Talk:Star Wars: The Force Awakens/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Rise of the Empire?!

It seems there is a new title for Star Wars Episode VII. It's called "Rise of the Empire". That can't be the correct title, can it? The proof is in this link: http://www.shockya.com/news/2013/08/08/star-wars-episode-vii-receives-production-date-title. AdamDeanHall (talk) 18:46, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

We should wait for additional sources before changing anything in the Wikipedia article. If this is valid, it will be widespread soon enough. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• Here [1] is an article that concludes we probably will not get the title announced until Summer of 2014.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The main gist of that article is the widely reported rumor that EPVII is filming under the production title Foodles Production Ltd a la Blue Harvest. The art on the post is obviously fan art and the title is never used in the text of the article. Eric Ando (talk) 02:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 October 2013

http://www.movieweb.com/news/star-wars-episode-vii-may-be-partially-shot-in-imax

In Production section where they talk about shooting on 35mm film, with the above link- there may also be portions of the film shot with IMAX cameras. This is being discussed as a possibility, especially with JJ Abrams use of IMAX on previous films like Star Trek Into Darkness. 154.20.151.251 (talk) 06:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Not done for now: That page says: "We've heard murmurings ... but the studio has not yet confirmed that to be true." We need to wait until it's more definite. To explain why, we have a policy known affectionately as WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. Thanks, and sorry. --Stfg (talk) 09:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

CONFIRMED: Star Wars Episode VII to open December 18, 2015

http://starwars.com/news/star-wars-episode-vii-to-open-december-18-2015.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Npabebangin (talk • contribs) 21:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

R2 and Casting

Include R2-D2 as the first confirmed character in Episode VII and mention the ongoing casting process of Thomas and Rachel, which is mobilizing thousands of young actors worldwide. 212.243.10.250 (talk) 20:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 22:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

http://starwarsblog.starwars.com/2013/11/19/r2-d2-is-in-star-wars-episode-7-and-hes-fan-made/

http://www.opencastingcall2013.com/

http://www.theforce.net/story/front/Press_Reports_Filter_In_From_Star_Wars_Episode_VII_Open_Casting_In_Michigan_155353.asp

http://www.theforce.net/story/front/Press_Reports_Filter_In_From_Star_Wars_Episode_VII_Open_Casting_In_Chicago_155330.asp

Anything else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.243.10.250 (talk) 10:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 November 2013

Add

| released = {{Film date|2015|12|18}}

to the infobox. --Darth Vatar (talk) 03:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done for now: let's wait until the release actually happens. --Stfg (talk) 16:09, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Title

Hey, I know that this has probably been a topic already, and it's not that important, but why is the page titled Development of Star Wars Episode VII and not just Star Wars Episode VII. It's even a page about the movie itself. Just wondering.I'm not there 23:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Generally speaking, we should not have a stand-alone article until filming has started, per the notability guidelines for future films. This is because if filming starts, an actual film is mostly guaranteed. Before then, films in development can still fall apart. Even this one could; it would not be the first franchise film to not get off the ground right away. The Batman and Superman reboots took decades to come around, with different creative efforts throughout. Since we are doing a stand-alone article here, presumably based on the level of detail (though much could be culled), the question is if it is accurate to make it a film article. Before, this article did not say "is an upcoming film", did not use the film infobox, did not have the film-related categories, etc. It was treated as a historical article. Of course, because fans are excited, they assume that this is going to happen and try to make it a film article. The "Development of" part of the article title was an attempt at that historical presentation. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:02, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

A New Alliance?

Hi folks. Someone have added this title - Star Wars Episode VII: A New Alliance - to the article. Is there a source for this? If so it should be referenced. Vithar Alderland (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

No legitimate sources, just fanboy rumors. The films title should only be added when it is officially confirmed by the studio, and I guarantee you we will not be short of any sources when that day comes. So lets just wait until then.--2nyte (talk) 03:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely. This is no place for rumors. I just didn't want to delete it in case someone had forgotten to put up the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vithar Alderland (talk • contribs) 20:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Cinematography Societies

Guys, before removing societies out of the infobox, at least go to Episodes IV, V and VI's articles and see how this information is presented in their infoboxes. We can't have a double standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Decosw1988 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2014

The "Development of Star Wars Episode VII" link "Continue Reading" goes to "Return-Of-The-Jedi" https://www.facebook.com/pages/Return-Of-The-Jedi/110282955661799# Please correct this. Thanks. 69.204.7.11 (talk) 08:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

That would be a problem with Facebook, which Wikipedia has no control over and are not affiliated with. You'll have to let them know. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Ian.thomson already responded. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 19:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Check the article before making major edits

People, I added the information and reference for the setting and younger characters, (ie. that it takes place 30 years after Jedi). It is the very first sentence of the main body. Yet, people jumped the gun repeatedly by adding that exact same information at the end of the paragraph, as if it needed to be repeated that something was announced on March 18, 2014. For future reference, I'd like to encourage those editors to check the article before making such edits as there is a strong likelihood that important information like that is already present. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 16:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, that was me (as you probably know). When I looked at it, it appeared to be arranged in chronological order, but I guess I was wrong. G S Palmer (talk) 10:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

There were a number of times by other people. I'm not angry or anything at anyone- I just don't want to revert people's edits. ;) DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 00:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2014

Comma after "had a meeting with Abrams for a role". Alien Putsch resistant (talk) 17:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done but your account should be autoconfirmed, so you could have made this edit yourself - Arjayay (talk) 18:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Filming

Disney has confirmed that filming has already began. So is it time to move the article to Star Wars Episode VII? Koala15 (talk) 17:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Yes. It's time to move it to Star Wars Episode VII. — Cirt (talk) 18:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Also agree, and now it has been tagged. Now we just have to play the waiting game. STATic message me! 18:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I concur. Let's move it to Star Wars Episode VII. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 19:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Time Period

From what i can tell this film series is going to take place during the Vong war though i'm still not sure if the episode is going to start it though. am i right?

yugioht42 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.120.209.5 (talk) 20:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

It takes place 35 years after Return of the Jedi. Yesterday Lucasfilm declared that the Expanded Universe is no longer canon and that they're going off of the movies, the TV shows and what George Lucas gave to Disney with the acquisition of the franchise. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 19:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

"Casting" subsection

It rightly has a "cleanup" tag, but I don't see any discussion on how to clean it up. It's clearly been edited with drips and drabs of information being added piecemeal, and now that we have a cast, it should be tightened up. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it definitely needs to be condensed. Right now, it looks more like a glorified list that reports, instead of informing the reader in a typical encyclopedic manner.~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 17:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I had added the template, but it appears that it has been immensely cleaned up. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Background and writing, template question

I've tagged the Background and writing section because not only was it copy-pasted from another article, but it is outdated and doesn't really give pertinent information about George Lucas' story development and the writing process undertaken by Arndt, Kasdan and Abrams. If somebody would like to refine this section, it would be greatly appreciated.

On another note, I am curious as to whether or not you guys would be in favor of me creating the Episode VII template at this time? With the information we are given, it would only cover the characters confirmed for this film, but it could be updated as more information becomes available. I'd like to gather consensus on this. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 22:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Can you post where you saw this info copy-pasted? To my knowledge, this info was on the "Proposed sequel trilogy" page before it was announced, so it is possible that site is a copy of Wikipedia. As for the template (sorry for not responding on my talk), I believe it is too early for the template, given the other templates. WP:NORUSH - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't mind that you didn't respond immediately- I'm busy myself and shouldn't even be doing Wikipedia stuff. :P Anyways, I totally am aware and understand the policy for being able to copy-paste from other articles, but my perspective is that we need information that is strictly pertinent to Episode VII, such as the excess of notes that George Lucas left, as well as the development phases and plans for adapting this film. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 23:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Did I misinterpret you? Are you saying that what is on the page, is just copy pasted info from the provided sources, which may not relate to Episode VII? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

The information pertains to the third trilogy, rather than what is pertinent to Episode VII. I'd suggest gathering more sources that tell about the storybuilding process that Lucas employed in the 1980s, before he shelved his plans. Also, I'm not a big fan of the bullet points, especially since it's outdated. So, I'd say you interpreted me pretty well. ;) DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 00:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The Ancient Fear

I just found out from the Ain't It Cool News website that Episode VII has a working title called "The Ancient Fear". If you don't believe me, please click on the Ain't It Cool News link and read the article yourself. The link is as follows: http://www.aintitcool.com/node/67205. AdamDeanHall (talk) 13:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but what's their source? G S Palmer (talk) 16:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

actually if its referring to Fear leads to anger and anger leads to hate, it might be Darth Plaguis the Wise,,,and therefore would make sense as a possible Title.....--65.8.188.36 (talk) 22:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk pages aren't the place for WP:SPECULATION. Please read WP:NOTFORUM. G S Palmer (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Aint it Cool News is a news site just like comingsoon.net or other movie related sites that have constantly been used as sources on Wikipedia so I do not see why their report, rumor or not, shouldn't be included or not sure how it is seen as speculation. While not confirmed, most of the Episode 7 information before the casting announcement contained rumors and speculation. How is this any different? It's not like a fan posted it on a message board. It comes from the same site who broke the news on the filming location during pre-production, which Harry Knowles claims is the same source for the EP VII title PLUS, many major media sites are now reporting on this story so they too consider it to be a reliable source/information. Jason1978 (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Many people report on claims by Latino-Review, but that doesn't make that information reliable. The information from this site does not look reliable to me. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Seconded. G S Palmer (talk) 18:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Like I said, the entire article for Episode 7 was a lot of speculation and rumors up until last week. There was countless reports from various sources on casting information, most of which ended up untrue but was still included until it was unconfirmed. It was still only speculation that Ford, Hamill and Fisher were returning until confirmed. We had rumors but nothing legit. So I do not see the difference here especially when many other legit sites/sources are reporting on this as well which leads me to believe they consider it to be a reliable source. Normally they do report just speculation. Aint it Cool News was the site to break The Phantom Menace title and Heath Ledger as the Joker...which both seemed unbelievable at the time. They also were site a few weeks ago to first announce/confirm the Abu Dhabi filming location for Episode VII which again Harry Knowles said was the same source behind the title so it's not like they are some fan site posting rumors they pulled out of the air. They have been a pretty reliable source for breaking news over the years for the most part. I guess we will see. Hopefully the title comes sooner rather than later. Jason1978 (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Seconded,,,--65.8.188.36 (talk) 21:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

First, those rumors were cited from reputable sources. The difference with this, is following the info train. All these reputable sources are citing Ain't it Cool, which judging there, is not reliable. Once again, Latino-Review also has a record of so called "breaking" stories, but they, like Ain't it Cool, have no credibility to justify their sources, unlike say Variety, The Hollywood Report, Entertainment Weekly or IGN. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The original cast from the classic "Star Wars" trilogy.

The cast list is how it first appeared (Mark Hamill as Luke Skywalker, Harrison Ford as Han Solo, Carrie Fisher as Princess Leia Organa, etc.) when all three films of the classic Star Wars trilogy were released in movie theaters all those years ago. Will it ever stay the same when Star Wars Episode VII is released in movie theaters a year from now? AdamDeanHall (talk) 23:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Guessing either way would go against WP:CRYSTALBALL, but we have something close to precedent with the Hamill-Ford-Fisher order, and it can be changed when we get any actual sources regarding billing. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't an arbitrary listing, I set the lists according to official information. There are two lists for Episode VII presented directly from Lucasfilm/Star Wars for Episode VII. I don't believe it is an official cast billing but they are official lists from the company.

List A: John Boyega, Daisy Ridley, Adam Driver, Oscar Isaac, Andy Serkis, Domhnall Gleeson and Max von Sydow, with Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher, Mark Hamill, Anthony Daniels, Peter Mayhew, Kenny Baker.

List B (photo): Harrison Ford, Daisy Ridley, Carrie Fisher, Peter Mayhew, Domhnall Gleeson, Anthony Daniels, Mark Hamill, Andy Serkis, Oscar Isaac, John Boyega, Adam Driver. (Not pictured Max von Sydow and Kenny Baker).

http://starwars.com/news/star-wars-episode-7-cast-announced.html Easyjusteasy (talk) 00:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, that's more of an RS than the original cast list, let's go with that. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Until a billing is released, the order should be per List A above. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Studio finance

It should just be Lucasfilm and Bad Robot. Disney owns them you do not have to put them down. Just like the Marvel Studios films. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B4ben24 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

According to the original press release, Episode VII will be released "under the Disney | Lucasfilm banner", which unlike Marvel Studios' films, means that the film will be co-branded by both the Walt Disney Pictures and Lucasfilm studios (similar to Pixar films). ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 18:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Cast section

Because none of the new actor's roles have been specified, isn't it better that the whole "Cast" section be removed, and the content instead be shifted to "Casting"? After all, the "Cast" section should not be just a list of names without their purposes/actors specified. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:34, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Says who?! Koala15 (talk) 04:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Says this conversation of veteran and experienced editors. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

That is one editor's personal opinion. The section is perfectly fine if roles are not known at the time. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Harrison Ford's leg injury

Harrison Ford's publicist, Ina Treciokas, has detailed that he fractured a bone in his leg. However, in the next sentence, his son discusses possible measures needed to be taken for his ankle. How shall we remedy this? DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 19:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Action pictures or portrait photos

Pictures always add to a Wikipedia page. How about a portrait picture of Daisy Ridley? -- Narnia.Gate7 (talk) 21:51, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

If there are commons pictures that would fit, or non-free images that expand on commentary already in the article, then some images can be added. They don't just get added for the heck of it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the producers would contribute to the WP/pubic-domain. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Remove semi lock when the film's done

Remove the semi lock when the film is finished. I will bet Star Wars 7 will be cool 202.160.17.31 (talk) 11:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Hold your breath till Dec.2015. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I do not think the lock will be removed at least for several months after the movie. After all we would not want massive vandalism in the article. NathanWubs (talk) 23:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good to me; seriously, anyone wanting to contribute can become a registered WP editor; others can make editing requests. Right? -- AstroU (talk) 05:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Of course, but most ips do not know that, that is why its stops vandalism quite well. NathanWubs (talk) 05:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

This has to stay on at least until Feb, Mar 2016. That will cover all your typical post release vandalism. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Robert Downey, Jr., Hugh Jackman and Samuel L. Jackson?!

There were rumors floating around in the media that say Robert Downey, Jr. of Iron Man fame, Hugh Jackman of X-Men fame and Samuel L. Jackson, who played Mace Windu in the Star Wars prequel trilogy, were all going to be in the new and upcoming film Star Wars Episode VII. Come on, that's not really true!! Am I right? AdamDeanHall (talk) 19:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

They are rumors. Let it go until a reliable source reports it independently from the original source. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Adam I understand that you want this in the article, as it would be more then just a little bit cool. Completly understandable I hope that the rumors are going to become true as well. However, until reliable sources (or at least themselves) say it we cannot make that assumption. We cannot add things based on rumors, or speculation, guesses, etc. As that is just against wikipedia policy. NathanWubs (talk) 11:20, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I see that Daniel Craig is listed, as well. Do we have anything to back this up aside from rumors? DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 23:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Sequels

In other Star Wars articles, the sequels are not mentioned. Could we simply remove the information on Rian Johnson's ventures from this article and put them in the Sequel Trilogy article? DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 09:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2014

This page should have cover art or a logo. CeleryV (talk) 00:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

 Not done None exists that would be acceptable to include. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Editors' views wanted: remove words 'Development of'?

Editors' comments are requested on the following proposal: that this page be moved back and renamed Star Wars Episode VII (without the Development of prefix).

I believe this is the appropriate course of action for the following reasons:

• The page was moved from Star Wars Episode VII to Development of Star Wars Episode VII without editorial consensus.
• The film is actually in pre-production, not in development, with numerous key personnel hired.
• It is unnecessary: from the lead (if they don't know it already), readers will be fully aware that the film has not yet been released, they do not need signposting with the phrase 'Development of'.
• Wikipedia does not insist that all future events have their pages prefixed with 'Development of' simply because they relate to planned future events. For example, United States presidential election, 2016 and 2018 Commonwealth Games are not titled Development of United States presidential election, 2016 and Development of 2018 Commonwealth Games based on the argument that they are simply records of news coverage of a future event that has not yet happened.
• There are numerous other films that are announced but where photography of actors has not yet begun which have not been prefixed with 'Development of', such as Finding Dory, Guardians of the Galaxy, Trolls etc.
• Clearly there is significant machinery committed to the film being produced, including the top figures at Disney committing to its release.
• The argument that Development of Jurassic Park 4 represents some kind of precedent is weak, there are very few announced films whose page titles are prefixed with the words 'Development of'. The words 'Development of' do not assist readers in determining whether the film's actual future production is any more or less likely.

Please indicate below whether you agree or disagree this page should be moved back and renamed Star Wars Episode VII.

(If we cannot get consensus here, we could go for a full RFC.)

Thanks.

NoMatterTryAgain (talk) 16:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Per the notability guidelines for future films, we do not have articles about films if filming has not begun. This is because before the start of filming, there is not a guarantee that an actual film will result. If there is a stand-alone article, it is because of a noteworthy development history to plan such a film. It is thus a historical article, not a film article. For these exceptions, we do not include the film infobox or film-related categories. For Development of Jurassic Park 4, the idea of adding "Development of" was proposed at the AfD, and I supported that addition as another element of treating the article as a historical one. You cite the U.S. presidential election as an example, but unlike the election, there is no reasonable guarantee of this film being produced. This is closer to Jurassic Park 4 in terms of likelihood. Back in 2008, Justice League was in development but ultimately shut down because of a writers' strike. It is common for even blockbuster franchises to not fulfill their plans in the film industry. Hence, Wikipedia's approach to planned films is conservative. If in development, coverage begins in the "Film adaptation" section of the respective source material's article. If development never takes place, we can keep coverage in such a section. In contrast, if we create a stand-alone article right when we hear that a film is in development, we falsely show that a film is going to exist. Here, since we have what amounts to a sub-article of Star Wars sequel trilogy that covers the history of this specific offshoot, if plans stop, then we can maintain the coverage in this structure and with this title. I personally find it fairly likely that production will take place, but it is still possible that Abrams could step down (as happens to many, many films in the industry), that some of the original cast cannot be brought back, etc. If filming does begin as planned, then we can set up a film article with the article title and have a film article for the ages. Before then, we have a historical article that fits the not-guaranteed circumstances. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support move - There is no need to disambiguate the title, as it does not include "film" in the title. "Star Wars Episode VII" is the best title per WP:COMMONNAME. - BilCat (talk) 18:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

  This is not a matter of disambiguation. Per WP:AT, "The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles." WP:NATURAL also says, "According to the above-mentioned precision criterion, when a more detailed title is necessary to distinguish an article topic from another, use only as much additional detail as necessary." I think using only the film title gives the false impression that we have a permanent film article on Wikipedia. What we actually have is the sum of news coverage about development toward a possible film. We have the flexibility here to avoid a false impression. If filming does begin, we can re-format the article to be a film article and re-title it accordingly. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

  It's currently a film project titled "Star Wars Episode VII". When it begins filming, then reformat the article with a "film" infobox". - BilCat (talk) 19:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

In the past, we've tended to go with "film project" for films still in the development stage. Fact is, Star Wars VII does not exist - it's still a concept at this time, so the title should reflect that. Personally, I don't think it should have been split from the "sequel trilogy" at this stage - if it doesn't enter production, then it should probably be moved back there. See WP:NFF, which I would guess from the above comments that the OP has not read. --Rob Sinden (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Wikipedia:Planned films#Coverage of planned films states: "It must not be forgotten that WP:NFF is not policy, it is an editorial guideline, and as a guideline, is "...best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". So rather than treating NFF as if it were some absolute and ironclad mandate, it is better to consider how and determine what might qualify as one of those reasonable (and rare) exceptions to NFF for topics with demonstrable notability to exist as separate articles." That was the basis for splitting Star Wars Episode VII on to a separate page - a clear example of an exception - and there was a consensus amongst editors about splitting it, at Talk:Star Wars sequel trilogy#Episode VII page of its own - proposal. Now we are discussing what the title of the page should be. NoMatterTryAgain (talk) 20:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:NFF is an established guideline, WP:Planned films merely an essay. WP:NFF states "Until the start of principal photography, information on the film might be included in articles about its subject material, if available." As an article on the subject matter (the sequel trilogy) was available, I don't think the exception should have been made. However, I'm not saying that we should move it back in this case, just stating my personal opinion regarding the split. If we hadn't have made the split, we wouldn't have had to worry about the appropriate name. --Rob Sinden (talk) 20:38, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

This strikes me as being extreme in rigidness to a guideline. Star Wars Episode VII will be a pop culture sensation in 2 years. 5 of the 6 Star Wars movies were the highest grossing film the year they were released. They were among the biggest news in movies and easily warrant an exception to the guideline. People will be looking for accurate and up to date information on their development. What better place to find it than Wikipedia? Eric Ando (talk) 00:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Nobody is trying to cover up information, though. It is about how to structure that information. In the film industry, a film being in development does not equate a final product. Per WP:CRYSTAL, we can indeed provide coverage, but it is a matter of how to present it. A film article is for the ages, so the threshold of the start of filming is to ensure that the article is an enduring one. As opposed to a film in development that peters out, and we have to deal with an article that's essentially just history of a failed plan. Here is a reasonable exception because it is enough history and coverage to warrant a stand-alone article, even if a film never results. I think the "Development of" prefix works because it is more accurate than just the film title. We haven't gotten to the point of a film actually in the making and are not guaranteed to. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Another point is that we can pretty much be assured that Star Wars Episode VII will not be the final title of the movie, so any title is just a placeholder for now... --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

We were at a situation where Star Wars Episode VII redirected to the sequel trilogy article, so the information was present at Wikipedia, and easy to find. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

MichaelQSchmidt, your essay is referenced above. What is your take on this particular example? Erik (talk | contribs) 21:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The film is happening full stop, to much time and money has been put into it if all the reports are true of it being 'planned' by George Lucas for over a year now. Lucas would never announce it just to upset many millions of fans by cancelling it. The film is definately 100% happening so it both deserves its own page, and should lose the Developement title and have it replaced with the first chapter being devoted to the Developement of SW Ep:VII.--The Mercenary 73 (talk) 20:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support move: I think Development of... shouldn't be a title of an upcoming film. It's known that an upcoming film is in development and it's and absurd title. Thanks for your attention. --Borxdeluxe (talk) 15:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Moved from Talk:Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens

This page should not be speedily deleted because... although "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" is the official promotional title as per TheForce.net, the alternative title "Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens" is still acknowledged, even by the official Star Wars website (see starwars.com/films). I think the official title of the page should *not* include "Episode VII" (at least for now), but the version of the title that includes "Episode VII" should nonetheless include a redirect --173.180.6.140 (talk) 6:06 pm, Today (UTC−5)

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --68.184.84.217 (talk) 23:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC) Star Wars is a great part of our culture and we should not have to bring it down to a level of "Speedily Deleted" This is an insult to Star Wars fans everywhere.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.84.217 (talk • contribs)

Does anyone mind if we just rollback any similarly good-faith but totally misguided objections to deletion to Talk:Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens? Ian.thomson (talk) 23:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia's redirect policy the page Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens should exist as a redirect to Star Wars: The Force Awakens. as lots of people, even beyond the release are likely to type in the former title and be confused when no article shows up. --Deathawk (talk) 23:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

film itself will still use episode number only promos will not

source: http://theforce.net/v3-story/frontStar_Wars_Episode_VII_Will_Be_Called_The_Force_Awakens_160763.asp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.130.37.196 (talk) 00:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

That's already been discussed at Talk:Star_Wars:_The_Force_Awakens#Is_the_episode_number_in_the_film.27s_title.3F. The consensus seems to be that more sources indicate that the "Episode VII" bit does not belong in the article title, as with Star Wars (film), The Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi; that despite it's use in the opening crawl it is not the title itself. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

ERROR

It is intended to be the seventh film to be released in the Star Wars saga and also the seventh in terms of the series's internal chronology.

needs to be changed to

It is intended to be the Eighth film to be released in the Star Wars saga but the seventh in terms of the series's internal chronology (Episode Number).

we had: Episode I Episode II Episode III Episode IV Episode V Episode VI The Clone Wars animated movie (it was released in the theater and is part of the Saga) 156.33.241.6 (talk) 07:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The Clone Wars was released in theatres, yes, but it is not part of the saga, rather it is a spin-off film. If it was part of the saga, then it would be an "episode", which it is not. The Force Awakens is the seventh star wars film to be an "episode" (whether it is officially called as such or not) and so it is the seventh film in the saga, but the eigth star wars film to be released in theatres, and there are even more that haven't been released in theatres. This isn't an error. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Cast

Rumour has it that a young actor called Bazil Crowley is set to audition and take the part — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbc1992 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I hate to ask, but do you have a reliable, third party source to verify it? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 09:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Interesting question. Any answer? -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

And where are pictures in this article? There are many of Daisy Ridley et.al. -- AstroU (talk) 10:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Story

The story of Episode VII is written by George Lucas himself. His son Jett said that his father has started to work about story treatment in 2011, one year before Walt Disney Pictures. The screenplay of Abrams, Kasdan and Arndt is based on the story of Lucas. So the " Story by George Lucas " on the infobox is right.

Please sign your posts (wp:sign). -- AstroU (talk) 11:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The Truth

What if I put in a source that didn't really exist. Would you still have undid the edits. The requirements shouldn't be, "It should be cited." First of all, there are facts we can assume about the plot, and the two editors who undid my edits probably didn't even read what I inserted. "Just because" they didn't see a source, they removed the info, which made the article shorter. They didn't check to see if the information is actually true. Cancina5645 (talk) 00:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

How can we check if the information is true without a source? Popcornduff (talk) 00:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia only cares about verifiability, not "truth". The "Truth" includes unverifiable "facts" like:

• God definitely exists and definitely He hates (insert group of people here)
• God definitely doesn't exist, and "everyone" who isn't a brain damaged terrorist thinks we need to get rid of religious people
• Men being told not to rape women is oppression of men (or just fucking Gamergate)
• The (Catholics, Democrats, Jews, Greys, Lizard men, Marxists, Masons, Muslims, Russians, and/or Satanists) are working with (any of the prior groups, plus Dungeons & Dragons players, Hollywood, J.K. Rowling, mainstream scientists, Obama, rock musicians, and/or "urban" people) to destroy (America, Christianity, or Islam)
• ADHD and autism aren't real, children are just developing superpowers
• Everyone's Indian, and people who think they're not Indian are just really bad at being Indian
• Rednecks see Bigfoot and get probed by aliens, they're not just repressing memories of drunken sexual experimentation
• The world is going to end in 2012. No, wait, 2011. Sorry, I mean 2000. Oops, 1999.... Or maybe 1998... Or was it 1997? Oh well, anyway...

This is why Wikipedia actually hates the "Truth", and why I and multiple other users (including admins) have joked that users with "truth" in their username should be banned on sight. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Where's the <LIKE> button? I give you three LIKEs. -- AstroU (talk) 11:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC) -- So true; yet, there exists some flexibility when there is COMMON SENSE!

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2014

I'd like the Marketing section to be edited by saying that after 24 hours of its release, the trailer has been viewed 25 million times. 100.1.188.167 (talk) 15:31, 29 November 2014 (UTC)A.P.

 Not done: That'd require a source. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Role specifications in cast section

At the moment, the cast section includes statements like "[so and so] as an unnamed [such and such]" but in some cases, the information isn't supported by the source given? The teaser trailer makes it seemingly clear John Boyega is playing a Stormtrooper, in which case a source for the trailer should probably be linked. But for the rest, namely Ridley, Driver, and Isaac, neither the source nor the trailer specify that they are a rebel or villains. Is it possible to add a source for those? 108.41.241.248 (talk) 01:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

It's seemingly clear from this image that Harrison Ford and Mark Hamill played stormtroopers in the original movie... from a certain point of view. This is why we wait and stick to sources.

It is only possible to add a source if one is found. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted such inclusion. As Ian stated, as that image showed, one could have said at a point that Han and Luke were stormtroopers, when that was only a disguise. Until we get a sourced character description, nothing should be stated, as has been for the past few months. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

What, no CGI?

No CGI in the new upcoming Star Wars movie? So far, we've seen CGI in the last six Star Wars movies. AdamDeanHall (talk) 15:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

They are mixing both practical and CGI effects for the film. They can't really show the CGI yet as they are still filming, hence all the (admittedly great) practical photos floating around. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Lucas went overboard with the CGI in the prequel trilogy. I'm sure JJ just wants to scale that back this time around. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

By CGI you must mean Computer-generated_imagery. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Here's an interesting read for you: http://furiousfanboys.com/2014/05/the-star-wars-prequels-model-or-cg/ PizzaMan (♨♨) 14:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Seventh or eighth film? Or eleventh?

Since there's some reverting going on over this:

• This movie is the seventh non-spin-off movie
• This is the seventh movie to receive an episode number
• It is the eleventh Star Wars film if we're counting spin-offs
• The Star Wars Holiday Special is among the spin-offs
• It is the eighth theatrically released film

There are more reasons than not to just go with "seventh in the Star Wars saga" than bring up convoluted explanations of whether it's the eighth or tenth.

Ian.thomson (talk) 21:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I think this is fair. We should keep in mind the casual reader, to whom the words "Star Wars series" or "Star Wars saga" might not mean anything. For example, is Clone Wars part of the Star Wars saga? How are they supposed to know?

At one point I wrote this as "mainline Star Wars series", but this got reverted (I suspect accidentally, looking at the history, but it doesn't matter). I don't know if "mainline" is any clearer though, honestly. Popcornduff (talk) 21:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Thinking about it again, simply writing "excluding spin-offs" would probably be clear to everyone who read it. Popcornduff (talk) 21:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

As long as we're not putting this in the same category as the Holiday Special and the Ewoks movies, whatever. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Includeing spin-offs will be tricky, especially if debate arises of continuity, etc. Perhaps saying something like "the seventh core film in the Star Wars saga"? - adamstom97 (talk) 02:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

How about:

"...the movie is the seventh episodic entry in the film series which comprises the core of the Star Wars media franchise."'

I don't think it's stepping too outside WP:V to describe the Original/Prequel/Sequel films as the central aspect of the franchise and using this wording allows us to demonstrate exactly which films are being enumerated when we reference this as the seventh, setting them as distinct from other works in the franchise without having to explicitly delineate the rest of the material as "spin-offs" (which would read rather ambiguously without more detail and distinction about the franchise as a whole than we necessarily want to add to the lead of this article). Snow talk 13:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

That's far too wordy, IMO. Popcornduff (talk) 14:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Both of the Ewok movies were released theatrically in Europe. The Wookieepedian (talk) 15:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

How about just "...it is the seventh core Star Wars film."? - adamstom97 (talk) 20:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Or maybe "the seventh core film in the franchise"? I think that sounds a little better Weegeerunner (talk) 20:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think "core" is super-clear, either; it's basically "main", but more, uh, metaphorical. What's wrong with the current wording? Popcornduff (talk) 20:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that you can solve this problem better, if you simply define it as "7th in the Star Wars saga, though it is the 11th Star Wars films when including spin-offs." Or something to that effect. It defines the film in both ways that editors want it described. Jeremy112233 ^{(Lettuce-jibber-jabber?)} 20:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

That does sound a bit "cluttered" if you catch my drift. I think that just stating that it is the seventh in the main series is sufficient enough, talk about the spin-offs might look like too much information than is actually needed. Weegeerunner (talk) 21:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I don't disagree. For me, only talking about the main series is sufficient. However, if you are encountering problems with people who disagree with you, then I believe my above suggestion is an appropriate compromise. So the edit war can stop and energies can be use elsewhere. Jeremy112233 ^{(Lettuce-jibber-jabber?)} 21:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Premise wording

I changed "the defeat of the Empire" to "the events of Return of the Jedi" for a few reasons: (1) it is the wording used by the source rather than an original interpretation based on a knowledge of the separate film referred to in the source; (2) it doesn't make assumptions about the plot of the film (the trailer clearly shows what are meant to look like Imperial Stormtroopers -- this could mean one of a number of different things, one being that, like in the earlier EU, in this continuity the Empire has never been fully defeated); and (3) referring to real-world film title is superior to using in-house language. I also altered the latter half of the sentence to fit better with what the source says: it doesn't mention anything about "characters", just which actors "star" in it, and in the context it certainly appears to be stating that "several of the earlier lead actors and three new lead actors will star in the film", not (as our previous wording implied) that the returning characters would be in a supporting role and the three new actors would be "the" leads. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Release date in IMAX is wrongly stated in this article.

This is what stands in the article:

Disney confirmed that Episode VII will be released in IMAX.[95] On November 6, 2014, the title of the film was officially announced as Star Wars: The Force Awakens.[96]

Please fix this... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morne1carstens (talk • contribs) 14:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

That's two separate sentences. Episode VII will be released in IMAX, and the title was announced on November 6, 2014. Article is fine. — Strongjam (talk) 14:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Is the episode number in the film's title?

Based on the announcement, the film is being called "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" and not "Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens". Should the article's title be changed to reflect it? Yes, it's Episode VII, but unlike I-III, it doesn't look the the Episode number will be in the film's title. Milchama (talk) 18:43, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, it looks like they're emulating the titles of the original trilogy. Wikipedia titles for those articles are merely Star Wars (film), The Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi, even though the in-movie title uses the "Star Wars Episode __: Title" format. ShadowUltra (talk) 18:47, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The official site says "Star Wars: Episode VII The Force Awakens", and TheForce.Net says "Lucasfilm has confirmed to us that Episode VII will not be in the title, but it will be in the opening crawl." The Wookieepedian (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Per this Variety article and this Hollywood Reporter article, which both imbed the Walt Disney Pictures tweet, it should be Star Wars: The Force Awakens. Even the logo does not have "Episode VII" in it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

That is only for marketing purposes, a la the original trilogy. The Wookieepedian (talk) 19:07, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Seems pretty official to me. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

See my earlier comment; The official site calls it Star Wars: Episode VII The Force Awakens, and TheForce.net got official word from Lucasfilm that the episode number will still be in the crawl. The Wookieepedian (talk) 19:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

It strongly appears the episode number is NOT being included in the title much like the original three movies. The image sent out confirms this as does the original announcement which calls the movie Star Wars: The Force Awakens. On the front page of starwars.com it shows the logo with the new title minus the episode number. Like with the other movies, Episode VII will appear in the opening crawl. The ONLY movies that were released with episode titles were the prequels. Of course Lucas later went back and added Episode titles to all the movies when he did the special editions. Jason1978 (talk) 02:51, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is basically what I meant. The movie will be treated like the original trilogy, in that it will referred to by its subtitle, rather than its episode number and subtitle as the prequels were. However, you are incorrect about Lucas adding episode numbers to Empire and Jedi with the Special Editions. They have always had episode numbers in their opening crawls. It was only the original 1977 film that had an episode number added retroactively. The Wookieepedian (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Marketing materials can be deceptive. X2 was marketed as X2: X-Men United yet the opening credits and the copyright section on my DVD booklet indicate that it's name is simply X2. It is also not unheard of for marketing materials to use a short title. For example, the third X-Men movie's posters often said X III while its official title is X-Men: The Last Stand. Episode numbers are part of the titles so the title of this movie should be Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens. Everyone already knows this film as Episode VII. Emperor001 (talk) 20:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

It also may be noteworthy what Wookiepedia uses. http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Star_Wars:_The_Force_Awakens Emperor001 (talk) 20:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Wookieepedia has now moved their article to Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens. The Wookieepedian (talk) 22:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Based on TheForce.Net article, we should definitely not use Episode VII, even if it will appear onscreen. Perhaps we should have a title section, like at Star Trek Into Darkness, to explain this. It certainly seems to bee notable. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:11, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The common name for the film for the past two years (not to mention the 30-odd years it was merely rumored) has been Episode VII. Removing that from the title will confuse general readers as to which film this is and its placement in the timeline. The Wookieepedian (talk) 22:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia should use the film's title. We can't pretend the title of the film is something else just to make it easier to understand. Popcornduff (talk) 10:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

They've moved it to "Star Wars: Episode VII The Force Awakens". Which is crazy. --Alien Putsch resistant (talk) 22:39, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The article's title should be Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens, to differentiate the film and its sequels from the upcoming spin-off films. I have spoken. I know you people are not gonna listen to me, but I have spoken. --Alien Putsch resistant (talk) 22:39, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Once again, the film's official title, not for marketing purposes, is Star Wars: The Force Awakens. We have multiple reliable trade publications stating this, plus the logo, the tweet in which this was revealed, and the official Star Wars website. It has been noted in the lead, much like The Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi, that it is also known as Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens AND I have included a sentence in the release regarding how it is commonly called Episode VII and that will still be used in the opening crawl. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Then surely, following this convention, the OT films' titles should also be changed here? ggctuk (2005) (talk) 06:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

@Alien Putsch resistant: Please look at the third party reliable sources we have regarding this, to see that Episode VII is, once again not in the title. Going to the film's page at StarWars.com shows that this is the case as well. Using the listing here is incorrect, as it also lists The Empire Strikes Back as Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back. Secondly, we have a source that states LucasFilm confirmed Episode VII is not in the title. Therefore, the lead and infobox should be as they were here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

@Ggctuk: Those articles have already been changed. Each are at Star Wars (film), The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi, respectively. They have in the lead that they were all later changed to "Star Wars Episode #: Subtitle". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

What about the prequels? If we're using a "subtitles-only" approach for 4-9, it looks strange to use episode numbers for 1-3. The Wookieepedian (talk) 17:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

To my understanding, those titles are Star Wars Episode #: Subtitle. Disregarding the "strange"-ness, those are the official titles. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

See that's what gets me: If one film's opening crawl says "Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace" and another film's opening crawl says "Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back" and another film's opening crawl says "Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens", then how are we determining what are the titles? Lucasfilm calls Raiders Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark, yet the film itself still says Raiders of the Lost Ark. The Wookieepedian (talk) 19:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I say that the page title should be "Star Wars: The Force Awakens", but we should have the in-line title be Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens, just like it is currently. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 18:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

@DarthBotto:Why do you feel it should be as such, when it is not part of the title? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

If the title is Star Wars: The Force Awakens, why are we inserting random numbers into it? If it hasn't been announced as such like the prequels were, perhaps they are intentionally attempting to distance these films from the prequels.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The opening crawl will show "Episode VII", according to TheForce.net. I think the article title should be the simpler version, but I'm not sure about where to mention "Episode VII". Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

@Erik: I added this to the release section, where it talks about the title announcement, and thought this was appropriate: "Despite previously being known simply as Star Wars Episode VII, and not having Episode VII in the title, Episode VII will be featured in the opening crawl.[forcenet source]" - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

That works for me. I was more thinking how "Episode VII" could be mentioned in the lead section if it was not in the opening sentence. We're kind of stuck between an initiative to move away from episode numbering with the historical expectation of stating it somewhere early on. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

To put it simple and summarize: the situation is similar to what happened in the original trilogy in that the episode numbers are part of the title, but weren't commonly used. I think the same policy that applies currently to the original trilogy should be applied here. Personally, I agree with the notion that if the title used in the marketing on posters is different from what is seen onscreen, the onscreen title should be considered the true title. In either case, the alternative title should be mentioned in the opening section, so as is the article works for me, even though I disagree with the title policy.91.23.172.182 (talk) 16:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

TheForce.Net clearly states that Episode VII is not in the title, but will be in the crawl. This has been noted in the article. starwars.com shows this as well. Episode VII should be removed from the title in the lead sentence, though it may be used in an "also known as". - Gothicfilm (talk) 19:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The episode numbers were not originally in the titles for A New Hope, The Empire Strikes Back or Return of the Jedi either, just to point that out. ggctuk (2005) (talk) 21:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

And they have all been noted as such accordingly in the lead. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

A couple of points of clarification, outside of the note from TheForce.net that they have contacted Disney and gotten confirmation that Episode VII won't be included in the title, no other news coverage of the title has added other information. Ever news source cited in the discussion points to the same primary source -- the original tweet -- with no extra information. Currently there are are only two actual data points related to the title, the original tweet, and TheForce.net's additional clarification, which it must be pointed out is related to the public second hand and anonymously. Every other article merely points back to those two original data points, one of which is verifiable and one of which is not. The other point would be that after a very detailed examination of copyright.gov, there is no copyright (at least none processed) for either star wars episode VII or star wars the force awakens, either for the script or the motion picture, which suggests at the moment there is no 'official' title in the eyes of the law.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbstarnes1 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

In wiki france, after a long dicsussion , they choose to keep the number on the title. No source (except the force.net which is not exactly an official source) are giving the real name — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rancendo (talk • contribs) 17:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

@Rancendo: We have plenty of other reliable sources now that do not use the episode number, that while the Force.net source is helpful, it is no longer the deciding factor. Pretty much every respectable, major film/comic/sci-fi news publication has been referring to the film by its proper title, without the episode number. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Kylo Ren

There is no confirmation as to who this character is portrayed by, so could everyone please stop putting his name next to Adam Driver and Andy Serkis? DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 09:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2014

It said Oscar Issac is the villain and so he is portraying Kylo Ren because they said Kylo Ren ignites his lightsaber and it is obviously a villain.. 75.164.231.61 (talk) 14:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sock (tock talk) 14:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Trailer music

Hiya. I see there's a note about a rumor of Williams recording trailer music in November. Later, the official Star Wars Twitter account confirmed it's new Williams tunes. Not sure what the film MOS has to say about citing Twitter, but there's the link if anyone more attuned to appropriate sourcing wants to update the content. MTFBWY. --EEMIV (talk) 19:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Verified Twitter accounts are acceptable to use. I'll make the addition/change. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done Too slow! Thanks, EEMIV. Popcornduff (talk) 19:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2015

Request to add Smokingroove to the starring list of actors. This has been documented. BluntWorthy (talk) 12:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sock (tock talk) 12:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

According to the Smokingroove page they're extras, so not worth mentioning. I'm not sure they're not even notable enough for a Wiki article. Popcornduff (talk) 13:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Note that the Smokinggroove article has been speedy deleted (for the third time). --kelapstick^(bainuu) 19:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually no. Being bound by contract, they can not reveal the extent of their roles on set. Are they worthy of a mention? With over 15 years in the dance music world and a few awards, i'd say yes.

Their article was deleted due to blatant advertising, and (as Kelapstick said) it's now been deleted for the third time. In over six years. They aren't all that notable, and if they are, we'll add them when we have a reliable source if their parts are big enough. Sock (tock talk) 20:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

George Lucas story credit

Maybe the question has been asked already, I but despite searching, I found no official source indicating George Lucas would receive any writing credit for Force Awakens (apart from "based on"). However he is still credited as having wrote the story; even if he did write a story treatement (and it doesn't seem Kasdan and Abrams's script is hugely based on it), no source whatsoever yet indicated it would be a credited contribution. So why does the article still credits him ? Even the George Lucas templace credits Force Awakens among the films he wrote. --Hyliad (d), 8 January 2015 18:20 (CEST)

You're absolutely right, actually. Attending story meetings doesn't mean he'll get a story credit, because there are probably a lot of people in those meetings. I've hidden Lucas's name for now, just in case we get an official source with credits (probably with a full-length trailer, would be my guess). Thanks for pointing this out! Sock (tock talk) 18:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Lucas did write the story treatments for Episode VII and the sequel trilogy as a whole, if I'm not mistaken. However. let's keep his name hidden until we have a billing block, production notes, or an official press release to work with. ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 21:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The thing is, we already have sources which explicitly indicate the rough degree of his involvement with the story. I don't necessarily disagree with the present decision to hide the mention in the infobox, but going forward we should make sure that the article body continues to discuss the nature of his involvement in the development sections, as best the sources allow us to. Not that anyone here proposed otherwise -- I just don't want these two issues (a screen credit and less formal involvement that can non-the-less be easily sourced) becoming conflated in later edits. Snow talk 05:49, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

It's perfectly fine discussing his involvement in the production section, as we do with any additionaly writer of merit who is not officially credited. I think Lucas should remain commented out in the infobox, though, until we have official writing credits (as was recently done for Ant-Man). - adamstom97 (talk) 06:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, certainly I for one have no objection to that and it seems to be the consensus in any event. Snow talk 06:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Lucas now says he doesn't know the story for this film, as you can see at http://screenrant.com/star-wars-7-force-awakens-george-lucas-role/ Looks very likely he won't be taking any story credit, but probably will have a "Characters Created by". - Gothicfilm (talk) 05:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Well that article seems to me to be based largely on speculation (which it's authors themselves note). There doesn't seem to be a much of a difference between what is being said therein and what has been floated in other sources I've seen here in recent months: Lucas "mapped out" elements of the story but isn't "actively involved" in developing it further and how much the final product will conform to his original "consultation" we won't know for some time (or indeed, may never know). I do grant you that his quote therein does seem too indicate some distance from the project, and that a screenwriting credit is looking less likely in general, but we'll have to wait and see. Snow talk 01:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Here is a more definite article that Disney did not use Lucas' original story treatments for the film (and probably the other sequels as well). http://www.cinemablend.com/new/How-George-Lucas-Star-Wars-7-Ideas-Were-Used-By-Disney-69271.html - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I stand corrected; seems we've got something straight from the horse's mouth much sooner than I'd have expected. I'll add the reference into the article. Snow talk 01:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Felicity Jones announced to star in Star Wars [spin-off]

"Felicity Jones: the force is strong with her." She will star in Star Wars VII. ((NOT! edited later.))

Headline-1: Felicity Jones is the actor Star Wars spin-off is looking for – reports

• http://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/feb/03/felicity-jones-star-wars-spin-off

QUOTE: "The studio has confirmed they are working towards a release date of 16 December 2016, and announced Jones’s appointment after testing took place in both the UK and the US. Jones has recently risen to prominence after being nominated for an Oscar ..." -- AstroU (talk) 05:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.

Wrong film mate. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

You got too excited (extreme Star Wars fan?) Felicity Jones will star in a "stand-alone Star Wars spin-off". -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. Yes, very excited; but I should have noticed the date in 2016, December. From the article here: "The Force Awakens is scheduled for release on December 18, 2015." Thanks for keeping me on track. -- AstroU (talk) 12:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of 'spin-offs', they seem to be Disney-authorized, based on main characters in the Star Wars plot. RE: [2] "On September 12, 2013, Disney's chief financial officer, Jay Rasulo, confirmed that the spinoffs would be 'origin story films' based on different characters in the Star Wars mythos." -- AstroU (talk) 03:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC) -- FYI.

Yes, from the same site[3]: "At Disney's CinemaCon presentation in April 2013, it was announced that, beginning in 2015, a new Star Wars film will be released every year. The current plan is to alternate between Episodes and spinoff films. If this plan comes to fruition, and the 2015 date for Star Wars Episode VII remains in place, then it would indicate that the first spinoff film would be released in 2016, and then the films would continue on from there beginning with Star Wars Episode VIII in 2017" -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

It is said that some aspects of Star Wars VII are firming up with new roles. To quote: "The popular theories have, of course, been that several new characters are related to old ones: (1) Rey = Han and Leia’s daughter; (2) Domhall Gleeson’s character = Luke’s Son; (3) Kylo Ren = Han OR Luke’s son." [4] -- AstroU (talk) 02:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC) -- PS: We can wait and see. Right?

Pictures.

Some pictures are needed the article its not too long and we only have the the Logo, i we cant obtain a photo from the Film by Copyright Issues at least we could include the first trilogy cast photos and indicate what characters are returning. Or something like this, a lot of text without a sinle picture, its not atractive at least for a film.Mr.User200 (talk) 13:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Added some. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Nice job, Favre1fan.YodaFan67 (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2015

Change the first release date because +the first one is not america but Italy on 16 December 2015 2.230.173.53 (talk) 22:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Kharkiv07^Talk 22:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Second trailer

As noted in the article herein, the second trailer is out, "The FORCE is strong in my family. ... You have that power too", for December.

http://deadline.com/2015/04/star-wars-teaser-trailer-2-the-force-awakens-1201411201/

-- AstroU (talk) 19:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Remember that for inclusion, trailer info needs reactions/analysis in accordance with WP:TRAILER. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2015

The last date in the text says the Fast and Furious was in November 2015 and not 2014 97.65.224.2 (talk) 22:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: "Fast and Furious" is not mentioned on this page at all. Stickee (talk) 22:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Done. It was the trailer for Furious 7 that was mentioned. Now says 2014. Cnbrb (talk) 08:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Walt Disney Pictures

I think that Walt Disney Pictures should be removed from the Production companies section and left as the distributor. I think this because based on all material we have seen thus far, including trailers and images, Lucasfilm is solely credited and it seems that they are being operated by Disney in the same way that they operate Marvel by solely crediting them as their own entity within the company and not having the Disney logo on it. I just wanted to see what others thought of this first. TheDarkKnight180 (talk) 03:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree and you are right. The Marvel movies do not feature the Disney logo prior to the films or the movie posters to promote those movies. I saw an Ant Man poster yesterday and the Disney logo was nowhere to be found on the poster however the stand that held up the poster, which was separate, did feature the Walt Disney logo. Disney owns these films but is acting as distributor, leaving their logos off films. I believe they also did this with the Muppet films but could be mistaken. Usually a Disney logo and the Cinderella castle opening is used prior to the film or trailer such as a film like Tomorrowland does. Jason1978 (talk) 12:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I completely disagree. Firstly, Walt Disney Pictures isn't a distributor—it's Disney's live-action film unit that produces/releases films through the Disney brand. Secondly, press releases have stated that The Force Awakens will be released under the "Disney | Lucasfilm banner", which mimics how Disney releases Pixar's films under the Disney·Pixar brand—as those films have both the Disney and Pixar logos. The Walt Disney Studios' official "About" boilerplate also confirms this dual branding (to illustrate, Star Wars Rebels and several companion novels have already incorporated this type of co-branding). So far, only two teaser trailers have been released, the first of which did not even feature any studio logo whatsoever. Trailers are part of the film's marketing and as such, are not very indicative of the film's actual production. As a side note, Disney's logo has not been featured in any Marvel film, because Marvel Studios operates autonomously as its own distinct film banner.~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 20:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I too completely disagree. This goes against what Disney has EXPLICITLY stated as their plans. Not to mention that, as the above post stated, Walt Disney Pictures is not a distribution company. Chambr (talk) 20:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I have seen the Disney logo on Star Wars items, most recently the announcement about the new movie tie-in toys. Alaney2k (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

What does that have to do with Walt Disney Pictures? Chambr (talk) 19:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Who changed it. Walt Disney pictures is not a distributor but someone apparently removed them from production company. Walt Disney pictures and Walt Disney motion pictures are different companies. Broncosman12 (talk) 23:33, 14 May 2015 (UTC)broncosman12

Potential spoilers

I just discovered a compiled synopsis of Star Wars: The Force Awakens which is based on rumors, one of which is about the death of Han Solo. And here's a link about it: http://makingstarwars.net/2015/05/a-compiled-synopsis-of-star-wars-the-force-awakens/ Does Han Solo really die in the movie, or is it just pure speculation? AdamDeanHall (talk) 19:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and WordPress sites may violate a fundamental policy: verifiable, so I would go cautious about it until more trailers or after the world premiere. Speaking of which, do we have a source about a world premiere? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

On the world premiere, I believe it is still too early to have a date for one. If anything, possibly some info is out there maybe to win a trip to it, but not a concrete date or location. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Cast

It appears that Gwendoline Christie (Captain Phasma aka crometrooper) and Lupita Nyong'o (Maz Kanata) are playing important roles so why are they not included with the full cast? I know they were not part of the very first cast announcement/table read but Abrams was still casting then and when this article was created their names were always removed from the official cast because they didn't make the first batch of announced cast members. Captain Phasma has been featured in the trailer, the official promo artwork for the film and she is featured in the new Vanity Fair article too so it's pretty clear that character will have a huge role in the movie unlike maybe Andy Serkis and Max Von Sydow, who have yet to have roles confirmed and while part of the official announcement of cast members, it is believed both have smaller roles.Jason1978 (talk) 12:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I saw a Star Wars promo card some time ago featuring the character "Dindu Nuffin". He was dressed as a storm trooper. I see no mention of him in the article, and was wondering if anyone here has any info on the actor and the character he plays. Is there a source out there somewhere? 68.229.98.197 (talk) 23:01, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure this was an official card? Only, Dindu Nuffin would be a rather... odd name for a Star Wars character, being a term for black people -- "he didn't do nothing", "he dindu nuffin", originates from police scandals. In all likelihood, the character was Finn. – The Millionth One (talk) (contribs) 23:48, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Searching for just "Dindu Nuffin" reveals a bunch of racist memes, nothing on Star Wars. IP is likely a troll. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Greg Grunberg's role in Star Wars The Force Awakens

I just checked out Greg Grunberg's Wikipedia page. In Star Wars The Force Awakens he plays Gorwyn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.121.86.135 (talk) 18:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

We can't source ourselves. If I can't find a reliable source backing that up, not only will we have to keep it absent from this page, but I'll have to remove it from Grunberg's as well. Sock (tock talk) 19:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2015

Add the other following character names by looking on this link

http://makingstarwars.net/2015/05/a-compiled-synopsis-of-star-wars-the-force-awakens/

81.111.9.102 (talk) 19:35, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Wordpress sites (see the bottom of that page) are self-published, and so usually fail WP:SELFPUBLISH. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 15:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Wow! Just finished to read all the "plot". Almost believed it was a leaked script until reaching the pirate castle/colective VISION by all the gang and Maz Kanata, what a .... Well i thinks it is pure specutalion, i dont mind 02 non-Jedis characters fighting a lightsaber duel vs the bad guy without killing themselves for more than 5 seconds.....Mr.User200 (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I just added max von sydows character, wich is Vicar Montross (here is your source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_von_Sydow#Filmography), so please do not remove it.

Title

Hey guys, I just thought I'd throw a request out to you all – I know it says Star Wars: The Force Awakens on the official teaser poster that is currently the lead image, but I've read the title Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens in several places (beginning with IMDb), and I believe that it would be a much more appropriate title for the film, given that the last three that were made all had "Episode _" in their titles. I can't move the page myself, but I was going to throw this idea out to you all anyway. What do you think? If so, could we please make this change? 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Please see this archive discussion for why it shouldn't be moved. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Cast photos

Personally I did prefer the line-up of individual cast photos as seen in this version of the article. since then, it's been replaced with this photo from Comic-Con 2015. I do appreciate editors' additions from this event, but in this case, I think this photo is just too small and does not present the actors as well. Can we return it to a line-up of portrait photos? Cnbrb (talk) 08:51, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

While it is smaller, it actually is better as it is more inclusive of all cast members. If you'd like, you could look at more photos from Comic Con we could use, here. But the current photo on the page is still the best, despite its size. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Walt Disney Pictures?

Is Walt Disney Pictures really credited as one of the production companies for this film, considering that the trailers for TFA only have the Lucasfilm logo, not the Disney logo? Perhaps Lucasfilm will be the only logo to be credited for future Disney SW films, similar to Marvel Studios' MCU films? Richiekim (talk) 17:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

See an earlier archived discussion regarding this subject for more information. The original press release for the film states that The Force Awakens will be released under the "Disney | Lucasfilm banner", a branding equally similar to Pixar films (and unlike Marvel Studios films) that also uses the Walt Disney Pictures branding. This statement aligns itself with Bob Iger's earlier comments on the co-branding of both the Disney and Lucasfilm names on future Star Wars films and Disney's current promotional branding of ancillary TFA merchandise. As the film's release gets closer, there will be more press releases, marketing materials, poster billing, etc., from where to draw more conclusive answers from, that will hopefully clarify this. For now, we should leave it be.~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 17:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Running time

Until the final cut runtime is confirmed, there is no reason to include the "see here" in the infobox, unless the film is finalized. I saw the note that says "do not add the 124 runtime," and not only that, but the runtime should just be empty in the infobox. I'm not there. Message me! 16:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Walt Disney Records

I found out just now that Walt Disney Records will release the soundtrack of Star Wars: The Force Awakens on December 18th. Walt Disney Records might also release the soundtracks of the other six Star Wars movies. AdamDeanHall (talk) 17:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Release date

Release date in France is Dec 16th not the 18th. 109.26.202.36 (talk) 21:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Saw this as well. Pretty sure this is the European release date. Bobit13 22:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2015

|released =

• December 16, 2015 (2015-12-16) (France)

Fab27 (talk) 23:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. JustBerry (talk) 00:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

References

Cast credits/official bios

Again not sure why this continues to be removed but the first casting was announced way back in April 2014 and for some reason that cast announcement has been accdepted here as the only official one. Anyone else cast, they are for some reason not accepted here as main cast. I really don't get that and nobody has explained, just continues to remove it. Gwendoline Christie, who plays Captain Phasma, one of the main villains and so far one of the most marketed characters next to Kylo Ren, was added to the cast a few weeks after the first cast announcement. How does it make her not part of the official cast when she appears to have a bigger role than most of the original trilogy cast. Furthermore...the official Star Wars website has released official bios for these new characters, which I think should be included instead of the mashup of quotes and various articles to describe the characters. Whomever posted the original bios on here even posted a warning not to change until something official was released, and it has been. Jason1978 (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

No new cast order has been released, via press material or a billing block, so the order stays as is until such a time. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually in the Entertainment Weekly cover story (also a issue on upcoming movies) they do have a small cast billing (along with interview with J.J. Abrams). They list the cast as: Harrison Ford, Adam Driver, Daisy Ridley. That actually is the only cast listing order to ever really be announced. Furthermore like I pointed out...the official SW website last Friday released a "Confirmed Characters" list which is actually the closest we have to cast/character billing. They order the characters/cast as Boyega, Ridley, Isaac, BB-8 (who like 3PO and R2 in other SW articles deserves more mention in this article although we do not have a name attached to who controls him) Christie, Glesson, Driver and Shah along with the original cast. Disney and Lucasfilm has yet to confirm any other character or actor (such as Sydow, Nyong'o or Serkis) associated with it even though the media has. This is likely because they want that character to remain a mystery, backstory and image. The table read order isnt how the cast will be billed. I think we all know Christie will have higher billing than Kenny Baker or even Max Von Sydow and Andy Serkis. The listing in this article doesn't even go by the order they are sitting in the photo they use as reference. It just lists new characters and then the old characters. That is actuallya made up cast order by someone on here, not Disney or Lucasfilm. Adding Gwedonline Christie as a secondary actor also is one's opinion, not fact especially when she is all over the press material, clearly a major star but since she wasn't in the first table read somehow she isn't as legit as the others. Furthermore this is Star Wars...the only real billing you will ever get is when the movie ends and credits roll. Jason1978 (talk) 02:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2015

ORIGINAL Iger stated the photo was taken while visiting Pinewood Studios two weeks earlier to discuss the shoot "which was just about to start" with Abrams, Kennedy, and Horn.

SUGGESTED EDIT Iger stated the photo was taken while he was visiting Pinewood Studios two weeks earlier to discuss the shoot "which was just about to start" with Abrams, Kennedy, and Horn.

REASON Iger, not the photo, visited Pinewood Studios. Nhjoavi (talk) 02:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Not done: This is still correct grammar. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

It's not. It literally states that the photo was visiting Pinewood Studios. But this is Wikipedia, so whatever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhjoavi (talk • contribs) 11:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Max Von Sydow's role in The Force Awakens

I just checked Max Von Sydow's filmography (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_von_Sydow#Filmography check it here) and his character appears, wich is named Vicar Montross. Please add his character's name next to his name in the cast section — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drumerwritter (talk • contribs) 18:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a source for Wikipedia. If the filmography section of the Max von Sydow article lacks a source, then we need to remove the name Vicar Montross from there as well. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I had a quick Google search for "Vicar Montross", not the most thorough digging but nonetheless. Largely, it looks like its all drawing on seemingly leaked concept art. I won't dismiss anything, but right now I can't find anything verifiable that outright states his role. I'd suggest removing the name from his filmography, for now. – The Millionth One (talk) (contribs) 20:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Way ahead of you. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Sydow has also been RUMORED to be playing Boba Fett but considering he is 86 I doubt that happens. They are clearly keeping his character under wraps for now so who knows what Abrams has planned. Given his age I have a feeling and it has been rumored a lot, that his role wont be huge. Jason1978 (talk) 02:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

This is not a forum for a discussion about rumours. It is a page for discussing how to improve the article. Follow Wikipeida policy or contribute comments about rumours elsewhere on the netRobynthehode (talk) 07:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2015

78.17.116.85 (talk) 15:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)Daniel Craig as a Stormtrooper

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- Orduin ^Discuss 17:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Journey to The Force Awakens

While I could post this to Wikipedia:Requested articles, I wanted to run this by this page, as this concerns tie-in information for interested parties. There will be approximately twenty tie-in bits of material as a part of Journey to The Force Awakens, which bridges the gap between Return of the Jedi and The Force Awakens. So far, I believe we have only an article for Aftermath. Would somebody be interested in creating some of these articles, as well as the soundtrack article? DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 21:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Box office projection

Wouldn't the Box office projection subsection from Reception fit better into Release? Since it's related more to the film's theatrical release and not a reception per se. I'm not there. Message me! 02:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect date for UAE

That's just a rumor. The Guardian UK has already disclaimed the 15th date : http://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/sep/09/star-wars-the-force-awakens-europe-us-british-jj-abrams — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgabrys (talk • contribs) 12:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Mgabrys, thanks for pointing this out! I've made the change. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

George Lucas' role

In the article it states that Lucas is a creative consultant. This is simply not true. In the Vanity Fair article from June and in comments by Lucas' representative, Lucas has nothing to do with the movie. Lucas was also not pleased when Disney decided to use nothing from his script. J.J. Abrams stated that he was open to ideas Lucas had but this was during pre-production. When asked by Kathleen Kennedy and Abrams if he wanted to see footage from the film he declined stating he wants to see the movie like everyone else for the first time when it's released. The ONLY connection Lucas has to the film is that characters are based on his creations. He isn't consulting anyone.

“I don’t know anything about it. I haven’t seen it yet. Because it’s not in the movie theater. I like going to the movies and watching the whole thing there…..I plan to see it when it’s released." Lucas was also asked if he was curious to see what director J.J. Abrams has done with the series for it’s seventh chapter, to which he reportedly replied: “Not really.” - Lucas in December 2015 on not watching The Force Awakens trailer and not wanting to know anything about the film

“I haven’t seen anything; I mean I saw the trailer, it looks great, it looks interesting. But as I’ve said before: one thing I regret about Star Wars is that I never got to see it, you know? I never got to be blown away by the big ship coming over the thing, or anything. But this time I’m going to be, because I have no idea what they’re doing.” - Lucas in January 2015 on finally watching the trailer but having no involvement in the movie Jason1978 (talk) 09:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like you have a good point. It might be that he's CREDITED as creative consultant, but if so we should say that, and then if we have good sources showing he basically had no or little involvement, we should explain that too. Might be worth mentioning in the lead, even. Popcornduff (talk) 13:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

How about a plausible plot section?

It has been alleged that Rey and Kylo Ren are Han Solo's and Princess Leia's estranged children and there's a case of patricide at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGbxmsDFVnE&t=1m42s

http://makingstarwars.net/2015/05/a-compiled-synopsis-of-star-wars-the-force-awakens/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLostAndDamned (talk • contribs) 08:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

That article is a compilation of rumors, which means it fails to meet WP:RS. --Coolcaesar (talk) 09:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. Popcornduff (talk) 10:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Despite we cant consider that info as reliable, it fit 100% with the 3 trailers displayed until now, what a leak, if true it will be the mayor plot leak in Modern Times regarding Sci Fi Films. Hard to admit, specialy by me, a fan of the franchise.Mr.User200 (talk) 13:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Article needed for BB-8

This BB-8 robot is a real one that will be remote controlled and has a lot of coverage online including video demonstrations. R2-D2 and C-3PO have articles and since there's lots of stuff online about BB-8, it definitely needs to be added. Right now BB-8 redirects to this article. I would have done it myself, but I am currently busy working on other SW pages that need to be completed.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 00:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Royal Mail stamps

Edit request for article. Would this be part of marketing? "Eighteen new stamps have been issued by Royal Mail to celebrate Star Wars: The Force Awakens, featuring three characters from the upcoming release, Rey, played by Daisy Ridley; Finn, played by John Boyega; and Kylo Ren, whom Adam Driver plays from behind a mask. Ridley celebrated the launch by posing with her stamp, which also features robot companion BB-8.". I would have assumed so.--RyanTQuinn (talk) 12:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes it would be. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2015

Please change Rey to Rey Organa-Solo and change Finn to Finn Calrissian. 2001:56A:F02A:AA00:D1A4:CBE0:A040:77C2 (talk) 16:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Why?--JOJ ^Hutton 16:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Full names are more encyclopedic than first names.

Got a source?--JOJ ^Hutton 17:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

JJ Abrams said they purposely weren't revealing the last names. That means the last names are spoilers. That means either they have the same last name as known characters or they don't have last names because they're clones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:F02A:AA00:D1A4:CBE0:A040:77C2 (talk) 17:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a source stating that these are the characters last names?--JOJ ^Hutton 17:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this information will constitute original research, which is banned. We can't add the information until it's confirmed by a reliable source. Popcornduff (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Starring cast in the lead section

@Jedi94: Thought I would start a discussion here, as I looked for the discussion you mentioned in a recent revert, but failed to find it here or in the archives. I understand that per the official poster, the billing order should be preserved. However, do we necessarily need to name every actor from the poster in the lead? If that's the way films have been handled in the past, then I'll understand the revert, but I was assuming those with less prominent roles wouldn't need to be mentioned here. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

UK release date

Is it possible to get the UK release date added in the boxed section? There's the premiere date, and the North America release date. The UK release date is 17th December. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steelrattus (talk • contribs) 22:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

We cannot list all release dates in the infobox, unfortunately! WP:FILMRELEASE says, "Release dates should therefore be restricted to the film's earliest release, whether it was at a film festival, a world premiere, or a public release, and the release date(s) in the country or countries that produced the film." The release date for the UK and other European countries is covered at the very beginning of the article's "Release" section. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

#ForceForDaniel

Should a section be added on the #ForceForDaniel campaign? It generated a lot of media attention, and today was announced as having succeeded in letting Daniel Fleetwood seeing The Force Awakens as his dying wish. I feel it's worthy enough to be included in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.164.125.28 (talk) 23:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Now included. Definitely worth a mention due to the coverage. '''tAD''' (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2015

The release date is December 18th. Film premieres are not release dates and should not be used as such. The general public cannot see the movie on December 14th, only those invited to the premiere can. For everyone else the day they can see it is December 17th/18th. This is why I am requesting this change. CalebH92 (talk) 19:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Presuming that you are requesting the LA premiere date to be removed from the infobox, Not done: per WP:FILMRELEASE, the earliest premiere date should be listed. Using the template Film date as well allows providing the general release date in addition to the premiere date. If you look at the Wikipedia page of pretty much any major release you'll see they all follow this format. Cannolis (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2015

in Comicbook.com, it says that on Amazon has reveleled the last name of Finn, it says his name is Finn Calrissian. 154.20.79.90 (talk) 16:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 18:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Dubious anyway. In the SW universe, Finn is related to the series of trooper. As in "FN-" followed by a number. Alaney2k (talk) 21:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Profit projections relevant

Are profit projections relevant to the article? While they do occur in the media, unlike actual box office receipts they have no baseline facts beneath them and amount to little more than gossip -- gossip occurring in the mass media but gossip all the same. Its a section no other future film release pages have, including high profile films like Avengers and Batman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.179.137.204 (talk) 07:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

No film in history has the same hype behind as Star Wars VII since people have been waiting for this film for over 30 years. Since it is unique, mention of the potential profits are warranted. --Frmorrison (talk) 20:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The Guardian mentions the Wikipedia article

The Guardian reported, "The Wikipedia entry on Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens currently runs to 9,500 words, including 200 source notes." Thought those who have worked on the article may enjoy this. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

We're all going to be rich! Popcornduff (talk) 15:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2015

This page does not mention the New Republic, which is Canon according to Wookiepedia. This is not mentioned in this page. One needs to make the necessary changes to produce the information that is canon. Petiwala12 (talk) 23:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.
• That is not how edit semi-protected requests work. Please mention specific changes that you want to make. You are more than welcome to type up what you want to insert and place it here under a new request and someone can put it in for you. Please note that we require reliable sources and Wookiepedia is not considered a reliable source by our standards. You can use it to gather other sources but using that as your primary source is not going to cut it. --Stabila711 (talk) 03:00, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Max Von Sydow is Lor San Tekka

Add it. Lor San Tekka, a former Imperial officer stranded on Jakku, now a village elder — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.73.132.54 (talk) 18:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Provide a reliable source. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2015

Xzpezer (talk) 20:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Not done No request has been made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Zappa24Mati 20:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Rating

I think it should say that the movie is rated PG-13 for sci-fi action violence

Read WP:FILMRATING.--JOJ ^Hutton 20:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Is the Daniel Fleetwood story relevant?

Should the article include the film's pre-release viewing by Daniel Fleetwood? '''tAD''' (talk) 20:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support: This story has been covered by some of the biggest media channels, including BBC, CBS, NBC, Telegraph, Yahoo. There are also an array of stories in the biggest media of the German language and the French. This is intrinsically linked to the film because the actors supported the campaign and the viewing was at the behest of Abrams. It would be different if the film was on general release but Daniel couldn't get to the theater, so a third-party theater sent him a reel. In addition, the GA-class article on Up (2009 film) covers a similar event. '''tAD''' (talk) 20:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
• Discuss: I wanted this to be discussed before inclusion. WP:NOT is clearly relevant here and so to is WP:V. Just because it is included in reliable sources does not mean it should be included in Wikipedia. It may be notable, but is it relevant (notability doesn't automatically confer relevance)? If it is agreed that it should be included then the edit needs to factually correct. Although all the actors in the film may support the campaign that is not what was reported. The reference to the other film Up (2009 film) in support of this edit in Force Awakens is also flawed. Using another Wikipedia article as an example of support does not necessarily make a convincing case because Wikipedia cannot be used as a source for itself. Also the Up film article is different in that the director of that film is quoted making a relevant statement about why he thought it was the right thing to do to send a pre-release copy of the film to the dying child and how that related to the message of the film itself. I think the story is a great story and I am glad this fan has got his wish and people involved in the film helped make it happen but is its inclusion right for an encyclopedia? Robynthehode (talk) 21:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Undecided about whether this is worthy of inclusion but I'm leaning towards no. Really, though, I just wanted to agree with Robynthehode that just because another Wikipedia article does something doesn't mean it's correct to do in every case, or even any case. It might not be justified in the case of the Up article either - and in my experience there are a lot of GA articles out there with major failings. Popcornduff (talk) 15:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - I was really glad to hear that Daniel Fleetwood fulfilled his wish before the end. It was a truly touching and sad story, but this does not mean it is worthy of inclusion in a WP article. It may be covered widely by the media, but the media cover all sorts of peripheral stories to gain readership. Sorry, not something that should be included. Cnbrb (talk) 19:27, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose on the grounds that pretty much an exact situation happened with Star Trek Into Darkness and that info is not on that article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: What about making a Wikinews article about this story and using the {{Wikinews}} template somewhere in the footer to link to it? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support – What makes this case unique, in my opinion, is the level of anticipation for this film's release. In addition to the amount of coverage it received, the pre-release screening is significant in the respect that an unfinished version was shown early. Regardless of the reason, that seems to belong in the release section; albeit, as a brief, single sentence that probably shouldn't mention the fan's name (an irrelevant detail). I'm taking into consideration that this happened to a film whose production has been shrouded in secrecy. I wouldn't make this exception for any film, but for this one, I think I would. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose It's a human interest story that doesn't actually have to do with the movie itself. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
• Weak support I think it is relevant on Wikipedia. If this is the third occasion of something like this happening, then I don't see how it is controversial to mention it. It can definitely be too prominent. I think fan events are relevant in general and becoming commonplace. Just keep the text trimmed and summarized. It might be time to have a wider discussion of how to mention fan events in film articles. Fans make fake trailers, fan films, do cosplay. I think it is just part of our everyday world nowadays. It doesn't make Wikipedia a fan site to note fan events. No need to be a dry resource. Alaney2k (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose: It's a very sweet story, but it's not really about the Star Wars film. It's not necessary to include it in order to achieve a comprehensive encyclopedic article on the film itself. Safehaven86 (talk) 01:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support: Balance wise we should not dedicate much of the article to this, as it is pretty minor in the grand scope of the film, but I think that a sentence or two mentioning that the film was shown early to a dying fan in a campaign backed by many of the actors and covered widely in the media would be relevant, an extra bit of information for readers to learn, and to be honest would just seem right. What other articles say or don't say about similar situations doesn't matter (WP:OTHER), I am just looking at the this specific situation, and I definitely think that this is relevant, albeit not so notable as to have a significant amount of coverage in the article. Just something in the release section like this is what I am thinking: The film was shown early on November 5, 2015, to dying Star Wars fan Daniel Fleetwood following a social media campaign supported by several of the film's actors. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
• Opppose: A heart-warming story of absolutely no real relevance to the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support: Widely covered in the media. Gamaliel (talk) 15:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support: It is notable and seems relevant enough for a sentence. I will add it. --Frmorrison (talk) 20:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

While I support some mention as well, I agree with the revert of your recent edit by Robynthehode. It's obvious we are in the middle of determining consensus, and if you check the history, this has already been attempted. We need a clear consensus and agreement on wording prior to adding it to the article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• Neutral: It technically does not have that much to do with the movie itself, but more about charity work done by the crew. Still, it is related to the subject, and can be part of the article. If added, personally I wouldn't be wondering about why people included this. If the final decision is to add, a few sentences would be enough. Zamaster4536 (talk) 14:17, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Cite archiving

Virtually none of the cited sources have Archive.org or Webcitation.org archiving. Some may have been automatically archived by the former, but there's no way of knowing which of these links are protected and which are in danger of link rot until archive fields are added to the cite templates. It's too much for one editor to do readily, so I hope others will pitch in. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Premise

The source given to verify the premise does not give character names for the new film. It says only:

It has also been confirmed that Star Wars: Episode VII is set about 30 years after the events of Star Wars: Episode VI Return of the Jedi, and will star a trio of new young leads along with some very familiar faces. No further details on casting or plot are available at this time.

Yes, my cite requests are a technical request, but the fact of the matter is that we cannot claim that the names appear in the cited source when they factually do not. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Then look for another source that confirms this. The movie is less than a month away, I refuse to believe there are no reliable sources that confirm the character's names. And that source is clearly outdated, since it says "No further details on castling or plot are available at this time".

Like I said, the movie is less than a month away, so I'm sure it's easy to find good sources. I would do the honor of looking for it myself, but I don't know how I can determine if a source is reliable or not. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 01:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2015

Hello,

I would like to request a pair of amendments to be made to the Star Wars: The Force Awakens Wikipedia page.

1. Please change "In October 2013, other crew members were confirmed, including sound designer Ben Burtt, director of photography Daniel Mindel, production designers Rick Carter and Darren Gilford, costume designer Michael Kaplan, special effects supervisor Chris Corbould, re-recording mixer Gary Rydstrom, supervising sound editor Matthew Wood, visual effects supervisor Roger Guyett, and executive producers Tommy Harper and Jason McGatlin" to "In October 2013, other crew members were confirmed, including sound designer Ben Burtt, director of photography Daniel Mindel, production designers Rick Carter and Darren Gilford, costume designer Michael Kaplan, special effects supervisor Chris Corbould, Creature Effects / Special Effect Make-Up Supervisor Neal Scanlan, re-recording mixer Gary Rydstrom, supervising sound editor Matthew Wood, visual effects supervisor Roger Guyett, and executive producers Tommy Harper and Jason McGatlin"

This should be changed because In the “Pre-production” section the sentence beginning “In October 2013, other crew members were confirmed including sound designer Ben Burtt, director of photography Daniel Mindel…” alongside the other names the addition of "Creature Effects / Special Effect Make-Up Supervisor Neal Scanlan” should be included as he was the Head of Department for that entire division of the production team which operated independently from the SFX or Hair and Make-Up Departments and is a name of equal relevance to the others listed. [1] - Neal Scanlan IMDB - http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0768943/ - [2] Droid Dreams - http://www.starwars.com/news/droid-dreams-how-neal-scanlan-and-the-star-wars-the-force-awakens-team-brought-bb-8-to-life)

2. Please change "To that end, the droid BB-8 was a physical prop that was developed by Disney Research in partnership with Sphero,[126] created by special effects artist Neal Scanlan and operated live on set with the actors." to "To that end, the droid BB-8 was a physical prop that was developed by special effects artist Neal Scanlan and his team based out of Pinewood Studios in the UK and operated live on set with the actors."

This should be changed because, due to a confusion in initial publicity that was then rectified in the main information sources provided by Disney, the statement that BB-8 was developed by Disney Research in partnership with Sphero is incorrect and the article used as reference to this statement is entirely misleading [3] as this article references a design project that Disney Research had done in relation to Bi-Pedal robots and has no correlation to, or is referenced by JJ Abrams or any of the team behind the development of the BB-8 Droid. Sphero were responsible for development of the toy version based on main design that was released after production on the film. The droid was initially conceived through a concept by J.J Abrams and designer Christian Alzman. - This was then developed by concept designer Jake Lunt - “At this point concept designer Jake Lunt Davies of the creature shop developed BB-8 further”[2] The team that created the physical versions used in the film and publicity events was comprised of Senior Animatronic Designer Joshua Lee and Electronic Design and Development Supervisor Matt Denton [2] and [4] and it was confirmed multiple times that Sphero had nothing to do with the production of these practical effects [5] despite initial rumours and incorrectly researched articles. So to summarise the Sphero team and Disney Research were not involved in the design and development of BB-8, but it was Neal Scanlan and his team based in the UK. [6]

Sources:

1. Neal Scanlan IMDB profile

2. Brooks, Dan (August 26, 2015) “Droid Dreams: How Neal Scanlan and the Star Wars: The Force Awakens Team brought BB-8 to life”. Star Wars.com - http://www.starwars.com/news/droid-dreams-how-neal-scanlan-and-the-star-wars-the-force-awakens-team-brought-bb-8-to-life

3. [126 Hackett, Robert (May 26, 2015)/. “Disney just developed the most adorable walking robot”. Fortune. Retrieved July 23, 2015]

4. Hobson, James (September 4, 2015) “Spehro Wasn’t Actually Behind The BB-8”. Hackaday.com - http://hackaday.com/2015/09/04/sphero-wasnt-actually-behind-the-bb-8/

5. https://www.facebook.com/groups/everythingbb8/permalink/1494123994213861/?__mref=message_bubble

6. Rundle, Michael (April 17, 2015) “The adorable new rolling Star Wars droid is not CGI” Wired.co.uk N nannoo (talk) 11:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2015

Shouldn't we change Finn's name to Finn Calrissian because a couple weeks ago a page was taken off Amazon that stated Finn's last name. 71.38.139.48 (talk) 00:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

No. That is an unconfirmed rumor. Might or might not be true. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2015

This article states that Mike Quinn (which is myself) is taking over the role of Nien Nunb from Richard Bonehill in Return If The Jedi. This is incorrect and needs to be corrected before this becomes quoted everywhere. Mike Quinn is RESUMING the role of Nien Nunb. It was myself (Mike Quinn) who created thew role in the cockpit of the Millennium Falcon, not Richard. Richard was the extra who wore the costume in the background of a few scenes. This was when he was just a background alien, before he was chosen by George Lucas to feature in the Falcon, which is when I performed him with acting, dialogue and closeups. Hope that makes sense. Many thanks!

Michael E Quinn (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

References

Nien Nunb is back? Awesome! You are correct that Nien Nunb was a two person job in Episode VI. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:57, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Done Okay, it's fixed. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Speculation over the synopsis confirmed

http://millenniumfalcon.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=9790

Including that rumor about Kylo Ren commiting patricide, Han Solo being his father. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheNaziPrince (talk • contribs) 09:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Generally speaking, phpBB falls under user generated blogging software, which is almost never considered a reliable source. In addition, a brief scan of the page doesn't show any kind of sourcing for this information, so there's no way to verify that it's accurate. JMcGowan2 (talk) 15:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the tie-in material in the Episode VII template

Should Star Wars Battlefront (2015 video game) be listed under the tie-in section of the Episode VII template? The aforementioned video game features exclusive downloadable content that depicts the Battle of Jakku, which is integral for the plot of The Force Awakens, so I am curious. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 11:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

...And Disney Infinity 3.0? Should I include that, as well? DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 11:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• I suggest that we limit it to things directly related as much as possible. There are always other things going on in the Star Wars industry. :-) E.g. comics. Anyway, so DLC and a new release of Infinity are only peripherally related to TFA. Alaney2k (talk) 14:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

That's true. I suppose it's also worth mentioning that the first two Battlefront games aren't counted as tie-ins for Revenge of the Sith. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 22:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Action figure photo DMCA issue

According to two pieces at Ars Technica, there has been a situation regarding a photo of an action figure of one of the characters that got released and bought early. I'm certain there are other news outlets that have mentioned it by now. Would this be covered in the merchandise section? 177.142.63.141 (talk) 23:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Gwendoline Christie not mentioned

I was a little surprised when I saw that Gwendoline Christie is mentioned neither in the infobox nor under the cast. Isn't she at least worthy of a mention in the infobox? She plays an important supporting role in the movie after all judging from wallpapers, posters and trailer footage.-Throast (talk) 20:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

No, she's not in the credited cast featured on the poster. We're using that ordering for the infobox. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 02:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

R2-KT

It has been confirmed that R2-KT will be in the film by head of the 501st Legion, can someone mention this?

http://io9.com/the-heartwarming-story-behind-r2-kt-and-how-she-joined-1744986951

Mary Franklin of Lucasfilm asked me to pitch the idea to Kathleen Kennedy (Lucasfilm President), and after hearing the story of our pink ambassador of hope Lucasfilm requested we ship her off to London early last year. Quick repairs were made and off she went for six months,” Johnson says in his email. While he could not disclose just when we could expect to see the pink droid, he was assured that she will definitely appear.

Albin Johnson

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.213.223 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Update

This should be updated.

Anonymous173.74.69.112 (talk) 17:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Please be specific with "Change X to Y" to have things changed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2015

Please add European release date of December 16th 2015. RomaniPi (talk) 10:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Please change also the Netherlands release to December 15th 2015 SRich (talk) 10:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done. The release dates in the body are correct and up to date (prior night screenings don't change the release date). Only the country of origin and the earliest days get put in the infobox, which is the U.S date and the Los Angeles premier respectively. oknazevad (talk) 14:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)