Template talk:Skywalker family tree

Force Awakens

It's probably time to update this or figure out how the expanded universe will fit in. I just watched Star Wars the Force Awakens. In the movie, Leia has had a child with Han Solo, and the kid grows up to be Kylo Ren, the Sith Apprentice in the new film (who continues the unbroken line from his grandfather Darth Vader). Jonathan lampe (talk) 01:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Since the movie came out about 5 minutes ago, please be more considerate and don't put spoilers in your edit summaries. In any case, I was already thinking of a combined Skywalker-Solo tree and color-coding canon vs. expanded universe.— TAnthony^Talk 02:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done. And by the way, I've included prominent Legends characters Mara Jade, Ben Skywalker and the three Solo kids because of their obvious notability within the longrunning expanded universe, but I don't know that it should go beyond that, as in other Solos mentioned in misc novels (and covered in the Legends tree in Solo family). The characters I've included are directly connected/related to canon characters, and this tree should focus primarily on canon information. That said, I don't know if it would be a big deal or not to include Jag Fel, Allana and Tenel Ka.— TAnthony^Talk 16:24, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I think it's a bad idea to try to include both continuities in one tree, as it gives a totally camel se impression that the characters coexist, when they simply don't. Kylo Ren is not the brother of Darth Caedus. oknazevad (talk) 04:26, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I see your point, but I also think the separation is very clear. Do you have an alternative idea? I honestly looked at it from both sides, but I kept thinking of the Luke, Leia, Han, Darth Vader and Padme articles, and how having two trees would be overkill, but one or the other would seem wrong. Obviously official canon/Force Awakens trumps the expanded universe, but at the same time, Legends is a huge body of work that contains a huge amount of story and has been the norm for decades. From an article perspective I think that makes Canon and Legends of similar notability. This is not a Star Wars wiki where, for example, we have to now promote the visibility of canon works and devalue the Legends material (which I have not even read, btw). In defining the franchise for readers, we should be making the separation of canon and Legends clear, and certainly put canon first, but not making it seem as though Legends no longer exists. I've cleaned up and cited the EU tree in Solo family today, and I could see it as a standalone template in, for example, the Jacen article, but having both templates in the Han article, for example, would be hideous.— TAnthony^Talk 05:39, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think Legends continuity should be included. Not just because this could be confusing (even with the colour coding) for casual fans, but also because they are completely separate things. Yes, Legends still exists, but it isn't the true Star Wars anymore. It is essentially officially published fan fiction, and should not be tied in with the actual continuity. It would make more sense to just have the real family tree, with perhaps a note at the bottom explaining the existence of the Legends characters and how they were removed from official canon following the buying of Lucasfilm by Disney. That way we are not ignoring their existence and the fact that those stories are out there, but are also not saying that they properly exist within Star Wars in anyway, which is the most accurate way of portraying them from a real world perspective. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, putting the family tree aside for a moment, what you are saying is literally the opposite of real-world perspective LOL. Real-world is us talking about the films and books and action figures and when they came out; the concepts of canon and continuity are in-universe. Both canon works and Legend works are encyclopedic, this is not "Star Wars canonapedia". Featured articles like Batman cover all incarnations of a character, separated clearly and usually chronologically, but nothing withheld because it's not "current canon". A great Star Wars example right now is Princess Leia; she is introduced and described in a primarily canon fashion, with a separate section for the extended universe which spells out the varied works basically chronologically, and the storylines are somewhat incidental. She is a character used in both Lucasfilm films and licensed, official and notable novels, comics and video games. A casual reader or a dedicated fan interested in the dozens of novels should be able to get an understanding of that continuity. Canon has no bearing on what is notable and encyclopedic, you are assuming the reader is interested in strictly canon information but that is not the complete picture. Withholding information because "it isn't the true Star Wars anymore" is in-universe fan thinking. That said, I understand your concern that this tree should be Legends-free. But then a footnote saying "The Legends series has other characters" is not enough. Sure, there could be a separate Legends tree in Jacen Solo, but for characters in both continuities, that's inadequate. Family trees are just as much for navigation as they are for understanding the connections between people. I'm trying to think of the most efficient way to cover both continuities. If the current way isn't working for most people, perhaps a small, separate "Luke and Leia and their Legends families" section in this template or as a separate one. But in the latter case there would be two templates in the Han article, for example. And again, I have never read a single Legends book or comic, so I'm not coming from a fan perspective, I'm looking at this from a Wikipedia-wide view.— TAnthony^Talk 01:36, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. I have had this discussion on several other talk pages, because the fact is that Disney has completely separated Star Wars and Star Wars Legends. They are two separate things as far as publication and promotion, etc. That is what I mean by real world perspective. I would compare it to something like the Marvel Comics Universe versus the Marvel Cinematic Universe, which are released as two separate things. Yes we use the same article for the different versions of each character, but the divide is clear within those articles, and if a family tree was ever added to Spider-Man, for example, it would be for only one version of the character (for example, the comics version of Spider-Man married Mary Jane, but the MCU version has not).

I am not denying that the Legends exist or that they should have a place on Wikipedia, but the fact is that any characters appearing in the Legends works that don't appear in the official Star Wars works are not Star Wars characters, but Star Wars Legends characters, and that is an official distinction rather than simply a fanboy distinction. Likewise, any characters appearing in the Legends works who do appear in the official Star Wars works are not Star Wars characters, they are the different, Star Wars Legends versions of the Star Wars characters.

You brought up the example of Princess Leia. That article is about the official Star Wars character, and so the creation information, appearances, and cultural impact section are all about the actual Leia, while the Legends Leia is dealt with in a separate subsection (hence not denying her existence as a character, but not confusing the different versions). This template, which is transcluded there, is implying that the main version of the character is somehow related to Jaina, Jacen, and Anakin Solo (I know we have a key explaining that this is not the case, but the implication is still there) which is obviously not true. What it should be saying is that the main version of Leia is the mother of Ben Solo only, with a subsection (or in this case, a note) explaining that in the separate Legends continuity her children were different.

Again, this is not a fanboy distinction, and I myself also have not read the Legends stuff, this is all based on a real world distinction made by Disney that has precedence on Wikipedia, such as the different versions of Marvel characters that I discussed. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:47, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I totally see your argument and I think we're on the same page about separation (I actually overhauled the Leia article recently). So I'm fine with the Legends kids not overlapping with Ben Solo in this template. But Ben has appeared in one film (official as it may be) and the other Solos have been in at least 20 novels, so the expanded universe as a topic should be covered completely and clearly for readers. Disney controls their branding and canonicity, but not what is encyclopedic or how we present it. That said, we're only talking about the tree, and I think I can make things clear with a footnote. Thanks!— TAnthony^Talk 17:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Ben "Solo"

It's not yet citable as "Solo" being Ben's surname (even though it is common sense). Therefore any attempt at reversion from this edit of simply "Ben" can be taken as vandalism, and the content can be labeled original research, which is a violation of Wikipedia's policy regarding this. Wikipedia is not about what is true, it is about verifiability. --KetchupRevenge (talk) 01:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

It was mentioned in "The Force Awakens Golden Book". So here is at least one canonical source that lists his full name as Ben Solo. Here's a link to the exact page.. It's also mentioned in an official starwars.com article located here. --Jsngrwd (talk) 00:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Why is a family tree even required on Star Wars characters' pages?

My understanding of WP:MOS with respect to writing about fiction is that things like editor-created family trees are not encouraged. There are lots of reasons for this, one, family trees are for actual families whose members are real and verifiable, not made-up ones which are subject to being re-made up and re-re-made up over and over again by generations of writers; another is that anything that tends to develop into an unnecessarily complicated structural imposition in an article tends to alienate the casual reader of an encyclopedia ("I'm here to read about a character, not see how they're related to every other character in the universe"). Perhaps more importantly, once you have to start figuring out, i.e., doing synthesis to determine who is and who isn't in the family tree, under what circumstances, which universes, and so on... we're veering off into original research. It just seems to me that its presence here is that of fanlabour production, not WP reporting of what's in reliable sources. I applaud the effort that's gone into it and all, and encourage you to keep on with it, but on a Star Wars fansite. For WP purposes, I recommend that the family tree be removed from these pages. Just my two cents. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 01:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I haven't seen any policies that discourage fictional family trees, and they are as much for navigation among articles as for understanding character connections in fiction. It's interesting that you have an issue with this one, considering that it's one of the few which are actually cited, and doesn't involve any kind of synthesis, as the information is clearly established by notable works.— TAnthony^Talk 03:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Not so explicitly, no. But it's an example of treating fictional characters as though they were real, i.e., in an in-universe style--at least as I interpret it, and I may be in a minority. Likewise as is the case of long-term franchise films, soap operas, comics, etc., it is subject to retcon in a way that a real-world tree never is, with members disappearing (it turns out so-and-so is(not) the father(mother) of...). All that aside, I have to admit, this one looks a lot better than any other I've encountered previously on WP, and it's nicely tucked away towards the bottom of an article rather than in the reader's face. The WP editor in me has issues with it, but they're pretty tiny ones. I'll move on. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 03:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Should Han Solo's fake ex-wife should have at least a footnote in the tree?

In the Star Wars (2015 comic), Sana Starros was revealed to be Han Solo's ex-wife, but their marriage was only a fake marriage done as part of a scam. Here's a source: http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/06/03/star-wars-delivers-huge-change-for-han-solo Rosvel92 (talk) 03:40, 30 October 2016 (UTC)Rosvel92

A "fake" marriage means no marriage, which means trivia. These fictional character family trees push the boundaries of notability as it is.— TAnthony^Talk 04:39, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Luke Aunt's name

The name is Beru Whitesun Lars according — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vscarmena (talk • contribs) 08:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Most of the time in family trees we list women with their maiden names only to improve readability/reduce clutter, as the tree shows that she is married to Owen Lars and her taking his last name is implied. FYI, another wiki page is not an acceptable source but you are correct about the character's full name.— TAnthony^Talk 16:28, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

References

Small mistake

i think there is a small mistake in the Tree: the Line to Anakin Skywalker should originate from the one between Cliegg Lars and Shmi Skywalker, not directly from Shmi Skywalker only (i think) not really sure how to fix this because i am not familiar with the Syntax of these Trees, so i leave it to the next person who knows ^^ 2003:8B:2F0F:7B00:9C4D:D99:BC92:7AF9 (talk) 23:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually no, the prequel trilogy suggests (somewhat weirdly) that Anakin is the result of some kind of immaculate conception in Shmi thanks to the Force/midichlorians. She gets together with Lars when Anakin is older.— TAnthony^Talk 00:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Palp

See [1] and [2]. Apparently, he needs to be removed from the tree, unless unequivocally confirmed to be Anakin's "father". Bests, --Seryo93 (talk) 17:08, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Mara Jade and Ben Skywalker referenced inclusion

I'd be happy to see a re-inclusion of Mara Jade and Ben Skywalker into the Skywalker family tree. After all, for years Luke was the only Skywalker that we'd been introduced to and this is his only experience of a nuclear family. A note or perhaps a colour code could be added to indicate their being made non-canonical but, if there is to be a Skywalker family tree, I think an inclusion of his wife and child would be valid. GregKaye 21:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I think it needs to be a separate Legends tree in this same template that would also include Han and Leia's kids Jaina, Jacen and Anakin.— TAnthony^Talk 20:03, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Rey

How is it justified that she's in the family tree? She's said to be a "dyad" with Ben; where does that equate to a marriage exactly? She takes the name, but should she be in this tree? – Muboshgu (talk) 03:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

It's also debatable as to whether or not she belongs on the tree in the first place. Rey is a Skywalker by name only, but not part of the family Skywalker. She's not a descendant of Shmi and she didn't marry into the family. It doesn't make sense to have her on a Skywalker Family Tree off to the side. Adoptive children are usually connected to their parents in a family tree, but no one actually adopted her. She took on the name to carry on the family legacy, but that's not the same as being a member of said family. Nevesnotrab (talk) 05:16, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Disney's official Skywalker family tree does not include Rey. Page 200 of the Star Wars Book only includes blood relatives of Shmi and their spouses. I think Rey should be removed to align more with the official Disney canon.

Nevesnotrab (talk) 22:59, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

That is a simplified family tree only showing immediate family members directly related by blood. By that logic, the Organa and Lars families should not be included either. People might not like the end of The Rise of Skywalker having had her become a Skywalker, but it did have her become one. 2001:BB6:5241:C900:EC14:43F3:ED19:E34C (talk) 16:11, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Same image: "now one with the Force, Luke and Leia are proud that Rey will continue their legacy." 2001:BB6:5241:C900:EC14:43F3:ED19:E34C (talk) 16:15, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

The Organa and Lars families are ancestors (or adoptive ancestors) or the spouse of everyone included on the tree. Rey does not fit into either category. Luke and Leia may be proud that Rey will continue their legacy, but that's not the same as adopting her.

Nevesnotrab (talk) 19:33, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

So her connection is then her dyad with Ben. 2001:BB6:5241:C900:EC14:43F3:ED19:E34C (talk) 20:03, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

A dyad isn't a marriage. It's a type of Force bond. Nevesnotrab (talk) 21:48, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

A line signifies the relationship, while a dashed line would be a marriage. 2001:BB6:5241:C900:EC14:43F3:ED19:E34C (talk) 11:54, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

About 10 years ago someone suggested a solid line between married people and no one disputed it . If you have an issue with the formatting go take it up with that guy. But, disputing the minutiae of the tree formatting still does not justify Rey's inclusion because she was not married to Ben nor is she an ancestor of anyone on the published Skywalker Family tree.

Nevesnotrab (talk) 19:06, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

It was not signifying a marriage, simply the (romantic by the end of The Rise of Skywalker) relationship they have with their dyad, and Rey continuing the name of Skywalker after his death. Would you say you would prefer a dashed or dotted line then, and more detail of the dyad added? 2001:BB6:5241:C900:EC14:43F3:ED19:E34C (talk) 17:55, 7 November 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:BB6:5241:C900:75FC:75BA:CF94:E0F3 (talk)

A romantic relationship isn't a marriage. A dyad isn't a marriage. Rey continuing the name Skywalker is not the same as being adopted into the family. I prefer no line because she doesn't go on the tree, for reasons already laid out. Do you have any substantial argument that Rey is married to a member of the Skywalker family or was adopted by a member of the same tree? If not, I think we can finally put this one to rest.

Nevesnotrab (talk) 01:37, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

The Star Wars Book’s family tree only includes the core, blood related members, it does not include the extended tree as it is here. If you want the tree as it is in that book, then you'd have to remove several other members. With the extended tree, there is no reason for only Rey to be excluded, since she is related in the Force with Ben Solo as established in the film and books. She was referenced to as Ben Solo's "twin" or "soulmate" in the Force before. She is not related to him by blood, but in the Force. I don't see why this information would be excluded from this extended tree, especially with the new canon book about the Skywalkers with the entire third part featuring the dyad, which includes both Ben Solo and Rey, and it is a book that includes only the members of the Skywalker family:

• Skywalker A Family at War:

• Others:

Arabela13 (talk) 23:04, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

The current tree only includes those in the tree from the Star Wars Book and their spouses/ancestors. Since Rey is not a spouse or ancestor, she isn't in the tree. Dyad is not a familial or marital relationship. Rey is important to the Skywalker family and therefore stays on the main Skywalker Family Tree page, but not the template of the main family members, their spouses, and ancestors.

I looked through the sources you posted, and they only mention Rey in relationship to Ben, and then once at the very end. Does she have her own sections (notice the plural. One blurb about her at the end taking the name isn't much)? If she is only mentioned in regards to her relationship to Ben and then at the end when she decides to take the name, then it is a rather weak argument for her inclusion in the tree. You could write a book about just Han Solo and you'd have to mention Chewbacca, but that doesn't make Chewbacca a Solo. Do you see what I mean? If she is her own Skywalker, so to speak, she'd have her own, unique, sections of the book dedicated to her.

However you have a point that it is an extended tree. I wouldn't mind shaving it down to just the blood members so that it better matches the official published tree.

Nevesnotrab (talk) 02:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

---

From Rey and Kylo Ren discussion from @Arabela13: StarWars.com listed the pair as a romantic couple in their 2021 Valentine's Day quiz (it literally says Rey and Ben; all other couples included in it are canon ones too, like this one is), Rian Johnson and J. J. Abrams outright confirming it as well. Supreme Leader Snoke was also revealed to be a failed Palpatine clone like Rey's father fifteen days ago: "Destiny, and the Contingency, would catch up to Rey in the form of the First Order, led by one of Palpatine’s evil duplicates called Snoke." Here are the references to back this up. 103.18.56.56 (talk) 00:36, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Romantic relationships are not familial or marital relationships, and therefore would be out of place on a family tree.

Nevesnotrab (talk) 00:40, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Other Romantic Relationships

Should we include other romantic relationships as footnotes on the tree? It would get cluttered very quickly. We know that Padme and Han had former romances. Are they worth including? I would argue they are not because the characters never ended up married.

Nevesnotrab (talk) 01:01, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I would say Qi'ra is worth a footnote as a significant relationship. 103.18.56.56 (talk) 01:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Too many relationships would simply clutter the page, though. We should stick to canon and to actual family for the family tree.

Nevesnotrab (talk) 01:15, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Removed Footnotes

Since no one spoke about it, I went ahead and removed extraneous footnotes. It isn't particularly worth it to cite Leia's adoptive parentage (Wikipedia's citing sources pages says "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged" and Leia's parentage and adoptive parentage is pretty cut and dry). I removed the Legends stuff because it's probably better suited to the Skywalker Family Tree page (not the template here) in the Legends section. I suppose someone could go ahead and make a Legends tree if they want, but then we'd have to specify that this one is the canon tree.

Nevesnotrab (talk) 17:39, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Keep all females at right in a spouse relationship

Would it nice if we ekkp all females at right in a spouse relationship? 140.112.55.233 (talk) 11:13, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Could you explain what you mean by this? I don't understand "keep all females at right in a spouse relationship." Do you mean place the women's names on the right-hand side of the men for spousal relationships? If so, I don't see why that would be an issue for organizational purposes, however I'm personally not going to go through and do it. Nevesnotrab (talk) 02:01, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Yep, that is what I mean. I think this arrangement will give more information in the family tree. Another possible option is to use a rounded square for female. 140.112.55.233 (talk) 13:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC)