Talk:Star Wars: The Force Awakens/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2015

The Resistance base planet is D'Qar, not D'Oar. The official names of the planets have been listed online and in Disney Infinity. Don the First (talk) 16:07, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done IdenticalHetero (talk) 16:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2015

"Han is reunited with Leia when he, Chewbacca, and Finn are brought to the Resistance base on D'Oar, where the droid R2-D2 has been dormant since Luke's disappearance.

As Starkiller Base prepares to fire on D'Oar..." - The Resistance planet's name is D'Qar, not D'Oar. Stated in Disney Infinity, and also online officially. Don the First (talk) 16:14, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done IdenticalHetero (talk) 16:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2015

In the plot section there is a misspelled three as trhee.

Cechmate (talk) 17:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Done epicgenius (talk) 17:52, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2015

Ian McDiarmid makes a voice cameo as Emperor Palpatine

47.18.141.221 (talk) 19:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. clpo13_(talk) 19:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2015

Episode VII is the official title. Please ensure that this is added to the official name of the film. 184.90.175.30 (talk) 23:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This is still being discussed above. clpo13_(talk) 23:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2015

I must correct something that is wrong. 80.2.72.11 (talk) 11:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 11:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2015

I must correct something that is wrong. Thethomster2001 (talk) 11:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 11:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Provisional reception section

See [1]. I'm of the view that this should be included, even for only 12 hours. People still read the article until then.  Sandstein  17:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I see no harm in including the initial reception for now. Even if it's removed later, it will be of use to the thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands?) of people who visit the page in the next few hours. It also meets notability guidelines, as far as I can tell. Popcornduff (talk) 18:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

There is no real point in including it now. If this screening was weeks before the general release, then yes, this would be fine, notable, etc. But the review embargo for critic reviews is being lifted in 13 hours. So we can wait. We are in no rush, no matter how many people are coming to the site. Surely if readers are coming here, they can search the internet for these thoughts if they really want them. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

For almost all topics, there will be better information coming later. That doesn't prevent us from using the (reliable and pertinent) information we have now. You haven't argued that this information is not in fact relevant and reliably sourced.  Sandstein  19:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

But be smart about it, considering points laid out in WP:NOT: How is having fan responses helpful, knowing that official reviews are going to be available extremely soon too us? As I stated in my first response, if this premiere was much sooner than the general release, all of this would be well and good, because there would be a time cushion between these reactions and official reviews. But, again, given the fact that reviews are going to be appearing in 13 hours, there is no point to these reactions, especially since they will not be kept in the article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

These aren't fans, but industry professionals. And their initial reactions aren't necessarily less important or relevant than "professional" reviews; they are two different but, to the public, equally relevant forms of reception.  Sandstein  19:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

They are "fans". When dealing with the reception of a film, it should be comprised, to the best of its ability, by industry standard publication reviews (The Hollywood Reporter, Variety, Deadline.com, newspapers, etc.). Many of these reactions do not fall in that category (ie Elizabeth Banks, Patton Oswalt and Andrew Stanton). And, the ones that do, are going to have full reviews, again, up very shortly. So if anything, all that could be added from this would be a generalization that the reaction was positive, without extracting thoughts. Save those for the reviews, and readers can follow the ref if they want to read them. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Favre1fan93 is correct. Wikipedia film articles do not include any audience reactions except the CinemaScore ratings. That's WP:FILM guideline. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:57, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Excellent point, Tenebrae. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have to agree with Favre1fan93. There's a high degree of certainty that we'll be getting professional, third-party analysis of the film in a relatively short period of time. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that strives for historical significance in its coverage, not a newspaper that thrives on breaking news. So the argument that it may be useful for a matter of hours is not a viewpoint supported by Wikipedia's content policies. In fact, WP:RSBREAKING clarifies that it is better to wait a day or two rather than attempt to update a rapidly-changing current event in real time. If the content doesn't serve a long-term benefit to Wikipedia, then it can be seen as a negative form of recentism that unnecessarily clutters the article and may even "degrade its eventual quality". In a nutshell, there's no harm in waiting. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Aye, fair enough. Popcornduff (talk) 08:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Marketing - Poster Spy design contest

Is it worth adding this? On November 11th posterspy.com launched an alternative poster contest with Curzon Cinemas and Wacom. 10 Shortlisted entries will be showcased at the cinema for 2 weeks during the screenings of the film. Over 90 entries have been submitted from artists globally and has become one of the most successful poster campaigns on the site to date. Actor Anthony Daniels (C-3PO in the saga) chose the winner for the contest.

References

Not done: No evidence that this is a significant contest that should be included. -- ferret (talk) 02:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Not done: In response to your message left on my talk page: In the end, this is just one of dozens, if not hundreds, of contests that are being ran in relation to the movie, some with and some without involvement from various cast members or film crew. If you look through the article as it stands, the only contest mentioned currently is where Abrams ran a donation contest through UNICEF and the winner was actually brought on set and used as an extra. No other contests are mentioned or detailed, and I have no reason to believe this one stands out as important in the long term coverage of the film. -- ferret (talk) 13:03, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

"rewrote an initial script"

Do we have any of the three writers or any of the producers on the record saying Abrams and Kasdan rewrote Arndt's script? Because in the article I just cited about Abrams saying he has a vocal cameo, he denies Arndt wrote a script: "We didn’t rewrite a script. . . . We had this outline and then Michael essentially said that he needed quite a bit more time than anyone had to write the script. And so Larry and I basically started over and ended up incorporating many aspects of the story, which both of us loved, and we just wrote the script from there."

Since that website is subscription-only, here's a more detailed version from a story the same writer did for a magazine's website:

That script came about, he says, a bit differently than in most published accounts, which suggest Abrams and Kasdan rewrote an initial script by Little Miss Sunshine Academy Award-winner Michael Arndt, whom Lucasfilm announced as the writer in November 2012. When he left the project 11 months later, Lucasfilm president Kathleen Kennedy wrote on the official StarWars.com website that she was "excited about the story we have in place and thrilled to have Larry and J.J. working on the script," adding that "Michael Arndt has done a terrific job bringing us to this point.” Kasdan already had been consulting on the project, the post said. Abrams confirms, "We didn't rewrite a script… We had this outline and then Michael essentially said that he needed quite a bit more time than anyone had [in order] to write the script. And so Larry and I basically started over and ended up incorporating many aspects of the story, which both of us loved, and we just wrote the script from there."

This seems like it would be a complicated change, so what does everyone else think about Abrams' statement? --Tenebrae (talk) 22:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like we could rephrase it as "rewrote an initial outline" with not much problem, adding the above as a reference. oknazevad (talk) 23:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

That might do it. It seems a sensitive change so I want to be cautious. It also just occurred to me to mention that the onscreen credits read: "Screenplay by J.J. Abrams & Lawrence Kasdan and Michael Arndt," which indicates Abrams & Kasdan wrote as a team, and that the Writers Guild considers Arndt a script contributor and not a "Story by" person. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:32, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Where is the plot section?

I'm trying to find out the story to prevent unpleasant surprises at the theater, but people insists on thinking they are doing a service by playing keep-away with "spoilers". They are what I want to find out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.131.247 (talk) 09:50, 16 December 2015 (UTC) Please add a plot. It has a plot, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.224.229.212 (talk) 10:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

SPOILERS !!!! Jar-Jar returns as the Big Bad whispering in Kylo's ear. Also, Poe is the son of Chewbacca. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.60.58.253 (talk) 10:26, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, as per WP:FILMPLOT. After the film came out here in New Zealand at midnight last night, I came to Wikipedia this morning hoping to read a nice encyclopedic spoiler-filled plot synopsis. Instead, the plot section of this article is now shorter than it was two days ago. --2404:130:0:1000:C4D6:7863:E090:C8C9 (talk) 23:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Hm, actually the plot section is exactly the same length as it was two days ago. Never mind! Probably just no one who has watched the movie has submitted a plot synopsis yet. I read a synopsis on a third-party website, but since I haven't seen the film myself I can't verify its accuracy, or else I would write up a quick summary here. --2404:130:0:1000:C4D6:7863:E090:C8C9 (talk) 23:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Kylo Ren

Would someone like to create an article about Kylo Ren? He's been set up as the central antagonist of Star Wars for the foreseeable future and there is tons of information, so far as references are concerned. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 05:31, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Are we sure about "returns the light saber"?

In the current edition, the text states, "Rey visits Luke Skywalker...and returns his lightsaber to him". Are we sure about "returns"? I think the final scene showed Luke being offered the lightsaber but not yet accepting it (e.g., perhaps Rey will keep it). If so, I think this should read "attempts to return" or "offers him his lightsaber back". Anyone else have a clearer recollection? Jonathan lampe (talk) 02:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, while an admirable first effort, the plot summary is quite rough, with choppy flow, not so good word choices, and a few details that seem off (like the relationship between the Rebellion, restored Republic, and Resistance. It's going to need some work in general. oknazevad (talk) 02:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

It's going to need a lot of work. Given all the hype surrounding this movie, the plot is probably going to be edited several times over the next few weeks. After the hype dies down is when we will be able to get a solid plot summary up. SpiritedMichelle (talk) 05:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, I took a stab at it, and it's been revised again since. I think it actually looks pretty good. It hits the major details without going overboard, and best aloft all, it's less than 700 words, in line with WP:FILMPLOT. Now, after I see the film again, I'll take another look, but while leaving details open for the sequels, the film doesn't have an over-complex of plots (unlike the prequels). oknazevad (talk) 13:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

You did a good job. I'm just worried about people feeling the need to add in every little detail possible. SpiritedMichelle (talk) 17:02, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, that's why I've been keeping an eye on it. Some things, like Rey's vision in the Force are important, but this could obviously get out of control fast. Let's just make sure we keep to the 700 word limit of WP:FILMPLOT and it should be okay. As it stands, it's pretty complete without being overstuffed.oknazevad (talk) 17:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

The actor name order

Since it was suggested that we take this to the talkpage, I decided to do just that.

Personally I don't care if the actor is popular or not. Obviously the new ones aren't popular yet, and the ones from the classic Star Wars movies are, but I don't think it matters. I think the names of the actors should be by how much they are in the movie. The protagonist's actor should come first, then the second most important character's actor, and so on.

I mean that is basically how it is in most movie articles, so why should this one be any different? Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm also totally ok with the order of the actors to be by the poster billing block. That is important after all. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• This bothers me, because if you just look at the list of actors you'd think Luke was the 2nd biggest character in the film, yet he only actually appears briefly, at the very end. —ajf (talk) 01:03, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• Okay, I went and reordered the cast a little bit. Needs some improvement, but at least now the top three are Rey, Finn and Han, which is more representative. —ajf (talk) 01:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• It has been reverted (not by me, but I agree). "Importance" is subjective, matching the order of the credits or poster, which it does, is objective. oknazevad (talk) 01:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Daniel Craig as uncredited storm trooper.

Here's the source. Npamusic (talk) 02:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC) Npamusic (talk) 02:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Genre classification

There is a discussion in progress concerning the "epic space opera" label being used throughout the Star Wars film articles. Both epic and space opera are being questioned in the lead. Please voice your opinion on the matter at: Talk:Star Wars (film)#Epic sf war film. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's defiantly a space opera. Cowik (talk) 09:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment in the discussion, where your opinion will be heard by those involved. You might also notice that the discussion isn't about whether or not these labels apply, but whether or not they should be in the opening sentence of the lead. There are strong arguments on both sides of the issue. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

It's certainly not just a "sci-fi film". The Star Wars galaxy and its settings, mythology and supernatural features makes it more "fantasy" since its not bound by the laws of physics - nor does it acknowledge the existence of our own Earth. It takes place in space though, and the films are inspired by classical tales from ancient times and forward. So yeah, it's definitely a space opera. --Jonipoon (talk) 13:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Sounds very peacock-esque in all honesty. I suggest changing the placement the word "epic". TheAstuteObserver (talk) 10:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Plot opening paragraph

"The plot is very similar to the one of Star Wars: Episode IV, with Luke acting as if he was Obi-Wan, Kylo as if he was Darth Vader and Rey as if she was Luke. It's like a reboot or revamped Star Wars: A New Hope. The Death Star is the StarKiller base." That seems highly opinionated and subjective, it doesn't read well for an encyclopaedia. Halbared (talk) 12:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that is cringe inducing. Can it be removed please? Crispy385 (talk) 12:21, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Some information in the Characters section needs to be removed. MAJOR spoilers.

Specifically the section about Kylo Ren's identity.

Tiberius7picard (talk) 15:34, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Per WP: SPOILER we do not hide things because it spoils information. That said I've removed it because it is for an overview of the character, not minutiae covered in the plot section. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Copy prevention technique-too much detail?

I had initially included a note in the development section about the scripts being printed on Red paper as a measure to prevent leaks. This was later reverted by an editor claiming that it was too much detail, and I wanted a consensus to form regarding whether it should be included or not.

While noting the color of the paper does on the surface seem incredibly minute, I think it's a rather interesting approach to preventing leaks. I also planned on including a quote from Anthony Daniels noting that he found the script difficult to read because of this, however my edit was reverted before that could be done.

The point is that security was a big deal with the scripts and I don't think that it would be too excessive to have a mention of that. --Deathawk (talk) 07:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I think it is noteworthy since it is unusual, and if we have an actor commenting that it was difficult to read, despite being more safe from leaks, then that is even more so. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Could we possibly get a few more opinions here? I don't really want to add it again if it's just one vs one. --Deathawk (talk) 13:26, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that it sounds like an interest piece of information that should be added.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:19, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree, red paper is a common practice now for script secrecy but it's definitely interesting and notable here, assuming we're talking about a sentence or two of text that is cited.— TAnthony^Talk 16:11, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Release date

Why is the general release date in the infobox listed as December 18, when the film became generally available in Europe on December 17? I live in London, England, and I saw the film at 00:01 on December 17 (which would have been 17:01 EST on December 16). I am not a VIP, just a regular member of the public - the film was released one day earlier in Europe. Surely it's appropriate to at least mention this general release date in the infobox? This is the first day when a regular member of the public could see the film - I'm sure there would even have been some people who flew from USA to UK just to see the film one day earlier. This is the English Wikipedia, not the US Wikipedia. Kidburla (talk) 13:26, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

@Kidburla: Per template documentation, the release dates included are the absolute first released (generally premieres or festival screenings) and then the dates for when it released in the country of the production company. Lucasfilm is a United States production company so that is the date that goes in there. Further detailed info on the release dates for other countries can be found in the Release section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Citation is not needed in the lead

I have twice removed {{citation needed}} in the lead from the sentence, Critics compared it favorably to the original trilogy, praising its action sequences, characters, acting, and emotional drama, though some criticized it as derivative.

Per WP:CITELEAD, citation is not needed in the lead. The reference is listed in the body paragraphs. The URL of this reference is: http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2015/12/star-wars-the-force-awakens-is-a-mashup-masterpiece/420684/ So therefore, don't add it back. It is clearly sourced, and it is not controversial because the source verbatim quotes "derivative." epicgenius (talk) 01:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Friendly courtesy reminder

Hi everyone. With the film premiering tonight, and coming out in the coming days, just wanted to pass along a reminder, to the best of our abilities, to be courteous to other editors when editing the page regarding plot info. While spoilers are allowed on Wikipedia, we can be kind to other editors who may be keeping this on their watchlists with our edit summaries. If adding some plot/spoilery info, don't make your summary "DARTH VADER IS LUKE'S FATHER!" Using "adding plot info" is perfectly fine. We're all fans here and hopefully want to enjoy the film unspoiled. Thankfully we have semi-protection so that should help a bit. (Short summary: Don't be a dick.)

May the force be with you all, and enjoy the movie when you see it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Good reminder. I wouldn't have thought of that...not that I am lucky enough to be there. I hope someone from Wikipedia is there though and updates the plot. I want spoilers! Shoeless Ho (talk) 03:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I am not there, but to each their own regarding what they want spoiled. I was just wishfully hoping those who could care less of being spoiled/have already seen it are courteous to others who wish to remain in the dark, but I can't expect much. I personally don't want to know what's happening (because I amazingly still don't have much knowledge about the film, having not watch all the footage clips released after the final trailer), so I'll be steering clear of this article until 12/18. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Surely people who don't want to see spoilers will be sensible enough to avoid this article completely until they have seen the film? Some people might want to have spoilers, surely? Wdford (talk) 18:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, avoiding the page of a newly released film is always good advice if someone wants to avoid spoilers, as Wikipedia contains unwarned spoilers and gas for years. But I do think Favrefan makes a good point about not putting the spoilers in the edit summary for the edit, so it is not accidentally seen on a watchlist. oknazevad (talk) 14:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Forgive me if this sounds naiive, but would a template on the page indicating that it is a newly released film and the article will contain spoilers be an appropriate addition to the page (at least, perhaps, through the weekend)? I can imagine people checking the page having a healthy understanding that it will contain spoilers, but an additional reminder, just in case, might keep people's eyes from accidentally skimming and learning too much if they didn't want to. -rachel (talk) 00:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

No. See WP:SPOILERS. Such a template was quashed years ago. oknazevad (talk) 00:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! rachel (talk) 01:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Bespin

So, Bespin appears in a flashback in the film. While it's not prominent, should we include it as a planet listed in the Episode VII template? DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 01:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Where? I don't recall seeing it. oknazevad (talk) 01:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Need more Poe in plot

As I post this, and not having seen the movie, there's no explanation how it is that Poe came back to life or what happened to his character at the end of the story. Considering the actor portraying him is playing the title role in the upcoming X-Men: Apocalypse, I'm sure I'm not the only one who's curious. 5Q5 (talk) 16:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Poe gives a one-line explanation of how he survived, and that's it. DonQuixote (talk) 16:18, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Request for plot clarification

I have not seen the film so I don't know the answer to this question, but why are the First Order and the Resistance both so eager to find the missing Luke Skywalker at the start of the film? The cynical answer is "because he is a star of the movie and the plot requires it," but surely there must be some reason given in the film as to why finding him is so important. The fact that he is described as the last Jedi seems like it might be relevant to his importance to these groups, but it would be helpful to the plot summary for the first paragraph of the plot summary to end with another half sentence that starts with, "because...." 99.192.72.166 (talk) 21:18, 19 December 2015 (U

It is indeed because he is the last Jedi, which is stated. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:24, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Clarified. The First Order wants to destroy him, as per above comment. The Resistance wants his help. --JDC808 ♫ 21:25, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

He's the last (known) remaining Jedi, so he's presumed to possess the knowledge and skill (not necessarily the motivation) required to train additional Jedi. Additional Jedi could eventually confront the leadership of the First Order in combat, which the New Order would logically deem a threat. There's a lot of OR/analysis in that statement, as these events have not yet occurred (or have been revealed), but I feel this is a logical path for the remaining films. 24.51.217.118 (talk) 22:19, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Ewan McGregor voice cameo revealed

Here's the source. Verified account too. Npamusic (talk) 05:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC) Npamusic (talk) 05:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Starkiller Function

Can someone briefly mention next the "Starkiller Base" that it is powered by a nearby sun? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.180.248 (talk) 13:12, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Memtioned. oknazevad (talk) 15:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Broken Even

This has to have broken even by now.

Anonymous96.226.10.83 (talk) 22:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

With a budget of about $200 million and a weekend worldwide box office estimated at $517 million, yes, yes it has. oknazevad (talk) 23:15, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2015

On the reception section, it's change to Postive reviews, why not revert it back to widespread critical acclaim. 50.39.96.201 (talk) 23:14, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Please see WP:MOSFILM. Typically we don't use such terms in film articles. This may be one of the places where an exception is appropriate considering the almost universally positive reviews. oknazevad (talk) 23:17, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Kylo Ren's identity within the plot

Hi, please can we keep Han referring to Kylo Ren by his birth name within the plot? I do understand it's tricky to word, so please feel free to edit the bit I've just edited myself if it makes for better copy. I understand keeping it out of the cast list as in the end credits he is solely referred to as 'Kylo Ren', but please keep it in the plot as its pretty integral that he had a name before he turned. Thanks Nbdelboy (talk) 15:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree, but why is it important? Popcornduff (talk) 15:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Is the discovery of Ren's name from before he was turned, the name Solo still attributes to his son, not a pretty integral plot point? Adds further depth and emotion to the scene in my opinion, and seem like something too important to the overall Star Wars saga to leave out. Nbdelboy (talk) 21:11, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

The plot summary is not the main part of the article. It should be bare-bones, and important stuff, like character background, etc., should be in other parts of the article, such as cast. DonQuixote (talk) 21:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's an argument. If a major character, which is he, is referred to by two names, an alias and a birth name, within the movie itself, then we need to include them both. This is distinct from, say, the original Star Wars, in which Darth Vader is never referred to as Anakin Skywalker. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I was gonna ask if Obi Wan ever refers to him as Anakin indirectly and should we go to some pointless effort to insert that into the plot there too. His real name is unimportant, so unimportant that the guy says he killed Ben and Ben is dead, so it's not even a name he considers real, he's become someone else. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Describing the scene where Han calls Kylo Ren by his name isn't nearly as important as simply stating what Ren's name is. According to WP:FILMPLOT guidelines, writing events out of order isn't disallowed, especially if it enhances viewer comprehension. User:Immblueversion (talk) 23:19, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

So is all the hubbub essentially about how best to word this paragraph?

At the First Order's Starkiller Base, a planet converted to a superweapon powered by draining a star, and capable of destroying star systems, Supreme Leader Snoke orders General Hux to use it for the first time. Snoke also tells Ren that to overcome the call of the light side of the Force, Ren must kill his father, Han Solo. The base destroys the Hosnian star system, seat of the Galactic Senate.

I admit this is a bit unwieldy and could use some tweaks. I'm not sure it needs a major overhaul.--Tenebrae (talk) 01:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Plot last sentence

I believe the last line should read "Luke's lightsaber" not his father's lightsaber. Correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Achem11 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

"Luke's lightsaber" could mean the green-bladed one from Return of the Jedi. And Anakin was the one who built it. It's fine to describe it as it is. oknazevad (talk) 22:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it needs to be specified which lightsaber it is, as it would be more than just one which Luke owns. There does seem to be some minor edit-warring over this point, and there are various ways in which it could be stated. It could be described as the lightsaber which Obi-Wan gave him. Another alternative might be to state that it was the lightsaber which was lost at Bespin, thereby removing any ownership debate? Regards, EP111 (talk) 14:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Plot revealed before official opening day

Why did someone provide the ENTIRE plot line here on Thurs the 17th? The release date was today 12/18. Yet I was able to scroll down and read the entire plot. Couldn't someone have inserted a "Spoiler alert" notice on Thurs and then removed the notice on Sat? It gave people less incentive to view the movie in person. ^Ed S^ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CD9B:E9A0:5560:1889:FD95:84E (talk) 23:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Because it was released in other countries on the 17th....? Don't read the plot then if you don't want to be spoilt. Charlr6 (talk) 23:38, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Plus WP:SPOILER. We don't do spoiler notices. oknazevad (talk) 00:17, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

This article made the Top 25 Report

This article was the second most popular on Wikipedia according to the Top 25 Report with 795,288 views for the week December 6 to 12, 2015. This was the week before the film's release. Congratulations to the editors of this article for the exposure of their work.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  23:49, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

• For the week December 13 to 19, 2015, this article was the most popular on Wikipedia with a whopping 5,164,168 views. That makes it one of the most viewed articles in the history of Wikipedia. Congratulations again to the editors of this article. Know that your work is making an impact.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  17:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Opening-weekend Performance and China

The theatrical run section reads "However, if like for like box office sales are made, where the Jurassic World opening included China, then the Force Awakens,which will not open in China until January 6th 2016, exceeds the opening of that film by nearly $60 million".

However, I personally disagree with some news writers who keep emphasizing the "advantage" brought by China to opening-weekend performance. Jurassic World didn't open in Japan during its first weekend, which is also the time of 2015 Middle East respiratory syndrome outbreak in South Korea as well. So, would these affect its box office performance? As far as I know, Japan is a big market for Star Wars franchise as seen from previous revenue while China is not (the first trilogy wasn't even released there) and such delay may allow time to introduce further the franchise to the people there (mostly by Disney's extensive advertising campaign). Each movie has its own marketing strategy or difficulties and we just present the facts and leave all those "interpretations" to readers themselves. ^{In dialogue with} Biomedicinal 17:58 on 21 December 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter in the end. The film's final gross numbers have come in and it beat Jurassic World's global opening. Broncosman12 (talk) 18:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Box Office

I'm just letting everyone know, the Box Office numbers are wildly wrong. Who found the number 538 million. If anything the number is 528 million. Let's fix it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Broncosman12 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

517/530/538 million

The box office information here is quite confusing and the sources and numbers given simply don't match; the article says the total box office is of $538 million dollars; however, Box Office Mojo states that it is $517 million and, in that case, this film wouldn't have surpassed Jurassic World in biggest opening of all time. Plus, the international domestic box offices in the Box office subsection sum up to $530 million, not $538. Katástasi (κατάσταση) 19:44, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2015

The fact that this film is Episode VII in the franchise. 24.250.152.197 (talk) 06:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Please see the above discussion. oknazevad (talk) 06:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

24.250.152.197, literally the second sentence in the article reads in part, "The seventh installment in the main Star Wars film series, ..." No change required. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 06:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Not exactly true; The Empire Strikes Back is the second installment produced, but is Episode V. Conversely, Attack of the Clones is the fifth installment, but is Episode II. This is actually the first time that the episode number and the production order have aligned on a Star Wars film. Well, even then, that's limiting it to main series films and leaving out spin offs like Star Wars: The Clone Wars, which was the seventh film theatrically released (though that was a limited last-minute theatrical release of the pilot movie of the animated TV series, and most don't count it anyway). regardless, the episode number is not apparent from which installment it is. oknazevad (talk) 18:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

At the risk of a semantic argument, I would point out that a second produced in a series is not necessarily an "installment". I still believe the phrasing as I quoted above is accurate. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 00:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Plot summary debate

There's been a bit of conflict regarding how the plot summary should be written. Some feel it should present critical plot information in the exact order as the film (the scene where Kylo Ren's real name and identity is revealed, the demonstration of Starkiller Base's power). While I'm not saying we abandon the "beginning/middle/end" breakdown of the plot, I prefer a slightly more broad strokes approach as encouraged by WP:FILMPLOT, keeping the general story in order while going into necessary detail as they become relevant to the reader's understanding of what comes next (for example, the detail of Kylo Ren's backstory is broken down across the plot, but since it all ties into understanding Ren's character, we could place it in the middle or even the beginning of the plot and the reader's understanding of the rest of the plot would be unaltered). Template:Plot puts it best:

"The objective of a summary is to condense a large amount of information into a short, accessible format. It is not to reproduce the experience of reading or watching the story."

In other words, I feel it isn't necessary to do a beat-by-beat breakdown of the plot, no matter how well summarized it is. There's more to writing a comprehensible summary than how many words you use. User:Immblueversion (talk) 23:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

The problem is it didn't just put details in a different order, it outright omitted major events in the plot. Leaving out the destruction of the seat of the Republic, that Snoke, not Han, reveals Ren's parentage, etc. It wasn't a proper summary, because it left out too much. I understand the desire to keep it a summary, not a full retelling (and have said as such above), while also doing my best to come back and trim out as needed to keep it below 700 words (which it is as I write this), but not at the expense of actually accurately conveying the major events in the plot. oknazevad (talk) 23:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I wrote "Han reveals that Ren, originally his son Ben," not "Han reveals that Ren was originally his son Ben." It's a background detail in a case where the "what" matters more than the "when". And about the Starkiller Base, I feel it's more crucial to understand how it poses a threat to the protagonists, not how it impacts a fictional government, which is why I believe mention of its capacity to destroy star systems is a sufficient description. User:Immblueversion (talk) 23:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

The fact that the First Order targeted the Republic Senate is important, though. It shows that the Order feels powerful enough to take on the Republic, not simply the Resistance, which isn't officially tied to the Republic. clpo13_(talk) 00:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

It feels more like an aside note compared to what the main characters face and the other characters they directly interact with. If you could compare a summary reading to a drive down a road, then the way this detail is presented now makes it feel like a speed bump or a detour in what should be a straightforward path. I try turning those detours into roadside attractions or streets you need to at least look down to see if anything's headed your way without turning onto all the way. User:Immblueversion (talk) 00:06, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if the above has been resolved, but I just went in, mostly to do punctuation and grammatical fixes, and I found the plot to be tightly written and hitting all the major points. It already said that Ben is Ren, and it says that the Republic and the Resistance are working together. I'm not sure how much it can be improved. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The issue I found isn't so much what is presented as it is how. As I described above, writing out scenes such as (for example) Snoke ordering Hux to use their new weapon on the Senate feels like making unnecessary detours when they can be more concise. I also see no reason why we can't relegate information on Kylo Ren's backstory to one sentence just because the film doesn't. Here is my latest version of the summary. User:Immblueversion (talk) 00:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The destroying the seat of the Republic is a significant detail because it means that the Resistance is on their own for the final battle. That's a detail that directly impacts the protagonists. oknazevad (talk) 01:03, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I have given it some thought, and I agree the detail shouldn't be excluded. But I still stand by my original point: don't restrict everything to a single order, because going scene-by-scene makes it read like a reproduction of the story's experience, albeit more succinctly. It may seem tight now, especially in light of the chunks I may have taken out before, but I can think of ways to make it tighter. Whenever I see a summary that edges too close to 700 words, I find ways to it down to 600, to keep it from overflowing in case someone else thinks something could use a little more detail than it really needs. To this end, I strive to make summaries as straightforward as possible with as few detours as possible. Remember: it's not against the rules to go a little out of order. User:Immblueversion (talk) 01:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I've made some alterations, and now I've come up with an even tighter summary. It clearly establishes Ren's backstory, the Resistance's affiliation with the Republic and its reasons for opposing the First Order (it all boils down to the bad guys hurting the good guys' biggest supporter); and once again, by the guidelines laid out in WP:FILMPLOT and WP:PLOTPRESENT, it's not discouraged to rearrange backstory elements if it means making something easier to read. And for the record, there's a more comprehensive, beat-by-beat summary (see here) that doesn't even mention the fact that the First Order blew up the Senate; just that they were targeting innocent Republic systems. And if it's good enough for that, then I'd say that's good enough here. User:Immblueversion (talk) 19:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

It's -kind of- a big plot point. That would be inappropriate to omit. Alaney2k (talk) 19:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The Mashable summary has multiple errors, including the Senate bit, which was confirmed by the Visual Dictionary; though I agree with the removal of the note referencing that (as that is too in universe), the summary that already had consensus is within guidelines.

Here's the thing. You seem to think that trimming down to 600 or so words, which is not called for in any guideline, is a hedge to make sure there's room for it to expand as needed. But if you actually follow the guideline and leave it at close to but below 700 words, there's no need for it to expand, as it already covers the important parts. In short, trimming down to 600 words is just an invitation for it to bloat back up in a way that is disjointed and often incoherent. I think you're looking at this completely backwards, and attempting to enforce a reading of the guideline that lacks consensus. oknazevad (talk) 19:32, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll keep that in mind. But should I make sure to expand a summary, I try not to make parts of them feel stretched out more than they need to. The guideline as I understand it is "keep it between 400 and 700 words", not "make it as close to 700 words as possible". User:Immblueversion (talk) 04:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Canonical disarray

Some of the events don't canonically match with others: for instance Chewbacca died on Sernpidal before Han could, and therefore wouldn't have whiteness Han dying while alive, the same happening vice versa. Also if Kylo Ren is biologically related to Han and Leia, wouldn't that mean he's a brother to Jacen, Jaina and Anakin Solo? if yes was he born before or after those three? It's all really confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.186.6.124 (talk) 01:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Disney made an announcement in 2014 that all of the Expanded Universe material is non-canon. Only the movies, the The Clone Wars TV series, and the novel Star Wars: A New Dawn are considered canon now. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

And Star Wars Rebels, and not just A New Dawn, but any novel or Marvel Comic released after that announcement. But regardless, no one who actually knows that much detail about the old EU wouldn't know about that announcement. So I believe this is trolling by a disgruntled fan of the old away who didn't like the continuity reboot. oknazevad (talk) 03:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

See also Star Wars canon. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

George Lucas himself said the expanded universe was never canon. It's basically just fan fiction. --JDC808 ♫ 04:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Change the title to Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens

........ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:7F7:D682:D384:0:0:0:2 (talk) 14:54, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• no. :-) Seriously, read the first section on this page. Alaney2k (talk) 15:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Plot incomplete / incorrect - unable to edit it

I'm an unregistered editor & I wish to make an edit, but am unable as the edit function is disabled for unregistered editors. (Semi-protection for high-profile articles, as your language terms it.) Here's the current text from the plot section:

"Han confronts Ren, calling him by his birth name, Ben, and implores him to abandon the dark side. Though conflicted, Ren kills Han. Chewbacca then shoots Ren and sets off the planted explosives, allowing the Resistance X-wing fighters to attack the weakened weapon and starting a chain reaction that destroys Starkiller Base."

However, this is not totally correct:

Chewie was only able to shoot Ren because Han Solo, his father, distracted him. Had it not been for Solo's distraction, Chewie would not have been able to shoot Ren, since the latter would have been able to use "The Force" to stop the blaster shot, like he did earlier in the film. A better rendition of this paragraph might be the following:

"Han confronts Ren, calling him by his birth name, Ben, and implores him to abandon the dark side. Though conflicted, Ren kills Han. Chewbacca then shoots Ren, who, normally able to stop blaster shots with the force, is temperately distracted by his father. Chewie then sets off the planted explosives, allowing the Resistance X-wing fighters to attack the weakened weapon and starting a chain reaction that destroys Starkiller Base."

PS: Don't even try to tell me to register an account: I am fed up with all the argument and childishness that goes on here, and shall not register an account (and, by that account, you're very lucky that I even waste my time bothering to help your article, but I am good hearted, and the force works within me - or, so I hope.)

96.59.136.76 (talk) 12:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

It might be good to add that this blaster shot injured Ren, and that this was contributory to allowing Rey and Finn, not as powerful as the dark knight, to defeat him!96.59.136.76 (talk) 12:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Never-mind: I thin that was addressed here: "The injured Ren chases Finn and Rey to the surface." However, the top section, which is my proposed edit explaining why Chewie was able to shoot Ren, is missing and needs to be looked at.96.59.136.76 (talk) 12:41, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Excessive detail, and not explicitly stated in the film, so it's a viewer interpretation. Sorry, but it's not really needed. oknazevad (talk) 14:41, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, i have one doubt about this plot statement: "R2-D2 awakens and reveals the rest of the map, which Rey follows with R2-D2 and Chewbacca to an island on a distant planet."

I'm not sure that R2-D2 went with Rey and Chewbacca; if i remember well he remained on the planet with the other two droids. In the farewell scene he was on the right and i haven't seen him on millenium falcon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.170.44.184 (talk) 16:20, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

He's standing next to the Falcon as Rey begins to climb the stairs. oknazevad (talk) 17:40, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

The lightsaber that "belonged to Luke and his father before him?"

Excuse me, but if anyone recalls The Empire Strikes Back, Luke lost his father's lightsaber when Vader cut his hand off. Therefore the one Rey finds, despite Maz Kanata's claim, cannot be that same lightsaber, but rather the one Luke made himself in Return of the Jedi ("making his skills complete.") This can probably be explained by the myth that grew around Luke, but we should not be so explicit absent an RS. JustinTime55 (talk) 18:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Luke's lightsaber in Jedi is green. Luke's lightsaber in Empire is blue. Rey finds a blue lightsaber that is said to have belonged to Anakin. Case closed. --URunICon (talk) 18:37, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"How do you know that?" Because I watched the film. Ignoring the fact that this is the exact same lightsaber in terms of design and blade colour as what Anakin used in Episode 3 and Luke in Episodes 4 and 5, and the fact that the film referred to it having been lost when Han asked Maz how she found it, I would like to point out that in writing plot summaries we use what the film explicitly says and shows, and in this film we are told that this is the lightsaber of both Anakin and Luke. Even if you were right and this was actually Luke's green lightsaber (which is obviously incorrect) this film is still telling us that it is the lightsaber of both Skywalkers and so the previous wording in the plot summary was correct. The only difference between these two cases is that if the lightsaber never belonged to Anakin but the film said it did, then we may want to note the continuity error somewhere, but since that is clearly not the case, there is no need to do that. And if you are so certain that the film is flat out lying to us through both dialogue and design, then perhaps you need to come up with an RS that has also noticed this discrepancy which we could then use in the page (you won't find one, by the way). - adamstom97 (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Beyond the color, the hilt is the same. Here is Anakin's: general image and from the film. Here's Luke's: general image. So yes, Maz has Anakin's (Luke's original) lightsaber. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Hate to say this, but if you haven't seen the film, don't edit the plot summary. It actually constitutes removing reliably sourced material. oknazevad (talk) 18:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

First, everyone needs to just chill. I did see the film (most of it); and I have no need for anyone to lecture me on how we write plot summaries. I would also appreciate you fanboys cutting a fellow editor a break; I happened to miss the scene where Han asks Maz about finding it; if that is true, then certainly we have a RS. I never said I was "certain the film is flat out lying to us", (though there is a precedent in this franchise for characters to say things that turn out not to be true; I'm sure you all can name a famous example of this) and I didn't propose pointing out a continuity error, again which would be out of order without verification. I simply reduced it to the minimum indisputably true statement (that it is Luke's lightsaber, without saying which one). If it has indeed been shown to be Anakin's lightsaber as verified by the scene you mention, then Maz explaining how she found it should be put in the summary, for the benefit of readers who will remember Luke's loss of the lightsaber, thought not details such as the beam's color and specifics of the mechanism (that type of thing has been identified as WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH in other film articles). Mentioning it will stop speculation about a continuity error. And in fact, if it stays unmentioned, then I don't think we really have reliable primary sourcing (equivalent of a citation). JustinTime55 (talk) 20:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

How Maz got the lightsaber explicitly unexplained in the film, left intentionally open. But that's a level of detail that is not significant enough for the summary here, in my opinion. As for the color, that's pretty common knowledge, but also about as obvious of a thing to see as possible; it's not original research to state the obvious from what's on screen. And Mas does specifically call it the lightsaber that belonged to Luke "and his father before him". That's why the plot summary specifies that here, so readers will know which lightsaber is being described. In short, the current summary is accurate while containing the detail we know. That's all we can really state. oknazevad (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Though it's clear which lightsaber it is, would it be clearer if it said:

"Rey is drawn to a vault and finds Luke's original lightsaber that belonged to his father before him (Maz acquired it sometime after the events of The Empire Strikes Back)." --JDC808 ♫ 22:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that's needed. Too detailed and trying too hard to explain things that are not in the film. oknazevad (talk)

It's not that much more detail, and it's not really explaining anything that wasn't in the film. Maz says she acquired but didn't explain how. --JDC808 ♫ 23:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

If any of you had bothered to visit a Walmart, Target, or any other place that carries a general collection of mass-market English language books during the last week, you would have seen the Visual Dictionary for the film, which clearly explains that it is the lightsaber that Luke lost when Darth Vader cut off his hand. Since the Lucasfilm Story Group is trying to maintain a canon storyline to avoid the problems experienced with the Expanded Universe after it got too big, I think we can accept the Visual Dictionary as the official reference on this. --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:50, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The only one who questioned the lightsaber was JustinTime55. The rest of us pointed out the obvious facts of which lightsaber it is. P.S. Your comment sounded like it was directed at all of us. --JDC808 ♫ 08:09, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Plot summaries are for details mentioned/explained in the film, not for details that are described in third-party works and sources. If it's not in the film, it doesn't belong in this section. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:01, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

It is in the film. Very clearly. That's why we're all so flabbergasted by this entire thread. oknazevad (talk) 14:01, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

oknazevad, I think you misunderstood. I was responding to Coolcaesar's suggestion to cite the Visual Dictionary. I was actually agreeing with your sentiments earlier that we should only go by what is portrayed/described in the film itself. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:30, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Bad Sentence

Under the Plot section, 4th paragraph, 5th sentence:

"Han, Chewbacca, and Finn, who uses the lightsaber in the fight."

Yuck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.89.75.46 (talk) 04:48, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Fixed - combined it with the following sentence. I'm not sure why whoever edited that didn't notice it was incomplete. --JDC808 ♫ 07:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Snoke not getting his own article?

Noticed "Snoke" redirect to movie's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.88.118.133 (talk) 03:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

No one has written it yet. That said, there's not much we could say as yet, not enough for a separate article yet, I think. oknazevad (talk) 03:48, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

75.88.118.133, if a film character passes the notability guidelines, that character could get an article once someone takes it on. In most cases, characters would, at best, be included within something à la List of Star Wars characters. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 04:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I still don't believe Captain Phasma passes the notability test. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 11:12, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Twitter boycott

Is this notable enough to mention? FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 02:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Only if to point out that it was the stupidity of a fringe group. oknazevad (talk) 03:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Accolades

The inclusion of a list of critics year ratings for the Force Awakens is not notable enough where the ranking is outside the top three. User:Oknazevad reverted my edit so I have brought this issue to the talk page. Is it really necessary to list a ranking of 7th, 8th or 9th in best film of the year. Surely this is not notable. Can't find this to be the fact for other films (please correct me if I'm wrong). Please feedback otherwise I will check further and edit appropriately. Robynthehode (talk) 22:27, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Considering the hundreds if not thousands of films released in a year, a top ten position is notable in itself. Its also a common cut off point, widely used. In short, reliable and notable critics consider it a good ranking cutoff, and we just report that. Yes, being ranked 7th is notable.The AFI top ten list, for example, is widely reported on and included in the articles of many films that were so listed. It's you who are deeming it non-notable, which is your personal opinion. oknazevad (talk) 22:34, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Addendum: the best picture Oscar has up to ten nominees. It is, therefore, a top ten list in itself. And there's no way we wouldn't mention an Oscar nomination. If it's good enough for the Academy, it's good enough for Wikipedia. oknazevad (talk) 03:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Integrate fanwork responses into discussion of reception

There has been a bunch of press coverage of popular creative fanwork (fanfiction/art/etc.) responses to the film, including the references listed at Finn/Poe, but that article is an orphan and nominated for deletion. Since there's been significant coverage of fanwork as part of the reception of the movie, it'd make sense to me to create a sub-section for fanwork under reception, starting with a few sentences based on the strongest references listed in that article. I can work on this later, but: seems useful to bring up for discussion first, to work out any objections ahead of time, or in case other people are interested in working on this too. Dreamyshade (talk) 18:32, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes

"Certified Fresh" designation

Favre1fan93, may I have an explanation for "this distinction is not made"? MOSFILM—and, specifically, Critical response and its subsections—say nothing of this "distinction". Meantime, an article search for the exact term "Certified Fresh" shows nearly 600 instances of its use. Please enlighten me. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 05:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

"Certified Fresh" doesn't mean anything. I just means the film hit a certain threshold with number of reviews received and a resulting percentage. Additionally, 600 pages out of at least 170,000 in the project is very small, and no GA that I've ever seen in the projects uses the wording. The only important parts of the Rotten Tomatoes site is the percentage, average ratings, number of reviews and consensus. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

It is nevertheless a designation used by Rotten Tomatoes, one considered significant enough that studios' marketing departments have used it in films' advertising (I've seen it both in television and print ads). Meantime: List of accolades received by Sense and Sensibility (film) (a Featured article), Little Miss Sunshine (Featured), Zodiac (film) (Featured), Barton Fink (Featured), A Hard Day's Night (film) (Good) and Adaptation (film) (Good) are among the articles using the designation. Favre1fan93, I ask that you either restore the edit, or allow me to do so without reversion. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage🖖 20:09, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Fully concur with ATinySliver on this one. --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:02, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

With the exception of Zodiac and the Sense and Sensibility list, we can cross the other examples off the list, since they did not contain "Certified Fresh" at the time of their promotion. With that said, however, I'm not entirely opposed to including the terminology on Wikipedia. Some have argued in the past that it introduces unnecessary POV, and readers should instead form their own opinions based off the hard data (percentage, average ratings, etc.). However, I can also understand the other viewpoint that "Certified Fresh" is just another metric that RT uses to categorize its findings. If reliable sources never use it, then neither should we, but obviously there are many sources out there that cite the term. I'm on the fence at the moment but interested to hear what others think. --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:10, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Excellent points. I would merely add that the "certification" began as little more than hyperbole—until filmmakers and/or studios and/or their marketing people embraced the designation. Its first legitimate acceptance I can find was eight years ago; it reached editorial discussion status—while noting its marketability—a full five years ago. I'd say this is not hyperbolic any more. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 11:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I saw this response from you after I made this edit; this is because I didn't look to see who re-added that material until after I re-removed it. I agree with Favre1fan93 that it adds nothing. There is no solid reason to keep it at all, and this matter has been discussed times over at WP:Film, with editors usually disagreeing with the addition. We usually do not use "Certified Fresh" or "Rotten" terminology in this regard on Wikipedia. When experienced WP:Film editors see it, they usually remove it. I don't see why this article should be an exception. And it should not be used to make this a standard. This type of formatting should not become standard. WP:Film editors killed this style years ago. I'll alert WP:Film and MOS:Film to this discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Alerted here and here. I will state that, in this case of this article, "Certified Fresh" was added better than it's been added to other articles since it included a wikilink for "Certified Fresh." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:02, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

While we await your requested additional opinions on the matter, I would remind you that the data is non-controversial and is within a non-BLP, so its removal applies the converse of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and is in contravention of policy given that there is no consensus to remove. Indeed, prior to your arrival, those who'd weighed in leaned toward !keep, as above (two for, one against, one neutral). 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 21:08, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I fail to see how my removal is "in contravention of policy given that there is no consensus to remove." There was no WP:Consensus to keep either. And WP:Film and MOS:Film consensus has repeatedly been "remove." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Links required—and even then, they're irrelevant unless it can be demonstrated that consensus somewhere else has been written into the guideline such that it applies here as well. Otherwise, the guideline dictates case-by-case which, absent a consensus here, constitutes the improper removal of verified, cited and pertinent (to at least two editors) data, which does in fact violate policy. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 23:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I see that you added to your comment. No links required; below, film editors are echoing what I've stated. And, as I've stated, I did not violate any policy. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I always remove "certified fresh/rotten" whenever I see it. There isn't an official mandate to do so, no, but like others have said, it's meaningless jargon that adds nothing. Just report the percentages and skip "certified fresh". I can't find the most recent time this came up at WikiProject Film, but I remember it wasn't too long ago. I guess we could add this to MOS:FILM, but it seems kind of bureaucratic. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

See my previous comment. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 23:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment The MOS does advise that editors avoid "jargon" where it is not necessary and that it is best to write in plain English. Which would be clearer to the typical reader unfamiliar with Rotten Tomatoes:

1. On review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, it is "Certified Fresh" with a 94% approval rating, based on 305 reviews, with a rating average of 8.2 out of 10.
2. Review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes surveyed 305 reviews and judged 94% of them to be positive, with a rating average of 8.2 out of 10.

The second sentence conveys all the same information but is explicit about what the actual percentage represents and avoids the unnecessary jargon. Obviously it doesn't have to match my suggestion word for word but you get the idea. It is better to just cut to the chase. Betty Logan (talk) 03:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Apologies for repeating myself, but once it became editorially recognized and a marketing tool, it left the realm of "jargon" and became a designation. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 03:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

It is still jargon regardless of how it is used, because it is a context specific term with a precise meaning. The question here is does it really matter how it is used in marketing the film in terms of our aims with this section? We have no inherent interest in what Rotten Tomatoes think or say but rather in accurately conveying the critical consensus, and aggregators are just a useful tool for us in this regard. It doesn't mean we have to use their terminology, especially if can put the sentiments into clearer English. Betty Logan (talk) 18:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Given that I find nothing less clear, and instead more descriptive, with its inclusion, I guess we'll disagree. (Indeed, I find its "critical consensus" irrelevant—it merely recaps what the critics are saying, which we also include. But that's another discussion. ) 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 21:03, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

There's also this. And this. And this. And this. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 04:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I just noticed that you re-added this; four editors are against it. Since you made this comment, I will count those four: Favre1fan93, me, NinjaRobotPirate and Betty Logan. And the commentary by GoneIn60, which you described as neutral, seems to be leaning more toward removal. I don't see why the text you added should remain; it is not the WP:STATUSQUO. It's only there because you added it on December 19, stating "possibly incidental, but I've seen it used before, so I'll try this xD.", after the WP:STATUSQUO was established. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:47, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

At the time you removed it, there were two for, one against, and one neutral—whatever the "lean". Your removal at the time violated WP:NOCON. Your removal now would not. (Meantime, my initial edit summary was made prior to the considerable research since, and is disingenuous now.) 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 22:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

You can keep asserting that I violated a policy, but the assertion is incorrect. Your edit is not the WP:STATUSQUO, the article was and is fine without it, and the current consensus is against it; I'm not basing that consensus on a vote. I'm basing it on the weight of the arguments. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:08, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

That renders mine weightless. Not surprising ... 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 00:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Just a quick point that when an edit gets reverted, it's a sign you may not have consensus for the change you're trying to make. In the spirit of WP:BRD and WP:ONUS, it's best to discuss and obtain a clear consensus before restoring the change. As for where I stand at this point, I'm leaning against its inclusion at this time, mainly because it may not be common enough of a phrase just yet, where most readers would recognize its meaning on sight without additional context provided. Eventually, it might be. I can definitely see the benefit, as for those who are familiar with the phrase know that it means statistically, most reviews are in and the rating isn't likely to change much beyond its present percentage. That can certainly add value to the description. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm more familiar with content issues than one might think—and it's because I felt the evidence and policy were behind me that I was (and remain) convinced the restoration was proper. I've also since provided the evidence (which is supposed to outweigh opinion, but, well ...) by which the onus of "common enough of a phrase" is met currently, never mind eventually. That said, consensus is against, the content will be removed (I'm surprised it's still there, frankly), and life goes on. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 03:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Removed; the WP:Consensus is clear. And either way, readers can check the Rotten Tomatoes article for more of what is meant by its score. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Concur with Flyer22 Reborn, Betty Logan and others who recognize, unlike an editor who has waged contrarian efforts elsewhere, that "Certified Fresh" is proprietary jargon and does not in any way belong in encyclopedic tone.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that "an editor" is not acting in the best interests of the encyclopedia? 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 21:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I thought. It's a bit hard to commit a drive-by stabbing without a weapon ... 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 21:58, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

"Critical consensus"

The "critical consensus" should be removed as well. It merely recaps the critics' opinions that we also present to the reader, making it irrelevant, extraneous, and even less pertinent than "Certified Fresh". 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 21:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Are you referring to the opening sentence, "Star Wars: The Force Awakens received positive reviews from critics."? If so, I agree. Past discussions have resulted in "letting the sources speak for themselves" and that ultimately this type of opening is unnecessary. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Not that sentence; it's introductory, states fact, then is done. I mean the next sentence: "The website's critical consensus reads, 'Packed with action and populated by both familiar faces and fresh blood, The Force Awakens successfully recalls the series' former glory while injecting it with renewed energy.'" This is literally the site recapping what we then proceed to recap; it's not substantive. That said, I'm not touching it, lest I appear "contrarian". 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 22:01, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, at WP:Film and MOS:Film, past consensus for summary statements has repeatedly been mixed; see this discussion. I'm one of the WP:Film editors who prefers them (usually anyway). As for removing the Rotten Tomatoes critical consensus statement, I completely disagree; including that is standard. And if it were removed, editors would simply add it back. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:09, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Precisely why it's a discussion and not an edit; I already had that impression. Nevertheless, "standard" is not necessarily correct, and my otherwise-not-acted-upon opinion remains. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 23:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Here's a more recent discussion where having summary statements can cause conflicts. The compromise there was to remove it altogether. There have been similar debates and outcomes in other articles. That may not always be the best solution, but perhaps WP:FILM should consider adding a guideline in the MOS about when it should or shouldn't be used, since the issue does seem to crop up often. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Jar Jar Abrams?

Sorry but this seems like something extremely unprofessional and childish, first of all this is wikipedia, a site used by many to get information and this is just misleading, people who don't know who he is will think that's as a matter in fact that is his name and second of all, this is wikipedia! show some professionalism, the fact that someone, don't know who used this site for such a joke is childish and immature, please change it back to the way is supposed to be, J.J. Abrams

It's vandalism, it happens a lot, especially on popular and widely-viewed pages. It was up for a while, nearly 30 minutes though, people with the page on watchlists might have missed it as there was another edit in the same minute. I have reverted the edit and warned the user. --Canley (talk) 06:12, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Snoke and Darth Plaugeis are one and the same guy.

It IS possible that both Supreme Leader Snoke and Darth Plagueis are one and the same person. I recently watched a YouTube video just now and I discovered that there might be a possibility that Snoke somehow IS Darth Plagueis.  No relation to the Expanded Universe version, of course. AdamDeanHall (talk) 00:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

There's also speculation that Snoke is Darth Bane ([2]), but it mainly seems to be about coincidental appearances. clpo13_(talk) 00:21, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Fan speculation doesn't belong in the article. And this isn't the place to discuss it.oknazevad (talk) 00:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

There is a point when fan speculation becomes notable in and of itself, though I agree that this article is not the right place for it. Is there an article about notable fan theories? There is actually some evidence for this one, as the 'the tragedy of darth plagueis the wise' theme music from RotS is largely identical to Snoke's theme in TFA. Still speculative enough not to belong in this article unless confirmed though.  InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{InsertTalkHere}  01:34, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Even if it does eventually  get added I don't think this is the proper article. It would make more sense on either the article of the film that his identity is revealed or (assuming that he eventually gets enough coverage) his own article.--65.94.253.160 (talk) 02:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Just FYI, here's a reputable source that discusses the theory. If there's more where that came from, it's probably worth mentioning in an article somewhere, but probably not this one. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, it would be best left to Snoke/Supreme Leader Snoke once there's enough solid information to make an article there. clpo13_(talk) 03:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

This theory has very recently taken a major hit, though it could be misdirection. Antinoos69 (talk) 22:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I doubt that would end of this since that fact has been known for some time (Nov 12. 2015) meaning it is not a new development and could easily be exapined away as the actor not being aware of this particular character who outside of the expanded universe was only mentioned in one scene in the prequels. In fact even one the sources that stated that they did not believe the theory conceded that point. We will likely be livening with this for a while.--65.94.253.160 (talk) 03:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Script in External links

Star Wars: The Force Awakens script at the Internet Movie Script Database

CuLLiSk (talk) 03:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The order of the cast should be changed, Ren ist cleary the main character

In the cast section the order is: Han Solo Luke Skywalker General Leia Organa Kylo Ren Rey Finn Poe Dameron and so on.

I would suggest to put Rey after Leia and before Ren. A source to backup this claim is the following: http://comicbook.com/2015/12/24/reys-identity-possibly-revealed-in-star-wars-the-force-awakens-d/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Da Vinci Nanjing (talk • contribs)

Our guidelines say to use the cast order from the poster billing block or film credits. Period. Because anything else is subjective. oknazevad (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

The guideline in WP:CASTLIST says no such thing. It says "1) the prominence of the cast in the film, 2) the amount of real-world context for each cast member or the cast as a whole, and 3) the structure of the article.". Points (1) and (3) are much better served by deviating from the published cast list; and in my opinion that outweighs (2). Again, I remind editors that this is an encyclopedia article, not a publicity platform for Disney. Adpete (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

"Ren ist cleary the main character" is clearly subjective and, if not ignored, deserves no more than snickers. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:45, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Or even Junior Mints. They're very refreshing...!   : )   --Tenebrae (talk) 19:59, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Now that I have seen the film and re-watched the page, as well as look over the guidelines at WP:CASTLIST, could I suggest a different cast order and see if you all agree? Keep in mind that this is for the cast section only, and that the order in the infobox and the lead should remain the same as that of the billing block. My suggested cast order would be: John Boyega, Daisy Ridley, Oscar Isaac, Adam Driver, Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher, Mark Hamill, Lupita Nyong'o, Domhnall Gleeson, Andy Serkis, Peter Mayhew, Anthony Daniels, Max von Sydow. This based on what I believe to be each character's prominence in the film, and also taking into account which side each character is on. Again, this is just a suggestion; you don't all have to agree with it. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

see this is a perfect example of why we don't come up with our own cast lists. Straight away Id disagree because ridley should be at the top, and driver has way more prominence abd screen time than Isaac. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Oknazevad and Darkwarriorblake on this one. Use the order given in marketing materials not to serve as a platform for Disney, but to avoid unnecessary subjectivity. The guidelines at WP:CASTLIST can assist with other issues, such as shortening a cast list by removing characters, but changing the order is not covered (nor is it something we really need to waste time on). --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

It seems inappropriate to put Ford's, Fisher's and Hamill's names before Daisy Ridley, Adam Driver and John Boyega. Ford and Fisher are supporting roles and Hamill's part is basically a cameo. Clearly, in this case, billing does not correspond to prominence in the film. If people have the time to debate the inclusion of an alternate title ... Alaney2k (talk) 17:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

This being an encyclopaedia, we don't make things up as we go along. What we feel is inappropriate or the right order or our own subjective impressions of prominence doesn't belong here. I get the struggle—I'd love to see Ridley first for being, in my opinion, far and away the best actor in the film and playing by far the most interesting character. But that's just my opinion, which doesn't carry any more weight than anyone else's. My suggestion is that if we're going to deviate from the published order, we use an order that's objective and relatively clear to the reader. Order of appearance meets those criteria, for example. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll put it simply. It would be an improvement to list the leads, then supporting parts, then cameos in that order. Within each, we could alphabetically order it by character or actor names. I don't think the order of the cast section has to match the order of the infobox. Alaney2k (talk) 18:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

And how are you judging who is a lead? Because I'm sure plenty would demand Isaac is a starring role when he's clearly supporting. The only impetus for this change appears to be that peoples preferences are not as high as they would like them to be. That is not a reason to deviate from the established and working system. Hamill, Ford, and Fisher are the stars of the original trilogy, they got top billing, they are, in this universe, bigger than any of the new people. It's not a punishment to be fourth on a list. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Just chiming in here for my 2 cents, we should not divert from the billing order because then we get exactly what is happening here: everyone trying to state which order would be better based on "their" preference (even if they don't feel it is). How can you claim one character is more a lead than the other? I could think Ridley should be first, but others might want Boyega. The billing block is the most neutral form we have which takes any opinion out of the order. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2016

A higher resolution picture for the Star Wars: The Force Awakens page. For example, the image found here. TheUltiESC (talk) 09:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

• Not done: It is purposefully low resolution to comply with fair-use copyright law. We cannot use the one you have linked to. --Majora (talk) 09:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Error in "Plot" section?

It says, "Snoke tells Ren that to overcome the call of the Light Side of the Force, Ren must kill his father, Han Solo." Maybe I missed it, but does Snoke actually say that? Adpete (talk) 05:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I think you're right, he doesn't say anything like that. I don't recall Snoke being that specific about anything in the film. If I remember correctly, Snoke says there has been an awakening, the droid is on the Millenium Falcon with Han Solo, Ren has never faced such a test. Ren says he will not be seduced, and Snoke says "We shall see, we shall see". --Canley (talk) 05:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The exact exchange is:

SNOKE There's been an awakening. Have you felt it?

KYLO REN: Yes.

SNOKE: There's something more. The droid we seek is aboard the Millennium Falcon, in the hands of your father, Han Solo.

KYLO REN: He means nothing to me.

SNOKE: Even you, master of the Knights of Ren, have never faced such a test.

KYLO REN: By the grace of your training, I will not be seduced.

SNOKE We shall see. We shall see.

So yeah, I think the current plot summary is overstating it a bit, maybe, in terms of what Snoke actually says. Popcornduff (talk) 09:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. It was removed outright, which was an error as there's no other mention of Kylo Ren's identity in the plot summary, so I put a version in that is more accurate. Also reordered a bit to reflect the proper sequence, as otherwise the plot makes no sense. oknazevad (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I removed it but I didn't realize there was no other mention of Ren's connection to Solo, your version is much better. --Canley (talk) 22:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2016

Section referenced:

Critical response

Star Wars: The Force Awakens received has received overwhelmingly positive reviews [...] Correction requested: The word "received" should not appear the first time it is seen in this sentence. Thank you. 199.102.98.40 (talk) 03:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Done Thank you for pointing that out! Mz7 (talk) 04:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

"Cast" section reads like a press release

The "Cast" section needs a total rewrite. It contains press release quotes by the actors, and is spoiler-free so doesn't actually say much. It needs to be encyclopedic, not read like film publicity. Adpete (talk) 04:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Done. Adpete (talk) 07:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Adpete, I disagree with this edit you made, at least most of it. Including such commentary is common in Wikipedia film articles. The bit you removed could be tightened, but I don't think removing all of it was justified. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

How does any of it enhance the article in any way? It's not "commentary", it's straight up advertising, nothing more. Let's choose the first one only as an example, "His (Solo's) development is consistent with the character, and there are emotional elements which have occasioned his growth" - what does that tell us about Han? Nothing. It's a spoiler-free teaser released to promote the film, that is all. Adpete (talk) 11:48, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I also disagree with the edit. This type of information is not only allowed under WP:CASTLIST, but I believe it is encouraged. It is not considered a 'press release'.--JOJ ^Hutton 12:48, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Please point me to the part of WP:CASTLIST which encourages quoting press releases (let alone "press releases" which are just teasers as part of film advertising). Again, I ask how is any of the above Ford quote encyclopedic? How is it preferable to factual information, e.g. Ford's wish that Solo was killed off in Episode 6, or how much Ford was paid, or facts about the character Han Solo. Anyway, I give up. If consensus wants an article full of press release fluff (instead of information) who am I to argue. Adpete (talk) 11:34, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

It's production background information, giving insight into what character choices the actors and director made, and what their intentions were. It's exactly what is encouraged, even if it's quoted from a press release. Though I will note most of these are form magazine or web column interviews, not press releases. oknazevad (talk) 18:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Eh I agree that there could be more insightful quotes in this section regarding the characters/actors. Ridley's for instance is a quote basically just explaining her role in the plot. I don't agree however with the blanket removal of information that happened in that original edit. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

But why not remove it? While it's there, editors will be less likely to put something useful. Also, it wasn't blanket removal. I looked over it and left in the ones which might have long term interest (like Maz being based on a school teacher). But when the quote basically says, "My character is very brave (and you should go see the movie to find out more)" - we can do better than that. I agree my use of the term "press release" was incorrect, but you are all kidding yourselves if you don't think those actor interviews are anything other than ads for the movie. p.s. I'm still waiting for anyone to explain how the Ford quote above (or any quote I deleted) is informative (as opposed to giving vague hints and being a teaser ad). Adpete (talk) 04:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it should be an all-or-nothing decision, simply because leaving some of it (as shown in the diff link above) unnecessarily extends the descriptions of less important characters. It looks strange to leave one-line descriptions for many of the main characters and then have paragraphs for the supporting cast. Personally, I agree that it does "read like a press release" even if it wasn't based off of one. If consensus agrees on retaining the material, it should probably be moved out of the cast section and into the Production/Development section. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree - better to have nothing than to have padding - but if you feel that way, replace the paragraphs one at a time. There's lots of good material out there. Adpete (talk) 23:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

If you have the material, why not add it yourself? Or link it here and someone else will. I'm on limited time which is why I am semi-retired so I can't go looking for quotes specific to characters, but I agree that there can and should be more substantial character content there, this is something I strived for on every film article I worked on. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 00:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I did the first half of the job - clear out the trash to leave room for substantial content, and it took me quite some time because I had to find the right references to remove and check there were no missing references - and it got reverted. Not exactly an encouragement. Besides, I'm not a Star Wars geek. I'd hoped that if I removed the rubbish then more knowledgable people would go looking for content, instead of lazily reverting all my work. Adpete (talk) 00:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Plus, you yourself undid modest improvements in this edit.[3] It does seem hard to get change in there without someone removing it. Adpete (talk) 05:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

These weren't improvements and I explained why they weren't. These are not the same thing as adding quotes about how the actor gave their character a character, or starved themselves for the role or worked out and ate steak 3 times a day to bulk up to become the character. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I had the same thoughts on the lack of spoilers seeming a deliberate choice, but was less bothered by the quotes. I agree with GoneIn60 and Darkwarriorblake that blanket removals isn't a very constructive way forward: the bad quotes should in my opinion be phased out as they are replaced. Does anyone disagree that, following WP:SPOILER, information like, for example, Kylo Ren being Han & Leia's son, should be included, rather than avoided? ‑‑Yodin^T 16:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Their familial relationships are not omitted because they are spoilers, they're not there because they're not relevant. The cast section isn't for plot developments and it isn't a fan wikia either dedicated to every tangent of that persons life. Kylo Ren is introduced as a villain, what happens to him in the plot doesn't belong in the cast section which should be ABOUT creating or developing the character. In the sequel article cast section you wouldn't add "Adam Driver as Kylo Ren - A dark warrior of the force and Han Solo's son", because it would be irrelevant to a brief understanding of this character and how he is being portrayed. Han Solo is a rogue and smuggler, Luke's a jedi, etc, etc. The family stuff is covered in the plot suitably. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I prefer more bare-bones cast lists. Occasional explanations of who they are (sentence fragments over complete thoughts) at most. I notice a trend on any tentpole or highly anticipated film to have laborious cast sections with extraneous detail - all meticulously sourced. Which makes removing it a gray area. I don't think after a film has come out we need individual sources for each cast member (as opposed to a Casting or Production section) as well as paragraphs about them plotwise or critical reception. A cast section that's de minimus enough to be put into columns is ideal. JesseRafe (talk) 19:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Familial relationships are pretty standard in cast lists, as they help readers to identify characters, for example here, Leia is described as "Luke's twin sister": when you read the entire list it's clear that spoilers are the reason this is mentioned while Kylo Ren isn't described as, say, "the son of Han Solo and Leia Organa, a dark warrior strong with the Force ..."; your objection to them being added is on these grounds (fair enough), but the ones that are not there now are not there because they're spoilers. At the moment many of the other ones describe their role in the plot, in this very spoiler-free, press release style. For example:

• Rey: "until she meets [Finn] and an adventure begins." doesn't seem to add anything
• Kylo Ren: "originally a member of the Knights of Ren": the what? his background that he was trained by Skywalker seems much more relevant, but is omitted
• Finn: "When we find Finn, he's in incredible danger. And the way he reacts to this danger changes his life, and launches him into the Star Wars universe in a very unique way." also not describing character: the very vague "the way he reacts" doesn't describe anything, and Finn's blurb is already more lines than most
• Poe Dameron: "He's been sent on a mission by a certain princess, and he ends up coming up across [Finn], and their fates are forever intertwined." again, his relationship with Finn is surely part of the plot by the same token as your argument above
• Snoke: "Without giving too much away at this point" adds nothing to the following physical description, nor removes too much compared to the others

If we prevent material we agree is objectionable from being removed, on the basis that the article would be worse off without it (for whatever reason), we must surely be open to allowing a less objectionable intermediary, even if it is also not perfect in another way. Blocking both allows perfect to be the enemy of good (or at least less bad). In fact, JesseRafe's minimalist approach is perhaps closer to Adpete's culling. ‑‑Yodin^T 22:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

A single editor added the part about Leia being Luke's sister after I added the broad character descriptions. That isn't an endorsement of adding family relationships, nor is it "standard" operating procedure to add them, and it certainly isn't going to help readers identify characters. What? Similarly, it isn't some deliberate attempt to avoid spoilers when the spoilerific plot section is immediately above. The descriptions relate to the characters as they are introduced, family relationships are not relevant to the section AT ALL. We do not need to add that Han is Leia's ex either. Changes need to be made, but this fansite family relationships thing needs to be nuked now. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

No need for CAPS LOCK! :) Let's take a look at some featured articles (using all of the "exemplary examples" listed here to avoid accusations of biased selection):

• 300 (film): very short summaries, often just their relationship to other characters (e.g. "son of Leonidas and Gorgo", "Artemis' eldest son", "Leonidas' loyal captain and friend")
• Alien vs. Predator (film): short descriptions, no family relationships in the film
• Battlefield Earth (film): literally just names
• Bride of Frankenstein: again just names
• E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial: short descriptions, mostly about how they're related
• Fritz the Cat (film): just names
• Gremlins: names
• Jaws (film): small box in "casting" subsection with just names
• Tenebrae (film): similar box, in the plot section

As for your claims that specifically this, and only this, is somehow fancruft ("fansite"/"fan wikia"), how have you left "Knights of Ren" in? I literally had to look this up on a Star Wars wiki, despite having just watched the film. Same goes for "this fansite family relationships thing needs to be nuked now": why didn't you nuke the Leia twin sister thing, despite noticing it at the time, and it being flagged up again now? As for "the descriptions relate to the characters as they are introduced", this I think gets to the crux of this whole thing, and it tallies with Flyer's comment below, but goes against our policies, not just about spoilers, but on writing about fiction: e.g. "There's also no reason why a plot summary has to cover the events of the story in the order they appear" (WP:PLOTSUMNOT) A brief summary of who characters are isn't plot or plot related, but sets them up and allows the plot to explain what happens to these characters. ‑‑Yodin^T 03:20, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment: I skipped Yodin's spoiler above (as soon as he indicated he was about spoil, I skipped it). And I skipped past whatever else was stated afterward; I have not yet seen this film. So no spoilers for me, please. And regarding spoilers in general, I disagree with unnecessarily including them, especially big spoilers; as currently seen by discussions at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler, some editors are in agreement that spoilers usually should not be included where readers are not expecting them. Enough readers expect them in the Plot section, but not in the Cast section, for example. In the latest discussion at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler, Daleylife, McGeddon and I were three editors arguing against unnecessary spoiling; do see the reasons given there. Per what is stated in that discussion, I believe that the WP:Spoiler guideline needs tweaking. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Bold move reading even the talk page before watching! :) ‑‑Yodin^T 03:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I second that! Also I remove spoilers all the time that are obvious just people getting kicks off of the act of spoiling. Especially as in my view there is a fundamental difference between "secretly someone's sibling" - a plot detail, and "the actual murderer the whole time!!!" -- the entire plot. JesseRafe (talk) 15:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Yodin, perhaps I'm being dense right now, but I didn't truly understand what you meant by "Bold move reading even the talk page before watching!" By the emoticon, I can tell you were being humorous and sort of serious at the same time, though. I take it that you meant I and others need to be careful not to be spoiled at this article and talk page. I agree.

JesseRafe, I understand; I stated similarly in the aforementioned spoiler discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just over-cautious, but until I watched the film a few days ago I was sort of in paranoid mode about reading a spoiler on social media or pop culture sites. I know some people who always read Wikipedia before they watch a film just to get the plot, spoilers and all, but I'm not one of them! As for WP:SPOILER, I'm personally a supporter of it (adding spoiler warnings would in my opinion make the project much less encyclopedic), but I agree that unless there's a reason why this film should be an exception, we should discuss the policy changes there. The more I'm thinking about this in light of other featured articles, the more I think we should go for a minimalist cast list (very short descriptions of the characters if any), put any relevant quotes about character development in the casting subsection, and get rid of the rest. ‑‑Yodin^T 17:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I didn't state that I don't agree with WP:SPOILER, and I don't think JesseRafe was either. But I was stating that I disagree with unnecessary spoilers and will usually remove them when I see them. WP:SPOILER does not state that anything can be spoiled anywhere, any time; it is clear that an encyclopedic purpose should be served when including spoilers. The "encyclopedic purpose" aspect needs tweaking per the aforementioned discussion at that guideline's talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not for spoilers for spoilers' sake (e.g. "[a spoiler should] be omitted when it merely ruins the experience of the work of fiction for our readers"). I don't agree that making cast (or any other) sections "spoiler-free" is appropriate for the reasons I stated above, but heavily reducing the entire cast list in line with featured articles like those linked to above would help to remove that problem. ‑‑Yodin^T 23:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay then. We have a slightly different take on spoiler inclusion. I'm usually against including them in the lead, especially big spoilers, and in sections where the reader is not expecting them because I don't think the spoiling is necessary. If the spoiling is necessary or otherwise significantly helps the section, then I understand about including them. For more of what I mean about unnecessary spoiling, see this discussion at the Kingsman: The Secret Service talk page (but only if you've seen that film or don't mind being spoiled on it). I pointed to that discussion at the WP:Spoiler guideline talk page. And as that Kingsman: The Secret Service discussion shows, spoiling in that way was not helping anything; it was just angering our readers. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I see. What do you think about a minimal cast list here in line with featured articles? ‑‑Yodin^T 00:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about it. I haven't even yet read much of the cast list. If consensus forms for it, I probably won't mind. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Number of Film Awards

Is it really necessary to list all the various film awards? Are the Denver Critics Society, Florida Film Critics Circle, Central Ohio Film Critics Association, and the Georgia Film Critics Association notable enough for inclusion. This level of film associations - sub-national ones - do not seem to be included in other film's accolade sections or associated articles unless they are notable in themselves. Although a more than cursory review of the film articles might reveal otherwise I would still argue is this really necessary to include ALL these accolades in this article and any other film article? Robynthehode (talk) 22:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

If the accolades list becomes too big then it will be split off into a separate article and only the most prestigious awards (Golden Globes, Oscars) will be mentioned here. That is the customary solution in the film articles.  --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the info but that doesn't really answer my question. Maybe I should put it more strongly. I don't believe that the list of awards I mention above are notable enough to be included in an encyclpeadia article. In fact they come from questionable sources as per Wikipedia guidelines. Some of the websites the awards are mentioned on are just blogs - which contravenes WP:UGC, other sources used are from self published websites which also contravenes WP:UGC. The awards section should be limited to those awards that accord with Wikipedia policy. If no-one objects I will remove these accolades. Otherwise please comment Robynthehode (talk) 17:58, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I strongly object. With the sole exception of the Central Ohio Film Critics Awards, all sources provided are reputable news/entertainment media or the official websites of the organizations giving the awards. The latter, in particular, are the very best sources that could possibly be provided. You misconstrued either the sources or Wiki policies. I suggest that, rather than deleting content at this time (per Coolceasar), you spend your time looking for better sources for the COFCA. This link provides partial verification. Antinoos69 (talk) 19:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2016

• Daisy Ridley as Rey:

A scavenger abandoned as a child on the desert planet Jakku, who is searching for her family. This family she was separated from may have Luke Skywalker as a father. Which helps explain why Ren did not kill her. He felt a genetic bond. Ridley said: "She's completely self-sufficient and does everything for herself, until she meets [Finn] and an adventure begins."

Csfuller (talk) 21:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: that's WP:CRYSTALBALLing Cannolis (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Adding an Audience response section

I think this article is good a candidate for an Audience response section (see MOS:FILM), given that Star Wars fans often have a lot to state about the franchise and that this is covered by WP:Reliable sources, and given that so many fans dislike the prequel Star Wars trilogy (much more so than professional film critics). It would also be a good place to address the John Boyega racial aspect (you know, the uproar over having a black stormtrooper) that has been covered by so many reliable sources; I don't see where that aspect is currently addressed in the article, and I think it should be, especially since Boyega has commented on it more than once. See the Frozen (2013 film) article for an example of an article that covers media and/or fan response in addition to professional critical response. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Sounds fine. There should be a bit on the Dameron-gay angle too. Antinoos69 (talk) 14:28, 10 January 2016 (UTC) And the whole Rey-gender flap. Antinoos69 (talk) 14:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Criticism of Star Wars by George Lucas

If I remember correctly, didn't George Lucas criticize TFA? Would that be worthy for inclusion under Criticism? Buffaboy ^talk 02:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think he did. I think he said it was a good movie, but their movie. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:41, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

The only reports have been Lucasfilm's president saying that he liked it, and then actual quotes from him saying that fans would enjoy it. That's it. --JDC808 ♫ 04:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

But there is this, too... Buffaboy ^talk 01:09, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

That was posted seven days after my response here. Additionally, on that same day or maybe it was yesterday, an interview was posted where he didn't like the retro approach that the new film took, and that when he made movies, he tried to make every movie different. I haven't watched the full interview yet, so there could be more, but the article didn't seem to indicate that he didn't like the film, just the approach. --JDC808 ♫ 02:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

There is a difference between saying "They rejected my ideas" and "Their work is bad", or just "I could have done it better." As far as I know, Lucas has only indicated the former and that he would have done it differently. If he dislikes the result then he keeps it to himself and we shouldn't imply it. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree, I would have handled the film differently is not the same thing as I hated their version of the film.--67.68.163.229 (talk) 02:16, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Good points. Buffaboy ^talk 18:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• I get that the topic of this Wikipedia article is still pretty new, but the criticism of this movie is not currently reflected well in this article here. The text of the article does mention that some view it as "derivative", which is quite an understatement IMO, but Lucas' criticism and other prominent film reviewers negative comments aren't really adequately reflected in this article as of yet.

We get that the movie has broken (and will continue to break) box office records. They've already gotten my 13 bucks for sure, but there's more to a film than box office success. Guy1890 (talk) 04:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I've added the director's response to the criticism. Perhaps some of the quote (or a different quote) could go in the Development part of the article? FallingGravity (talk) 00:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Adding an Audience response section

I think this article is good a candidate for an Audience response section (see MOS:FILM), given that Star Wars fans often have a lot to state about the franchise and that this is covered by WP:Reliable sources, and given that so many fans dislike the prequel Star Wars trilogy (much more so than professional film critics). It would also be a good place to address the John Boyega racial aspect (you know, the uproar over having a black stormtrooper) that has been covered by so many reliable sources; I don't see where that aspect is currently addressed in the article, and I think it should be, especially since Boyega has commented on it more than once. See the Frozen (2013 film) article for an example of an article that covers media and/or fan response in addition to professional critical response. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Sounds fine. There should be a bit on the Dameron-gay angle too. Antinoos69 (talk) 14:28, 10 January 2016 (UTC) And the whole Rey-gender flap. Antinoos69 (talk) 14:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Criticism of Star Wars by George Lucas

If I remember correctly, didn't George Lucas criticize TFA? Would that be worthy for inclusion under Criticism? Buffaboy ^talk 02:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think he did. I think he said it was a good movie, but their movie. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:41, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

The only reports have been Lucasfilm's president saying that he liked it, and then actual quotes from him saying that fans would enjoy it. That's it. --JDC808 ♫ 04:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

But there is this, too... Buffaboy ^talk 01:09, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

That was posted seven days after my response here. Additionally, on that same day or maybe it was yesterday, an interview was posted where he didn't like the retro approach that the new film took, and that when he made movies, he tried to make every movie different. I haven't watched the full interview yet, so there could be more, but the article didn't seem to indicate that he didn't like the film, just the approach. --JDC808 ♫ 02:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

There is a difference between saying "They rejected my ideas" and "Their work is bad", or just "I could have done it better." As far as I know, Lucas has only indicated the former and that he would have done it differently. If he dislikes the result then he keeps it to himself and we shouldn't imply it. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree, I would have handled the film differently is not the same thing as I hated their version of the film.--67.68.163.229 (talk) 02:16, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Good points. Buffaboy ^talk 18:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• I get that the topic of this Wikipedia article is still pretty new, but the criticism of this movie is not currently reflected well in this article here. The text of the article does mention that some view it as "derivative", which is quite an understatement IMO, but Lucas' criticism and other prominent film reviewers negative comments aren't really adequately reflected in this article as of yet.

We get that the movie has broken (and will continue to break) box office records. They've already gotten my 13 bucks for sure, but there's more to a film than box office success. Guy1890 (talk) 04:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I've added the director's response to the criticism. Perhaps some of the quote (or a different quote) could go in the Development part of the article? FallingGravity (talk) 00:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Add controversy section regarding similarities to A New Hope

I'm kind of surprised this is completely unmentioned on this wiki page, since J. J. Abrams has publicly spoken about it, though only within the last 48 hours. I think a controversy section should be added. 2601:18D:8301:9DCB:51D1:A5EA:8A18:C272 (talk) 06:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Not needed since the topic is already adequately covered in the Critical response section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed... not needed. - ^theWOLFchild 06:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I was about to say the same thing, pointing to WP:UNDUE and WP:CRITICISM, but edit conflicts killed that. oknazevad (talk) 06:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)