Wikipedia

Talk:Star Wars (film)/Archive 7

< Talk:Star Wars (film)
Latest comment: 9 years ago by SchreiberBike in topic This article made the Top 25 Report
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

"it stars [...] Peter Cushing [...] Anthony Daniels, Kenny Baker [...] co-star in supporting roles"!?

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Okay, Peter Cushing was and is a better-known actor than either of the droid actors, but this wording is seriously flawed. I haven't watched it in a while, but if I recall correctly Cushing's screen time and line count were both negligible compared to Daniels's (Baker didn't have any lines but in terms of screen time...).

I didn't wanna make the change myself because it's in such a prominent place that I'm sure it's been discussed somewhere before and I didn't want to step on toes, but ... seriously, why?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

This isn't a personal interpretation thing, it's a billing thing. Peter Cushing and Alec Guiness are top billed cast members, Anthony Daniels, Kenny Baker etc don't receive top billing. The film's credits are what this is representing, not someone't view on it. Canterbury Tail talk 16:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Billing in 1977 though, so do we have to necessarily honor? Peter Cushing's role was minor in comparison to Harrison Ford, Alec Guinness et al. We're an encyclopedia, not an archive.--A21sauce (talk) 22:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Bringing film up to Good Article status

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi. I'm interested in bringing this article up to Good Article status. I'm starting by copyediting it and filling in research bits that I feel could be answered, if possible. See this for a list of the other articles I brought to GA. Questions thus far (and my style is to jump around alot), for the "[Star Wars (film)#Premiere_and_initial_release|Premiere and initial release section]" under "Release":

1. In what town or city was Harrison Ford's shirt torn off?

2. A second showing at the Grattman theater. How was this arranged?

3. Under "Box office," we use 2014 values. Given that it's almost 2016, I think this could use some updating. Do we necessarily have to use Wiki coding "inflation|US|1554475|1977" to get this? Why can't we use a site like oanda.com or something for a more up-to-date figure?--A21sauce (talk) 22:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 05 December 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago70 comments22 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus, leaning not moved. It has been clearly demonstrated that the film does not meet the usage criterion of primary topic and the long-term significance criterion is inherently subjective – here there are reasonable arguments that both topics have more enduring significance. So clearly there is not a consensus to move and with one criterion against moving and one split there is arguably a consensus against moving. Either way, the result would be to retain the status quo. I've also closed the counter-proposal as it seemed clear there was not going to be a consensus to rename to use "Episode" and it had been open for nearly a week. Feel free to start a new RM on that topic, though as GoneIn60 pointed out, it is an issue that has been beaten to death in the last few years. Jenks24 (talk) 12:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

And Star Wars to Star Wars (franchise) (from Article editor (talk) 01:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC))

Moved from RMTR speedy move

  • Extremely strong objection to undiscussed RMTR speedy move request Star Wars is clearly not uncontroversial, since it requires swapping articles around, and it's Star Wars. I don't see why you ever thought this should be an RMTR request. This clearly should have a normal full move discussion -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
@Article editor and 70.51.44.60: This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: When people state "Star Wars", it's definitely usually meant to mean the first Star Wars film (that might change with the upcoming new one); this is seen all over the media, in various WP:Reliable sources. I remember clicking on the Star Wars article years ago and being surprised that it is about the franchise. On a side note: The "Extremely strong objection" commentary above confused me until I looked in the edit history and saw this edit by Anthony Appleyard; that edit told me that this discussion was moved here. I was also confused by the 70.51.44.60 signature until this edit by 70.51.44.60. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
It's a problem with the automated conversion process of objected to RMTR requests. The person who converts the request into a full up discussion needs to manually adjust things or the resulting autoconversion makes it look very very weird. --70.51.44.60 (talk) 08:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Survey

Is there any evidence that the film is better know pn as Star Wars than the expansive franchise?--70.27.229.4 (talk) 06:49, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose When I hear Star Wars I don't think of the first movie, I think of the original trilogy as a whole. And many people agree that Empire Strikes Back is the best one of said trilogy. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 18:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
    Oh and I also object to the idea of making Star Wars a disambiguation page. When I think of Star Wars I think of the original trilogy. And I have no reason to think of anything else. Star Wars refers to the franchise, there should only be a disambiguation page if there is no specific notable subject, which is far from the case with Star Wars. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 02:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – The film is currently located in Star Wars (film) because it was originally in Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope and Star Wars was already occupied by the franchise. Now that the film has been moved, we need to determine which is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I think the film is the primary topic in this case because it was the film that spawned the franchise, not the other way around (e.g., on the other hand, the character Spider-Man led to the films). --Article editor (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
The primary topic of Star Wars meaning the film that was 1977 is completely subject of bias. Guarantee you ask anyone that was raised with the prequels and up that asking "Have you seen Star Wars?" would result in "which one"? I say leave it as it is. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 01:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Don't move anything: Traffic info shows the series article gets hit about 3 times the first film.
Star_Wars_(film) has been viewed 231170 times in the last 30 days. This article ranked 3990 in traffic on en.wikipedia.org.
Star_Wars has been viewed 759878 times in the last 30 days. This article ranked 435 in traffic on en.wikipedia.org.
See [1] and [2] Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Geraldo Perez, I think that the Star Wars page gets more hits because readers are looking for information on that first film, or at least the latest film in the franchise. After all, going by the title of the article, how would they know it's about the franchise? I suppose it can be argued: "Then why don't just as many go to that film's page after landing on the page they didn't mean to land on?" Who knows why? Similar has been argued in other move discussions, where editors believed that readers were being taken to the page they were not initially looking for, and that this inflated that page's view count. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
And because we know that readers going to the Star Wars page are likely looking for the first film, we have the following at the top of that page: "This article is about the film series and media franchise. For the 1977 film, see Star Wars (film). For other uses, see Star Wars (disambiguation)." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Even if everyone looking for the film hit the franchise page first that still leaves twice as many hits there for people who didn't move on to the article on the film. More likely people don't know the exact names of most of the films who are looking for info so just search for "Star Wars" for all of them and use the landing page to redirect to the one they want. I think that is more useful to readers then hitting the article for the first film as primary, following the hatnote directions to a disambiguation page of some sort and then following links there to the film they want. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree. It makes sense that a lot of people type Star Wars to get to the main franchise article, and then from there, navigate to the film of their choice either from links within the article or from the disambiguation page linked at the top. I've done that myself many times. The point is that a search for Star Wars isn't necessarily a search for the first film any more than it could be a search for the other films. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
You bring up a good point. But I must point out that all the movies of the Star Wars trilogy are referenced and pardodied a lot in media. Take a look at how many times the "Luke, I am your father" is spoofed for example. All three movies in the trilogy are extremely notable. You see references and spoofs of all three movies everywhere. In movies, TV shows, video games, and especially the Internet. Having said that my vote still stands. The first Star Wars movie might be a bit more notable than the other ones, but not by much. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 23:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Blaze The Movie Fan, by "You bring up a good point", were you referring to my comments? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes I was. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 20:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
But with most of these you mentioned, the first movie is very notable while the rest aren't as notable. I do get your point, but I don't entirely agree with it. People talk about RoboCop way more than any of the sequels. And with The Matrix, most would agree that it's an achievement in movies, while most hate the sequels. But with Star Wars the whole trilogy is as notable as the first Star Wars movie. The same cannot be said about any of the movies you're mentioning here. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 20:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Star Wars, the franchise page, is effectively a disambiguation page for the whole film series. Individual films listed in the infobox for easy access by anyone landing on that page. Star Wars (disambiguation), has more than just the film although it does summarize most of the franchise. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:12, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree that people thought of the first film when they heard "Star Wars" for decades but with the release of the prequel trilogy and the other supporting works, the name "Star Wars" has become synonymous with the franchise as a whole and even hardcore fans refer to the original film as "A New Hope" or "Episode IV" nowadays, so the current usage here is correct (like it's also done with Tomb Raider or Mass Effect for example). Side note: en.wiki is not just used by native English speakers but by people from other countries as well and since the first film's title was translated in most of them (e. g. "Krieg der Sterne" in Germany, "La Guerre des étoiles" in France, "Guerre stellari" in Italy etc.), visitors from those countries will almost always refer to the franchise when speaking of "Star Wars". Regards SoWhy 18:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Undecided Good points are made on both sides but I do object very strongly to sweeping statements about what people call Star Wars (the film) without sources to back it up. I do not call 'Star Wars' 'A New Hope' nor 'Episode IV'. All my contemporaries do not either. So no SoWhy you cannot use that assumption to make your conclusion that current usage is correct. Provide sources rather than hearsay to back up your arguments (and yes I know I have said my contemporaries use the same terminology as I do which can be seen as hearsay but I am not making sweeping statements to make unfounded conclusions) Robynthehode (talk) 19:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't think you understand what 'hearsay' means. It is 'information received from other people which cannot be substantiated' That is essentially what you base your argument on when you say 'even hardcore fans refer to the original film as "A New Hope" or "Episode IV" nowadays, so the current usage here is correct' My criticism of your reasoning it that you use the unsubstantiated claim that 'even hardcore fans refer to the original film...etc. No they don't Not all of them. Provide your sources for this not just a list of books you have found on Amazon and Google books. The list of books only provides evidence that some writers (and very probably reliable sources) think of the term 'Star Wars' in they way you are arguing for. Robynthehode (talk) 20:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not a native speaker but rest assured, I do know what hearsay means. As you admit yourself, the examples I listed are very probably reliable sources and all of them use the term "Star Wars" in the same way. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC states after all that "Usage in English reliable sources demonstrated with Google web, news, scholar, or book searches" is a valid tool to help determining a primary topic. Also, another valid tool is to check links from other articles using Special:WhatLinksHere/Star_Wars and see how other editors used the term "Star Wars" when linking to it; just click a couple of articles at random and you will notice that a majority of those links in context refer to the franchise and not the film (e. g. Blade Runner, Fanzines, Science fiction, The Matrix, Wipe (transition), Roger Federer etc.).
    While we are discussing tools to determine the primary topic: Article editor's argument "I think the film is the primary topic in this case because it was the film that spawned the franchise, not the other way around" explicitly violates WP:PRIMARYTOPIC's rule that "historical age" and "if a topic was the original" are not valid tools to determine a primary topic. Regards SoWhy 20:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I think you are misunderstanding my point. Your last reply makes no mention of your claim that I challenged but instead makes a long statement about the more general point of use of sources and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. If you reread my comments I make no claims about sources or other aspects of the subject of this debate EXCEPT your claim that hardcore fans use certain terminology for the films. Using such a claim without specific sources is hearsay. Mentions of books about the more general subject (unless you can quote specific passages from these books) does not back up your specific claim about the 'hardcore fans'. I rest my case. Robynthehode (talk) 07:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
And even the first film is no longer officially called Star Wars as Lucas has tried real hard to get his new name to stick and most sources believe him. We are a holdout in using the original name. As I showed above there are about 3 times the hits for the franchise article as for this one supporting the contention that most people mean the franchise when they say Star Wars and search for that term. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
You say "most sources believe him." How so? Like I indicated above, the original "Star Wars" film is simply called "Star Wars" even today by a lot of the media, including by film critics. See this section of the Avatar (2009 film) article, for example. Even when we hear characters on television suggest their friends watch the film, they simply call that film "Star Wars." I don't see or hear it called by its revamped name nearly as much. Its Wikipedia article isn't even titled by its revamped name; it was moved away from that, and rightfully so, given WP:Common name. And, as you know, I addressed your page view statistics claim above; I and others above highly doubt that people are looking for the franchise when they type "Star Wars" into the search bar. I don't see how the franchise is the WP:Primary topic.
μηδείς, does your "confused" comment count as a "support" vote? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
What evidence do we have that the page view count on the franchise article is not an accurate depiction of those who intended to land there? Did I miss something? --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:49, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
No one is showing solid evidence of anything, but I find it silly to state that the franchise is the WP:Primary topic. The WP:Primary topic guideline has criteria (two), and suggests ways to determine what the WP:Primary topic is; needless to state, I don't see how the franchise passes either criterion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Franchise passes the first criteria based on page hits. Even if everyone looking for the film hit the franchise article there still remains twice as many who didn't click to the film article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
I disagree, per my commentary above and below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Okay, it might (MIGHT) pass the second criterion, but I fail to see how it passes the first. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Film may match the second based on historical significance although franchise itself is also significant. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
And going back to evidence, I don't see what else to state other than what I stated with my "22:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)" post above (which is partly bolded), and with my "22:25, 5 December 2015" followup post. Per my and NinjaRobotPirate's comments, and the hatnote pointing people to the first film, we know that people coming to the franchise article are looking for the first film. Not all of them, of course, but it's safe to say that a good number are. Per my commentary on this matter, it is my belief that the majority are looking for the first film when they land on the Star Wars page, and my vote is leaning toward "support." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:24, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
The fact that the page count of the franchise article is three times more than the page count of the film article suggests otherwise. If a majority were really looking for the first film, then they would continue on to the film article, and the numbers of both would be much closer to each other. It doesn't make sense that they would just stop at the franchise article, unless of course that's what they were looking for or they were actually looking for something else (e.g., Empire Strikes Back, The Force Awakens, The Clone Wars, etc.). I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that when many search Star Wars, they are interested in the entire universe and not a particular film. And even for those who were interested in a particular film, there's no way we can be sure which one in the series they were after. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
I should also point out that in addition to page view statistics, another criteria to look at when determining the primary topic is the number of incoming wikilinks. When narrowed down to the article namespace, the count for the franchise article is nearly 4000, while the count for the film article is just under 1000. That's another factor we should take into consideration. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Again, I've addressed the page count matter above; I've seen such a weak page count argument made before, people disagree with the weak argument, and the article being moved in spite of the weak argument. Above, one of the editors opposing the move feels that I made good points on the page view matter, and I don't see what's left for me to state on any of this...except that I'm not even close to convinced that the Star Wars page should be about the franchise. That stated, I reiterate that we don't know why readers stopped at the franchise page if they were looking for the first film; it could be because they got information they wanted about the first film from that page (I mean, just look at that section and how it and what is after it can suck a reader in), or it could be because of some other reason. If the article for the first film were titled "Star Wars" again, and the franchise was titled as the franchise that it is, we'd then have solid proof of which topic is more popular among our readers by comparing the page views for the franchise with those for the first film. Perhaps we should "go back in time" and compare older page view statistics when these two articles were titled differently; I'll be more convinced one way or the other then. But even with "going back in time," if the first film is shown to be more popular, an editor might argue that "back then, it was, but we're talking about the present." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
And what you addressed was well-refuted even using the most generous assumptions to your position that nobody doing a wiki search for "Star Wars" saw the third item down on the search dropdown list and clicked to the film article directly and and instead every click for people looking for the film article was via the franchise hatnote directions. Even with that generous best case set of givens still twice as many people stayed on the franchise page. More likely people who searched for the film read the drop down list and went to the film article directly. I fail to see how this is being a "weak page count argument" as asserted. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
There are a lot of unknowns. The best thing we can do here is base our decision on what we know, not on what we don't. Your position so far is based on the latter. The page view and incoming link statistics paint a different picture, and the incoming link statistic has not yet been refuted. Unless some concrete, factual information turns up in favor of the move, it will be difficult for me to support it. Let's also keep in mind the overall benefit to the encyclopedia. The move is beginning to look like an insignificant change that doesn't really do anything to improve the overall experience, at least not in a way that has been demonstrated/supported by facts; only a hypothesis so far. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Geraldo Perez, I don't consider your commentary to have "well-refuted" anything I stated; as far as I'm concerned, you have not at all proved that readers are looking for the franchise when they type "Star Wars." I very much highly doubt that they are looking for the franchise page by typing "Star Wars." What I see is that the first film is the WP:Primary topic, in more than one way. What you stated clearly is not enough for others to oppose the proposed article move. GoneIn60, I feel the same about your arguments. I already noted, in my "20:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)" post above, the only way my opinion on this will change. I would vote to "support" the move, but this discussion is likely to close as "no consensus." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your input, Flyer22. I completely understand your belief that people are landing on the franchise page by mistake, and that may very well be true to some extent. However, without some kind of factual data backing that up, there's no way to know for sure what that extent really is. That is why per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, we have turned to article traffic and incoming wikilink statistics for an answer. Unfortunately, neither can be used to support the move. If there's something else we can look at, I'm all ears. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I think leaving this article here, moving the franchise article to Star Wars (franchise) and creating a broad concept article per WP:DABCONCEPT at Star Wars would be the way to go. The fact is Star wars refers to the films, the franchise (the toys/games/associated media) and the extended universe (the mythology/characters ect) in general. I doubt we will find many modern sources that distinguish between the different manifestations of the title. Obviously my suggestion would involve creating a new article which would create quite a bit of work for someone so if it's not task that anybody wants to take on then I think Star Wars should perhaps just be turned into a disambiguation page. Betty Logan (talk) 06:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
The franchise article is nowhere near being a broad concept article. The franchise article focuses on the media whereas a broad concept article would also summarize the content in the articles listed at Star_Wars#See_also, as well as give an overview of the key characters and various concepts such as Sith and Jedi. It would also cover the Cultural impact of Star Wars. Betty Logan (talk) 07:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. After thirty years, numerous sequels and prequels, and countless other media, the franchise is the primary topic. Having the 1977 film at the undisambiguated title seems to be pushing a POV to me. --Tt(talk/contribs) 10:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Word. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 20:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
SmokeyJoe, do you mind clarifying your statement? I'm a little confused by the first sentence. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
No, it seems it is me a little confused. I'll try to come back later. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Counter-proposal

Star Wars (film) → Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope – Star Wars orginated with the 1977 film but has evolved above and beyond it with one of the world's most extensive and iconic franchises. And just like Star Trek: The Original Series, it has received an alternative name which many people use to differentiate it from other franchise properties. Charles Essie (talk) 22:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Adding another RM template is not the way to counter-propose. You can do this in the comments. I would argue that this goes against WP:COMMONNAME (which was why it was moved from that extended title in the first place). Even something like Star Wars (1977 film) is more concise (per WP:CRITERIA) and still understandable. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 22:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
What Erik said. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Should I get rid of the template? Charles Essie (talk) 02:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
We don't need to disambiguate between the films since they are all sufficiently distinguishable from each other as they are. In the context of the films alone only one is simply known as "Star Wars" so it's non-issue. Betty Logan (talk) 08:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lead sentence word order

Latest comment: 9 years ago13 comments5 people in discussion

The lead "[Star Wars] is a 1977 American epic space opera film..." is very clunky.

First, the word order emphasizes that its being a 1977 American epic space opera film, as opposed to a 1976 or 1978 American epic space opera film is somehow important.

Second "American epic space opera film" (opera film?) is hard to parse. This is easily addressable by splitting the "1977 American film" from "is an epic space opera Written and directed by George Lucas." Hence my edit to the front page. (The argument applies regardless of whether epic is retained.)

μηδείς (talk) 22:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I didn't agree with your first attempt at making this easier on the eyes, since I feel the genres "epic" and "space opera" need to remain together if they're both going to be mentioned, but I do agree with your latest attempt. We can probably go further and remove 1977 and mention it later in the lead. It doesn't need to be in the opening sentence, IMO. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
The intro sentence of pretty much all articles follows the pattern "article title" is "something". Most important thing first is the title of the article in bold and what it is is explained succinctly next. The rest of the lead expands on that. "Star Wars (later retitled Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope) is a 1977 space opera written and directed by George Lucas" is sufficient and any modifiers beyond the basic ones needed for identification are superfluous. "epic" is advertising fluff and does not add to basic identification of what this article is about. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Geraldo, see the discussion above about dropping the epic genre label from the lead. More than likely this will happen, but there's not a clear consensus there yet. You may want to voice your opinion in that discussion. As for the year, it can be simply mentioned in a following sentence that clarifies when the film was released. It shouldn't be needed as an additional descriptor preceding the film genre. Pretty much agree with your sentiment, however, that we should keep this as simple as possible. --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Quick update: Just noticed you did comment above, so thanks for that! --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:32, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
per WP:FILMLEAD "At minimum, the opening sentence should identify the title of the film, the year of its public release, and the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified." and "If the film's nationality is singularly defined by reliable sources (e.g., being called an American film), it should be identified in the opening sentence." Basics for intro sentence title of the film, year of public release, primary genre, nationality. Other stuff may be useful in lead but probably should not be in the actual opening sentence of the lead. All that needs to be there is "Star Wars [title] (later retitled Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope [alternate title]) is a 1977 [year of release] American [nationality] space opera [primary genre] film [what it is]. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:45, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm on board with that once a decision is finally made about the genre. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:56, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I have again restored this version, given it was reverted 2 & 1/2 hours after this discussion was begun with the complaint that there had been no discussion. Again, I emphasize my soul goal is to split the adjectival description all believe is factual (1977 American film) from the predicate (epic space opera written...) μηδείς (talk) 06:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but you have to get consensus first and you simply do not have it. Opening a discussion does not give you powers to continue to edit war of the edit. JOJ Hutton 10:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
When an change is contested starting a discussion is appropriate but WP:STATUSQUO until consensus is reached to make the change. I object to starting the intro sentence with anything other than the exact article title (and alternative title) as the formulation is as a definition: "something" is "definition of that something". Adjectives belong as part of the definition. Geraldo Perez (talk) 12:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I personally prefer "Star wars is a 1977 film" over "The 1977 Star Wars film is", because no other article starts with "The". And there is a good reason for it, because it looks bad that way.
Also, the purpose of going to the talk page is to avoid edit wars. You don't have the right to revert back to the wording you prefer, Wikipedia isn't yours. You should only do if if people agree with you, and from what I see so far, nobody does. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 18:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
We still have no coherent reason to oppose this reasonable change in wording thatn WP:OTHERSTUFF. If there's no other consensus or policy reason other than the opposition from those who simply oppose the "epic" description, I will reinstate the balanced subject vs predicate form. μηδείς (talk) 04:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Actually, the consensus so far is leaning in opposition to the proposal. Geraldo Perez mentioned that starting with "The 1977 American film..." goes against WP:FILMLEAD, while Blaze The Movie Fan stated that it doesn't look right. While I wouldn't consider that a clear consensus, at the very least it can be considered no consensus at this point. According to WP:NOCONSENSUS: "...a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Newspapers.com cool and simple "clipping" feature lets registered users (including those with gratis account with Newspapers.com via Wikipedia Library) easily open access content from their huge newspaper archive. A blog post today highlights about ten noteworthy articles and images relevant to this article that have already been clipped and are now readily citable on Wikipedia as reliable sources - with no paywall, subscription, or registration required. Link below includes links to ten or so already clipped and a link to search phrase for "tens of thousands of matches you can find for Star Wars on Newspapers.com" ready to be liberated (IFF you have an account - see parenthetical link above to get on the Wikipedia Library list for a free account):

Hammond, Trevor (December 18, 2015). "Find: Looking Back on the Original Star Wars". Newspapers.com. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 06:08, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

This article made the Top 25 Report

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article was the ninth most popular on Wikipedia according to the Top 25 Report with 750,021 views for the week December 13 to 19, 2015. Star Wars: The Force Awakens was released during this week. Congratulations to the editors of this article for the exposure of their work.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  18:36, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Star_Wars_(film)/Archive_7&oldid=1137202754"