1703:
that describe how general audiences found the sequel trilogy or praise for specific elements, but on the other hand you've raised enough issues with how the prose stands at the moment that there's definitely enough to work with. Does anything jump out you don't think needs to be mentioned? There definitely needs to be an introductory sentence on what aspects of the trilogy received praise (if it can be sourced), because at the moment it mainly just lists specific criticisms with each of the three films.
1222:
495:
1119:
1092:
1018:
919:
898:
1291:
1129:
1008:
814:
2277:
1270:
987:
793:
544:
523:
237:
645:
425:
401:
207:
824:
1234:
435:
1379:
370:
284:
1301:
1420:
2256:
1840:
articles that sum up how these elements of the trilogy were received with regards to the overall reception of the trilogy; instead, at present at least, they are just writing about the divisive nature of the trilogy and general disappointment from fans/critics. Would it be acceptable to source individual reviews?
1580:
Which brings me to my next point that the sourcing for this first paragraph is very poor; the edits have simply cited the Rotten
Tomatoes pages for each respective film, as well as just listing the homepage of the Cinemascore website. Again, we should have third-party sources detailing these statistics.
1718:
I don't see any major problems with the current prose of the section and think it's a pretty cohesive overview of how the three films were perceived as a unit. If anyone wants more specific positive/negative criticism of individual films they can navigate to those articles. Only thing standing out to
1611:
Audience scores are never reliable sources. Period. Every single actual reliable audience polling metric (PostTrak, CinemaScore, SurveyMonkey) showed highly positive audience reception. The fact that some people seem to think audience scores are reliable is a sign they are not reliable sources on the
1875:
Still drafting the new section, sorry I only get a few hours a day in the week to work on it. Just to note I wasn't going to list the pro's and con's of each film, I was just going to begin with what aspects of the trilogy on the whole were generally praised; the only exception to this where I would
1817:
I have no problem with expanding the first paragraph of general film feedback somewhat if it adds depth, but again the individual film articles have their own detailed reception sections. We're talking about the trilogy's recption as a whole; as TenTonParasol pointed out, there are multiple sources,
2076:
She's not a critic. That's the biggest issue. I mention the prequels because she also implied they were bad. Why is her opinion relevant? I don't downplay her involvement in the original trilogy, but the only reason her opinion received coverage was because of her relationship to Lucas and than she
1980:
I don't think Marcia's thoughts on the sequel trilogy are particularly useful here. She says "that
Kennedy and Abrams "don't get" the franchise" which would be more useful if she didn't complain about the prequels in the same conversation. Based on the comments she didn't like any Star Wars project
1596:
Whether or not these articles are just considered opinion pieces, I still disagree with how this sentence is written. What is classed as "evidence" if not the articles that refer to the fact that there never appeared to be a clear overarching plan for the trilogy based on statements from Abrams and
1497:
s article I have (at least temporary) linked on this page. However, the problem we have in doing so is that these opinions are primarily audience-based and not from critics, which as you wrote yourself gave the two films generally positive reviews. There's not enough in this paragraph to claim that
2004:
as this was their addition to the article. I can see where you're coming from, but in any case the fact that she worked on the films and isn't a critic is the exact reason why, like George and J.J, she is included in this section on filmmakers (although it might be a stretch to label her as such).
2156:
Lucas did not want Leia to be the Chosen One of the jedi prophecy. "we would have the renewal of the New
Republic, with Leia, Senator Organa, becoming the Supreme Chancellor in charge of everything. So she ended up being the Chosen One" means she was the chosen one to be the chancellor of the new
1756:
Critical response pointing to a perceived lack of overall planning led to a perceived weak third installment has five entire references. So I don't think it's undue or unwarranted to include. And we're not throwing out references because they have non-neutral headlines. If anything, the reception
1702:
As it's been almost 2 years since the wrapping-up of the trilogy, and I've been contemplating starting this for a little while now, I think now is a good time to seriously consider working on re-writing this section. I've concerns that it may still be a bit too soon for there to be enough sources
1839:
I'm in the middle of drafting the first paragraph, and have compiled numerous articles that praise individual elements of the film e.g. acting, effects, direction. However, the vast majority of these are reviews of the individual films. As I suspected and highlighted previously, there's very few
1734:
critics. The controlled surveys of audience reception shows two of films were received well with audiences (although The Last Jedi received a great deal of attention for being divisive online). The last film wasn't received well by critics or audiences. Much of the reception section is overkill.
1579:
article). Otherwise, scientific polling methods used for those companies like
Cinemascore and PostTrak etc. demonstrate that audiences were positive about the film. It just depends on whether this section is going to source those articles that highlight the discord expressed by these vocal fans.
1520:
Thanks for linking TLJ feedback as that adds more detail. I actually didn't mean to summarize the critical response, which has its own section below, but reception in general. There has definitely been a lot of media coverage of the polarizing fan response, but perhaps better wording/sources can
1733:
Section needs to be steered to a more neutral POV. One of the article's headlines reads "It Was a Total Lack of
Planning That Killed Star Wars". Seriously, "killed Star Wars?" What does an entire paragraph about planning have to do with the reception of the films? Two of the films did well with
1778:
Thanks for all of your thoughts and opinions on the matter, they have been duly noted. I think the paragraph about a lack of planning could be trimmed somewhat, or otherwise merged with new prose. The one on the outlined plot points could probably as you say be moved to
Renewed Development,
1663:, especially the long diatribe on filmmakers (for example, including responses to specific "fan complaints" like Chewbacca not getting hugged). The section is also disproportionately negative given only 1/3rd of the trilogy got mixed reviews. To me, this entire section needs to be reworked.
2251:
2123:
It's a stretch to call her a notable contributor. Abrams and Lucas I understand, but she's just not on that level with no film credits since 1983. I won't beat the dead horse further, but I find the justification for inclusion pretty weak. Thanks for responding though.
1485:
article, I think the same section here for the sequel trilogy page needs a lot more work (unless of course you are planning to develop it further). There is definitely enough examples of sources to back up claims the films received polarising opinions, particularly for
2261:
2019:
It isn't even a stretch; her contributions to the OT form a major part of story-affecting decisions relevant to the entire saga. Having Obi-Wan die in the first film, making Han's return at the end of Ep IV a heroic moment, etc., are due to her direct influence.
1574:
being "acclaimed" by audiences is only true if you ignore the fact that audience reactions were shown to be polarised as per sites like Rotten
Tomatoes and Metacritic, which a number of third-party sources have acknowledged (as per the Audience Reception in
1757:
section spends too much time trying to defend the film from that perception by having a bunch of production information—which should probably be shuffled into a production information, and then a sentence in reception referring back to it. ~Cheers,
1498:
critics were polarised based on just two recently-published lists, one claiming the prequels are better than the sequels, and then another in response to that claiming the sequels are better than the prequels (and in some ways the originals). --
2241:
710:
1597:
Johnson? I almost did write the prose so that the allegations were "perceived" (e.g. a "perceived lack of planning from
Lucasfilm"). Regardless, if you just consider these articles opinion pieces, then should they be included at all? --
2246:
1543:
With regards to your recent edits, I agree that the section does need quite a bit of work, but still wish to contest the current version you reverted to that was written by an anonymous IP. To break my primary concerns down:
319:
309:
153:
1521:
replace what I started with. (I was originally going to mention the claims that the films were better/worse than previous films, but found it unnecessary.) At any rate, we'll certainly see a rewrite once IX comes out.
1357:
2191:
link below listed in the edit summary. But I cannot get this link to open now to investigate further. I'll keep trying. If anybody can get into this please post a summary or something. Thanks
2188:
759:
349:
2397:
1876:
mention individual reception of each film would be highlighting the contrast between the praise of the direction/themes of TFA and TLJ and the criticism of the safe, "fan-fiction" TROS.
329:
1159:
2206:
147:
2297:
1247:
1102:
504:
411:
339:
2407:
2377:
1176:
198:
969:
2402:
2357:
2342:
1252:
959:
880:
870:
44:
1401:
1395:
1854:
Sounds fine to me, as long as you mind the consensus about not removing the overall trilogy feedback, and no need to go into too much detail on each film. Thanks!
2392:
2362:
1212:
1202:
678:
2432:
2347:
2312:
747:
2412:
2327:
1166:
935:
588:
2077:
was an editor on a Star Wars film 35+ year ago. Certainly there's real critics out there that would be better to use than the ex-wife of George Lucas. -
1641:. "Positive reception" for example should suffice. What is your opinion on the trilogy-planning allegations as you didn't address my comment on this? --
846:
598:
79:
2352:
2337:
2307:
1809:
It'd be easy enough to include the production info as footnotes where relevant, but yes that could also be incorporated into the development section.
1171:
2387:
2372:
2332:
1074:
1064:
194:
190:
2422:
1347:
926:
903:
674:
837:
798:
85:
2382:
564:
2427:
2322:
2228:
1768:
1142:
1097:
168:
2317:
1154:
1897:
I've now completed the re-write, let me know what you think. My only issue is that the amount of refs might be a bit overbearing and
135:
2172:
1040:
2210:
1589:
Some critics and fans have made allegations, without evidence, that
Lucasfilm lacked planning for the trilogy's overarching story.
2367:
1323:
763:
2417:
1039:
and its affiliated companies on
Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
551:
528:
453:
99:
30:
2302:
667:
104:
20:
1150:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
465:
457:
129:
74:
1031:
992:
724:
Under Early Life. Fix grammar of "towns (plural) predominantly Protestant technical college" to "town's (possessive)..."
657:
381:
1314:
1275:
718:
262:
65:
125:
2041:
To address Nemov's thoughts though, you're happy with keeping this in, even if she criticized the prequels as well?
829:
461:
448:
406:
206:
185:
1656:
1482:
290:
266:
1719:
me is the phrase "heavy fan service" regarding TRoS, which should be more fleshed out if it's worth mentioning.
217:
175:
2214:
735:
686:
24:
2223:
1763:
1670:
1619:
1452:
1445:
1385:
1036:
109:
2168:
2046:
2010:
1945:
1910:
1881:
1845:
1784:
1708:
1646:
1602:
1503:
1902:
387:
563:
saga on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
2164:
1981:
for which she wasn't involved. She's not a critic. She's an editor who worked on the first trilogy. -
141:
2160:
2107:
2060:
2025:
1931:
1859:
1823:
1724:
1526:
1134:
754:
369:
283:
1460:
1221:
494:
270:
161:
55:
2217:
are pinging are nonfree due to them pulling all the same quotes from difference sources. ~Cheers,
1322:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
934:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
845:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
2218:
2196:
1898:
1758:
1690:
1665:
1614:
1538:
222:
70:
2098:
As Wikibenboy94 already pointed out, the subsection is for criticism of notable contributors to
1118:
1091:
2042:
2006:
1941:
1921:
1906:
1877:
1841:
1780:
1704:
1660:
1642:
1598:
1515:
1499:
1459:
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
1017:
703:
51:
1432:
245:
219:
1926:
Looks very nicely written – much more effective as an overview than what was there before.
236:
2129:
2118:
2103:
2082:
2071:
2056:
2036:
2021:
1999:
1986:
1927:
1892:
1870:
1855:
1834:
1819:
1739:
1720:
1697:
1655:
I think the entire section, as-is, is kind of lengthy. It's substantially longer than the
1632:
1522:
1476:
931:
842:
2276:
1638:
1290:
1269:
729:
644:
918:
897:
2291:
2192:
1147:
1023:
2280:
2233:
2200:
2176:
2133:
2111:
2086:
2064:
2050:
2029:
2014:
1990:
1949:
1935:
1914:
1885:
1863:
1849:
1827:
1788:
1773:
1743:
1728:
1712:
1676:
1650:
1637:
That's fine, although now I'm reading over it again I think "acclaimed" sounds like
1625:
1606:
1530:
1507:
1007:
986:
813:
792:
221:
1306:
543:
522:
1779:
considering a lot of other examples conceived by Lucas have been included there.
452:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can
1239:
440:
711:
Category:Star Wars articles that need to differentiate between fact and fiction
2125:
2093:
2078:
1982:
1812:
1735:
1296:
1229:
1124:
1013:
819:
430:
424:
400:
2055:
Yes I'm happy with keeping it as-is. This isn't the prequel trilogy article.
2270:
1384:
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the
558:
293:. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
1563:
received mixed reviews from critics and a positive reaction from audiences.
1146:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
823:
261:) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other
2209:
and when it finally, finally loaded, and it seems that the thing is that
2187:
User:Moxy tagged this article with a non-free tag in July 2022 with this
1481:
In comparison to your well-versed prose of the Reception section for the
469:
1440:
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
930:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to
1300:
1319:
696:
692:
1818:
and the headlines alone aren't a good reason to exclude them.
1414:
1373:
363:
278:
231:
223:
15:
2102:
films. The rest of the (parent) section is that for critics.
1220:
493:
663:
Tag the talk pages of Star Wars-related articles with the
555:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
633:
628:
623:
618:
160:
1559:
were acclaimed by critics and audiences alike, while
1318:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
1035:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
841:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
673:banner. Update the classification of articles in
2398:B-Class United States articles of Mid-importance
33:for general discussion of the article's subject.
1587:
1550:
468:. To improve this article, please refer to the
679:Category:Unknown-importance Star Wars articles
1248:WikiProject Film - American cinema task force
174:
8:
2298:Knowledge articles that use American English
2215:Star Wars sequel trilogy#Cancellation period
1940:Thanks! Thank you for the ref merging too.
1901:but perhaps for one or two examples we can
1264:
1086:
981:
892:
787:
652:Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
606:
517:
464:. To use this banner, please refer to the
395:
294:
249:, which has its own spelling conventions (
2408:American cinema articles with to-do lists
2378:B-Class Disney articles of Mid-importance
2157:republic and not chosen one of the jedi
1391:times. The weeks in which this happened:
2152:Interpretation of Leia as the chosen one
2403:Mid-importance American cinema articles
2358:Mid-importance media franchise articles
2343:Mid-importance science fiction articles
1266:
1088:
983:
894:
789:
519:
397:
367:
944:Knowledge:WikiProject Media franchises
709:Remove any In-universe information at
675:Category:Unassessed Star Wars articles
2393:Mid-importance United States articles
2363:WikiProject Media franchises articles
947:Template:WikiProject Media franchises
855:Knowledge:WikiProject Science Fiction
269:, this should not be changed without
7:
2433:Pages in the Knowledge Top 25 Report
2348:WikiProject Science Fiction articles
1905:them to avoid it looking cluttered.
1312:This article is within the scope of
1140:This article is within the scope of
1029:This article is within the scope of
924:This article is within the scope of
858:Template:WikiProject Science Fiction
835:This article is within the scope of
549:This article is within the scope of
446:This article is within the scope of
2313:American cinema task force articles
1187:Knowledge:WikiProject United States
386:It is of interest to the following
23:for discussing improvements to the
2413:WikiProject United States articles
2328:High-importance Star Wars articles
1190:Template:WikiProject United States
14:
1490:, a lot of which are included in
760:Articles with notability concerns
502:This article is supported by the
2353:B-Class media franchise articles
2338:B-Class science fiction articles
2308:B-Class American cinema articles
2275:
1451:] The anchor (Anthology films)
1444:] The anchor (Anthology films)
1418:
1377:
1299:
1289:
1268:
1232:
1127:
1117:
1090:
1016:
1006:
985:
917:
896:
822:
812:
791:
643:
542:
521:
462:regional and topical task forces
433:
423:
399:
368:
282:
235:
205:
45:Click here to start a new topic.
1352:This article has been rated as
1207:This article has been rated as
1069:This article has been rated as
964:This article has been rated as
875:This article has been rated as
593:This article has been rated as
573:Knowledge:WikiProject Star Wars
289:This article was nominated for
2388:B-Class United States articles
2373:Mid-importance Disney articles
2333:WikiProject Star Wars articles
576:Template:WikiProject Star Wars
1:
2423:Mid-importance 2010s articles
2207:Ran it through Earwigs myself
2134:14:16, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
2112:13:11, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
2087:12:53, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
2065:10:33, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
2051:10:27, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
2030:06:59, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
2015:18:30, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
1991:14:56, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
1326:and see a list of open tasks.
1245:This article is supported by
1043:and see a list of open tasks.
938:and see a list of open tasks.
849:and see a list of open tasks.
567:and see a list of open tasks.
42:Put new text under old text.
2201:02:00, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
2177:07:35, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
1950:10:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
1936:06:54, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
1915:21:51, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
1886:11:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
1864:10:22, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
1850:10:03, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
1828:07:30, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
1789:16:50, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
1774:16:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
1744:15:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
1531:08:54, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
1508:14:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
1049:Knowledge:WikiProject Disney
927:WikiProject Media franchises
610:WikiProject Star Wars To-do:
2383:WikiProject Disney articles
1729:13:47, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
1713:22:10, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
1677:15:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
1651:15:23, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
1626:15:10, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
1607:13:48, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
1332:Knowledge:WikiProject 2010s
1052:Template:WikiProject Disney
838:WikiProject Science Fiction
50:New to Knowledge? Welcome!
2449:
2428:WikiProject 2010s articles
2323:B-Class Star Wars articles
1335:Template:WikiProject 2010s
1213:project's importance scale
1075:project's importance scale
970:project's importance scale
881:project's importance scale
830:Speculative fiction portal
599:project's importance scale
505:American cinema task force
478:Knowledge:WikiProject Film
2318:WikiProject Film articles
2281:12:55, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
2234:03:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
1657:Star Wars prequel trilogy
1351:
1284:
1228:
1206:
1143:WikiProject United States
1112:
1068:
1001:
963:
912:
874:
807:
605:
592:
537:
501:
481:Template:WikiProject Film
418:
394:
80:Be welcoming to newcomers
1148:United States of America
950:media franchise articles
861:science fiction articles
736:Category:Star Wars stubs
318:, 18 December 2009, see
25:Star Wars sequel trilogy
2368:B-Class Disney articles
1402:December 20 to 26, 2015
1396:December 13 to 19, 2015
1037:The Walt Disney Company
348:, 14 October 2005, see
2418:B-Class 2010s articles
1591:
1565:
1225:
1193:United States articles
764:WikiProject Notability
498:
376:This article is rated
338:, 18 August 2007, see
75:avoid personal attacks
2303:B-Class film articles
1561:The Rise of Skywalker
1224:
668:WikiProject Star Wars
552:WikiProject Star Wars
497:
328:, 17 April 2009, see
308:, 13 April 2010, see
298:Deletion discussions:
199:Auto-archiving period
100:Neutral point of view
1135:United States portal
267:relevant style guide
263:varieties of English
105:No original research
1570:The statement that
1161:Articles Requested!
454:join the discussion
265:. According to the
1226:
1032:WikiProject Disney
579:Star Wars articles
499:
382:content assessment
86:dispute resolution
47:
2163:comment added by
1661:Star Wars trilogy
1553:The Force Awakens
1470:Reception section
1467:
1466:
1435:in most browsers.
1411:
1410:
1372:
1371:
1368:
1367:
1364:
1363:
1315:WikiProject 2010s
1263:
1262:
1259:
1258:
1085:
1084:
1081:
1080:
980:
979:
976:
975:
891:
890:
887:
886:
786:
785:
782:
781:
778:
777:
774:
773:
516:
515:
512:
511:
456:and see lists of
362:
361:
358:
357:
277:
276:
230:
229:
66:Assume good faith
43:
2440:
2279:
2273:
2262:starwarsthoughts
2231:
2226:
2221:
2179:
2122:
2097:
2075:
2040:
2003:
1925:
1896:
1874:
1838:
1816:
1771:
1766:
1761:
1701:
1694:
1636:
1542:
1519:
1496:
1480:
1461:Reporting errors
1453:has been deleted
1446:has been deleted
1422:
1421:
1415:
1381:
1380:
1374:
1358:importance scale
1340:
1339:
1336:
1333:
1330:
1309:
1304:
1303:
1293:
1286:
1285:
1280:
1272:
1265:
1242:
1237:
1236:
1235:
1195:
1194:
1191:
1188:
1185:
1137:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1121:
1114:
1113:
1108:
1105:
1094:
1087:
1057:
1056:
1053:
1050:
1047:
1026:
1021:
1020:
1010:
1003:
1002:
997:
989:
982:
952:
951:
948:
945:
942:
941:Media franchises
932:media franchises
921:
914:
913:
908:
904:Media franchises
900:
893:
863:
862:
859:
856:
853:
832:
827:
826:
816:
809:
808:
803:
795:
788:
672:
666:
647:
640:
639:
607:
581:
580:
577:
574:
571:
546:
539:
538:
533:
525:
518:
486:
485:
482:
479:
476:
449:WikiProject Film
443:
438:
437:
436:
427:
420:
419:
414:
403:
396:
379:
373:
372:
364:
295:
286:
279:
246:American English
242:This article is
239:
232:
224:
210:
209:
200:
179:
178:
164:
95:Article policies
16:
2448:
2447:
2443:
2442:
2441:
2439:
2438:
2437:
2288:
2287:
2269:
2238:Break down ...
2229:
2224:
2219:
2185:
2158:
2154:
2116:
2091:
2069:
2034:
1997:
1978:
1919:
1890:
1868:
1832:
1810:
1769:
1764:
1759:
1695:
1688:
1630:
1590:
1564:
1536:
1513:
1494:
1483:prequel trilogy
1474:
1472:
1463:
1438:
1437:
1436:
1419:
1407:
1378:
1337:
1334:
1331:
1328:
1327:
1305:
1298:
1278:
1238:
1233:
1231:
1192:
1189:
1186:
1183:
1182:
1181:
1167:Become a Member
1133:
1128:
1126:
1106:
1100:
1055:Disney articles
1054:
1051:
1048:
1045:
1044:
1022:
1015:
995:
949:
946:
943:
940:
939:
906:
860:
857:
854:
852:Science Fiction
851:
850:
843:science fiction
828:
821:
801:
799:Science Fiction
770:
670:
664:
638:
595:High-importance
578:
575:
572:
569:
568:
532:High‑importance
531:
483:
480:
477:
474:
473:
439:
434:
432:
409:
380:on Knowledge's
377:
271:broad consensus
226:
225:
220:
197:
121:
116:
115:
114:
91:
61:
12:
11:
5:
2446:
2444:
2436:
2435:
2430:
2425:
2420:
2415:
2410:
2405:
2400:
2395:
2390:
2385:
2380:
2375:
2370:
2365:
2360:
2355:
2350:
2345:
2340:
2335:
2330:
2325:
2320:
2315:
2310:
2305:
2300:
2290:
2289:
2286:
2285:
2284:
2283:
2267:
2266:
2265:
2259:
2254:
2249:
2244:
2184:
2181:
2153:
2150:
2149:
2148:
2147:
2146:
2145:
2144:
2143:
2142:
2141:
2140:
2139:
2138:
2137:
2136:
1977:
1974:
1973:
1972:
1971:
1970:
1969:
1968:
1967:
1966:
1965:
1964:
1963:
1962:
1961:
1960:
1959:
1958:
1957:
1956:
1955:
1954:
1953:
1952:
1798:
1797:
1796:
1795:
1794:
1793:
1792:
1791:
1749:
1748:
1747:
1746:
1686:
1685:
1684:
1683:
1682:
1681:
1680:
1679:
1594:
1593:
1592:
1588:
1582:
1581:
1568:
1567:
1566:
1551:
1534:
1533:
1471:
1468:
1465:
1464:
1458:
1457:
1456:
1449:
1433:case-sensitive
1427:
1426:
1425:
1423:
1409:
1408:
1406:
1405:
1399:
1392:
1382:
1370:
1369:
1366:
1365:
1362:
1361:
1354:Mid-importance
1350:
1344:
1343:
1341:
1338:2010s articles
1324:the discussion
1311:
1310:
1294:
1282:
1281:
1279:Mid‑importance
1273:
1261:
1260:
1257:
1256:
1253:Mid-importance
1244:
1243:
1227:
1217:
1216:
1209:Mid-importance
1205:
1199:
1198:
1196:
1180:
1179:
1174:
1169:
1164:
1157:
1155:Template Usage
1151:
1139:
1138:
1122:
1110:
1109:
1107:Mid‑importance
1095:
1083:
1082:
1079:
1078:
1071:Mid-importance
1067:
1061:
1060:
1058:
1041:the discussion
1028:
1027:
1011:
999:
998:
996:Mid‑importance
990:
978:
977:
974:
973:
966:Mid-importance
962:
956:
955:
953:
936:the discussion
922:
910:
909:
907:Mid‑importance
901:
889:
888:
885:
884:
877:Mid-importance
873:
867:
866:
864:
847:the discussion
834:
833:
817:
805:
804:
802:Mid‑importance
796:
784:
783:
780:
779:
776:
775:
772:
771:
769:
768:
767:
766:
738:
725:
714:
699:
687:Citing sources
682:
651:
649:
648:
637:
636:
631:
626:
621:
615:
612:
611:
603:
602:
591:
585:
584:
582:
565:the discussion
547:
535:
534:
526:
514:
513:
510:
509:
500:
490:
489:
487:
445:
444:
428:
416:
415:
404:
392:
391:
385:
374:
360:
359:
356:
355:
354:
353:
343:
333:
323:
313:
300:
299:
287:
275:
274:
240:
228:
227:
218:
216:
215:
212:
211:
181:
180:
118:
117:
113:
112:
107:
102:
93:
92:
90:
89:
82:
77:
68:
62:
60:
59:
48:
39:
38:
35:
34:
28:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2445:
2434:
2431:
2429:
2426:
2424:
2421:
2419:
2416:
2414:
2411:
2409:
2406:
2404:
2401:
2399:
2396:
2394:
2391:
2389:
2386:
2384:
2381:
2379:
2376:
2374:
2371:
2369:
2366:
2364:
2361:
2359:
2356:
2354:
2351:
2349:
2346:
2344:
2341:
2339:
2336:
2334:
2331:
2329:
2326:
2324:
2321:
2319:
2316:
2314:
2311:
2309:
2306:
2304:
2301:
2299:
2296:
2295:
2293:
2282:
2278:
2272:
2268:
2263:
2260:
2258:
2255:
2253:
2250:
2248:
2245:
2243:
2240:
2239:
2237:
2236:
2235:
2232:
2227:
2222:
2216:
2212:
2208:
2205:
2204:
2203:
2202:
2198:
2194:
2190:
2182:
2180:
2178:
2174:
2170:
2166:
2162:
2151:
2135:
2131:
2127:
2120:
2115:
2114:
2113:
2109:
2105:
2101:
2095:
2090:
2089:
2088:
2084:
2080:
2073:
2068:
2067:
2066:
2062:
2058:
2054:
2053:
2052:
2048:
2044:
2038:
2033:
2032:
2031:
2027:
2023:
2018:
2017:
2016:
2012:
2008:
2001:
1995:
1994:
1993:
1992:
1988:
1984:
1975:
1951:
1947:
1943:
1939:
1938:
1937:
1933:
1929:
1923:
1918:
1917:
1916:
1912:
1908:
1904:
1900:
1894:
1889:
1888:
1887:
1883:
1879:
1872:
1867:
1866:
1865:
1861:
1857:
1853:
1852:
1851:
1847:
1843:
1836:
1831:
1830:
1829:
1825:
1821:
1814:
1808:
1807:
1806:
1805:
1804:
1803:
1802:
1801:
1800:
1799:
1790:
1786:
1782:
1777:
1776:
1775:
1772:
1767:
1762:
1755:
1754:
1753:
1752:
1751:
1750:
1745:
1741:
1737:
1732:
1731:
1730:
1726:
1722:
1717:
1716:
1715:
1714:
1710:
1706:
1699:
1692:
1691:Toa Nidhiki05
1678:
1675:
1674:
1673:
1669:
1668:
1662:
1658:
1654:
1653:
1652:
1648:
1644:
1640:
1634:
1629:
1628:
1627:
1624:
1623:
1622:
1618:
1617:
1610:
1609:
1608:
1604:
1600:
1595:
1586:
1585:
1584:
1583:
1578:
1577:The Last Jedi
1573:
1572:The Last Jedi
1569:
1562:
1558:
1557:The Last Jedi
1554:
1549:
1548:
1547:
1546:
1545:
1540:
1539:Toa Nidhiki05
1532:
1528:
1524:
1517:
1512:
1511:
1510:
1509:
1505:
1501:
1493:
1492:The Last Jedi
1489:
1488:The Last Jedi
1484:
1478:
1469:
1462:
1454:
1450:
1447:
1443:
1442:
1441:
1434:
1430:
1424:
1417:
1416:
1413:
1403:
1400:
1397:
1394:
1393:
1390:
1387:
1386:Top 25 Report
1383:
1376:
1375:
1359:
1355:
1349:
1346:
1345:
1342:
1325:
1321:
1317:
1316:
1308:
1302:
1297:
1295:
1292:
1288:
1287:
1283:
1277:
1274:
1271:
1267:
1254:
1251:(assessed as
1250:
1249:
1241:
1230:
1223:
1219:
1218:
1214:
1210:
1204:
1201:
1200:
1197:
1184:United States
1178:
1175:
1173:
1170:
1168:
1165:
1163:
1162:
1158:
1156:
1153:
1152:
1149:
1145:
1144:
1136:
1125:
1123:
1120:
1116:
1115:
1111:
1104:
1099:
1098:United States
1096:
1093:
1089:
1076:
1072:
1066:
1063:
1062:
1059:
1042:
1038:
1034:
1033:
1025:
1024:Disney portal
1019:
1014:
1012:
1009:
1005:
1004:
1000:
994:
991:
988:
984:
971:
967:
961:
958:
957:
954:
937:
933:
929:
928:
923:
920:
916:
915:
911:
905:
902:
899:
895:
882:
878:
872:
869:
868:
865:
848:
844:
840:
839:
831:
825:
820:
818:
815:
811:
810:
806:
800:
797:
794:
790:
765:
761:
758:
756:
752:
751:
749:
745:
743:
739:
737:
734:
732:
731:
726:
723:
721:
720:
715:
712:
708:
706:
705:
700:
698:
694:
691:
689:
688:
683:
680:
676:
669:
662:
660:
659:
654:
653:
650:
646:
642:
641:
635:
632:
630:
627:
625:
622:
620:
617:
616:
614:
613:
609:
608:
604:
600:
596:
590:
587:
586:
583:
566:
562:
561:
560:
554:
553:
548:
545:
541:
540:
536:
530:
527:
524:
520:
507:
506:
496:
492:
491:
488:
484:film articles
471:
467:
466:documentation
463:
459:
455:
451:
450:
442:
431:
429:
426:
422:
421:
417:
413:
408:
405:
402:
398:
393:
389:
383:
375:
371:
366:
365:
351:
347:
344:
341:
337:
334:
331:
327:
324:
321:
317:
314:
311:
307:
304:
303:
302:
301:
297:
296:
292:
288:
285:
281:
280:
272:
268:
264:
260:
256:
252:
248:
247:
241:
238:
234:
233:
214:
213:
208:
204:
196:
192:
189:
187:
183:
182:
177:
173:
170:
167:
163:
159:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
137:
134:
131:
127:
124:
123:Find sources:
120:
119:
111:
110:Verifiability
108:
106:
103:
101:
98:
97:
96:
87:
83:
81:
78:
76:
72:
69:
67:
64:
63:
57:
53:
52:Learn to edit
49:
46:
41:
40:
37:
36:
32:
26:
22:
18:
17:
2242:WhatCulture
2186:
2183:Non-free tag
2159:— Preceding
2155:
2099:
2043:Wikibenboy94
2007:Wikibenboy94
1979:
1976:Marcia Lucas
1942:Wikibenboy94
1922:Wikibenboy94
1907:Wikibenboy94
1878:Wikibenboy94
1842:Wikibenboy94
1781:Wikibenboy94
1705:Wikibenboy94
1687:
1671:
1666:
1664:
1643:Wikibenboy94
1620:
1615:
1613:
1599:Wikibenboy94
1576:
1571:
1560:
1556:
1552:
1535:
1516:Wikibenboy94
1500:Wikibenboy94
1491:
1487:
1473:
1439:
1431:Anchors are
1428:
1412:
1388:
1353:
1313:
1307:2010s portal
1246:
1208:
1172:Project Talk
1160:
1141:
1070:
1030:
965:
925:
876:
836:
762:, listed at
753:
748:things to do
741:
740:
728:
727:
717:
716:
702:
701:
685:
684:
656:
655:
594:
557:
556:
550:
503:
447:
388:WikiProjects
346:No consensus
345:
335:
325:
315:
305:
258:
254:
250:
243:
202:
184:
171:
165:
157:
150:
144:
138:
132:
122:
94:
19:This is the
2211:WhatCulture
2165:JohnFeige56
1899:WP:CITEKILL
1240:Film portal
441:Film portal
316:Speedy keep
306:Speedy keep
244:written in
148:free images
31:not a forum
2292:Categories
2119:UpdateNerd
2104:UpdateNerd
2072:UpdateNerd
2057:UpdateNerd
2037:UpdateNerd
2022:UpdateNerd
2000:UpdateNerd
1928:UpdateNerd
1893:UpdateNerd
1871:UpdateNerd
1856:UpdateNerd
1835:UpdateNerd
1820:UpdateNerd
1721:UpdateNerd
1698:UpdateNerd
1633:UpdateNerd
1523:UpdateNerd
1477:UpdateNerd
755:Notability
746:* See the
470:guidelines
458:open tasks
350:discussion
340:discussion
330:discussion
320:discussion
310:discussion
2247:thedirect
2193:-Fnlayson
2100:Star Wars
1672:Nidhiki05
1621:Nidhiki05
570:Star Wars
559:Star Wars
529:Star Wars
88:if needed
71:Be polite
21:talk page
2257:theronin
2252:hedirect
2189:copyvios
2173:contribs
2161:unsigned
1996:Pinging
719:Copyedit
412:American
291:deletion
259:traveled
203:120Â days
186:Archives
56:get help
29:This is
27:article.
2230:Parasol
1770:Parasol
1639:puffery
1612:topic.
1356:on the
1211:on the
1073:on the
968:on the
879:on the
704:Cleanup
624:history
597:on the
378:B-class
255:defense
154:WPÂ refs
142:scholar
1404:(22nd)
1398:(18th)
1177:Alerts
1103:Cinema
1046:Disney
993:Disney
658:Assess
384:scale.
336:Delete
126:Google
2126:Nemov
2094:Nemov
2079:Nemov
1983:Nemov
1903:merge
1813:Nemov
1736:Nemov
1329:2010s
1320:2010s
1276:2010s
750:page
742:Other
730:Stubs
634:purge
629:watch
251:color
169:JSTOR
130:books
84:Seek
2271:Moxy
2213:and
2197:talk
2169:talk
2130:talk
2108:talk
2083:talk
2061:talk
2047:talk
2026:talk
2011:talk
1987:talk
1946:talk
1932:talk
1911:talk
1882:talk
1860:talk
1846:talk
1824:talk
1785:talk
1740:talk
1725:talk
1709:talk
1647:talk
1603:talk
1555:and
1527:talk
1504:talk
1429:Tip:
697:Sith
693:Jedi
677:and
619:edit
589:High
475:Film
460:and
407:Film
326:Keep
162:FENS
136:news
73:and
2264:...
2225:Ton
2220:Ten
1765:Ton
1760:Ten
1667:Toa
1659:or
1616:Toa
1348:Mid
1203:Mid
1065:Mid
960:Mid
871:Mid
176:TWL
2294::
2199:)
2175:)
2171:•
2132:)
2110:)
2085:)
2063:)
2049:)
2028:)
2013:)
1989:)
1948:)
1934:)
1913:)
1884:)
1862:)
1848:)
1826:)
1787:)
1742:)
1727:)
1711:)
1649:)
1605:)
1529:)
1506:)
1255:).
1101::
695:,
671:}}
665:{{
410::
257:,
253:,
201::
193:,
156:)
54:;
2274:-
2195:(
2167:(
2128:(
2121::
2117:@
2106:(
2096::
2092:@
2081:(
2074::
2070:@
2059:(
2045:(
2039::
2035:@
2024:(
2009:(
2002::
1998:@
1985:(
1944:(
1930:(
1924::
1920:@
1909:(
1895::
1891:@
1880:(
1873::
1869:@
1858:(
1844:(
1837::
1833:@
1822:(
1815::
1811:@
1783:(
1738:(
1723:(
1707:(
1700::
1696:@
1693::
1689:@
1645:(
1635::
1631:@
1601:(
1541::
1537:@
1525:(
1518::
1514:@
1502:(
1495:'
1479::
1475:@
1455:.
1448:.
1389:2
1360:.
1215:.
1077:.
972:.
883:.
757::
744::
733::
722::
713:.
707::
690::
681:.
661::
601:.
508:.
472:.
390::
352:.
342:.
332:.
322:.
312:.
273:.
195:2
191:1
188::
172:·
166:·
158:·
151:·
145:·
139:·
133:·
128:(
58:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
