This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Star Wars, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Star Wars saga on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Star WarsWikipedia:WikiProject Star WarsTemplate:WikiProject Star WarsStar Wars articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disney, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Walt Disney Company and its affiliated companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DisneyWikipedia:WikiProject DisneyTemplate:WikiProject DisneyDisney articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s articles
This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2019, when it received 11,704,282 views.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report4 times. The weeks in which this happened:
Rosvel92: your massive addition in this edit really needs further discussion. You attempted to discuss back in 2021, but that apparently fizzled out. Aside from some grammar issues like "specially", you need to be careful about positioning viewpoints as widely accepted, such as your statement, "Poe's new backstory as a smuggler was seen as racist towards Latinos due to him being portrayed by Guatemalan-born actor Oscar Isaac." That is stated in a way that makes it seem like a common criticism, but yet we only know that from one particular source. In cases like that, you must use proper in-text attribution for all biased statements of opinion. I didn't look at every statement you made, but the other concern is that you added one huge paragraph with 35+ sentences. What is that? Something like this generally needs to be broken up into several paragraphs, but even then, there's the question of WP:WEIGHT. Does this belong here under critical response about this film? And if it does belong, do we really need that much of it? -- GoneIn60 (talk) 13:42, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As usually he's hopeless when it comes to Star Wars stuff. He should be topic banned. oknazevad (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How does everyone feel about the recent edits by
Peeacfulman1987 that add many Sith related elements to the plot summary. In my view, the film doesn't go out of its way to identify the armada, the followers as Sith and I especially don't like changing the identification of Palpatine to the "The dark lord of the Sith". I'd prefer to revert to the earlier version, but thought I'd ask first in case anyone feels this is no big deal. Scribolt (talk) 17:13, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Every other Disney Star Wars movie infobox has a fixed budget, all from that Forbes article. Why does this one get a pass? DougheGojiraMan (talk) 16:09, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because this IndieWire article you removed as a source estimated its budget at $275 million. Why pick just the Forbes article as a reliable source? Harryhenry1 (talk) 08:45, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know people are using that Forbes woman a lot now, but I’m still concerned about her being a Forbes contributor and not a real writer there. ToaNidhiki05 11:47, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with you, if not for the fact that I did same with The Force Awakens, ($245-447 million) and it got reverted to oblivion. I dunno what else to tell you, except that the Forbes article is what every Disney Star Wars movie article revolves around now. DougheGojiraMan (talk) 21:24, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's because you've been changing the sources on said pages to just that article, mot bexause others are doing so too. So I'm not sure what you mean by that? Harryhenry1 (talk) 10:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A while back, I put a figure of $259-447 million on the budget for The Force Awakens, but then it got reverted, saying that the $447 million is the only one we’d be using. Hence why I’ve just been doing the same for every other Star Wars film. It’s gotta be one or the other. DougheGojiraMan (talk) 17:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One of the reversions to your edit pointed to the Template:Infobox film page, which warns against cheerypicking budgets. That should be brought up with whoever said to use only one figure.Harryhenry1 (talk) 08:36, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
The redirect Episode IX has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 15 § Episode IX until a consensus is reached. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)