Strikes Back) is a 1980 American epic space opera film..."

- Statler&Waldorf (talk) 21:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

You're not saying anything new here. All of those have problems. It was only known to the public in 1980 as The Empire Strikes Back. Many of your suggestions would imply otherwise. The public only became aware of Episode V as part of the title upon later re-releases. This subject has been covered from every angle. The 1977 Star Wars article lead says "retitled" instead of "later released as", so there's no confusion - at least not for anyone who looks further into it. We're not going to put a more verbose version in the opening sentence. The current lead is most accurate. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The public became aware of Episode V as part of the title upon it's initial release (as soon as the title scrolled across the screen on opening day in 1980...and even in some pre-release material). They did not become aware of Episode V as part of the title upon later re-releases. It was not "later" that I became aware of Episode V, I was aware it was part of the title since day 1.

I also don't think "also known as" is any more or less verbose than "later released as" and is less confusing, more accurate and avoids any potential misinterpretations or inferences. Statler&Waldorf (talk) 20:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

It was not "also known as" Episode V to the public in 1980, so that would not be more accurate. Seeing Episode V as part of the scroll did not make 99.99 percent of the public think the title of the film was anything more than The Empire Strikes Back, as those four words were the full title seen on the trailers, posters and other promotional material when the film was originally released. It was also the title used in the reviews of the film at that time. That is what WP goes by. - Gothicfilm (talk) 19:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not arguing to change the article title; I am arguing to drop the vague and misleading term "later" used to describe the fuller title as something that was released "later." If it wasn't part of the title in 1980, then when exactly was the "Episode V" added? (Should I slap the {{when}} tag on there?) Using "also" in place of "later" is still accurate and avoids an unnecessary and somewhat confusing unsupported attribution (which is against Wikipedia's manual of style) that is given with the vague and unsupported use of the word "later" in the lead. Statler&Waldorf (talk) 05:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

It was not "also" known as Episode V to the public in 1980, so that would not be accurate. And WP leads only give the year of original release. We're not going to put the re-release history in the opening sentence. That belongs in the article body, in the Release section. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, it was also known as Episode V to the public in 1980. Maybe not widely or even commonly referred to as such, but it was known... it was in the opening crawl in 1980, it was on the US copyright application in 1980, it was on the script prior to 1980. I was there on opening day in 1980 and I knew it as Episode V that day, not "later" as you imply. Yes, the "Episode V" wasn't widely known or commonly used until later episodes were released and the films re-branded and re-marketed, but it was always there, it wasn't a "later" addition; it was just later emphasized.

Secondly, saying "also released as" Episode V is still accurate even if it wasn't known as such in 1980. It was clearly released as The Empire Strikes Back in 1980 and it was "also released as" Episode V subsequently. So it is 100% accurate to say that "The Empire Strikes Backs" was also released as "Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back."

We can say "Star Wars" was later released as "Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope" because the renaming did in fact take place later (on April 10, 1981 upon its theatrical re-release, to be exact). If you want to say "The Empire Strikes Backs" was later released as "Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back" then we should back that up with when that occurred (maybe not in the lead, but somewhere in the article or a footnote). But we can't because there isn't a specific pinpoint-able time the name changed, it was always there, the emphasis on it just changed as the marketing and support material evolved. Statler&Waldorf (talk) 04:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

You're just repeating the same things. As you say, the "Episode V" wasn't widely known or commonly used until later episodes were released. That is what we go by for the lead. What was widely known and commonly used in the year of original release. The re-release history belongs in the Release section. And guess what - it's already there, along with an explanation of Episode V being in the opening crawl but not the film's publicity in 1980. So all this is addressed in the article, but it's not going to be forced into the lead. That's it. Time to move on. - Gothicfilm (talk) 18:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Why does it matter if it was commonly known as "Episode V" in 1980 or not? That's an argument for changing the article title, not for listing an aka. The fact is it's very commonly known as that now and it has always been the onscreen title, just not the promotional one. Saying it was "later released as" that is at best incredibly misleading and at worst just a flat out lie. Not even the Special Editions were promoted that way if that's what you're going by (for example). Changing it to say "also known as" would be much more accurate. --DocNox (talk) 17:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

The more I think about it the more I think "titled onscreen as" would actually be best, since that really is the main issue here. Simply "The Empire Strikes Back" is undoubtedly the common name and has been used as the promotional title in every single theatrical release, including the Special Editions. But the full actual onscreen title is just as notable and important. Now, that might not necessarily be the case with every film out there, but it definitely is with this one and other Star Wars films. Especially with how common the full titles have become lately. It completely avoids any confusion about when "Episode V" was added to the title and just gets to the point. --DocNox (talk) 08:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree; the phrase "later released as" is very misleading, if not completely inaccurate. The common name was (and still is) "The Empire Strikes Back." However "Star Wars Episode V:" was always part of the on-screen titles, it was not added later; it was just emphasized more often on the later promotional materials and home video releases and whatnot. But the film itself was never re-titled nor was it re-released under a "new" name at a later point in time -- the name has always been the same. I think saying "titled onscreen as" or "also known as" is much more accurate than saying "later released as." Statler&Waldorf (talk) 17:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose Any change to the current wording. The release of the film was under its shortened title, per reliable sources. It was on retitled later for the special editions.--JOJ ^Hutton 21:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

"It was on retitled later for the special editions". That is simply not true, for which several sources have been provided. This just further proves the spread of misinformation with the current wording. In fact the article itself needs to be edited to correct this in the Special Edition "releases" section. --DocNox (talk) 06:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The original posters, trailers and promotional material in 1980 simply referred to the film as "The Empire Strikes Back." But it was NOT retitled for the special editions; the poster, the trailers and the promotional materials for the re-release in 1997 also all referred to the film as simply "The Empire Strikes Back" with no emphasis or even mention on the episode number. The "Episode V" was always a part of the film's title; it was on the film in 1980 (not added later). The film was never retitled or re-released with a new name adding the number in. The "Star Wars Episode V:" part of the title (which was on the film since day #1) was simply emphasized more in some of the marketing, packaging and support materials later on as the saga grew. But the title was never changed from "The Empire Strikes Back" to "Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back;" the film has always held by both titles - the shorter common name and the longer full name. The longer one didn't come later, it just became a little more common later on. But "Star Wars Episode V" has been in the full official title since the day the film was originally released in May 1980... it's not a "later" addition. Statler&Waldorf (talk) 06:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and edited the "Releases" section of the article to reflect this, however I'm still a little wary of editing the lead without further consensus. However it seems to me that Gothicfilm was simply operating under the misconception that "Episode V" was added to the promo title for the Special Editions, which we've now established was not the case. It's the on-screen title, period, and the lead should tell us that. --DocNox (talk) 18:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)