Talk:Star Wars

Template:Vital article

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rutkowskij409 (article contribs). This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Angelinaramos18 (article contribs).

How was the photo of Carrie Fisher selected?

See Annotated Screenshot

• Why are Mark Hamil and Harrison Ford shown in tuxedos at red carpet events, while the photo of Carrie Fisher appears to be a candid shot taken at a strange angle?
  Why are Mark Hamil and Harrison Ford shown in tuxedos at red carpet events, while the photo of Carrie Fisher appears to be a candid shot taken at a strange angle?

Why are Mark Hamil and Harrison Ford shown in tuxedos at red carpet events, while the photo of Carrie Fisher appears to be a candid shot taken at a strange angle?

Wikipedia is necessarily limited by the requirement to use free images wherever possible. This means that editors can only use the images of Carrie Fisher on Wikimedia Commons. If you can find a suitable substitute there, by all means suggest it. I suspect the photo chosen was because it was taken at a time close to the first release of Star Wars, and so is most relevant to the article content. Cnbrb (talk) 12:25, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Categorisation

I notice that this article, Star Wars (film), the saga films and anthology films are all categorised under both Category:Lucasfilm films and Category:Star Wars films.

Star Wars films is actually a subcategory of Lucasfilm films, so in accordance with WP:SUBCAT, I would suggest that these films each be removed from Lucasfilm films, as they are already contained within a child category. Perhaps, in line with the guideline on eponymous categories, this article alone (covering the whole franchise) could remain in the Lucasfilm films category.

Any views? Cnbrb (talk) 12:14, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Yep, "an article should be categorised as low down in the category hierarchy as possible, without duplication in parent categories above it." UpdateNerd (talk) 14:38, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Categorization#General categorization says Category:XXXX studio films are non-diffusing parent categories. This means films should not be removed from Category:Lucasfilm films just because they also happen to be in a subcategory. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:12, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh OK, thanks for pointing that out. A bit confusing, but it looks like it's been thought about before so I'll not propose any category changes then. Case closed! Cnbrb (talk) 13:54, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Right, so another editor has taken a different view and has unilaterally removed all the Star Wars films from the Category:Star Wars films, which seems counterintuitive to me. Anyone think this is a good move? Cnbrb (talk) 20:53, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

All those need to be reverted. Category:2015 films and Category:American films are also non-diffusing categories. Betty Logan (talk) 20:58, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree. I reverted ep IV but I don't want to be seen to be on a vendetta. Besides, he's replaced some other categories with totally absurd choices (Category:Amputees in fiction??!?). I'm struggling to see any good faith in these changes. Cnbrb (talk) 23:16, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Right, well as few people seem to have taken an interest, I have reverted all the Star Wars film recategorisations myself. All the Star Wars films are now back in Category:Star Wars films. Cnbrb (talk) 15:15, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

The film table

It's been a while since I've viewed this page, and it's safe to say a lot has changed. What I'm wondering about is why are there several film tables? The film series are all within the same continuity, and should just be listed together in a table encompassing the whole film series. The intro to the current Anthology films is misleading as it reads a long the lines that Lucas developed them. This is false as both movies were developed without his involvement and purely created by Lucasfilm/Disney. Lastly - I still think a page solely dedicated to "Star Wars Legends" (the now non-canon additions to the franchise) would clear this page up a lot. Especially given it is its own branding from Lucasfilm. With that, the films shouldn't be divided as 'Skywalker Saga' and 'Standalone films'. The entire film series is the "Star Wars Saga". Someone explain the current layout to me?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 19:20, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

"American epic space opera franchise" vs "American epic space-opera franchise"

In the phrase "American epic space opera franchise", found in this article's first sentence, "American epic space opera" is a modifier to the noun "franchise". The Wikipedia article on compound modifiers states that "[a]ttributive compounds – modifiers within the noun phrase – are typically hyphenated". So I corrected the phrase to "American epic space-opera franchise". (The preceding adjectives "American" and "epic" makes it even more important to use the hyphen; too many attributive adjectives makes it hard to decipher without the hyphen.) Another user, Oknazevad, disagreed with me, and an edit war between Oknazevad and myself started. Eventually another user, General Ization, stepped in and gave me a 3RR warning. During the edit war, I kept referring to the wiki article on compound modifiers, which clearly proves my point, while Oknazevad used unsourced (and incorrect) claims like "multiword genre name[s] [are] never hyphenated" or emotional arguments like "You're just plain wrong" and "You don't know what you're talking about", totally disregarding that the Wikipedia article on compound modifiers proves me right. Any thoughts on this from other users? Aikclaes (talk) 06:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that the guideline article uses the example of heavy-metal detectors instead of the genre "heavy metal". E.g. "Metallica is an American heavy metal band." Genres function somewhat like proper nouns; see also Spaghetti Westerns such as The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:53, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

You're kind of missing the point. This hasn't got anything to do with proper nouns. "Space opera" is a genre, sure, but when used attributively (i.e. before the noun) it is a compound modifier, and should be hyphenated, like the article on compound modifiers says. Analyze this example: "There are both light-weight and heavy metal bands on the bill." Metal bands that are heavy or bands in the genre "heavy metal"? Aikclaes (talk) 09:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Does light-weight metal have a Wikipedia page I can check out? UpdateNerd (talk) 09:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Compound modifier#Exceptions says: "Major style guides advise consulting a dictionary to determine whether a compound adjective should be hyphenated; compounds entered as dictionary headwords are permanent compounds, and for these, the dictionary's hyphenation should be followed even when the compound adjective precedes a noun." Space opera is a permanent compound and not hyphenated. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

The quote you refer to concerns compound adjectives in general. This discussion, however, is about compound modifiers that are used attributively (i.e. before the noun). In our case we have no fewer than four words (American, epic, space, opera) that modify the noun (franchise). Without hyphenating the compound modifier "space-opera", the reader can interpret the article to be about an opera franchise set in space, not a space opera. Since it's the article's first sentence, clarity is extra crucial, as we will have readers who have no idea what Star Wars is and need a quick but clear understanding of what the article is about. Aikclaes (talk) 13:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I now see that the quote says "even when the compound adjective precedes a noun". However, if you click on source 4, it says "even when they follow the noun they modify". Clearly not the same meaning; "precede" and "follow" are opposites. Aikclaes (talk) 13:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Stuff that has to urgently be done on the article.

1. The article has to be considered a featured article.

I'm not asking politely to do this, this HAS TO BE DONE.