Talk:Star Wars: The Force Awakens/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens

Where is it known as this? It's fine to use Episode VII as a short hand in the article although The Force Awakens seems more appropriate, but where is this an official title that belongs in the opening sentence? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

http://www.starwars.com/films The Wookieepedian (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Where does that state it's an official name? It's used in hte title once on that page without stating any official capacity while simple Star Wars: The Force Awakens is mentioned 5 times. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

There has been a whole debate about the article titles for these films - I think the eventual consensus was that the Star Wars film articles should be titled according to the name by which they have been originally marketed, which is not always the same as the title which comes up in the opening crawl. I believe the idea is to keep the articles in-line with WP:COMMONNAME. When it's released, TFA will probably bear the "Episode VII" prefix in the opening crawl, but this does not appear on any official promotional material (posters, websites, etc). The prequels were in all likelihood deliberately advertised with the Episode number to emphasise the prequel narrative in public awareness, and the Wikipedia articles have been titled likewise. Those who like consistency and order, the decision may seem a bit inconsistent, but has its logic. It's been discussed to death and a naming convention appears to have been reached by consensus. It's really not worth trying to dredge all that up again here! Cnbrb (talk) 18:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Cnbrb, I don't think that was the point being made by Darkwarriorblake. He was pointing out that the "alternate" title mentioned in parenthesis in the opening line of the lead probably shouldn't be there, unless we see a significant number of reliable sources using it. So far, one source doesn't justify the alternate name being mentioned. This does not appear to be about changing the article title. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, no worries, maybe I misunderstood. I was just cautious about an old argument being dredged up again.... but all's well.Cnbrb (talk) 10:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

But if it's in the title crawl, there's no need for additional sources, is there? The Wookieepedian (talk) 20:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, where's the source that shows the title crawl? It must be a reliable source reporting that. If it's anything like the previous films, it will just say, Episode VII: The Force Awakens and not Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes GoneIn60, that is the point I am trying to raise. I'd like to nip this in the bud where possible given the angst involved in titling the original films' articles. I'd rather we not propagate misinformation if possible. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, all the pre-production sources referred to it as Star Wars Episode VII ([1]), and Abrams himself does in a recent video ([2]). Put this with the official site classifying the film as Episode VII ([3]), and it seems to be a reasonable secondary title to refer to use on the wiki. The Wookieepedian (talk) 22:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Even if such synthesis were verified, neither of those titles equates to Star Wars - Episode VII: The Force Awakens, you're just quoting short hand titles, you could just as easily add "Also known as The Force Awakens to the lead. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

But again, the official site ties all of this together, when it refers to the film as that title here. It doesn't get any more official than that. I'm not sure why any other sources are needed. All of the films follow this format, and no announcement has been made that the new one will do things differently. The Wookieepedian (talk) 22:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:OFFICIAL, official names should be mentioned in prose early in the lead section and bolded, just like it is now. There are several problems, however. First, the official site doesn't mention this specifically in prose. A link on the page does, but when you click on that link, it takes you to another page that fails to mention the title anywhere. Instead, everything there is listed as Star Wars: The Force Awakens. Second, the title you're claiming support for on the official site doesn't match exactly with the name cited in the article. The website says, Star Wars: Episode VII The Force Awakens, but the article states, Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens. The colon is being used in an entirely different position.

Personally, I think there's too much wrong to include it at this point. Official websites can have errors that don't represent the brand correctly, and it appears that may be the case here. It would be preferable if the official name was published in a press release or something other than a web link. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough. The Wookieepedian (talk) 22:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks like we may be on the same page now. Unless we can find several reliable sources citing Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens, then I'm in favor of removing all traces of it from the article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I concur. If sources do come up, then we can revisit. Maybe we can mention that it is the first live-action film since the prequel film Revenge of the Sith? Basically, report how this film relates in real-world and fictional chronologies? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

It does seem odd to me that we don't call it Episode VII in the lead on the basis that it doesn't seem to be its recognised title anywhere, but refer to the film repeatedly as Episode VII in the actual body of the article. This might need some clarification for readers unfamiliar with the episodic history of the series - otherwise the thought "what the hell is Episode VII?" might occur. Thoughts? Popcornduff (talk) 15:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

It may indeed seem odd, but the Episode VII name does not actually appear on any official promotional material (posters, websites, etc), so the tendency is for editors to play down this naming format. That said, the second sentence of this article begins "The seventh installment in the main Star Wars film series..." so the episodic history is pretty clear. When it's released, TFA will probably bear the "Episode VII" prefix in the opening crawl, but it's better to wait for December 18 before reviewing this.Cnbrb (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Why not include a parenthetical stating it is known informally as Star Wars Episode VII? I have plenty of sources for this. It may not be official, but I think including that note will avoid confusion among newcomers to the franchise as to where it fits in chronologically, and also note that it is a name that many people will use in place of "The Force Awakens". I just don't see why it can't be noted, not in the title itself, but again in parenthesis. Please let me know your thoughts on this. Shane1261994 (talk) 02:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The reason is stated clearly above. Up to this point, there have been no reliable sources, so if you have some to share, post them here and we can continue this discussion. Keep in mind that one or two isn't going to be enough for us to mention this in the lead. We would need significant coverage per WP:DUE, otherwise at best, we'll only be able to mention it in the body of the article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, the film is released next week. And once we can confirm that "Episode VII" is in the official opening crawl, this silly debate is over! --Jonipoon (talk) 10:12, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

That's more like wanting to -extend- the silly debate. Everyone knows it is episode 7. The point is the official and common names omit the episode text. They don't use it anymore. It does not mean anything that it is in the crawl. That does not make the movie title any different. Alaney2k (talk) 14:00, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, as Alaney says, it is about actual names. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Ditto what they said. In addition, "Episode VII" being in the opening crawl is not the same as the disputed title, Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

And proper notation that it is used in the crawl is down in the release section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Having just seen the film I can confirm that it definetly refers to it as 'Episode VII' in the Opening Crawl. My suggestion about how to resolve the title dispute would be too follow the precadent set by Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi and having 'Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens' listed after the official title as a title that film is also known as. 106.68.38.9 (talk) 13:50, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

No. It being the seventh episode was never the issue. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:05, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

The film is also known as Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens, as very much evident by it's official opening crawl. This name needs to be added to the article's opening line, "Star Wars: The Force Awakens (also known as Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens): this is akin to how the original Star Wars film article's opening lines read "Star Wars (later retitled Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope)". --Kurt Leyman (talk) 00:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

It's -just- the opening crawl. If you read the reference from Kathleen Kennedy, the film-makers decided not to used the episode number in the title, like the original trilogy. Only in the crawl. Look it up. Alaney2k (talk) 06:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

This is the link here: "@AweMagic The original trilogy never used the Episode number in the official title. We'll still be using it on the crawl. :)" Alaney2k (talk) 06:38, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

That's not in question. But just as the original trilogy film articles use the (also known as Star Wars Episode N) in their leads, so should this article, because it is an accurate statement to include the title as it appears on screen, even if they did leave it out of most of the marketing.oknazevad (talk) 07:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

WP: OTHERSTUFF. If you can't prove that it is officially known by that name, then it doesn't belong there just like all the other made up names people like to add article leads. People keep saying "Bu-but the opening crawl!". Well I've seen the opening crawl, and ain't nowhere that it says on screen "Star Wars Episode VIII: The Force Awakens" as a title, so get over it.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:03, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Have you actually seen the film? Is there an alternate cut where you are from which you saw and didn't know about? As I saw the movie last night, and clearly on screen as confirmed it would do by the film makers, in the opening crawl it actually says "Star Wars" then underneath "Episode VII" then under that "The Force Awakens". Just like how all previous films where. Charlr6 (talk) 11:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

@Darkwarriorblake:. As stated in this official tweet https://twitter.com/starwars/status/531980698190487552?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw they included it in the film, and I and many people have seen the film and it says Episode VII. You are mistaken believing it did not. As it was featured in the film, that is an official confirmation of it being an 'alternate title' as much as V and VI were surely? No episode number in marketing but was in film Charlr6 (talk) 19:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I bet this is going to all go on for ages, but the matter is extremely simple. The original films in marketing never had the episode number in titles. But the opening crawls did. And the other Star Wars films say....

Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back (also known as Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back)

That is EXACTLY how it should be listed here. Saying there needs to be referencing to keep episode number as "also known" or whatever is like saying there needs to be referencing for the plot, because without one it could be completely made up! I have no idea what DarkWarriorBlake saw, but when I saw the movie it clearly said "Episode VII" in the opening crawl just like Kathleen Kennedy said it would. I hope to come back to this page to see people have came to their senses a little. It should be extremely easy to keep consistency between these pages and simple list the episode number, like done before with it "also known as" or "in film titled"--- or whatever you want to say it is, but it doesn't change the matter that it is in the film. Charlr6 (talk) 11:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Find a reliable source then. Aka Disney, Lucasfilm, Disney store product catalogs. This is not wookieepedia. There were re-releases of the original trilogy with packaging, etc. that included the episode wording. This one doesn't. Nothing. Nada. The film makers said the official title excludes the episode wording. Take their word for it. Alaney2k (talk) 16:21, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

How about what appears on screen in the film itself! That is a reliable source, and a simple statement of fact. You and Darkblade are tag team edit warring over this against many other editors. Why? It's a fact that the film itself bears the title Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens. And it's a fact that it's used at starwars.com, as noted above. Do not remove again, please. oknazevad (talk) 16:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

This is not a fan boy encyclopedia. We follow policy. Alaney2k (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Including the title that appears on screen is not against policy. In fact, it follows WP:MOSFILM. oknazevad (talk) 18:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

"This is not wookieepedia" You sure are getting cockey towards other members - the movie's official opening crawl gives the alternative title of Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens; the very official opening crawl for the film - and having this in the article's opening is just consistent. --Kurt Leyman (talk) 16:29, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Wookieepeedia lists it with the full ep. title. It's a free for all over there. No criticism intended. Alaney2k (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

So what? We should include it as a title that appears on screen. 18:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Find a reliable source that it says 'Episode VII' in the opening crawl? Shall I go and delete the entire plot and then say the exact same thing? Because what is there now could be completely false as it seems you are claiming the opening crawl saying Episode VII is. As I said, it can be said "also known as". I'm not saying or claiming that is the full official title and we should move the page to include Episode VII in it... :/ Charlr6 (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

@Charlr6: Appearing in the opening crawl =/= being "also known as" that title. We have the sources indicating that it is used in the opening crawl, but that does not mean that film is also known by that name. It is only known as Star Wars: The Force Awakens. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Empire Strikes Back was marketed as Star Wars: Empire Strikes Back same as this. Then in the opening crawl, in the ORIGINAL release it had Episode V. But that is still "also known as" Star Wars Episode V: Empire Strikes Back". See here for proof of Empire Strikes Back. So how is any of this different? Please explain. Saying because there are no 'sources' of that doesn't make any sense as I don't see on the original trilogy Wiki pages any references next to the "(also known as Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi)" Charlr6 (talk) 20:34, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I have no objection to mentioning that the opening crawl lists it as "Episode VII: The Force Awakens". But that is not the official title as listed anywhere else. You have to respect that. Alaney2k (talk) 17:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

It's on starwars.com. See below.oknazevad (talk) 18:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

What Alaney and other editors have said, you're accusing people of edit warring when you're the one ignoring discussion and repeatedly reinserting inaccurate information. The opening crawl does not say "Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens". These words are not shown on screen together as a title. It isn't used at Star Wars.com either, this discussion exists entirely because no evidence of this being an official title exists. So until you can evidence this as an official alternate title, you will stop engaging in the edit war you are currently conducting. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, I'm not the only person objecting to its removal. In fact, I only see a few people calling for it. Secondly, yes, it is used at starwars.com. Go to the site, and click on the "movies" tab. It's right there on the page, both the desktop and the mobile sites. I'm looking at it as I type. Do you want a screenshot? Seems like a lot of effort to keep out an easily verified fact. oknazevad (talk) 18:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Still agree with the previous consensus. I've removed it again. As has been stated, this is not a similar situation to the original trilogy films. Those films were retroactively renamed Star Wars Episode X: Subtitle", while this film was named Star Wars: The Force Awakens from the start, with no intention of including Episode VII in the official title, only in the crawl. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Which is why the article title doesn't include "Episode VII". That's no reason to remove the on screen title, which is used at starwars.com, from the lead. It is an alternate title, and per WP:MOSFILM should be in the lead.oknazevad (talk) 18:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Provide reliable third party sources, and then we can talk. It's not an alternate title, because no one is stating such. We also have from the title reveal, that that is the only one. Not "The title is Star Wars: The Force Awakens, also Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens, just the title without the episode number. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

File:Starwars.com screenshot 18 Dec 2015.png

.

Here's that screenshot. It is listed as Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens right on the page listing the films. This isn't just some fanboy nonsense, but a legit alternate title that should be in the lead per WP:MOSFILM. Why are some having such a hard time accepting that? oknazevad (talk) 18:29, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

DarkWarrior. I saw the film yesterday, and it clearly said Episode VII on screen exactly like the other films do now. You claiming it doesn't is close to OR, just because you apparently don't remember it? It said it, on screen. Please don't make me sneak a photo next time I go and see it. Charlr6 (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes but on the front page of starwars.com, it says Star Wars: The Force Awakens. The filmmakers announced the official title without the episode numbering. Why is that not good enough? Alaney2k (talk) 18:35, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, I readily aknowledge that, which is why the title of the article rightly omits "Episode VII". No one is arguing to move the page. This is not a continuation of the Star Wars (film) naming debate. But to accurately aknowledge in the lead that the longer version with "Episode VII" is an official alternate title, as it is for the original trilogy films, is simply asking for the article to accurately state simple facts. oknazevad (talk) 18:39, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

...but it's not though. This is just one place that uses it (and being from StarWars.com doesn't mean anything). The facts are this and only this: The title of the film is Star Wars: The Force Awakens, which is Episode VII of the Star Wars saga. Episode VII is only used in the film's opening crawl, no where else. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I am also going to notify the Film project of this discussion to get additional input. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:08, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

And here is relevant info from the article, copied from the Release section, should anyone like to see it and don't want to venture to the page for spoilers: "On November 6, 2014, the film's title was announced as Star Wars: The Force Awakens. Although the title does not include the words "Episode VII", Episode VII was included in the opening crawl." - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I should also point out the Lucasfilm Star Wars page lists the Episode number for all other saga films EXCEPT The Force Awakens. I think from all accounts, they do not want it to be known with the Episode words in the title. Alaney2k (talk) 19:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Yet on the same site, when you click a link to any other film, the plain text link that appears on the bottom of the page reads "Episode VII: The Force Awakens". (They used the logo from the posters on the front page of that section for TFA, while they used the "saga" logos, ones modeled after the prequel logos meant to give a consistent look for some merchandise, on the others.) I would not say from all accounts. I would say, like Empire and Jedi back in the day, they're not using the "Episode VII" version of the title as the primary version, but if they didn't want it to ever be known as "Episode VII", they really would never use it all tall, and they do. oknazevad (talk) 22:52, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this is even a debate. The ultimate policy regarding article titles, WP:COMMONNAME, clarifies that we use what is most commonly referenced in reliable sources. While there may be a handful that use Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens, they are in the extreme minority here. Both the official name and an overwhelming majority of sources do not use that title, and therefore, neither should Wikipedia. Plain and simple. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME is about the article title, and for the third time, no one is arguing to change the article title. The question is should the lead include the longer "Episode VII" version of the title as an alternate title, like the original trilogy films. Claims that it is unused have been disproven. oknazevad (talk)

Agreed: the constant removal of it from the article's lead is ridiculous when it being there is just consistent. --Kurt Leyman (talk) 08:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. We aren't here to be consistent (yes to some extent). We are here to be factual. And the facts are that this film is not known as Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes it is; see the above screen shot. And the film itself. Stop making stuff up because the facts aren't on your side. oknazevad (talk) 18:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Then why did the film makers bother to include Episode VII in the opening crawl of the film between the words "Star Wars" and "The Force Awakens"? Charlr6 (talk) 17:52, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Don't know...and unless you can cite a reliable source, you don't know either. DonQuixote (talk) 18:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

..... https://twitter.com/starwars/status/531980698190487552?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

As they said, the original trilogy NEVER used it in official title (marketing, just like here). But they still used Episode V and VI in Empire and Return, and used Episode VII in Awakens. People are only saying for it to say "Also known as...". If studio never wanted it to say Episode VII anywhere, it wouldn't be in the opening crawl. If you want a source for it being used in the opening crawl, then surely we should delete the "Also known as" on V and VI pages until we can reference that there? As in the marketing for those films and this, it was simply "Star Wars [title]". Charlr6 (talk) 18:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Then why did the film makers bother to include Episode VII in the opening crawl of the film between the words "Star Wars" and "The Force Awakens"?

That source doesn't say anything about that. DonQuixote (talk) 18:37, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

It is an official confirmation from their certified Twitter that says Episode VII in the film, so therefore it has an alternate title, or whatever you want to call it. Episode V and VI were credited in opening crawl as Lucas wanted to do at the time both a prequel and sequel trilogy, then he focused more and only on the prequels. This is Episode VII, and says so in the film as much as Empire and Return does, so exactly like their pages, it should say "Also known as..." here too. There are NO references next to that on their pages, but apparently here it matters more? Charlr6 (talk) 18:48, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

It still doesn't answer your question of "why", so unless you can cite a reliable source, it's your speculation. DonQuixote (talk) 18:51, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Can you explain or find me a reliable source like I did you, to why Empire and Return were marketed without episode numbers but in films featured them and also why it says on their pages "Also known as" but no references there? Would be greatly appreciated like I tried to help here for you Charlr6 (talk) 18:56, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't have to because I'm not part of the discussion. I'm pointing out that you're crossing over into speculation and that you should be a bit more careful. DonQuixote (talk) 18:58, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you are part of this discussion as you made a comment in response to a response of mine to another editor. It would be greatly appreciated though if could take some time and find me a source? Charlr6 (talk) 19:04, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, no. That's not how it works. (Personally, I don't care one way or the other.) You made a logical fallacy which I pointed out. It's your responsibility to find other arguments. Bottom line: you can't say "why" someone did what they did unless you can cite a reliable source because otherwise it's speculation. DonQuixote (talk) 19:14, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Episodes IV-VI all have the (also known as) in the lead, because they were retroactively retitled to include the episode numbers with the various re-releases from Lucas. That is why it makes sense to include in the lead, almost as if stating an alternate title in other markets. Here, it doesn't make sense, because the only use of Episode VII is in the crawl, which we have noted with the note ref next to the title, to inform readers of this. In 6 years or when ever Episode IX comes out, and Lucasfilm releases a bundle or whatever of the three sequel films, and they use the episode numbers in the title, then adding it to the lead would be fine. But not now, since it is not known as such currently. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:16, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Nope. Empire and Return were called Episode V and VI in their original theatrical runs. See here - http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,924123,00.html. It is even dated 1980. The very first one was the ONLY one to have the episode number added in along with a new title ('A New Hope') for re-release. Charlr6 (talk) 19:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

You're making a fairly disingenuous attempt to dismiss the arguments by saying that people are claiming that "Episode VII" does not appear in the opening crawl, when noone has said that at all. What is being said is that "Star Wars - Episode VII: The Force Awakens" does not appear as an alternate title, bookending the film with a chapter number is not the same as conjuring a full alternate title with formatting. And it is important that we are strict on this now, otherwise you have years of articles being called "Star Wars - Episode I: A New Hope". Some articles on Wikipedia might not be held to the highest standard, but where it is possible to do so, they should be. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:27, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

So, as I thought, you are engaging in a slippery slope fallacy. Again, for the fourth time, no one is arguing to move the page. You seem to be fighting against something that is not being proposed. At all. Please address the actual argument, that "Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens is an alternate title that should be mentioned in the lead, as is the case for the original trilogy films, not the imagined boogey man that people seek to change the article title. oknazevad (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, now it sounds like now that you literally wanting it to say on screen all on one like "Star Wars - Episode VII: The Force Awakens" for it to be classed as Episode VII. When you said it doesn't say that on screen, it sounded like you were literally saying it doesn't say Episode VII between the huge yellow title STAR WARS and "The Force Awakens" as the title of expository scrolling text. See my reply just below to Favre1fan93. Charlr6 (talk) 14:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Charlr6, I'm not saying that at all, and you've just contradicted yourself in your own arguments. (from below Episode V and VI weren't marketed as V and VI, simply Star Wars: Empire Strikes Back and Star Wars: Return of the Jedi. Charlr6 (talk) 11:47, 19 December 2015 (UTC); from above: Empire and Return were called Episode V and VI in their original theatrical runs. Charlr6 (talk) 19:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)) As I have stated numerously, 5 and 6 were not titled with the episode number originally (thought they had it in their crawl) and were subsequently added to the titles by the time Lucas started rereleasing them. As Darkwarriorblake stated perfectly above me, no one here is arguing against the Episode number appearing in the opening crawl for this, or the older films. We are arguing that it is not known as an alternate title to the film. Everyone here has arguing for the lead has yet to produce sources confirming this, while the argument side I'm on had consistently presented the fact that the episode is only used within the crawl, and not for the title of the film. And for another thing, it's not even used in the film's logo.

Oknazevad, once again, you fail to provide sources that this is an alternate title. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I have, you've just chosen to ignore them. oknazevad (talk) 00:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

No I haven't contradicted myself. Let me explain in more detail because you have obviously misread.

from below "Episode V and VI weren't marketed as V and VI, simply Star Wars: Empire Strikes Back and Star Wars: Return of the Jedi.

This is true. Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi were NOT marketed in anyway to have the episode numbers on the posters etc. Just like how Force Awakens does not have the episode in poster or teasers.

from above: Empire and Return were called Episode V and VI in their original theatrical runs.

Empire and Return were called Episode V and VI in the ORIGINAL THEATRICAL RUNS. At the cinema. At the theater. When they were released for the public to see on the big screen like people are doing now for TFA, in the opening crawl it listed Episode V and Episode VI. I am NOT contradicting myself because my first 'quote' is about the marketing, which as I already said did not include the episode numbers. While my second 'quote' was about what was shown on the big screen when the film was released - 'original theatrical run'.

You said "Episodes IV-VI all have the (also known as) in the lead, because they were retroactively retitled to include the episode numbers with the various re-releases from Lucas".

This is untrue. See here article dated 1980 when Empire was released. - http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,924123,00.html.

If I am wrong in this matter, and Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi on the original opening run on the big screen were ONLY credited with "Star Wars [title]" then please find me a reliable source, or direct me to the reference on their wiki pages in whatever section it is mentioned, that they were "retroactively retitled to include the episode numbers with the various re-releases". You can't state that, if you don't have proof. Then I'll be happy. Charlr6 (talk) 14:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Exacfly, Empire and Jedi had the episode numbers in their crawl from their release. Just want to re-emphasize that because the error that they were added later has been repeated multiple times now. oknazevad (talk) 15:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

See the comment immediately below this. It seems many have overlooked it. --JDC808 ♫ 23:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

This has gone on far too long.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2488496/releaseinfo#akas and http://www.nytimes.com/movies/movie/477954/Star-Wars-The-Force-Awakens/overview

Both show "Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens" as an alternate title. There are lots and lots of articles, and yes, reliable, that refer to it as "Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens". Why this is even a debate is ridiculous. --JDC808 ♫ 00:36, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

References

Holy crap this is a ridiculously long debate. There is absolutely no harm in putting (also known as Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens) in the lead. It would keep it consistent with the other articles and as many have pointed out, it is in the opening crawl (you can't get more official than that); shoot, it's all over the internet and many people refer to it as Episode VII (even the filmmakers). It would make it clear as to why the body of the article refers to it as Episode VII (just putting "the seventh installment" in the lead doesn't necessarily make it clear that it's Episode VII; installment number doesn't always mean it's the chronological number. This one just happens to, but that's not the point). If we're having some kind of vote, mine is YES!!!, "also known as" should be mentioned in the parenthesis. --JDC808 ♫ 01:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Exactly! This is just another pointless post by editors wanting some attention and some priority to themselves. And the person who said it never even said Episode VII in the opening crawl is just crazy, or extremely forgetful. This isn't about a page move, this is simply about consistency and about what is actually on screen. If some awkward people want references for it being Episode VII, which as said clearly states in the opening crawl, then we might as well delete the entire plot until there are references for that too. The plot for a film on wikipedia doesn't need references as the film is obviously the reference. Look at the original films, they all said "Also known as...." with their episode titles (4 says 'later retitled' though). Empire was released in cinemas in 1980 with it saying Episode V. It wasn't marketed like that, but it had it in the film. Exact same situation here. Marketed as Force Awakens but in film it says the episode number. If people want references and sources for this being Episode VII, even though there are ones stating from the very producers that it will be credited as Episode VII in film (which it was again!!!) then we might as well go and find references for all the episodes 4, 5 and 6, because at the moment there is NO reference right next to the 'also known as'. I also love how the hidden text on the edit is "Unlike other films in the series, the seventh installment's official title does not include the words "Episode VII"; however, they are included in its opening crawl". Episode V and VI weren't marketed as V and VI, simply Star Wars: Empire Strikes Back and Star Wars: Return of the Jedi. People also claiming that outside of the film this isn't known as Episode VII is original research in itself. That is their opinions. But as I said, I don't see any references on their wiki pages on the "Also known as..." for V and VI... Some editors, who actually are quite helpful most of the time, other times are literally trolls. Charlr6 (talk) 11:47, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

For consistency, and correct grammatical usage, the titles should include a dash in-between Star Wars and Episode. Like this:

• Star Wars – Episode I: The Phantom Menace
• Star Wars – Episode II: Attack of the Clones
• Star Wars – Episode III: Revenge of the Sith
• Star Wars – Episode IV: A New Hope
• Star Wars – Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back
• Star Wars – Episode VI: Return of the Jedi
• Star Wars – Episode VII: The Force Awakens

The saga is titled Star Wars, not Star Wars Episode (#).

--Mecedey (talk) 13:09, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

@Mecedey: That's a whole different discussion, not really related to this... - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

What is the problem with the current format (not using the episode number but having a note that explains that it is used in the crawl)? From the official Star Wars twitter account we know that the film is called Star Wars: The Force Awakens and that Episode VII is used in the crawl as would be expected (which has obviously now been confirmedby the film itself). So we use the official (and common) title in the lead, with a note explaining the crawl use. I don't see any need for this ridiculous debate. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

This user has a point. The franchise title itself is Star Wars, much like X-Men, or Avengers, or The Maze Runner, or Twilight or any other franchise. With all of these other franchises, there has always been a colon, after the franchise title, followed by the instalment title. Seeing as Star Wars also includes a chronological, episodic numbering, the two should be separated; though I would argue that each of the films should be listed or titled within their articles (or 'also known as' sections) as Star Wars: Episode [#] - [Subtitle/Film Title]. This is merely an argument of consistency which needs to be more widely introduced into the Wikipedia database as a whole, not only with Star Wars. - Burningblue52 (talk) 01:56, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The problem is it's inconsistent with the other articles. Also, Episode VII is a common title among many people. A simple Google search will show loads of results referring to it as Episode VII. I also don't see the need for this debate. Just keep it consistent. --JDC808 ♫ 03:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

But it isn't inconsistent. The original films were initially known without the episode numbers, but were later given additional official names that included the episode numbers, so it is right to use both official names in those leads. The prequels were initially known with the episode numbers, so it is right to just use that official name in those leads. This film was initially known without the episode numbers and has not been given an additional official name including the episode number, so it is right to use that official name in the lead only. Now, the inconsistency comes in that we are not mention the episode number at all here when it is in the lead of all the other articles, and so to rectify that we have added a note explaining that at this point the film is only officially known without the episode number, but the episode number is seen in the opening crawl like the others. So in every article we list the official name(s) and note the episode number in the lead in the way that is most appropriate for each situation. I'm not seeing the inconsistency. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

You just pointed out the inconsistency issue that I and everyone else who has the same opinion as myself am talking about. This really should not be an issue, but people are making this the most ridiculous issue. It's not hard, just keep it consistent. Episode VII is another title it is known as, so why this is an issue, I don't understand. There is no need for the note. Just make it consistent with the other articles. It's not rocket science. --JDC808 ♫ 04:29, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

It's not our job to correct the inconsistencies of the film makers and the general media. The other editors are pointing out that we can't start calling it by what we perceive as the alternate title unless reliable sources do, otherwise it strays into interpretation and fringe. DonQuixote (talk) 15:36, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

smh. A simple Google search will find you loads of sources, both reliable and unreliable by Wikipedia's standards, that refer to it as Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens. You say "It's not our job to correct the inconsistencies of the film makers and the general media", however, it is our job to keep the articles of the same topic here on Wikipedia consistent. --JDC808 ♫ 22:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Does this remind anyone of the absurd debates over the title of Star Trek Into Darkness? Oops, I mean, Star Trek into Darkness. Er Star Trek: Into Darkness. And yes, I realize this isn't about actually moving the article page but the WP:LAMEness is similar. clpo13_(talk) 23:11, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Alright. This has gone on probably longer than it should. If we can't come to an agreeable consensus soon, we should possibly make an RfC. Now to this discussion: Everyone agrees that "Episode VII" appears in the film's crawl (heck, we have reliable sources stating such.) What isn't agreed upon is if, by including "Episode VII" in the crawl, that makes "Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens" an alternate title of the film. Based on all the reliable source we have, and looking to the original trilogy, I say that it is not an alternate "also known as" title. The sources we have on the page say that "Episode VII" is not in the title, but will/did use the episode number in the crawl. We also have Lucasfilm stating here that the film is like the original trilogy films when they released with no episode number in their title. Now, when Episode IV (as we know it now) released, it was just Star Wars. Then Episode V is released in 1980 as The Empire Strikes Back BUT it has in its crawl "Episode V". This I believe is the best correlation to The Force Awakens today. Despite Empire having Episode V in its crawl, it did not mean outright that Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back was an alternate title for it. That became an alternate title for the film once it was re-released years later. (And to my quick searching, possibly not until the 2004 DVD releases.) For examples, here are the three posters for the 1997 re-releases: Star Wars, Empire, and Jedi. Notice the billing blocks for each of the three films: they are still officially titled without their episode numbers in the titles. Now let's look at the 2004 DVD releases: Episode IV, Episode V, and Episode VI. Notice anything? Yup, the episode numbers have been officially made part of the films' title. So that rightly justifies the "also known as" text on each of those three articles. So that brings me back to my point: just because Episode VII was used in The Force Awakens crawl, does NOT mean it is alternatively known as (at least in any official capacity) Star Wars: Episode VII The Force Awakens and we should not support "fan titles". As example of what I mean by that: Captain America: The Winter Soldier is the second film in the Captain America film series. It is incorrect to add to that film's lead "Captain America 2: The Winter Soldier", despite that having been used by fans and some reliable sources. That is why the current state of this article in which we use the ref note next to the title is currently the most accurate way to state the info. (We can even do a better job too later on in the lead by saying something along the lines of "It is the seventh installment and seventh episode in the Star Wars films series/saga," etc.) Now this most likely will change in the future should Lucasfilm release the film in later years, but as of right now, at the end of 2015 going into 2016, the film is not known as Star Wars: Episode VII The Force Awakens. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:47, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Both show Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens as an alternate title.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2488496/releaseinfo#akas and http://www.nytimes.com/movies/movie/477954/Star-Wars-The-Force-Awakens/overview

Another possible suggestion: Instead of saying "The seventh installment in the main Star Wars film series,", how about, "Episode VII in the main Star Wars film series,..."

Also, as to the Captain America: The Winter Soldier analogy, that's understandable, but nowhere within its film does it refer to it as Captain America 2. Here, the film does refer to it as Star Wars Episode VII. --JDC808 ♫ 19:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

IMDB is not a reliable source, so strike that one off the list. The NY Times link looks like an index entry just floating on the web with no official publication date or author, so its reliability would definitely be in question. The main concern here is that even if you could produce 5 credible sources, would that necessarily justify its inclusion when hundreds more, if not thousands more, don't use that title? I don't believe it does. In addition, some editors above have mentioned that since we're talking about alternate names in the lead that WP:COMMONNAME doesn't apply, but they would be incorrect. WP:OTHERNAMES is a section within WP:COMMONNAME that addresses this very point. It advises only mentioning significant alternate names. The official name listed in the crawl with only a handful of reliable sources is not going to be enough to justify its inclusion, especially when the crawl title itself doesn't match the proposal as Favre1fan93 points out. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

With the Captain America example, I don't believe that is a good one. Because in official marketing and in film it is called Captain America: Winter Soldier. But TFA says Episode VII in the opening crawl, just like V and VI did in the original big screen public cinema releases. CA: TWS didn't say "Captain America 2: The Winter Soldier" in the film itself as a title. If it did I totally forgot, so just ignore me here. But if it never said the '2' in the title, and was only referred to that by fans and some decent sources mostly reliable, then you can't really compare that to TFA when in film it actually said Episode VII on screen, so it isn't just fans calling it that.

However, I had to look at my own 2004 DVDs as those links were a bit blurry. But it does add it in the title in the billing. I then looked at my Blu-Ray box set to see what it said on there. I did try looking up a picture for a source, or upload photograph but not sure where best to so you'll have to take my word for this. (Or if you have it yourself, take a look. Should be same). But on the last two pages, on the left hand page it lists the three prequels billing and right hand page lists original trilogy billing. There it says the title twice. Once as a title for the and above billing, then in the billing itself.

So this got me thinking. Whatever the home video of this film is going to be, whether it will include the episode number and over-all cover design to be consistent with releases past few years or not, I guess there is NO DEADLINE. We should wait. And I'd be happy to. Charlr6 (talk) 21:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I will admit the CapTWS example was not the best. I work on those MCU articles mostly, and it was the most relevant I could think of at the time. Charlr6, thank you for what you said at the very end of your statement above mine about NO DEADLINE. That is partially mine (and other's) point. I'll write it here too so others can see: I in no way doubt or deny that this film will be called by its Episode name. But the point is that right now, it isn't (which I think you've realized/agreed with Charlr6, yes?). That's the point Darkwarriorblake was trying to make way back when he started the discussion, was that it isn't know by that title now (despite using it in the crawl). I'll be one of the first to support or add that text to the lead come home media release or theatre rereleases if it is included as such, but right now, today, it's not the case. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, yes, yes. I agree now with what's been said. At this moment, it is not known by that title or with any other title. The impression I was taking was that editors wanted very reliable sources for the episode title to be in, but at the moment there are really not very many at all. Charlr6 (talk) 00:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Glad we're making progress. JDC808 and oknazevad, can we consider this resolved for now? --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm okay with the footnote, for now at least. It's still not a slippery slope to include it as a parenthetical, but it's not the worst solution. oknazevad (talk) 02:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

So lame that the main article can't even tell you what the on-screen title is. Ribbet32 (talk) 20:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree. What is Wikipedia coming to when an article can't reflect the actual title of a film. as displayed on the actual screen, within the opening of the actual film? The film in question is the subject of the article; you can't get more official than that. The title that a film is "marketed as" and "titled as" can sometimes be different. I remember a similar debate over Superman when several users had a hard time distinguishing that a DVD entitled Superman: The Movie contained a film called Superman. Call me old-fashioned and swimming against the tide if you like, but the title that is displayed on-screen in the film itself should be the title of the article. If a film is re-released and re-titled (à la New Hope) and gains currency then the article title should also change, with "(originally titled as...)" in the lead. Therefore, there's nothing wrong with inserting "(marketed as Star Wars: The Force Awakens)" in the lead of this article to reflect another verifiable fact (e.g. poster art, soundtrack album, etc.). Forgive me if I'm paraphrasing because it's a long discussion, but the claim that "Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens" isn't shown together at the beginning is spurious. The titles and subtitles of The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings films are shown minutes apart, let alone a few frames, and it doesn't seem to cause any controversy on those articles. If any title is "alternate", it's the one shown on the marketing materials. Since when do they take precedence over the film itself? This article is about the movie, not the one-sheet that advertises it. Chris 42 (talk) 21:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it should be what appears in the actual film. Though I'd just go with it saying "Star Wars: The Force Awakens (also known as Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens)" instead of it the other way around, for consistency with the other articles. --JDC808 ♫ 21:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

And just to verify, since I'm of the original trilogy generation and not the prequels, the titles Episode V and Episode VI were on-screen right from the moment of their respective premieres and not added later. The only one that was altered was the 1977 film, prior to the release of its sequel. It seems to me that because of the sheer amount and variety of movie marketing in the Internet age, the current generation appears to be fixated with what's in the trailer and on the poster, and takes it as gospel. With so much hype and anticipation, what's eventually put on the screen by the filmmakers — when it comes down to it, the definitive title that they (as the final arbiters) have decided should be displayed to audiences irrespective of how their product was marketed — is almost viewed as an afterthought. Chris 42 (talk) 23:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

What I don't get is how the film apparently doesn't have any other official alternate titles in the eyes of some even though several film classification boards have Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens listed as one. --Bobit13 23:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Those are fairly obscure references that you found. They only -might- have some meaning. It could be trademark protection, who knows, or like domain protection, so no-one else could use the title. As odd as that could be. But they are not enough to indicate an official title. Alaney2k (talk) 15:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll try to keep this brief, because I felt we just came to a nice agreement/consensus that we are keeping as is until something changes (basically we'll reevaluate when the home media comes out). @Chris 42:, despite it being a long conversation, you did not read this discussion right at all. Star Wars: The Force Awakens was never a "marketing" title. It's the film's title. We have reliable sources telling us this and stating that as you did is very incorrect. Second, the debate wasn't that we denied Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens appearing at the beginning. It was if it was known by that title (recent consensus is no it is not... yet anyways). Also, please see the billing block at the very bottom of the poster (maybe not the one on here, but a higher resolution). That shows the film's title, and it is, again, Star Wars: The Force Awakens. Billing blocks have very strict guidelines and legal ramifications, so the fact it doesn't include Episode VII says something and is not by accident. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Your reply perfectly illustrates my point: that the title shown on the screen, in the cinema, counts for nothing. In your eyes, what is above the billing block, in the trailers or on the home video artwork is more important than the media it advertises. I see no reason why, for the sake of clarity, the phrase "(titled on-screen as...)" can't be added to the lead to reflect the filmmakers' intentions. Having made my point, I don't wish to rock the boat if a consensus has been reached. I just felt that it needed saying. Chris 42 (talk) 07:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

First of all, don't assume the age or generation of your opposition: it is completely irrelevant and bogus. Second, your point has been reiterated several times throughout this discussion and brings nothing new to the table. It would be best to familiarize yourself with the responses above and continue the conversation (if so compelled) in a constructive manner that addresses what has been said up to this point. Otherwise, we're just rehashing it all over again to the detriment of those who are still following this train wreck.

With that said, keep in mind that this isn't a matter of preference; it's a matter of policy. The content within an article must appear in reliable sources. The problem here is that even when taking the media itself into account, there isn't a clear distinction of how the title should appear. It could be Star Wars: Episode VII – The Force Awakens, Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens, Star Wars – Episode VII: The Force Awakens, etc., but we don't have any official formatting of the title supplied from the media in question. Therefore, using it in support of your argument is invalid and goes against WP:NOR, specifically WP:SYN. The other main point addressed above is that even if reliable sources supporting an alternate title formatting can be found, we need to carefully consider how to include it in the article. Does it need to be in the lead necessarily? Some may argue that it's insignificant enough to only be a passing mention in the article's body and should not receive undue prominence in the lead per WP:DUE. I would tend to agree with that viewpoint until the media itself supports the title – something we would likely see in a home video release. That is why most agree at this point to wait. There is no rush. --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I just read this ridiculously long debate, and all I saw is that those opposed to the parenthesis also known as inclusion were moving the goalposts. But fine, let me shed some light since people can't use Google.

• http://www.starwars.com/films/star-wars-episode-vii-the-force-awakens (look at the URL)
• http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_wars_episode_vii_the_force_awakens/
• http://www.metacritic.com/movie/star-wars-episode-vii---the-force-awakens
• http://www.moviefone.com/movie/star-wars-the-force-awakens/10118651/trailers
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/act-four/wp/2015/12/22/how-star-wars-episode-vii-the-force-awakens-missed-a-huge-opportunity/
• http://lucasfilm.com/star-wars-episode-7-the-force-awakens (look at the URL)
• http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/star-wars-episode-vii---the-force-awakens-2015
• http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/herocomplex/la-et-hc-star-wars-the-force-awakens-posters-revealed-20151104-htmlstory.html

I just provided you with 8 - count them: EIGHT - Reliable sources that use "Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens" as an "Also known as" title. If this doesn't convince you to include it, nothing will. Can we finally put this to bed. It's quite clear to practically everyone but Wikipedia at this point that "Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens" is an alternative title. TrueCRaysball | ^#RaysUp 20:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, us sad lot of Wikipedia editors, prone to argument. :-) Anyway, a more valid comparison is probably Google results. I find 90,200,000 results results for "star wars: the force awakens". And 'About 14,000,000 results' for the "Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens". This is probably the peak time for a comparison. It's clear that people are using the extended wording, in numbers. It's not the most common name, or the official name. I would not use the wording of Wookiepedia - 'marketed as' -. I don't think that's true. I don't think Lucasfilm or Abrams want the full long title. Alaney2k (talk) 22:41, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  • (edited) As is suggested at wp:commonname - news links use the official title in "About 46,600,000 results" but for the extended wording it is "About 592,000 results". Which is a huge difference in the -reliable sources-. 98% to 2% Alaney2k (talk) 22:54, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• It seems like you completely ignored me giving you want you wanted: reliable sources supporting the alternative title. Instead you changed to Google hits count. Thus proving my comment that those opposed keep moving the goal posts. TrueCRaysball | ^#RaysUp 22:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

  I guess you only want to rant. Alaney2k (talk) 22:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

  No. I want you to admit that I provided exactly what you asked for and admit you were wrong. TrueCRaysball | ^#RaysUp 22:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

  I think you want to misrepresent me too. We worked out a compromise to use a note after the title. Here in the talk page, which is the norm at Wikipedia. Alaney2k (talk) 22:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

  So because I'm late to the discussion, you won't listen to me providing exactly what those opposed wanted to include the alternative title? Wow. Your compromise was based on misinformation and you harm Wikipedia by not listening to the new evidence. But whatever. TrueCRaysball | ^#RaysUp 23:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• To your point: your references are just references. I disagree with you. Let's just try to work out some wording so that it doesn't imply that the extended wording is the official wording. That's pretty well been my point at all times. And not too just jump in and change it without discussing it here. Feels like the climate talks. I've said in the past that I don't have a problem with mentioning they use Episode in the opening crawl. I'm not denying that people use the extended title. But wording matters. I've given the numbers, I've said that people used the extending wording, in numbers. Now just work it out without saying the long title is an official title too. 'commonly referred to' perhaps? Alaney2k (talk) 23:10, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

  I'm okay with "commonly referred to as", but it must be in parenthesis in the first sentence, not a hidden note. TrueCRaysball | ^#RaysUp 23:12, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

  Ok, I tried to get it in the first line. Now, I guess we wait for more comments. Alaney2k (talk) 23:22, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

  I think the current solution is good, though I would remove "commonly", but this solution works. --JDC808 ♫ 23:44, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I highly doubt that the film is commonly known as Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens. Just The Force Awakens, or Force Awakens, or Star Wars 7 maybe, but a list such as that is obviously ridiculous. We should be saying "(also known as...)". Also, it should be written as Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:35, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

The main point was to make it clear it was not an official title. It would be difficult to pull out search results for just "The Force Awakens". That would match everything. Maybe someone with advanced Google search skills could try that. I don't think I've seen any "Star Wars 7" references. Alaney2k (talk) 15:51, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, I would agree that we should use the dash. That's what Lucasfilm uses on the packaging (of the previous titles). Alaney2k (talk) 15:53, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I took out the "commonly". As for the punctuation, the current version is consistent with the titles of the prequels and the Aja's at the original trilogy films. So any change would require a broader discussion. oknazevad (talk) 02:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

TrueCRaysball, thank you for providing additional references. It's nice to finally have more than 2 or 3 questionable ones. I removed the alternate name for now until this discussion is considered closed – which may require an uninvolved editor in order to determine consensus. There are quite a few editors among the opposition that need time to weigh in. I'll start.

3 of the 8 sources you provided are not valid, in my opinion: the two that only mention the name in the URL and the Moviefone trailer listing are highly questionable. The 5 remaining sources all use different formatting for the title. This inconsistency is a real problem and implies that the title they are publishing is nothing more than a way for them to disambiguate from the other Star Wars films within their own site. A true alternate title that is worthy of the lead needs to be in a widely accepted format. So far the evidence is weak and unclear. 5 sources is better than 2, but I'm not sure it's a game-changer. Let's see what the others have to say. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:04, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

*facepalm* Just when I thought this ridiculously long debate was over..... --JDC808 ♫ 07:30, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Exactly what I was thinking 20+ posts ago when oknazevad's posted on 02:53, 22 December 2015. Who knows? Maybe some of the others who originally opposed will change their mind at this point and finally bring some closure...or maybe not! --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:50, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, I changed my mind, when it was, quite correctly, pointed out that the opposition were truly engaging in moving the goalposts and a slippery slope fallacy. Yes, it is an official alternate title based on the sources. No it isn't as commonly used, which is why we are not proposing moving the article. Anything else has just become WP:IDHT. The arguments against have been refuted, and the false claims that a parenthetical inclusion will lead to a page move has been called out as the logical fallacy it is. At this point, it's becoming hard to see any good reason to not restore the parenthetical.oknazevad (talk) 14:10, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

This is exactly why I hardly participate in discussions. People are only interested in waht they deem reliable, not what is reliable. To reply specifically to you GoneIn60: Fine, you don't trust three of them. 5 are still good. And the point of them is not to give a formatting lesson, but prove it is an acceptable alternative title. IMO, the format is a matter of debate about Wikipedians and proper grammar, not what a source says, except where it's billed as "stylized as". TrueCRaysball | ^#RaysUp 08:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I clearly stated it was an opinion, so obviously it's going to entail "deeming". The main point I was getting at is that there are other editors involved in this discussion that have not yet weighed in on your comments. Let's give them a chance to do so. It's still possible they'll actually agree with you, so let's not get ahead of ourselves. In addition, keep in mind that showing verifiability doesn't guarantee inclusion (per WP:ONUS). From my perspective, a handful of sources supporting the title does not necessarily mean it's common enough to be in the lead. At best, it may only deserve a spot in the body of the article until it has clearly become a widely accepted title. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:28, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

For the record: Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars#Star Wars: The Force Awakens. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:49, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Not surprising. I'm surprised it wasn't there sooner. --JDC808 ♫ 17:33, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

*sigh* TrueCRaysball | ^#RaysUp 20:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Update PrimeHunter (talk) 02:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

At http://www.starwars.com/films it is referred to as both "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" and (further down) "Star Wars: Episode VII The Force Awakens". As the official web-site references it as both, shouldn't the article reference it as both? --Jules (Mrjulesd) 19:19, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Enough already

This thread is 2 months old. The film has been out a week at this point. The opposers wanted sources to support the inclusion of the long form as an alternative title. I provided those 24 hours ago. And since then only one of the opposers has commented, and he was ok with the compromise we worked out and it appeared this debate was finally over. But apparently, GoneIn60 wants the other commenters to comment and a neutral party to close the discussion. Can we have this happen? I get that there's no rush, but damn, this discussion is embarrassing. So here's a ping to Darkwarriorblake, The Wookieepedian, Favre1fan93, and Charlr6 to serve as the notification that the requested reliable sources have been provided so they can comment about them. Let's put this to bed already. TrueCRaysball | ^#RaysUp 20:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm still in the camp of waiting, since we have no rush, to the time the home media is released and reevaluating (what I thought was consensus a few days ago). Presenting 5 sources that include episode VII in the title against thousands of others that don't (because again, the title is just Star Wars: The Force Awakens), is very minuscule, and doesn't support the notion that it's an alternate title. But I'm just rehashing what I've been consistently stating, so in short, let's just wait it out. We have in the body down in the release section about the episode number appearing in the crawl and not the title, so let's leave it there (or bring back the note next to the title) until we have more concrete info one way or the other (like the home media). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I find it interesting. You and everyone else involved repeatedly stated that you wanted multiple sources supporting the idea that it's an alternate title. I provided you with 8, later shortened to 5, that support that idea and yet you still refuse to admit that it is an alternate title of the film. Whether that alt. title is official or not has no bearing. But no, you're right, there is no rush. Even so, that's not an excuse to not try to get it right the first time. Here we clearly have the evidence you want and you choose not to accept but rather you move the goalposts. Essentially your argument appears to boil down to, at least in my opinion, "I don't like it". TrueCRaysball | ^#RaysUp 23:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

But you must consider everything. 5 sources using versus thousands not using, plus mixed with the reliable sources stating the official title doesn't have it and it is only used in the crawl, is not much to show it being an alternate title. At most, it shows the publication is choosing to format the title in such a way, but I obviously don't know that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:24, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm refusing to take part again. I always get sucked into 'discussions' which go on for too long and just become awkward, cringy, annoying and upsets people. But this response is neither for nor against, so please nobody use my response here as back up for either side. Charlr6 (talk) 20:59, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

To me, it's actually very simple: do official studio-released materials use the "alternate title"? If so, we use it; if not, we don't. To mollify both camps, I'd write it thus:

• Star Wars: The Force Awakens is a 2015 American epic space opera film directed, co-produced, and co-written by J. J. Abrams. Episode VII in the main Star Wars film series stars Harrison Ford, [...]

🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 20:22, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

That's a very good suggestion. DonQuixote (talk) 21:02, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I had made that exact same suggestion earlier under Arbitrary Break , but it got ignored....though I much prefer having "(also known as....)". --JDC808 ♫ 00:01, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd support ATinySliver's suggested text above. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:11, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the studio (Lucasfilm) does use Star Wars: Episode VII The Force Awakens at least some times (see official site image above). It should be included in the lead in full. oknazevad (talk) 01:49, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

In case it hasn't been noted already (tl;dr ), while the official website does include "episode-vii" in the URL, the page itself includes 36 instances of the title, and all of them are Star Wars: The Force Awakens. Also of note is the episode pages at the Lucasfilm site ("You don't need to see the URL. This is not the title you're looking for." ), which include the graphic links to other episode's pages. Note the difference between any "Star Wars Episode [x]" graphic and the one for—you guessed it—Star Wars: The Force Awakens. I think therefore that my suggestion—inadvertently stolen from JDC808—is the correct one. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 02:15, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

It's not just the url. Again, see the screenshot from starwars.com I put up in the section above at 18:29, 18 December 2015 (UTC). oknazevad (talk) 03:35, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, there it is: the one example out of dozens (). I still think my suggestion is the better alternative but, given its endorsement—if only the once—I won't argue with its current state. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 03:47, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Let's recap. First of all, we now have 5 solid sources that use Episode VII in the title. That is definitely an improvement from where we started, but questions remain. The 5 sources use three different formats for the title:

Star Wars: Episode VII – The Force Awakens (supported by RT, MC, and RogerEbert.com)

Star Wars – Episode VII: The Force Awakens (supported by LATimes)

Star Wars, Episode VII: The Force Awakens (supported by WashingtonPost)

If you notice, none of these support the format that has been chosen in the article. From a technical perspective, that takes the previous claim of having 5 sources down to 3 or 1, depending on which supported format is selected. Secondly, the number of editors for and against at this point is pretty even. I think until we have a clear consensus, the controversial title should remain out of the article. If someone would like to start an RfC, that might be the best option to finally settle the debate in the short term. If we go that route, I propose that all editors who have participated thus far refrain from participating in the RfC at least for the first few days. A good alternative to the RfC that I would also be in favor of, is to go with ATinySliver's suggestion above. This takes formatting and the number of sources out of the equation. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:21, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm in favor of doing an RfC, though I'm not willing to be the one to start it. TrueCRaysball | ^#RaysUp 07:10, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

GoneIn60, I would not be comfortable with any alternative title not specifically and directly used by Disney and/or Lucasfilm, for precisely the reasons you enumerate. With proper credit to JDC808, "my" suggestion does seem logical. (Oh, wait ... ) MC, HNY, and LLaP 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 07:45, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm for an RfC, plus having all involved editors so far hold off in the voting. I'm not comfortable starting the RfC though, because I'm not sure I'd have a good sense of presenting all the information and applicable references for evidence in a neutral way (I'd definitely try, but I wouldn't want it to come across that I'm favoring the side I support). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:33, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

We need a RfC or official RM. I have an issue with the fact that the original trilogy, prequel trilogy, and sequel trilogy (so far) are all using different naming conventions, with the original movies using just the titles, the prequels using the "Star Wars" and roman numeral, and this just using the "Star Wars". They should be made uniform, in whichever way. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:14, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, this is not about moving the page. It should not be moved. It's the common name. The article titles should reflect the reality that the different trilogies were differently marketed at their time period; uniformity is not needed across article titles. That it's also know by the Episode VII title should be stated in the lead, but no need to move the article. oknazevad (talk) 17:21, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

At http://www.starwars.com/films it is referred to as both "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" and (further down) "Star Wars: Episode VII The Force Awakens". As the official web-site references it as both, shouldn't the article reference it as both? --Jules (Mrjulesd) 19:19, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

We've been over this. The website does mention Episode VII in the title, but you'll notice it's just on a screen shot and not in prose. Also, it doesn't match the format used in the Wikipedia article as illustrated above. Websites are maintained by web admins, and because there are links to other episodes on the same page, it's quite reasonable to assume that the web admin decided to include the episode number to help differentiate from the other links. I don't think looking at URL's and screenshots are appropriate sources here, simply because they are not always accurate representations of the brand. However we decide to word the RfC opening, this can be mentioned, but I don't think it will carry all that much weight. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:26, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

@GoneIn60: WTF? Have you even looked at the link? It's not on a screenshot, its the title to the link to the movie info page, the title of which is http://www.starwars.com/films/star-wars-episode-vii-the-force-awakens. Now if the official web-site refers to it as Episode VII, how is that not worth a mention? Not to mention all the other sources. Surely the official web-site is a reliable source? This is really lame...--Jules (Mrjulesd) 00:13, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Yep, looked at it alright. Did you read my entire response? It seems like you stopped at the word screenshot and skipped over URL. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Mrjulesd, all respect, I find GoneIn60's argument here to be correct. In a theoretical-but-getting-more-likely RfC, I'd argue that the news and reviews writers' stylings are irrelevant (we'd essentially be saying, "[title], also known as [editorial error]"), URLs are irrelevant (as merely differentiating between episodes, not as titular), and even the two (that I've seen) instances within the official websites are irrelevant (sure, it's "official", but it's overwhelmed). I have argued and will argue that the official marketing materials (graphics, press releases, etc.) contain the only official title. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 05:12, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I have argued and will argue that the official marketing materials (graphics, press releases, etc.) contain the only official title.Look I'm going to repeat this once, as you don't seem to get it. (a) look at the link http://www.starwars.com/films (b) Look at the title to the link for the movies info page. What is it? Star Wars: Episode VII The Force Awakens. A reliable source if I've ever seen one. To not argue that, as well as all the other sources, are not reliable is barmy. There are simply tons of reliable sources saying the same. Look at this thread. There are loads. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 05:39, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, we discussed this earlier and consensus disagrees that this is a relevant finding. The link has the title as you stated, and when you click on it, the page it takes you to fails to mention the title anywhere (except in the URL). This is highly questionable and likely self-serving per WP:SELFSOURCE, especially since the site exists for promotional purposes. We are going to focus on the other 5 sources mentioned above, all of which are secondary sources. As you may or may not know, secondary sources are generally preferred over primary (see WP:PSTS). Time to move on. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:28, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I really don't think you understand WP:SELFSOURCE at all. It does not fall under WP:SELFSOURCE. It is not self published to any extent, if you fail to understand this you should stay out of the debate. Also WP:PSTS are generally acceptable, please reread the policy.

But as you agree with me over this issue I will not waste further time arguing. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 06:50, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I admit, that wasn't an appropriate application of WP:SELFSOURCE. However, the website is self-promotional in nature and as a primary source, it should be used carefully. Looks like we at least agree to move on. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:13, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

More goal post moving. oknazevad (talk) 16:10, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The issue has always been about the number of reliable sources that support Episode VII in the title vs. those that don't. Challenging a source doesn't move any goal post, and in fact, it is at the very heart of the matter. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:30, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

When the argument goes from "show that it is used" to "show that it is officially used" to "show that it is used almost as often", that is goal post moving. oknazevad (talk) 17:12, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Scroll all the way up and look at the 5th post from October 23. This has been pretty clear from the beginning that we were looking for a significant number of reliable sources, not just a handful. You also have multiple viewpoints being given from various editors, so while it may seem like the goal post is being moved, the truth is you just have a variety of different viewpoints. Mine hasn't changed. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:21, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

@GoneIn60:, @Oknazevad: is there much point in discussing "who is in the right"? That is something that will probably never be agreed. Consensus seems to have been gained, that is the main thing. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:27, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Repeat it all you want. Every respect, your only accuracy is that one of us gets it. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 06:31, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Muboshgu, The RfC I'm proposing won't attempt to attack all Star Wars films in the series; it should only address this one. Articles on Wikipedia are standalone articles that have zero dependence on what exists in other articles (see WP:OTHERSTUFF). What makes sense for this article may or may not make sense for the other articles. Uniformity is nice, but in the real world, it just doesn't work out that way sometimes, especially when dealing with a franchise that has spanned 4 decades. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:46, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Muboshgu, apologies for piling on but, as others have noted, we're an encyclopedia. We strive for accuracy. To apply uniformity for its own sake runs counter to our purpose. Cheers! 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 22:43, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

A new wrench, I throw. Shitburger, I am. Hate me, you will.

OFR, I have problems with "known". Known by whom? By one or two official-site webmaster(s) who style it that way opposite the dozens of references to the official title? By the authors of articles and reviews who may simply have gotten it wrong, or styled it to their liking anyway? By the headline writers of those articles and reviews, who are often not their authors?

To me, "known" affords undue weight to the "alternate title". If we're going to keep it as such, it should be worded "also styled as". 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 23:06, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Yep. I hate you. Just kidding. But I do think that's a real stretch of pedantry. "Also known as" is a standard idiom, and a compete synonym for "also styled as". Really not something to worry about. oknazevad (talk) 01:26, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd be in full agreement under normal circumstances. If there's anything this discussion has demonstrated, it is not one of them. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 01:58, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

It is certainly commonly known with the episode wording. I did the search in the previous section. It's more than just a few sites. My only objection to the way it is right now, is that I would like the note to return which explained everything. Any objections to restoring it? Alaney2k (talk) 17:43, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I think restoring the note would be fine. I also think that until there is a clear consensus in this discussion or a pending RfC, the "also known as" parenthetical should be removed. I'm not sure why that was added back prematurely. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:04, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Using this as a springboard, let me take a shot at wording/citing, thus:

Star Wars: The Force Awakens is a 2015 American epic space opera film directed, co-produced, and co-written by J. J. Abrams. Episode VII in the main Star Wars film series, it stars Harrison Ford, [...]

References

Thoughts? 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 22:14, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Needlessly complicated, when a parenthetical is a clear example of the KISS principle. oknazevad (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

There is no consensus for the parenthetical yet, and the formatting used right now in the article isn't supported by any of the sources cited above. The note, on the other hand, was seen by both sides as a good compromise for now and should be reinstated until this debate is settled. As for the note's formatting, I think the previous one we had in there was fine.

ATinySliver, in the second sentence of your suggestion, perhaps adding "Subtitled as" in front of Episode VII would flow better. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:21, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I must say that both sides did not see that as a good compromise, at least not all of both sides. Also, the subtitle is The Force Awakens (hence the colon). So, if what was originally my suggestion were to be used, "subtitle" should not be there and just simply start the sentence with "Episode VII". --JDC808 ♫ 07:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I've done my best to give you credit ... 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 07:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

--JDC808 ♫ 08:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I think "Subtitled Episode VII" (removing "as") is grammatically accurate, but otherwise I'd be fine with that. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 23:40, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

That works. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:43, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

oknazevad, if I didn't believe the parenthetical affords undue weight to an "alternate title" that isn't, I would not be making the suggested change. KISS is misapplied—and a footnote at the bottom of the page is actually less complicated. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 23:40, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• Here we go again. Just when the lame circus was supposed to be fixed, pedantry rears its ugly head. MULTIPLE RELIABLE SOURCES REFERS TO IT AS Star Wars: Episode VII The Force Awakens. Anything else is not consistent with reliable sources. And yet you persist in your WP:OR. Isn't about time you stopped? --Jules (Mrjulesd) 23:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

... and every one of them, beyond my suggestion, is utterly irrelevant. The studio—and only the studio—gets to name its own film. No amount of bolding, italicizing, and/or all-caps stylizing can or ever will change that. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 00:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The studio—and only the studio—gets to name its own film. No amount of bolding, italicizing, and/or all-caps stylizing can or ever will change that. Thank you ATinySilver! As for you're suggestion, I think it is too wordy. The previous one that was used should be reinstated, as it used the sources in article about the official title not including it, and it only being in the crawl. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:08, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

And it's the studio that put it in the film and on its webpage'! oknazevad (talk) 02:50, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

A crawl does not a title make; and, absent the two examples within my suggestion, all official release and marketing materials use SW:TFA. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 03:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The crawl and official web-site beg to differ. Also, names are based on reliable sources, if it is being referred differently by reliable sources this is relevant. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 13:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

As has been explained, the website only has this title with the url, no where else. Additionally, just because other sources refer to it does not mean its relevant. At last count, we had about 5 or so sources (all with different formats) that include Episode VII in the title, against potentially thousands, if not close to a million sources that don't include it. So that's not really relevant. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:02, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

the website only has this title with the url, no where else.(a)Look at the link http://www.starwars.com/films (b) Look at the title to the link for the movies info page. What is it? Star Wars: Episode VII The Force Awakens. That and the actual title in the movie are highly relevant, not to mention all the other sources.--Jules (Mrjulesd) 05:39, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

So why then does the article say Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens? Clearly that's not the same format and there is NO SOURCE that supports that format. If you truly believe the website is a spot-on accurate depiction of the movie's billing, then we should use the exact format there. And when you say "all the other sources", you mean the other 5. Within those sources (as I pointed out above on 06:21, 26 December 2015), there are 3 different formats for the alternate title. If we want to count the official website (which I disagree we should for reasons also stated above), then that brings the number of formats to 4. Clearly there is something wrong with this unofficial title, as the various sources being claimed by proponents in this discussion don't even agree with each other. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

You again? You just agreed earlier about it being reliably sourced. The reason is obvious. The full title is Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens but it is being marketed under a shorter title Star Wars The Force Awakens. But it is not the title that appears in the movie, as it is shortened. That's why so many sources give the full title. That is why the movie give the full title in the movie credits. There is only one title under consideration, that is Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens. Get a grip. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

How can it be marketed under a shorter title, when that is its only title? See here. Also, so many sources give the full title. No they don't. That is why the movie give the full title in the movie credits. It isn't. It is just in the crawl. Film's billing, which can be seen at the bottom of the poster, uses the only title, Star Wars: The Force Awakens. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The film crawl is actually where it gives the movie title! Can't you just get it? --Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:56, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Me again. I agreed earlier to disagree and move on, but apparently moving on isn't happening for both of us. In your previous post, you stated Star Wars: Episode VII The Force Awakens which matches what the official website says. Now you're saying Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens (notice the position of the colon changes). There are no sources that support the latter, and therefore, the formatting being proposed in the article is original research. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't care about the colon. If you want to go by the movie title then it should come after "Episode". But if that's your argument you should really give up. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:56, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, some of us here are trying to keep a positive attitude and work towards a compromise most of us can agree on. Using an unsupported format and stating you don't care when challenged is counterproductive. It might be best for you to take a step back at this point and come back when it's time to work on a RfC proposal. We'll need you on board with that when it's ready. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

So you agree about Episode 7 part anyway? OK well maybe an RfC is the way to go. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 18:13, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I did see it, and my thanks. I suggested this because what was there before clearly didn't mollify those who want there to be an "alternate title". (More specifically, it removes from the article any "yes it is/no it isn't" back-and-forth and instead only reports the facts.) That said, I've reduced the wording, even though this is a bottom-of-the-page footnote in which an explanation need not be overly succinct. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 01:22, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Is "Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens" an alternate title to the film?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Alright. This has gone on waaaaay too long, with no apparent progress. I'm going to try my hardest to present a fair and neutral introduction to this. Additionally, GoneIn60 suggested above that any previous users in this discussion (myself included) should hold off on stating a position in this matter until some (hopefully) third party editors weigh in. With that out of the way, here we go.

The topic being discussed is "Should Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens appear as an alternate title in the lead in the following format: Star Wars: The Force Awakens (also known as Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens) is a 2015 American..." Here is (to the best of my ability) the summaries of both positions, for not including, and including.

Option 1 - Not including

• On November 6, 2014, the official title of the film was revealed as Star Wars: The Force Awakens. Episode VII is notably absent from the title.
• TheForce.net received confirmation from LucasFilm that (emphasis theirs) ""Episode VII" will not be in the title, but it will be in the opening crawl. The movie is officially titled Star Wars: The Force Awakens."
• The official Star Wars Twitter account tweets the following response to a fan regarding not having "Episode VII" in the title: "The original trilogy never used the Episode number in the official title. We'll still be using it on the crawl. :)"
• The film's billing block is released on the official poster, with the title of the film, again, just Star Wars: The Force Awakens. A large version of the poster can be seen here. Note that billing blocks have very strict guidelines and legal ramifications for their order and the formatting and inclusion of everything.
• The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi both did not have the episode numbers in their titles, only being featured in the crawl as well. They are not also known by the titles Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back and Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi until George Lucas rereleases them with these titles.
• The vast majority of sources do not use this title. And the very few that do, do not add enough weight at this time.
• The film will most likely be retitled with Episode VII in its title some where down the line (possibly even with its home media release) or in a rerelease with the other sequel trilogy films, or all 9. But as of "today" (ie the end of 2015), this is not the case.

Option 2 - Including

• Consistency across the other episodic Star Wars films
• Before November 6, 2014, it was known simply as Star Wars Episode VII
• It is featured in the crawl, which would thus make the title Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens valid, or at least an alternate to the actual title.
• There are reliable sources that include it in the title, albeit with different formattings.
  • Star Wars: Episode VII – The Force Awakens (supported by RT, MC, and RogerEbert.com)
  • Star Wars – Episode VII: The Force Awakens (supported by LATimes)
  • Star Wars, Episode VII: The Force Awakens (supported by WashingtonPost)
• Star Wars: The Force Awakens is only a marketing title
• It is shown as Star Wars: Episode VII The Force Awakens on StarWars.com

I believe that's it. Again, I did my very best to present both sides of the argument equally. If there is one side that does not have some of their points represented, let me know and I will adjust. I will also drop a neutral notices at the film project and some third party editors from the film project who I feel would provide some good comments to this discussion.

- Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Option 1

• Support not including (edit for clarity: as in, not including as an "also known as" alternate title) per below-mentioned opening of floodgates. I will only repeat that literally nothing that is not official Disney or Lucasfilm is relevant. In any way. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 22:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment and you don't find the movies opening titles or official website relevant? --Jules (Mrjulesd) 22:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

As I note above, the crawl is not a title, it is a designation. The official websites employ exactly one use each of the "alternate", against dozens of uses of SW:TFA, which can be construed to be not an alternate title but a differentiation between episodes within a single location that lists them all. Every official release by the studios uses SW:TFA. That's the title. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 22:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

It is the title. If you have seen the film the only time "The Force Awakens" is mentioned is below "Episode VII". --Jules (Mrjulesd) 22:45, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Main title/designation/subtitle. This is my measured, considered opinion; whether I'm in the majority or the minority, it will not change. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 22:51, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I reject that classification. But even if it was true, shouldn't the official designation be mentioned in the article? --Jules (Mrjulesd) 23:11, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Jules, every respect, stop. My argument is made, and done. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 23:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

ATinySliver - I take it you'll be heading over to the The Avengers (2012 film) page to argue against the three (3) titles noted in the opening sentence of the lead? - ^theWOLFchild 00:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Thewolfchild: Why would I do that? 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 01:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

That has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion, or is even remotely related. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Is someone's apparent (and farcical) suggestion that I've ever "waged" anything "contrarian" taking root? 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 04:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

It was just a question. No need for anyone to get bent outta shape about it. - ^theWOLFchild 22:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support (not including) – No one denies that the film is the seventh installment in the series, Episode VII. What is being contested is whether or not there is an significant alternate name for the film per WP:OTHERNAMES. I would argue that even with a handful of sources, the alternate name is not significant. In addition, the sources don't even agree on the official punctuation, throwing the validity of its existence into question. Was this made up by the media or some web admin on the official page? Why hasn't the studio mentioned it in any press release or other forms of prose, and instead went out of its way to keep the episode number out of the title? The official page only has a link with Episode VII in the title and as part of a URL address of a page that fails to mention the title anywhere except in the URL itself. The secondary sources provided do use it to some extent, mainly in the title of their articles, but not really at all in prose within the articles. This is a tiny minority when taking all reliable sources into account, and at the very least, should not be given much prominence per WP:DUE by placing it in the lead. I could get on board with a passing mention in the body of the article, but the lead should be out of the question at this point. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment So where in the article would you suggest mentioning Episode VII? --Jules (Mrjulesd) 23:45, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The release section, most likely, where it currently is. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:51, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support (not including) - I'm sticking by my stance from the start. I'm not denying that it is Episode VII, or that Episode VII appears in the opening crawl. I'm stating that the combination of "Star War" "Episode VII" and "The Force Awakens" (in that order) never appears anywhere, and coupled with the fact that Disney and Lucasfilm explicitly state that the title does not include the episode number throws a lot of weight. The opening crawl =/= a title. And this is not like Episode 5 and 6, which included the episode numbers in the crawl, but were still known as simply The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi until the films were rereleased with the titles Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back and Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi. At this time, the film is not known as such, and should not be mentioned in the lead. We cover the non-inclusion of the episode number in the release section, and later in the lead, we mention it is the seventh installment, which could be expanded at this time to mention "Episode VII". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:51, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• ...in the lead...which could be expanded at this time to mention "Episode VII" OK well thanks for that, appreciated. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 23:58, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Someone suggested as such, somewhere in the above discussion. But please don't take that to mean I mean the format (also known as...). I am talking about in the second sentence of the first paragraph, saying something like "The seventh installment released and Episode VII in the main Star Wars film series." - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support (not including). I don't think this is terribly important. However, it looks like we've got several explicit, official statements above about what the title is (and isn't). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment The importance is clarity. Many sources refer to Episode VII, having this in the lead would make it explicit. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 00:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support (not including) - The existing is the primary name, there is no consistent usage of the alternate name nor source for its origin, i.e. anyone can add names to IMDb and then other sites like Rotten Tomatoes source their info from IMDb.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 00:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment reliable sources include the actual in-film titles and official website. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 00:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Option 2

• Support: This is a no-brainer. Whatever the punctuation, there is overwhelming support for the text "Star Wars Episode VII The Force Awakens". I would suggest:

  Star Wars: The Force Awakens (also known as Star Wars: Episode VII The Force Awakens)

  based on offical web-site. But Episode VII should be included. But the punctuation is not too important, the text is the main thing.

• MOVIE TITLES! Opening titles gives "STAR WARS" then "Episode VII" newline "THE FORCE AWAKENS" then synopsis.
• http://www.starwars.com/films Referred to as "Star Wars: Episode VII The Force Awakens". This offical web-site gives the strongest indication of punctuation that is appropriate.
• http://www.starwars.com/films/star-wars-episode-vii-the-force-awakens
• http://www.metacritic.com/movie/star-wars-episode-vii---the-force-awakens . Premier movie meta-review site.
• http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Star_Wars:_Episode_VII_The_Force_Awakens not a reliable source, but is the main Star Wars wiki, as is in external links. It explains how the title was shortened for marketing purposes, but the in-movie titles were not.
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/act-four/wp/2015/12/22/how-star-wars-episode-vii-the-force-awakens-missed-a-huge-opportunity/ Again strong indication of EPISODE VII use. Extremely reliable site.
• http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/star-wars-episode-vii---the-force-awakens-2015 . Again strong indication of EPISODE VII use. Extremely reliable site.
• http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/herocomplex/la-et-hc-star-wars-the-force-awakens-posters-revealed-20151104-htmlstory.html . Again strong indication of EPISODE VII use. Reliable site.
• http://www.moviefone.com/movie/star-wars-the-force-awakens/10118651/trailers . Moviefone trailers are officially licensed.
• http://www.theweek.co.uk/67994/star-wars-episode-vii-the-force-awakens-breaks-box-office-records Again strong indication of EPISODE VII use. Reliable site.

Episode VII is commonly included in URLs of reliable sources, indicating at a minimum that "Episode VII" should be mentioned in the article.

• http://www.theguardian.com/film/star-wars-episode-vii
• http://www.flixster.com/movie/star-wars-episode-vii-the-force-awakens/
• http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_wars_episode_vii_the_force_awakens/

--Jules (Mrjulesd) 19:27, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment - The idea here is for those who were involved in the previous discussion to wait to comment a few days later giving new voices and opinions a chance to enter without having to fight all of us restating what's already been said. It would have been better to wait. Since you have decided to open the flood gates, I will say that in the previous discussion, a few of the sources you posted above have been challenged as reliable sources. FYI to anyone new to the discussion reading this, that if they scroll up, they can see the challenges in more detail. 5 sources were accepted to some degree, and they all use different formatting throwing into question the validity of the alternate title. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment you might have suggested it but I declined. It's not standard practice for RfCs at all. Also I don't find the above presentation neutral, so this is from the "support Ep7" angle that is sorely needed. Also I included some commentary on the sources people well may find helpful. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 22:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was hoping we would have drafted the RfC presentation prior to publishing it, so that both sides would have had a chance to modify it and come to a general agreement with the wording. So I do understand your desire to comment early. The suggestion to hold off on commenting may not be a required practice, but I've seen other editors suggest it before, particularly in highly contentious debates. No big deal, though; we'll manage. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Please explain how you felt my presentation was not neutral. (I'm generally curious). I felt I accurately cut through all the discussion from above and presented the arguments for inclusion correctly. I don't feel you've added much else that I didn't cover. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support without question. Mrjulesd said it all. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support per Jules. Also, I might note that the opposition was based, at least in part of some opposers, on the slippery slope fallacy. oknazevad (talk) 22:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Please provide diffs to support your slippery slope claim if you wish to use it here. Personally, I would like to know which editors you are referring to. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

See the post above from 23:27, 19 December 2015 (UTC). That said, and this is for everyone, can we keep the threaded discussion out of the options section, where it doesn't belong. The point of the RFC formatting is to make it easier for a neutral closer to assess the arguments and make a decision. Threaded discussion doesn't help that and belongs in the comments section below. oknazevad (talk) 00:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that threaded discussion belongs in the appropriate section below, but here, I think it was important for you to provide clarification next to your comment. Thank you for doing so. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support — I thought previous users of this discussion were holding off for a little bit, but since we are apparently not, here are my two cents: In addition to the points of Option 2, I agree with Mrjulesd. Also, the film is commonly referred to as "Episode VII" by both the fans and by the filmmakers themselves, as well as many sources that have already been linked, which support it as an alternate title. Here are a couple of many examples of J.J. Abrams himself calling it Episode VII: one and two. Also, the body of this article calls it "Episode VII" on multiple accounts but does not actually define The Force Awakens as "Episode VII" before its first usage—it is actually not defined as Episode VII until its last usage. There is a sentence in the lead that says "The seventh installment...", but installment number does not always mean its chronological (episode) number (this one just happens to—and is the first in the saga to do so—but that is not the point). Putting Episode VII in the lead as proposed would clearly define that; a.) this is Episode VII in the movie saga; b.) it is an alternate/common name among the aforementioned parties; and c.) would defend its use in the article's body. Earlier in the discussion, I had originally brought up the suggestion (and ATinySliver later also suggested) of changing the sentence that states "The seventh installment in the main Star Wars film series,..." to "Episode VII in the main Star Wars film series,..." If this RfC decides that "(also known as Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens)" is not to be used in the lead, then this suggestion should be done. --JDC808 ♫ 23:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

JDC808 We were, but then more discussion happened.... I'd also like to add that I'm in support of your's (and ATinySliver's) alternate text to the second sentence. I mention such, in my post for my support in Option 1. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear, your first preference is to include Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens in the lead, but your second preference would be just some mention of Episode VII that puts it into context for the rest of the article? I would definitely support your second preference as noted in the earlier discussion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:10, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes. I much prefer to include the parenthetical "also known as", but if this RfC says no to that, then the second suggestion should be the way to go. --JDC808 ♫ 00:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support - I those of us who participated above agreed not to weigh in on the RfC, but since everyone has, here's my support for inclusion. It just makes sense from the sources, to consistency with past articles. The fact that those opposed asked for sources and I provided 5 and still didn't change their mind, and instead moved the goalposts, is insulting and harmful to the wiki. TrueCRaysball | ^#RaysUp 00:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support, per references, on-screen title and common name principle. Ribbet32 (talk) 01:00, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support I believe that including the "episode" number in some form as a variant title would be helpful. There is a reason why it is included in the opening crawl, and that is to establish its chronological placement within the canon. Simply saying it is the "seventh installment" is not particularly helpful in this regard. While "Episode VII" is not part of the official title, it is a legitimate and commonly used shorthand designator for the film: the New York Times, for example, note three alternative titles all including the episode number. The official Star Wars site also uses the episode designations itself in some cases. Betty Logan (talk) 02:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Betty, just wanted to point out that including Episode VII in some form isn't what's at stake. A support vote here is agreeing that Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens should be in parenthesis as an alternate name in the opening sentence. Many of those who support Option 1 do believe that some form of Episode VII is needed, just not this particular form. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support- The use of the title 'Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens' on the official website alone should be evidence enough that this is considered a valid alternate title for the film (as the argument isn't about how prominent the title is, just that the title has been used as a valid alternative to the official title.) As is the use of the title in the Opening Crawl (as the start of the Crawl is the closest to a title card the Star Wars films have- and at no point in the film is the official title 'Star Wars: The Force Awakens' used in the film on a title card, or otherwise. So the choice to style the title 'Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens' in the actual film should not be discounted.) It is also in keeping with the articles for The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi (and while those opposed to the use of the alternative title for The Force Awakens argue that Empire and Jedi's alternate titles only came about with their rereleases- I would argue that the fact that their Opening Crawls referrred to them as 'Episode V' and 'VI' respectively from their initial releases onwards, meant that these were alternative titles to their officially marketed ones since their inital release.) 106.68.74.135 (talk) 02:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

That's part of the problem here. If we are to use the official website as the most important source, then we should use the exact title listed there, which is Star Wars: Episode VII The Force Awakens. Clearly this is either a grammatical error, or the title that appears on the site wasn't meant to represent the brand. Too much wrong to be confident about using it in any form at this point. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Ironically, that is part of the problem. There's literally one use of Star Wars: Episode VII The Force Awakens compared to at least three dozen uses of Star Wars: The Force Awakens. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 07:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

They use the same formatting for the other films on the site (i.e. having 'Star Wars: Episode One The Phantom Menace' rather than 'Star Wars Episode One: The Phantom Menace') so if it was a grammatial error, it is one that has been consistantly applied to the previous films and would presumably be intended to represent the brand. And as I already said the arguemnt isn't about how prominent the title is (as 'Star Wars: The Force Awakens is very clearly the official title) just that this is considered an official alternative title (which its use on the official site would suggest it is.) (And dismissing the appearance of the title on the official site seems dangerously close to slippery slope logic to me; because if the official site isn't considerd a reliable source,what is?)106.68.74.135 (talk) 08:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

There is no slope, never mind a slippery one—except the one on which I keep repeating myself. (Since, however, that seems to be a necessity, once again: the one and only one use of the not-an-alternate-title at SW.com is a link—at a site that links to numerous properties—to this film's actual page, where—when I checked yesterday—there were three dozen references to SW:TFA and zero to SW:E7TFA.) 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 09:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

And my point was that it doesn't matter that is only used once on the official site- the fact that it was used by the official site at all suggests it is considered an alternative title for the film (because the debate isn't about how frequently the title is used, so stating SW:TFA is used 3 dozen times on the official site compatred to one use of SW:E7TFA is irrelevant. And that's why I brought up the slippery slope- the titles one appearance on the official Star Wars website- alongside it's appearance in the opening crawl- should be enough for it to be viewed as an alternative title.)106.68.74.135 (talk) 10:47, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

And, clearly, we disagree. Slope not included. Actual mileage may vary. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 10:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support Although it seems clear that the film-makers want the short form, I have seen too many Star Wars-affiliated uses of the long form. For example, the Star Wars app has a "data bank" which uses the long form. As well as on the starwars.com site, and in common use, although much less so than the short form. Secondly, I think including the 'also known as' text is the only appropriate way forward to end the debate. I think that editors and anons will keep adding it as leaving it out will be antagonistic to many people. I prefer the term Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens. I previously suggested keeping a note, but I think now it is unnecessary.Alaney2k (talk) 19:47, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support including "Star Wars: The Force Awakens (also known as Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens)" in the lead sentence. Cnbrb (talk) 13:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support The official site lists the film as Star Wars: Episode VII The Force Awakens. Logically, if it is stated so in the official site, it should be included in the lead. The official site is more than a credible source in my opinion. Also, including it in the lead also helps with consistency. Fanaction2031 (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support – Is this joke finally coming to an end? Official site uses the Episode [number] alternate for the main movies, pretty straightforward to me. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support My opinion is that once a title appears on-screen, in the actual film, it trumps anything that may have been used for marketing before it. Episode VII appears in between Star Wars and The Force Awakens; it's in keeping with all the other films in the franchise and to my eyes is the official title. Star Wars: The Force Awakens, of course, having been used on the posters and elsewhere is a valid marketing title and should therefore be classed as 'alternate'. That said, if the article is to remain where it is, I'd simply prefer "(titled on-screen as...)" to acknowledge the fact. Chris 42 (talk) 18:15, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support - denoting "also known as Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens" in the opening sentence of the lead. I can't see how there can possibly be a debate about this. There are a bah-zillion sources supporting it and surely WP:COMMONNAME applies here. We have 3 different titles in the lead of The Avengers (2012 film) FFS. - ^theWOLFchild 00:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Just so you're aware, there aren't "a bah-zillion sources supporting it". That's part of the reason why this RfC and previous discussions have been taking place. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Just so you're aware, "bah-zillion" isn't a real number, so relax. - ^theWOLFchild 04:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support per common sense and multiple independent reliable sources. The WP:OWN is strong with this one. ‑‑Yodin^T 12:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support - this seems like a no-brainer to me. This title is more specific and the reader will know instantly what the page is about, not to mention reliable sources refer to it this way. Like an above user has already said, WP:COMMONNAME should apply to this case. Seems like common sense to me. Cheers, Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 00:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support inclusion - Mostly for the reasons already raised by Favre1fan93. I recommend parallelism with its fellow articles. Regardless of its official title being Star Wars: The Force Awakens, the Episode VII alternate title can be identified as "also known as" because reliable sources recognize it. κατάσταση 02:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support inclusion I'm also re-adding it because we never had come to a conclusion to remove it in the first place. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 17:56, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support - The simple fact that in the opening crawl the title is listed as Episode VII makes this an alternate title by definition. Chambr (talk) 01:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

I am notifying all contributing users who commented in the above discussion(s) about this RfC. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I also posted an RfC notice at WP:VPM to get more third-party input. --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Pinging @PrimeHunter:, @Muboshgu:, @Kurt Leyman:, @Alaney2k:, @Darkwarriorblake:, @DonQuixote: --Jules (Mrjulesd) 00:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Pinging @Mecedey:, @Adamstom.97:, @Burningblue52:, @Clpo13:, @Ribbet32:, @Chris 42:, @TrueCRaysball: --Jules (Mrjulesd) 00:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Looks like some were missed. Pinging the others: @Erik:, @Popcornduff:, @Cnbrb:, @The Wookieepedian:, @Shane1261994:. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:34, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Corrected a typo: @Jonipoon:. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:36, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I personally support the movement for the inclusion of the 'Episode' title. It is used in the film's opening crawl-sequence. Just because it was not marketed as such is irrelevant. It is continually referenced as Episode VII through Star Wars websites, and sections. I would say that the inclusion in the actual film aught to be enough. I would go a step further and re-state what I said above. The whole franchise needs a better format, as referenced in Wikipedia. All franchises for example: X-Men, Star Trek, The Maze Runner, The Divergent Series, Twilight, etc. etc., have the franchise title, followed by a colon and then the subtitle. the issue at hand is that all Star Wars films are currently listed as Star Wars Episode [#]: [subtitle/film title]. The actual format should list the franchise title, followed by a colon, and then the episodic/chronological numbering, followed by a dash and then the subtitle! For example: Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens. Regardless, there is no disputing that the film is indeed Episode VII; especially given the fact that it is listed as such in the film's opening scene. Burningblue52 (Burningblue52) 05:59, 28 December 2015

Unfortunately, there isn't even one source that supports the Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens, which is what the proponents of including an alternate title have been championing up to this point. I agree with you on the formatting. At the very least, we should use a format that the scant amount of sources we have support, which seems to be Star Wars: Episode VII – The Force Awakens more often than any other. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

@106.68.74.135: It's a good point that you raised above about how the other Star Wars films are listed in the same format as TFA on the official site. I hadn't considered that before. The studio has obviously gone through great pains to keep Episode VII out of the title in all marketing materials, but yet, here it is on the website. My main concern was whether or not the alternate title was prominent enough in reliable sources to justify its inclusion in the opening sentence of the lead (I do agree that there are enough to justify its inclusion in the body of the article). If there were a considerable amount of sources using the alternate title, then it would surely meet the requirement at WP:OTHERNAMES as being "significant". However, the number of sources using that title appears to be a tiny minority in comparison to the number that don't. Relying on the official site alone or assigning it greater weight goes against WP:PSTS. Though primary sites are reliable and can be carefully cited, secondary sources are generally preferred to support potentially contentious material, especially in this limited capacity where the title is not used in any articles or press releases that I could find on the official website. Such content would have definitely been vetted by those with a vested interest in the film's promotion, whereas a link would not necessarily go through the same scrutiny. That is why the official site is still being questioned from my point of view, and also why I don't think it belongs in the lead with the supporting evidence supplied thus far. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, the official screenplay has been made available, and with the image on the site, you can, again, clearly see the title is just Star Wars: The Force Awakens. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

The Screenplay isn't available on that site- they just discuss ideas within the actual screenplay. The image on the site could have been taken from the actual screenplay, but it could have easily been created by the site to represent the screenplay. In any case the argument isn't that SW EVII: TFA is the official title of the film, but that it is a recognized alternative title of the film. (In which case if the screenplay had actually become available, the description of the Opening Crawl might have further clarified this.) 106.68.64.131 (talk) 08:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, actually, some have argued (yourself included) that it is an "official" alternative. So any evidence that questions its existence as an official alternative is certainly relevant. As for being recognized, that's the main point of contention. Its recognition needs to go beyond fringe acceptance to show significance. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Ssoooo whats happening here after there have been 'voting' or whatever you want to personally call it for "Option 1" and "Option 2"? This hasn't been touched in days, and it looks like there are more 'votes' (or whatever) for one than the other. Is this going to be over soon? Charlr6 (talk) 01:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Normally RRCs run for 30 days or until someone requests closure at WP:ANRFC, whichever comes first. ANRFC is usually if it's petered out, but there's often a surge towards the end of the 30 days, so maybe it's best to just let it run its course. oknazevad (talk) 01:48, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

So the RfC has 'closed', and I think it can be closed, but I would prefer (and I hope others would too) if a noninvolved editor did the closing. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

What's the final verdict (or what ever prefer to call closure)? Charlr6 (talk) 22:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

That's what needs to be determined. The number of supports does not automatically equal the verdict. That is why I hope a non-involved editor/admin will close the RfC. WP:ANRFC seems to be backed up, so approaching one might be the best bet. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

30 days

It would appear we have a consensus to add "Episode VII" to the title. By my count, it's 19 for inclusion and 5 against. Does anyone contest this? If so, we can post a request at WP:ANRFC to have an admin come take a look. - ^theWOLFchild 17:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

As I posted this, I noticed the comment above. If it's been acknowledged that the RfC is closed and people aren't willing to act on it, then we should get an admin. If ANRFC is "backed up", then we should get listed on there sooner than later. - ^theWOLFchild 17:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Added. - ^theWOLFchild 17:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Please don't take my (or anyone else's) desire not to close as an inability to act. As I clearly stated above, I would hope everyone involved would not want me or anyone else involved to close the RfC to remain completely impartial. Additionally, per WP:VOTE, having "19 for inclusion and 5 against" means nothing. It's the matter consensus and strength of arguments. And I state this, because if I would close, I would close for against because in my opinion, that is the far stronger argument. And I would assume someone in support of inclusion who voted as such would close for inclusion. That is why a third party editor/admin is the best course of action. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Also known as" in the lead

I'm not trying to beat a dead horse here or complain against the RfC (I've accepted its inclusion; I'm fine with it). What I do want to address, is if "also known as" is really the best terminology here. As I've stated previously (you can read above and see), unlike say Empire Strikes Back, which was officially retitled to include the episode number, this hasn't yet. So, I'm proposing the lead use this format: "Star Wars: The Force Awakens (Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens in the opening crawl)[refs here possibly from the release section] is a 2015...". It keeps the episode title in the lead as we determined from the RfC, but is also 100% accurate. Really, really don't want to make a big discussion about it, just wanted to see what others might feel about changing the wording. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:51, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The close of the RFC was pretty obvious about the "also known as" being correct, because it's based on more than just the opening crawl. oknazevad (talk) 18:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter that it hasn't been officially given as an alternate title, the film is still "also known as" Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens by some people, and the RfC concluded that it is so to a notable enough degree to include in the lead. What I do think we should be discussing, however, is the punctuation. I'm pretty sure it should be written Star Wars: Episode VII – The Force Awakens, and that is also how I have seen it formatted on cinema websites that use the longer title. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:34, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

The current punctuation is consistent with all of the past Star Wars movies and their alternate titles (on Wikipedia). Unless if there's compelling evidence to break from those conventions then I think the spelling should stand as is. FallingGravity (talk) 06:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

The only thing that might be worth looking at regarding punctuation is that starwars.com uses the Star Wars: Episode X Episode Name format, rendering everything after "Star Wars" as a subtitle. But that's a minor tweak that can easily be done to all seven articles in like 5 minutes. oknazevad (talk) 12:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

"A.K.A." is fine. It doesn't need to mention the opening crawl or other superfluous details. - ^theWOLFchild 03:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Additionally, we don't know how the boxart for the film may look like in a future collection set with all 7 movies. In such a boxart, the film may have "Episode VII" on it. /Jonipoon (talk) 13:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)