Talk:Star Wars: The Force Awakens/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Edit request rephrase to avoid unnecessary use of the term "overseas"

Please rephrase the Box office to avoid the repeated use of the term "overseas".

The Wikipedia project film style guide suggests using the term "international" and some articles use phrases such as "and in other terriritories". -- 109.79.102.79 (talk) 20:21, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Re: "Daisy Ridley is the main character of this film, as stated in interviews."

Regarding the edit "02:42, 16 January 2019‎ Branjsmith94 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (220,940 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Daisy Ridley is the main character of this film, as stated in interviews.) "

IT moved Daisy Ridley's name to the top in the actor's list. We could consider and discuss the following: Her character is the main character, obviously, so it should go on top. The list is one of actors. The actor represents the character, but is not the character. Harrison Ford, Mark Hamill, Carrie Fisher, Oscar Isaac, Lupita Nyong'o, all, maybe, more recognizable. Her name should follow theirs when listed by real name.

Just a thought.

Liberty5651 (talk) 02:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits, but per MOS:TVCAST we order the cast based on the credits, not based on our perceptions of their importance. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 04:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2019

Third sentence of the body of the page.

Change: It was produced by Lucasfilm Ltd., Abrams's production company Bad Robot Productions, and distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures.

To: It was produced by Lucasfilm Ltd. and Abrams's production company Bad Robot Productions, and distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures. Trobc (talk) 18:45, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:38, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Starkiller base

Hi Oknazevad. I've got a lot of respect for what you do across a variety of articles and hope we can come to understand each other. The previous, shorter version, before the addition by the IP on January 6th didn't define what it was capable of 'annihilating'. I opposed the original addition because:

• I wasn't aware of any dialogue or images (beyond bright lights in the sky from a distance) that stated it was capable of destroying entire star systems. The hyperspace bit seemed unnecessary and a bit synthy (firing though hyperspace vs firing at hyperlight speed which is what is actually said in the film).
• The "official" databank entry for starkiller base (starwars.com) also just talks about sterilising entire planets with a single shot (rather than systems).

I would partially oppose your subsequent change, because even if accurate, as you correctly point out we state below it can destroy planetary systems so to say it's capable of it here as well is redundant. IMO mentioning that the weapon fires through hyperspace is unneeded crufty detail, but happy to hear otherwise. Is there any evidence in the film or official lore that it destroys entire systems rather than planets? I hadn't noticed the other reference lower down, but I won't touch it as this section also been pretty stable, pending this discussion. Scribolt (talk) 10:27, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree it's redundant to what appears two paragraphs later and should be removed. However, a very brief description at some point that this is more powerful/deadly than the Death Star should probably be somewhere in the plot summary. The film goes out of its way to clarify this, but writing that it can destroy a "planetary system" doesn't necessarily make this obvious to readers. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

How about something along the lines of "a star-powered superweapon capable of targeting systems across the galaxy?" This explains what SK can do that the DS couldn't and doesn't need to refer to the hyperspace stuff. Also, I checked again, and the dialogue does refer to the destruction of the Hosnian system so I stand corrected. I'm fine now with leaving the second reference as-is. Scribolt (talk) 12:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Is be okay with that. oknazevad (talk) 14:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

"Overwhelmingly" for the Critical response section yet again

I reviewed the article afresh, unaware that this had previously been discussed, but was immediately concerned that the references for the claim to "overwhelmingly positive reviews from critics" came from the less prominent sources mysanantonio.com and qz.com. I did a search on allintitle: force awakens reviews 1 Dec 2015 -- 1 Jan 2016 and, failing to find the previous references but finding relevant content from latimes.com and indiewire.com, I attempted this edit.

I think that wording such as "predominantly" should be used in the first sentence and that the fourth paragraph, instead of beginning with the apparent contradiction "Despite the overwhelmingly positive reception for the picture, certain critics found...", could say something like, "Contrary to the predominantly positive reception for the picture, some critics viewed The Force Awakens as derivative of the original Star Wars trilogy," . Then again some of that wording might be dumped altogether.

I also think that relevant reports on fan reactions to the film could have inclusion in the critical response section.

Pinging previously involved editors: Tenebrae Flyer22 Reborn GoneIn60 Toa Nidhiki05 , GregKaye 16:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not debating the "overwhelmingly positive" thing again. I restored the previous references for "overwhelmingly positive" since that is the WP:Status quo and this discussion has been started for further debate on the matter. With this edit, I removed the "Despite" piece as unnecessary and repetitive. Regarding your edits, I will state that you should be aware of how the critical reception sections of film articles are commonly written. Regarding this, they sometimes include things like "gave it five stars out of five." And they usually include "indicating 'universal acclaim'" when that is the Metacritic consensus. And stuff like this? Whether or not to include that critic's commentary is more so opinion. As for audience reception, if there is enough material that warrants there being an "Audience response" section, one can be added. If not, that small audience piece should remain there in the Critical response section. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Audience response.

Since this article is on my watchlist, I ask that you don't ping me to this talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• This has been brought up several times in past discussions, in which "mostly" and "widely" emerged as possible candidates that could replace "overwhelmingly". In fact, "widely" was used for a short time until "overwhelmingly" found its way back in. They are all rough synonyms of each other, including the newly-suggested "predominantly". I don't feel strongly about the choice, but I think if an editor feels the need to change it from "overwhelmingly" to one of the other choices, they're acting on personal preference and splitting hairs. I don't think an entire discussion is worth the gratification a handful of editors might receive should their intended preference emerge the victor. I say leave it as is and move on, and only discuss its removal altogether if new information warrants its exclusion.
  As for "fan reactions", we typically exclude those from film articles. There are very few instances of when they are permitted. Any source can scour social media or interview a random fan and get a reaction, especially the kind they're looking for to support their narrative or viewpoint. We have to be careful about those. It's preferred (per the guideline Flyer mentions) that we only mention audience feedback from polls that were carried out in "an accredited manner". I would suggest breaking that out into a separate discussion thread if that's something you really want to pursue. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:57, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with my colleagues that fan reaction has no place in a WikiProject Film article except for extremely rare, historically appropriate exceptions such as the 1970s fandom that kept the cancelled original Star Trek a viable IP. We have Cinemascore that covers audience reaction. And such unquantifiable, hyperbolic adjectives as "overwhelmingly" do not belong at all — we have Rotten Tomatoes aggregations with a numerical quantity, be it 29 percent positive reviews or 99 percent positive reviews: Just give the number and let the reader draw their own conclusion. I know we have WP:PUFFERY and WP:PEACOCK already, but given that we're still discussing this years after those guidelines began, I don't see any harm in adding a note to this effect in FILMMOS. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Everyone else said things about as well as I could so I’ll just concur with them, especially on “fan reactions”, which 99% of the time aren’t notable. In fact, online audience scores are never notable. Toa Nidhiki05 23:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment: I don't agree that an "Audience response", which is about more than just what fans think, should only be included in historical cases. We include them when they are warranted per WP:Due. After much discussion (including RfCs), we included the "Audience response" section at Star Wars: The Last Jedi. To say that this is "a historically appropriate exception" (although I stated that the divisive aspect would be noted in academic books, and I was right...as seen with this 2019 "Disney's Star Wars: Forces of Production, Promotion, and Reception" source, from University of Iowa Press, pages 314-320) would be akin to WP:CRYSTALBALLING. But it is true that these sections are rarely needed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I’m not gonna relitigate TLJ but I will say that source mentions the audience score, which was proven to be manipulated. It’s safe to say any source that mentions online audience scores as reputable is not really great quality imo. Toa Nidhiki05 20:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Any source that looks into the divisive aspect is going to look into the Rotten Tomatoes audience score issue, just like media sources have. The source doesn't state that the Rotten Tomatoes audience score is valid. In fact, it mentions criticism of it. It mentions the trolls. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

• In context that the first two citations that are presented for the wording, which both come from less notable and less accessible sources, both happen to use "overwhelmingly" in their article titles, perhaps it's not surprising that this wording 'found its way back in'. The situation smacks of wp:tendentious editing with editors having having either cherry-picked or mined for references that supplied wording to suit their point of view.

In Google News allintitle: force awakens reviews overwhelmingly did not match any news results

In Google (all) allintitle: "force awakens" reviews overwhelmingly returned six results (with some pages copying the same content)

In Google News allintitle: "force awakens" reviews returned "About 102 results"

In Google (all) allintitle: "force awakens" reviews returned "About 2,830 results"

I'm left to wonder about the process that editors used to compiled the existing citations. GregKaye 18:24, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not going to pretend to know how the sources were arrived at, as I was not a part of that process, but I'm trying to understand what harm is being identified here. Is the issue about determining which synonym is ultimately picked and inserted into the article? Because if that's the main drive behind this, that would seem kind of petty. No offense. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:14, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

The guideline is that we should avoid Words that may introduce bias. Who or what is overwhelmed? So the film had mostly positive reviews. Why not simply say that? Why suggest that a certain set of reviews, as presenting a certain judgement, were overwhelming? We can just say something like most and let the reader get on with it.

Editors have raised issue with this before and I predict that they will again. I say that we should present citations from the most productive and noteworthy of available sources and then simply present content in a straightforward way? I hope that we can progress with a simple, straightforward, encyclopedic edit without the hyperbole. GregKaye 20:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I’m not really sure you’re familiar that must with how Wikipedia coverage of movies works, which is concerning given the large number of edits you have been making in Star Wars topics in particular. There is absolutely nothing wrong with using reliable sources to describe the coverage of films. Not only is it common, it’s actually in keeping with our policies here.Toa Nidhiki05 20:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not really sure you're familiar with policy on WP:NPA which advises that we "Comment on content, not on the contributor" but I agree in what you say about RS. I've initiated with you on your user page which might be a more appropriate forum for more personal discussion. If you want I'd be happy for you to delete this comment along with yours. GregKaye 21:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Questioning your understanding of a policy area is not a personal attack. Toa Nidhiki05 21:24, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Since when are we supposed to pick the top results off of google? I fail to see how this has ever been remotely relevant in how Wikipedia determines which sources are reliable or not. Also, you’re explicitly searching for search results in the article title only. Since when has an article title (which is often not written by the author) supposed to be more important than the text of an article? If you’d prefer a more commonly used phrase, the term “critical acclaim” or “acclaim” was used in a ton of articles and would easily be supported by a variety of sources, including aggregator Metacritic. Toa Nidhiki05 19:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Taking a step back, in my last post I commented on consecutively presented citations "which both come from less notable and less accessible sources" that both used "overwhelmingly" in their article titles. In my first post above I mentioned that I was concerned that citations were taken from mysanantonio.com and qz.com and I've indicated that Google, as one assesser of content, did not even categorise them as news. In my edit I did not "pick the top results off of google". I looked at the content of pages presented and picked the ones that I thought would provide valuable reference to the article. I didn't pick the pages because they contained a word in the title that fitted a pov or that fitted something like a restricted search criteria. Issue had previously raise with the wording "critical acclaim" in the discussion now in Archive_5#Reception but you can certainly make your case.

My proposal is that we simply say something like "Star Wars: The Force Awakens received predominently positive reviews from critics. On review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, it has a 93% approval rating based on 426 reviews, with an average rating of 8.27/10. ..." and present a straightforward lead into the content. Wording like "mostly" and "widely" also works. GregKaye 20:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Here’s a handful of sources I found in five minutes:

• The Independent
• Washington Post
• NY Daily News
• Hollywood Reporter
• The Guardian
• Fortune

This is in addition to Metacritic. If we’re going to use a modifier, “critically acclaimed” seems like an accurate one. Toa Nidhiki05 21:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

(out of sequence but relating to the above)

Here's how I see issues as relating to the "critical acclaim..." phrase. As mentioned, editors on this article have objected to its use and yet it is clearly used in other articles. Some reviewers have certainly regarded the film with critical acclaim while a 2015 minority have taken other critical views as per:

the scathing fourth paragraph of the critical responses section

Certain critics found The Force Awakens derivative of the original Star Wars trilogy, some expressing their opinion that the film was essentially a remake of A New Hope. Andrew O'Hehir wrote for Salon that it was "the work of a talented mimic or ventriloquist who can just about cover for the fact that he has nothing much to say". Stephanie Zacharek of TIME wrote that Abrams had delivered "everything we expect, as opposed to those nebulous wonders we didn't know we wanted". Reviewing for Forbes, Scott Mendelson cited the film's "top-tier production values and a strong sense of scale and scope", but felt it was so much "an exercise in fan service [that] it is only due to the charisma and talent of our newbies and J. J. Abrams' undeniable skill as a visual storyteller that the Mad Libs narrative doesn't outright destroy the picture". Brian Merchant of Motherboard wrote that "Science fiction is supposed to be all about exploring the unexplored, not rehashing the well-trod … one of the most unabashedly creative enterprises of the 20th century has been rendered another largely enjoyable, but mostly forgettable Hollywood reboot." RogerEbert.com's Gerardo Valero went as far as to accuse the film of plagiarizing A New Hope and resorting to nostalgia. He felt that it "didn't [justify] a return to the universe" from not having an original story of its own to tell in the plot, characters, and musical score, negatively comparing it to George Lucas' prequel trilogy, and that some of its climactic moments felt unearned.

I guess they these reviewers didn't get the memo about being overwhelmed and I'd see the "critically acclaimed" wording as less problematic in regard to policy that the overwhelming puffery. GregKaye 05:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I fail to see the point of this analysis. An overwhelming majority of reviews doesn't mean all reviews. This paragraph represents a slice of the minority viewpoint in accordance with WP:DUE, which consists of mixed, lukewarm, and somewhat negative reviews. Their presence in the article doesn't somehow disqualify the accepted viewpoint that a large majority of reviews were positive. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm still of the mindset that all this effort and time could be better spent elsewhere, but I'll bite one last time. Replacing with "predominantly" isn't a terrible option, but it's an unnecessary one. If we go a bit further and look at how often we see the occurrence of each phrase in Google News, here's what we'd find:

- "overwhelmingly positive" – 117,000 hits

- "mostly positive" – 57,700 hits

- "predominantly positive" – 1,400 hits

- "widely positive" – 753 hits

This isn't to say that any of the alternative options are bad, but "overwhelmingly positive" is clearly the more commonly-used pairing in English news sources, and I don't think that's an anomaly. The order we have here is about the order of preference I'd support at this point. I also don't think it qualifies as a biased phrase when used in this context as a quantifier. We are simply invoking it's definition "very great in number", and using it in the sense of an "overwhelming majority". That is a common, straight-forward way of describing a vast majority. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

From the word listing at WP:Puff, "legendary" gets 67,900,000 hits in Google News.

Just because news reporters refer to people and things that they regard as "legendary", that doesn't mean we are warrented to use Wikipedia's voice to do the same. GregKaye 05:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Apples and oranges. Legendary is not a numerical quantifier. All the examples listed above are. We are comparing these to one another, not to other random words that are obvious violations of PUFFERY. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I think that, as qualifiers go, other options could be more encyclopedic than "overwhelmingly". "Overwhelmingly" is akin to "overflow" and suggests a numerical quantifiation that discounts the rest. Other qualifiers don't do this. GregKaye 06:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and everyone is welcome to an opinion of course. I happen to believe it is a common way to describe a large majority. Now if we used a phrase like "universally", then you'd be onto something. Seems like this is rapidly descending into "hair-splitting" territory. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:29, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Note Star Wars: The Last Jedi#Critical response simply begins: "The review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes reported that 91% of critics have given the film a positive review based on 457 reviews, with an average rating of 8.09/10..."

In this case Wikipedia has not presented its own numerator or qualifier thereof. GregKaye 08:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Correct, and if you search the talk archive at WT:FILM, you'll find numerous discussions in which many veteran editors disagree on whether a summary statement should be used. There was never a consensus to add guidance to MOS:FILM either. All of these debates ended in stalemates, with editors understanding that it would be handled on a case-by-case basis. It just so happens this article, Force Awakens, is one of those examples where local consensus was formed in favor of having one. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I mean, hell, some articles such as Terminator Genisys go as far as having it displayed in the lead. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Re-worked Critical response

@Chompy Ace: Following my tweaking of your edits to the section, I just wanted to give my thoughts on the re-written Critical response because I don't really see the reasoning behind it. You've quoted WP:RECEPTION and the only guidance I can see that you've taken from it is to organize opinions into what was praised and criticized, which is fair enough. However, so much of the section has been trimmed down during the rework that we're only left with two very short paragraphs, with a lot of the wording and citations having been taken directly from the Reception section on the sequel trilogy. There's no quoting of the individual reviews used for summarizing the aspects that were praised, and while the examples used for the musical score and screenplay have been quoted, their placement at the end of the first paragraph seems very haphazard and gives it little sense of flow. I can understand if you'd wanted to trim the section, but in my opinion it still could have been achieved by better detailing the sources. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 13:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I have BOLDLY reverted to a prior version. Chompy's edits are not an improvement here and are heavily skewed towards negative criticism - an odd move for a film that was, by all accounts, critically acclaimed. Toa Nidhiki05 13:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)