Template talk:Star Wars/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Parodies

Last December, BroJam, with no explanation, removed the parodies from the template. I think these should be restored, or, at the very least, some discussion should occur about their importance in the larger Star Wars phenomenon. Thanks. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 19:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

My guess is that the editor considered them to be Listcruft. Much as I love SW parodies, I don't see the need to list them all in this navbox as they are not of primary significance.The navbox currently links to Category:Parody films based on Star Wars which seems perfectly adequate to me.Cnbrb (talk) 19:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2019

The {{Portal-inline|Speculative fiction}} portal added in this edit should be removed as this is a general portal and is not specific to the subject of the navbox. Portals should only be included if they match the topic. Navboxes should not be used to populate tangential non-specific portals in this way. 212.135.65.247 (talk) 10:30, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: The relevant portal for this navbox was recently deleted, and a bot is going around replacing all backlinks, per consensus. I would like to point out that portals are specifically for broad and general topics. The previous portal was deleted for being too specific. Upsidedown Keyboard (talk) 14:36, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Don't really care about this issue, but you've made two incorrect statements - there isn't a bot changing it, but one editor who is doing it; and there was no consensus on changing the portals to a different one. The MfD result was just to delete the Star Wars portal. So technically, that new portal addition is contested by the IP, which in this case means that the onus is on those wanting to keep it, not on the IP wanting to remove it. --Gonnym (talk) 14:41, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@Gonnym: Fair enough. I was just reading the deletion discussion, and the closing admin did not contest the request of BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs), who said: "but if you close this discussion as delete, please can you not remove the backlinks? I have a bot (BHGbot 4) which allows me to easily replace them with links to the next most specific portal(s), without creating duplicate entries." So I assumed that the edit was made by their bot, since they're the one suggesting to move Portal:Star Wars to Portal:Speculative fiction, but reading the diff, I see it's a human. Weird. Upsidedown Keyboard (talk) 11:51, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Gonnym: I am surprised the hostile tone of your comments.

As noted by @Upsidedown Keyboard, the edit was performed by me[1], with the edit summary Portal:Star Wars has been deleted per WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Star Wars (2nd nomination). In the MFD discussion I noted the need to do something with the backlinks, and proposed[2] that my bot BHGbot (talk · contribs) should replace the backlinks with Portal:Speculative fiction in all cases, and also add Portal:Television or Portal:Film if the context justifies it.

The bot is authorised to do this per WP:BRFA/BHGbot 4. The bot authorisation notes that it works only in the namespaces Article, Category, Draft. Templates are done manually, because the formatting issues are different, and the bot is not coded to handle all the many different formats used.

In this case, as usual, I did the template manually, in accordance with the note in the MFD, which made almost 5 days before the MFD closed, and on which there was no comment.

The usual practice after deletion of any page is to unlink the backlinks, and many closers use scripts which do this with a single click for all backlinks. However, in the the case of portals, the links are generated by templates, so the scripts don't work. That's why I devised an AWB setup which woukd handle them, and found that it was a relative simple task to replace them with a new link. As in every other case, the whole thing was done as transparently as possible, with the simple aim of ensuring that where possible each page which was linked to the deleted portal now links instead to the next best alternative(s). This has been done now for hundreds of portals.

Yesterday, the IP who requested this change posted[3] at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Portals_in_navboxes to suggested that portals links from navboxes should be treated differently to articles etc. I responded[4] with my view that guidance seemed unclear, and suggesting a discussion at WT:NAVBOX.

After updating many hundreds of templates in the same way, the comments by the IP have been the first comment I have received about how to handle navboxes. I have not formed a view on whether the IP is right, and am happy to go with whatever the consensus decides both in regard to this navbox or to navboxes as a whole. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:52, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

• Sorry if it came out hostile. There is no need for that big of wall of text from your side. I understand how the change was done and why. I also explained that that while you did say in the MfD that you wanted to do so and no one commented on it, it still wasn't a result of any such consensous and as such, your edit is just the same as any other edit anyone else makes. Which is not to say it's a bad or wrong edit, but that Upsidedown Keyboard's response to the IP was just incorrect. If the IP feels that the portal addition does not fit here and wants to revert the edit, per WP:BRD, whoever wants it (you or anyone else) should argue the point, not the IP. Anyways, as I have no horse in this race, I'm going to stop commenting here. --Gonnym (talk) 13:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Sorry if I misread your intent, Gonnym. The wall of text was just me trying to be accountable by providing a full explanation of an issue where there seemed some surprise or misunderstanding. Sorry if it added noting new, but when explaining I find it more helpful to not assume what is known; better over-explain than under-explain.

I believe that the replacements of links to Portal:Star Wars do have at least implicit consensus: I proposed an alternative to the usual deletion of backlinks, and there was no dissent. Like you, I don't mind whether the IP's request is accepted or not ... but I would object to a plain revert, because it would reinstate a link to a deleted portal, which is an error tracked in Category:Portal templates with redlinked portals and its subcats. So I hope that the outcome will be to either keep the link or remove it, but don't revert. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I didn't suggest a revert, but that the portal is removed. 212.135.65.247 (talk) 14:19, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl:. You are wrong when you claim that I "suggested that portals links from navboxes should be treated differently to articles". I am not suggesting that at all. Just as it would be wrong to have a link to Speculative fiction in this navbox, it is equally wrong to have a link to Portal:Speculative fiction. 212.135.65.247 (talk) 14:18, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually, your comment at User_talk:BrownHairedGirl#Portals_in_navboxes does focus exclusively on navboxes. If your concern is only about this particular navbox, then then we can skip the wider discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:22, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, you seem to be adding a lot of inappropriate portal links to navboxes, but I'm not suggesting that we treat them any differently from the article links in navboxes. See this one - the articles Sport and Asia would be just as inappropriate as the portals. 212.135.65.247 (talk) 14:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

@212.135.65.247: @BrownHairedGirl: I think we're starting to deviate from the main topic of this section. In an attempt to close this edit request, I propose the following compromise: Since Star Wars is science fiction, and Portal:Science Fiction redirects to a subpage of Portal:Speculative fiction. Perhaps we could change it from {{Portal-inline|Speculative fiction}} to {{Portal-inline|Science fiction}}? Upsidedown Keyboard (talk) 14:41, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

No, absolutely not. Both are equally inappropriate here. The only acceptable portal would have been the deleted Star Wars portal. There should be no links to tangential portals. Imagine if every rock band navbox had Portal:Rock music included, etc, etc. You wouldn't link to Science fiction as that would be contrary to WP:NAVBOX, so equally you should not link to the portal. 212.135.65.247 (talk) 14:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

@212.135.65.247: The thing is we do link rock band navboxes to Portal:Rock music Upsidedown Keyboard (talk) 14:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I can find you thousands where we don't. 212.135.65.247 (talk) 15:11, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

 Note: The navboxes listed above had their portals removed by the requesting editor. Upsidedown Keyboard (talk) 15:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

(ec) @Upsidedown Keyboard: I'm not a fan of intentionally creating a link to a redirect, but since there are 96 other links from articles or categories to the redirect Portal:Science fiction, I guess one more wouldn't hurt much. As above, I neither support nor oppose. I am fine with no link or either link, just not a redlink.

@212.135.65.247: I know that you are not suggesting that we treat them any differently from the article links in navboxes. However, WP:NAVBOX refers specifically to articles, so your desire to explicitly apply the same principles to portals would be a change to the existing guidance. As I have noted several times already, I have no preference; I just want a clear consensus. And since my existing practice has been consistent across many hundreds of navboxes with no prior expressions of concern, I won't change it just on the request of one editor. But I will open a discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:03, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

No, it doesn't require a change to the existing guideline, the spirit is the same. And you should really reconsider your consistent existing practice of adding inappropriate portals to hundreds of navboxes, which goes against this spirit. 212.135.65.247 (talk) 15:30, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: I give up. This conversation has deadlocked, and I see no real reason to remove the portal. It is a small part of the navbox, and the entire purpose of the portal is to list a large number of articles on a broad subject. Like I said in my original response, Portal:Star Wars was deleted because it was abandoned, never used, and linked too little pages. It was literally not broad enough. The use of Portal:Speculative fiction is correct. I will be okay with my suggestion above, but not the original request. If this request is re-opened I will list it onto WP:DRN to help resolve it. Cheers, Upsidedown Keyboard (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your analysis is incorrect. And, looking at your edit history, it does not appear that you have ever edited a navbox, so, with respect, maybe your areas of expertise are elsewhere. The purpose of a portal may be "to list a large number of articles on a broad subject", but a navbox is not. It is for a narrow specific topic, where all articles are related. There are no appropriate portals to be included here. And, as no-one is actually arguing to keep it, it is the recent addition of this inappropriate and tangential portal that is controversial, and thus it should be removed. 212.135.65.247 (talk) 16:04, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

@212.135.65.247: Yes, you are correct, navboxes are not for broad subjects. That is why we link to the portal instead of transcluding the entire portal to the bottom of the navbox. Portal links on these navboxes are small and on the bottom of the navbox, and provide the means to go to a very coarse categorization of pages from a very fine categorization. If you are worried about the tangential categorization of pages and subjects, you should be terrified by mere existence of some categories. You have stated before that: Portals should only be included if they match the topic., and I say that Portal:Speculative fiction fits this navbox perfectly, as it is about a science fiction franchise, a type of speculative fiction. I have not ever edited a navbox, and this is my outsider perspective on it.Upsidedown Keyboard (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Wrong on all counts I'm afraid. Navboxes are not used to populate articles with broad-category portals. Speculative fiction is not the topic of this navbox, Star Wars is. We link to Book:Star Wars, not Book:Speculative fiction, and Category:Star Wars, not Category:Speculative fiction. There is no justification for the inclusion of any other portal here other than (were it to still exist) Portal:Star Wars. 212.135.65.247 (talk) 12:30, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, sorry, but I am not going to do this edit request. Honestly, if you had made an account by now, you would've been able to do the edit yourself and nobody would have questioned it. Cheers, Upsidedown Keyboard (talk) 15:10, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

N Not done and not likely to be done Please establish that there is a consensus for this change before re-opening this edit request or resubmitting this. Edit Requests are specifically for non-controversial requests: ...consensus should be obtained before requesting changes that are likely to be controversial. The above discussion clearly demonstrates, all protestations to the contrary aside, that this request is not supported by a consensus of editors. If you wish to pursue this further, the best course of action is to create a separate discussion here that asks for all opinions on the change. You can also take advantage of the consensus-building options listed here. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:45, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. It is the addition in the first place that is controversial, which goes against all prior convention with regard to portals in navboxes. The onus is on the editor trying to add the portal to prove that it is supported by consensus. It isn't. 212.135.65.247 (talk) 09:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

It is entirely unsurprising that you disagree but also entirely irrelevant. Whether you think your proposal should be controversial or not is also irrelevant. The plain fact of the matter is that your requested change has been extensively disputed. Edit requests are not for a request like yours. Let me make this simpler: Stop doing this. Your request has been answered, even if you disagree with it. There is nothing anywhere that says a request isn't answered until it is answered to the requester's satisfaction. This continual changing of the "answered" indicator to "no" until you get the answer you want is disruptive editing and as such risks the consequences defined at that policy page. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion OK, cool it guys. It looks like the portal link is here to stay for now, as 2 editors support it and only 1 wants it removed. Anon IP editor @212.135.65.247: right now, you're in a WP:SNOW situation. It sounds like there is a point of wider editing policy that you would like to challenge, and so it would be sensible for you start a discussion at WT:NAVBOX. This has been suggested to you several times here in this discussion. It means that you can then help to create a wider policy about portal links in navboxes across all of Wikipedia, instead of just arguing the toss here. It will be less frustrating for you and you have a better chance of getting your preferred outcome. I also recommend creating a user account as people generally respond better to a known editor than to anonymous IP addresses. Good luck with it. Cnbrb (talk) 17:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

The Mandalorian episodes

I really cannot see a valid reason why this template should list every individual episode of The Mandalorian. It creates unnecessary clutter and is only going to increase as new episodes are produced. The various Clone Wars episodes are linked simply as single lists; it would be more constructive to create a similar list for The Mandalorian instead of edit warring over an unwanted inclusion. Cnbrb (talk) 08:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Lists and navigation template aren't the same thing and aren't mutually exclusive, see Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates and also that linking to the same article twice shouldn't be done in the navbox (which the change it). The TfD discussion merged the stand-alone series template with this one. If editors feel that it's cluttering up the template, the only solution is to split it back, and if that's what is decided, I'm not sure if that is something we can do here, or if we need to start a discussion over at WP:DRV. --Gonnym (talk) 09:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

No need for endless discussions. Simply create List of the The Mandalorian episodes, link to that and the problem is solved. Cnbrb (talk) 10:12, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Amazing how you've ignored the first sentence. Lists and navigation templates links aren't the same nor are they mutually exclusive. --Gonnym (talk) 10:15, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Amazing how you've inferred that I said that lists and navigation templates links are the same thing. I didn't. I said that adding too much clutter is a problem. I've proposed a solution, which you've ignored.Cnbrb (talk) 10:55, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

That isn't a solution. --Gonnym (talk) 11:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

That is a solution. Cnbrb (talk) 11:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

See the Star Trek template, for example. {{Star Trek}}. Almost every episode of the various Star Trek series have their own page, as they should. Then they are listed, in some format or other, on individual series templates and not on the main Star Trek template. The Mandalorian (haven't seen it, I'm more Trek than Wars) should eventually have its own template, and it has enough now for that, which would solve the clutter that some of us are noticing. Gonnym, thanks for realizing that lists, templates, and categories are different and mandated so on Wikipedia - it's one of the sadder and more inaccurate things here how many navigation deletion discussions have been decided on noms which include "make a list" or "make it into a category". In this case there is already a list, embedded in The Mandalorian page itself. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

As I've posted in my edit summary, the series already had it's own template which was merged into this at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_November_13#Template:The_Mandalorian with the closure stating Merge arguments are stronger with a keep !vote being the navbox equivalent of WP:clearly notable and delete votes sharing the general idea that there aren't enough links for a standalone navbox. So it either has too many links and is cluttering this template, in which case it has enough links for a standalone navbox, or it does not have enough links, in which case it isn't cluttering this template and it's fine. But the argument can't be that it's too many links and cluttering this template, but not enough for a standalone template. --Gonnym (talk) 11:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

It is a false dichotomy to state that there can either be a separate standalone navbox or a list of episodes in this navbox and nothing else. You're focussing on the merge discussion and not what's actually good for this template. Why not list every single Clone Wars episode and every single Rebels episode here too? There isn't a requirement to fill a Navbox with every single related article. 11:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Quite simply because Star Wars Rebels has no episode article to link to (and yet also has {{Star Wars Rebels}}) and Star Wars: The Clone Wars (2008 TV series) has {{Star Wars: The Clone Wars}}, a stand-alone template. Any other questions? --Gonnym (talk) 11:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

No, no further questions. I've stated the problem and offered a solution. You requested a discussion but clearly it's pointless trying to offer anything constructive as your mind is already made up. Perhaps some other editors will want to offer their views on this and find a better approach. Cnbrb (talk) 11:34, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The merge discussion is probably moot now that more entries and episode articles exist (at the time of the merge the template seems to have had only three entries, where five entries is the unofficial cut-off line for templates). So a new template seems appropriate either now or soon. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Cnbrb, you offered no solution as a list is not a navigation template. That does not help anyone wanting to easily navigate between a set of articles. The same "solution" can be made to delete this template and just have users go back to Star Wars and search the links they want. Randy Kryn, I also think that the stand-alone template is a better approach, but since the template was just deleted, I don't feel personally comfortable with recreating it. --Gonnym (talk) 12:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Maybe after a couple more episodes, or if there is a character article or two, a new template wouldn't be controversial. As for now it's not too crowded on this template, but could seem a bit crowded soon. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

No, Gonnym, I offered a solution - it's just one you happen to personally disagree with. That's not the same thing. This navbox already contains links to lists of episodes of other series, which is a neat approach. Now the precedent has been established, every time an episode article is created, it has to be included in this template in order to "help anyone wanting to easily navigate between a set of articles". In fact, there isn't an obligation to include absolutely every article on a subject in a navbox. WP:NAVBOX cautions against (but does not prohibit) over-proliferation of navbox links: "templates with a large number of links are not forbidden, but can appear overly busy and be hard to read and use". That said, I'm not going to make any further attempts at fixing this - I will only get reverted. Constructive contributions to this discussion are only met with a "that's not a solution", so I'm not going to waste my time offering constructive suggestions. Good luck managing this template.13:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is already too crowded. It was a profoundly ill-conceived idea to begin with, and it becomes a worse idea with each episode added. None of the other SW TV series has every episode listed, and there's a very good reason for that: the excess detail makes the template less useful, and furthermore makes it look like the editors who control this template have a screw loose. Trust me on this. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Agree with OP. No need for the links here, especially as there will be more seasons/streaming series. UpdateNerd (talk) 02:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Probably time for the series to be presented in a separate template. The first attempt at a template was deleted, but now it would have many more links. Templates with less than five entries are usually at large risk of deletion, but the five-entry unwritten rule seems to have become a bar to keep-delete. This topic is clearly template-worthy, so a new one could easily be created and maintained. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:33, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Move Duel of the Fates to the section on films

I believe that we should move the link to the new article on Duel of the Fates to a new "unproduced" subsection within the film section, kind of like how Detours is lumped in with the section on television despite it being cancelled. It was meant to be produced as a film prior to its cancellation and it should be treated accordingly. Vader13289 (talk) 03:36, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Detours exists even if it hasn't been released. Duel of the Fates could probably just go in the production section since it is part of the development process for Episode 9. I think its current location beside The High Republic is misleading. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Maybe we should put it as a sub-article under The Rise of Skywalker like how it is in Sequel Trilogy template? Vader13289 (talk) 03:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I think that would be a lot of WP:UNDUEWEIGHT for something that did not happen. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:15, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I would agree the production section is a sensible place for it. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 04:26, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, I will move it to the production section per the consensus here. Vader13289 (talk) 03:15, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't imagine anyone will object to it, but I will say that in the future, I would give a discussion to run a deal longer than exactly 24 hours before deciding that a consensus has been formed. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 03:53, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with both of TenTonParasol's ideas/inputs in this thread. --EEMIV (talk) 11:46, 6 October 2021 (UTC)