Talk:Solo: A Star Wars Story/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Too Soon?

There isn't a reason for an article to be split about this film right now. There's only one paragraph of production information. Additionally, the notability guideline for films states in its section about future and planned films, emphasis not mine: Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

There's lots of coverage for it online.--Taeyebar 23:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

The lots of coverage, from what I've seen, is repeating the same information over and over. Also, as I said, the guideline is that until the project begins principal photography, it does not warrant an article. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 00:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because principal shooting has started. --Hektor (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

It needs to be in order to move the draft at Draft:Untitled Han Solo Anthology film here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:53, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

No bolding for descriptive title

"Untitled Han Solo film" is essentially a descriptive title for lack of a better one right now. Per WP:BOLDTITLE, "If an article's title is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, display it in bold as early as possible in the first sentence." We do not have a formal or widely accepted name, so we should not use bold formatting in the opening sentence. This is further confirmed by WP:BOLDITIS, "...in the case of purely descriptive titles, we should not bold the article title in the introduction, and there is no need to repeat it verbatim at the beginning of the article and fit an awkwardly worded sentence around it." If you agree or disagree, feel free to comment below. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Article title suggestion

Resolved

 – Have made the move until we have an official (or semi-official title). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I suggest that we just call it Untitled Han Solo film per WP:PRECISION. It is unnecessary to have Anthology in it when it is not explained until later in the lead section. Not to mention that while Rogue One was an "Anthology" film, this was not really used universally and is thus not going to be recognizable by readers. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• Agree per Erik's reasoning. Though Anthology is mentioned in many of the sources, this is branding that adds unnecessary detail, as we are not disambiguating from another Han Solo film. Besides, we know this will not be the article's final title.— TAnthony^Talk 23:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Agree with Erik as well. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:07, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

  Great, if there is no objection, we can move it once the history merge is done. I didn't want to move it again in case that proves problematic. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

  My thoughts too! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-drafts elsewhere

Below are links to the older versions of semi-drafts elsewhere (sections in other articles) in case they have details that this article does not have. I have since revised these sections to be simpler and to point here:

• Han Solo § Spin-off film
• Star Wars § Untitled Han Solo Anthology film

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

tense

Firstly, the opening sentence to the article as it stands today ("An untitled epic space opera film about the Star Wars character Han Solo is in production") Is obviously meant to read like a line from a Star Wars crawl, not an encyclopedia entry. Secondly, due to the status of this entity as something that does not yet exist, but likely will in future, the article written in a future tense, ie: "The film will be the second installment of the Star Wars Anthology series" as opposed to the current "The film is the second installment of the Star Wars Anthology series". I would rewrite it myself, but due to my status as an unregistered member, my revisions would likely be reverted within the hour.122.107.170.39 (talk) 13:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I've updated the lead section's first paragraph accordingly. Let me know what you think. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I didn't write the lead sentence but I do not think the intention was for it to read like the film crawl. A standard "Such and such is ..." approach is a little awkward in this case because the film is untitled and has only a generic euphemism (as opposed to Star Wars: Episode IX, which is "specifically generic" LOL).— TAnthony^Talk 16:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

On the topic of writing in future tense, keep in mind that we can't know for certain that it will be released on [date], it will star [actors], etc. What we can say with certainty is that it is scheduled to be released, is set to be the second installment of the anthology, and actors have been cast. We should try to avoid writing in the future tense, though. I've made one adjustment accordingly. -RM (talk) 02:46, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Far be it from me to 'rubber stamp' anything, it certainly reads much better now than it did. The use of 'upcoming' is certainly appropriate, and saying it 'stars' (effectively in present tense) is fine now given the film is actually 'before the cameras' as we speak.122.107.170.39 (talk) 15:49, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Premise

Favre1fan93, do we really know if it will be "shortly before" the original 1977 film? I didn't mind AdamDeanHall's more general "between" adjustment. It seems like it could potentially be close to the midpoint between the two movies. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:13, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I thought that was what was announced, but I guess not. If so, then the wording should be "The film is set in the Star Wars universe some time between 2005's Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith and the original 1977 film Star Wars.", not the whole edit Adam did that removed the years and better formatting. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Ha, I removed "shortly" before I saw this, for the reason you cite.— TAnthony^Talk 17:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, that worked out. :) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

And I just tried the "between" approach but kept the real-world film dates etc., please adjust or revert if you thing after/before reads better.— TAnthony^Talk 17:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 24 February 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 12:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

---

Untitled Han Solo film → ? – Untitled Han Solo film may give a false impression to those who are not familiar with the Star Wars franchise. It's technically incorrect to dub this as a 'Han Solo film'. Normally, we call a project 'Untitled Steven Spielberg film', 'Untitled David Fincher film', 'Untitled Martin Scorsese film' and so on. Han Solo is not the name of the director of this film. Thus I suggest re-titling it. Untitled Star Wars spin-off or even Untitled Han Solo spin-off would be appropriate. PlutoniumBackToTheFuture (talk) 11:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose per my comment in the discussion below. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per my comments below.— TAnthony^Talk 16:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as I don't think this is really something that people will get confused about. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 21:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per comment below. Bearcat (talk) 21:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

• PlutoniumBackToTheFuture, can you follow the steps at WP:RM to create a proper discussion? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC) Decided to create it on my own. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• "Star Wars spin-off" is a bit vague, wouldn't you say? The sources are referring to it as the "Han Solo film" or some derivative, never just as an Anthology film or spin-off. And I don't see how changing "film" to "spin-off" changes anything, as the film is not a spin-off of something called Han Solo. Further, I would argue that the name Han Solo is as recognizeable and ubiquitous in the mainstream as any director's name, if not more so. I think even those unfamiliar with the franchise have heard of Han Solo, Darth Vader, Princess Leia, etc. In any case, I believe there have been superhero films tentatively titled after the character/team name in this fashion.— TAnthony^Talk 16:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

  Agreed. Anything else would be too ambiguous. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

  Well, since we are discussing this already, I will argue against renaming the article. While we have had "Untitled <director> film" article titles, this is not because there are guidelines endorsing this. It is because when an upcoming film is covered by reliable sources, there is usually a component of it that makes it noteworthy for the general audience. If Steven Spielberg is directing a film that is not yet titled, then we would probably write "Untitled Steven Spielberg film" at minimum. If screenwriter Aaron Sorkin is writing for a film with a little-known director, we would probably do "Untitled Aaron Sorkin film". If it was a new franchise film, let's say X-Men, with a little-known director, then we would probably name it "Untitled X-Men film". The point is to come up with a descriptive title that is recognizable enough. WP:NDESC says, "Even descriptive titles should be based on sources, and may therefore incorporate names and terms that are commonly used by sources." "Han Solo" is the noteworthy component for this particular film. Using "Star Wars" is too vague especially considering we have multiple such films in the works, and I don't find "spin-off" to be better than "film" since it is not media-specific and requires more context (getting into the whole anthology business). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• Erik is correct here. We do not have any policy requiring that an as yet untitled film be dabbed with the director's name — he's correct on all of the examples of where we might choose something else. We would probably use Aaron Sorkin over the director in the case of a Sorkin screenplay being helmed by a director who wasn't as famous as Sorkin, we would use the name of the franchise series over the name of the individual director for the next installment of a superhero franchise, and on and so forth. What's important is that we choose something that readily identifies the topic, not that it necessarily has to be the director's name. In this case, the reliable sources are currently referring to it as "the Han Solo film" precisely to help distinguish it from the two as yet untitled Main Star Wars Story films, so that's where most people looking for an article about it would expect to find it. And, of course, this is only a temporary title anyway — as soon as we know the film's actual title, it'll get moved to that title. Bearcat (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Bradford Young

Regarding cinematographer Bradford Young, I do not see reason to mention him in the article body if there is nothing else to say besides identifying him. Not all film articles will discuss every single crew member's involvement, though I would not be surprised to see coverage about Young's work when the film's release date gets closer. However, there needs to be sourced context to warrant the identification in prose, such as a collaboration (determined as relevant by a source). If we are going to have a sentence mentioning him, then why not the producers or the editor? Essentially, we don't need to take credits and make it into prose every time. We make it into prose when there is something more to say than listing their name. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

We do mention the producers in prose in the development section. The editor is currently not mentioned in prose because that is mainly a post-production process and a section does not exist yet. Young fits within the filming section and we should avoid having references in the infobox if at all possible per WP:INFOBOXREF. I don't feel it is not worth a mention in prose if we are only discussing his role. Yes we can add more context if that is revealed, but as of now, I don't see the harm in including the sentence as it has been. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I missed that about the producers; must have typed a name wrong when doing Ctrl + F. Anyway, I don't think we have to worry about WP:INFOBOXREF because post-release, credits will be indisputable, and this article will ultimately live longer without infobox references than with them. We are technically going against WP:INFOBOXREF with the editor anyway, when we could easily say in the article body that he is slated to be the editor. And while I don't fully understand film editing, I am not sure if that means he is not doing anything during filming. This sentence from film editing, while not sourced, says, "The film editor usually starts working while principal photography starts." The only compromise I can think of is to do something like The Martian (film) § Production where we list crew members, and only the ones with context are mentioned in the prose. Otherwise, other editors can chime in about this. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Garris Shrike

Why do the edits classifying and name who Woody Harrelson is playing, keep getting reverted? Harrelson himself confirmed at the Sundance Film Festival that he is playing Star Wars Legends non-canon character, Garris Shrike. The edits have given the reference, and yet it keeps getting reverted. This should not be the case, when it's been confirmed and is sourced. --50.232.205.246 (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad you've brought this up. I've watched the clip, and from the way he answered, even the sources reporting it say that Harrelson "seemingly" confirmed it. [1] [2] [3] I would be more comfortable adding this bit to the article if we worded it as much, not saying definitely that he is playing Shrike.— TAnthony^Talk 18:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

The A.V. Club article actually says "there is some lingering skepticism as to whether Harrelson was just reiterating that he'll be in the Star Wars spin-off rather than spilling character details".— TAnthony^Talk 18:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I've added the following with citations: "A subsequent interview with Harrelson bolstered speculation that he may be specifically playing Star Wars Legends character Garris Shrike."— TAnthony^Talk 18:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

TAnthony We really shouldn't be dealing with speculative material, per WP:SPECULATION. Since the situation is murky, it is better just to not include it until it is more clear. After confirmation is gained, we could easily add something after like "Harrelson was previously thought to have been portraying Garris Shrike" if he isn't. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:57, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Well yes, I'm the one who keeps removing it, but he does say "yeah I am" in the video which was reported by reliable sources. I was trying to be accommodating to the many who are dying to add this info LOL. But obviously I'm 100% onboard with consensus keeping it out, this discussion will give us something to point to.— TAnthony^Talk 19:06, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I can understand the questionability of the article titles, but the interviewer straight up asked him if he was Garris Shrike, and he said yes. How much more clear can a confirmation be?--50.232.205.246 (talk) 23:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

As I mentioned, all of the sources stop short of saying "he's playing Shrike", presumably because of the way the interview played out: he made the interviewer repeat the question, she sort of mumbled it back, and he eventually said "yeah I am". But as the quote above asks, was he confirming he was playing the mentor, as she initially commented, or was he confirming the character's name? As editors we're not allowed to interpret that, all we can do is go with the interpretation of the reliable sources. And they are not 100% convinced, so we can't state this as fact.— TAnthony^Talk 23:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

This by TAnthony is a good instance to keep in mind for not presuming details that are not confirmed in a clear-cut manner. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

References

Is this movie gonna be called Han Solo: A Star Wars story should we add it?

The logo in this article shows it [4]--Taeyebar 19:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

There's never been an official logo released. At this time, we don't know what it's actually called. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol

Kasdan as considered

I noticed that the THR reference mention that DGA rules. So, grounds to include that. How about a wording a like: It was reported that Ron Howard was a front runner to step in as director, with Joe Johnston also being considered. Kasdan was also named as a possible director, though Directors Guild of America rules state that a replacement for a director may not be someone already involved in the production. Or, well, something more elegant than that. Kasdan is named in multiple sources as being considered, so I'm not sure he can be omitted, but it's true that such a move would apparently break DGA rules. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 16:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, if you must, but then the DGA rule must be included. Also he should not be "named", as that sounds too official. I'll put in It was reported that Ron Howard was a front runner to step in as director, with Joe Johnston also being considered. Kasdan was also mentioned as a possible director, though Directors Guild of America rules state that a replacement for a director may not be someone already involved in the production. - Gothicfilm (talk

I'm not particularly attached to Kasdan, it just looks like it'd be an oversight since one of the sources attached to the end of the sentence name him, and there are a couple more reports including him. I agree about reported, got a little too afraid of repetition, but you're right. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 16:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

2016's Rogue One

As I brought up in the edit summary, I don't really know why the original IP was reverted. The phrase "2016's Rogue One" is indeed an awkward one, and the original construction of "Rogue One (2016)" isn't invalid. In my experience, the parenthetical is the default way to go about that. The parenthetical construction is used in many FA and GA film articles: Casino Royale (2006 film), Spectre (2015 film), Aitraaz, Waiting (2015 film), Fame (1980 film). It's technically right, I guess, but it looks odd and it looks less encyclopedic than a parenthetical. Pinging @SchroCat: who made recent reversions and @Oknazevad: who made the initial change out of the parenthetical. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

There is more than one way of presenting information and brackets within text disturb flow and therefore readability. Just because xxx (1234) can be used, does no the mean it must be used. I also do no that think having the date before the name and outside brackets is in any way unencyclopaedic: it is an entirely useable grammatical construct, as would be "the 2016 film Rogue One". - SchroCat (talk) 22:44, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I would absolutely compromise at "the 2016 film Rogue One. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I was okay with the edit to have "(2016)" instead of "2016's", but "the 2016 film" also works. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree "2016's Rogue One" is indeed awkward. It bugs me whenever I see that. Any of the other options shown above are good. In this context "the 2016 film Rogue One" might be best. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

"the 2016 film Rogue One" is best. Wish I'd thought of it. Just never like the parentheses, as it's awkward, and we really don't need to save space, which is why they are used elsewhere. oknazevad (talk) 11:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Directing credits

JDDJS, Gothicfilm: I think we should keep the directing credits in the infobox but add a note that explains that they were fired toward the end. We can update the presentation of credits as we get more information. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

We don't know who is going to receive credit yet, actually. The rule is the credit goes to the director who shot the majority of footage in the final film, not who was on set for the longest period of time. It's very possible the majority of footage shot so far is scrapped; considering the apparent reason for their removal was dissatisfaction with their work that remains a major possibility. See Superman II for an example, where the released film was specifically assembled to have a majority of footage be parts filmed by Richard Lester so he received credit instead of Richard Donner, who had began filming the sequel while the first film was still in production. As such, until the film is finished, we really can't state who is the director of record. As such it should remain blank. oknazevad (talk) 12:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Since we do not know who is going to receive credit, we need to follow secondary sources. There is no secondary source to warrant for their names to be taken out completely. A note is appropriate at this point to indicate the caveat, that they were fired. When we see sources report any of what you speculated above, we can adjust accordingly. We also have to remember that the infobox is generally a summary of the article body. We only list official credits out of convenience, but we are not shills and should follow secondary sources even if they conflict with what is "official". We would not pass off Alan Smithee on this encyclopedia as if that were a real person. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

The director that shoots the majority of a film gets credit. No doubt they belong in the infobox. They shot for 4 months. According to the sources, a replacement will shoot for a few weeks. There is no source that says four months of footage will be scrapped. This is not like Superman II. In the very unlikely event that happens, the credit can be changed then. But there's no reason to assume they won't have credit a year from now when the film is released. I'm fine with a note. Something neutral, like Left before completion after four months of filming. - Gothicfilm (talk) 12:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Looks like Ron Howard is the new director. I suggest that we list all three names with a note (or maybe an anchor link to the relevant paragraph?) until we see how they do the official directing crediting. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Rumored only. We must wait for a better announcement than a Deadline article (being their a bit of a rumor mill) saying Howard is being "eyed" for the job (which is a fancy way of saying they haven't actually hired him yet). oknazevad (talk) 12:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

That's fine, we can wait. See above, though. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree Ron Howard is a rumored front runner at this point, as Deadline says. - Gothicfilm (talk) 12:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Per WP: CRYSTAL, we should not list anybody as director until we know who's being credited as director. The earliest will likely be when they release the posters. After the posters come out, we should list whoever they credit as director in the infobox and possibly include a note explaining what happened. JDDJS (talk) 15:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

WP: CRYSTAL is not applicable here. We will change the infobox if appropriate as official announcements are made, though it is most likely the credit will be the same once the film comes out, given DGA rules. Certainly the poster will be used once it is released. But there is no need to wait for that. As said before, I'm fine with a note. - Gothicfilm (talk) 16:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

A note in the "directors" field seems the best way to go at the time being. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I like the note, but I am wondering, why are we saying Lord and Miller "left"? And "reportedly fired" in the article body? A quick search engine test does not show any ambiguity to the firing. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

It's not been officially announced as a firing. The main sources we used do not state that either. It's a conclusion they come to or say is likely. - Gothicfilm (talk) 18:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Saw this this morning and thought I'd share. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Technically not about crediting, but it's silly at this point to keep making new sections for directing. THR reports that Howard will be directing, but I personally am not comfortable adding it until LFL makes its own official statement, which should be soon. Frankly, I expected this to take much longer, but with only two days of actual search time, listing the other persons named as possibly directing now seems undue to me? I suggest either removing everything regarding names floated, or leaving only "It was reported that Ron Howard was a front runner to step in as director". I also don't have necessarily a problem leaving that all in, so, as consensus is. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 14:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Phil Lord and Christopher Miller

Phil Lord and Christopher Miller, the original directors of the untitled Han Solo film, shouldn't be in the infobox section of the Untitled Han Solo film page. They must be removed as soon as possible. AdamDeanHall (talk) 15:02, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Read the discussion two sections up, please, and do not remove anything like that when there's an explanatory note. Clearly that's the sort of thing we would discuss, and you must look for that discussion before making radical changes. And your edit summary was childish and insulting to the people. Mind your NPOV, please. oknazevad (talk) 15:20, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Don't change this to space opera

As the sources say, Han Solo is conceived as a western style character and so is boba fett. I'm not sure about chewbacca/chewie, but those two are confirmed western characters. I'll even provide the source for it.--Taeyebar 23:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

[5] here is the source.--Taeyebar 23:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Here's another one [6]--Taeyebar 23:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

A character inspired by a particular genre is not the same as a film written as a member of that genre. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Then why do sources say Star Wars includes elements of Space Western? I've seen many people even call it a SW.--Taeyebar 23:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

That's an discussion for the main article, and if I recall correctly, it's one that's already taken place somewhere. I'm just pointing out that the genre inspirations for a character doesn't necessarily translate to the genre of the film itself, and seeing as the film itself has yet to start production, there's no point in making statements about the genre of the film. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 00:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah but if that film is about the character who is a western, then the film is space western. And sources call it SW and by definition also it's not an SO but a SW--Taeyebar 19:39, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

A person or character isn't "a western". That makes no sense at all. oknazevad (talk) 20:13, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 17 October 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved per WP:SNOW, consensus is clear. Note that this discussion does not involve the title of Rogue One. If a move of that article is desired, a separate WP:RM should be filed. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:58, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

---

Solo (2018 film) → Solo: A Star Wars Story – Started a requested move discussion at 15:09, October 17, 2017 due to likely interest in making a move happen. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, I think this may be a case where including the "A Star Wars Story" portion of the full title might be a better choice, based on WP:NATDIS. Thoughts? oknazevad (talk) 16:33, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I would support Solo: A Star Wars Story for the time being because we do not know yet if independent sources will drop the subtitle that often. Natural disambiguation makes sense too, considering how many films called Solo have come out in recent decades. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:43, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, and it may be heinous OR, but I am 100% certain it will be titled -----: A Star Wars Story, not just "Solo". Most assuredly it will not be a Star Wars Episode ##. I would support moving the page to Solo (Star Wars Film) or something like this. As it is the title gives 0 indication it is related to Star Wars. 17:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

The announcement video from Ron Howard makes it clear that the full title is Solo: A Star Wars Story. That why it makes sense to use as natural disambiguation. That it is more descriptive and indicates its Star Wars tie is a side benefit. oknazevad (talk) 18:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm also inclined to agree that Solo: A Star Wars Story is a better title for this one, simply to avoid disambiguation. Nohomersryan (talk) 18:40, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't that make for a jarring inconsistency with the Rogue One article? Now that it's fairly clear that all these anthology films are going to be called "Title: A Star Wars Story", I feel like we should either include the subtitle in every page name or include it in none. Readers accept the "Title (YYYY film)" format, but I think they might find vacillation between using and ignoring subtitles within the same sub-series a bit weird and confusing. —Flax5 19:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Rogue One is different from Solo in being immediately comprehensible even without the subtitle. The approach will depend on each film's title. There's no need to make Rogue One longer than it is. For Solo, we already have to disambiguate it because "Solo" is commonplace and has been used by other films. So the argument is that if we are going to disambiguate, it could be a more natural disambiguation with "A Star Wars Story" instead of "(2018 film)". Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:22, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

We should be using the full title of the movie, especially since doing so would provide clear identification for this Solo compared to any other Solo movies, as others have said above. As for consistency, I think that both Rogue One and Solo should both be renamed to have the "A Star Wars Story" in their titles. Length of the article title shouldn't be an issue; after all, all three of the Star Wars prequel films have the full movie names for their titles, so I don't see why all three of the anthology films shouldn't go the same way. Weslam123 (talk) 22:15, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support, per Erik and others. If the name changes to something else it can also be changed here, but 'Solo' doesn't fully differentiate the full content, and can be confused with any of the eight other Solo film titles and other terms or concepts. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support, per Erik. There's already a built in disam into the film's longer title, so it's better than the parenthetical. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 19:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support, per Erik, and this page would be easier to differentiate since other movies are titled "Solo" as well. Hummerrocket (talk) 20:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

If Rogue One article remains unmoved, I wish the same thing for Solo as well. The name being so short without "A Star Wars Story" part is not big deal for me. CAJH (talk) 20:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree. This article should be consistent with Rogue One. The title should change here only if it also changes there. Patorjk (talk) 20:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I also agree that there is no need to use the "Star Wars Story" disambig if it isn't a problem for Rogue One. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:52, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support. The Rogue One article isn't exactly analogous as there is no need for disambiguation there. Here, there is, and we have a way around it, so I support moving the page. If there ever was a case for Rogue One not being the primary topic of Rogue One, I would support a move there as well. Nohomersryan (talk) 22:15, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support, per Erik and others. Renaming the title would provide a lot of clarify to the article, differentiating it from other Solo movies. Weslam123 (talk) 22:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
• Proceedural comment. I did not propose a move. I intentionally kept it as an informal question because these moves have been contentious before, and I wanted to gauge opinion first, especially when the title had just been announced and the article moved just today. My informal inquiry was turned into a formal move request without asking me if it would be okay. No one notified me either. I don't think that's cool.

That said, I support the move, per WP:NATDIS. A longer title is preferable to a parenthetical.

I don't think we need to move Rogue One to its full formal title (and it is the formal title, as seen in the billing block for the film, which always uses the name registered with the MPAA) as it is an umabigious title, and sources do mostly use the short form (and the lead and infobox of that article do use the full title, so it's not missing). That said, I woulldnt object to that either, because it is the formal, MPAA-registered title. oknazevad (talk) 22:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

oknazevad, that's on me, sorry. I tried to be bold and failed. I'll amend it so it does not look like it is from you. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support - Unlike Rogue One, whose title is relatively unique and therefore wouldn't need disambiguation from its most common name, there's a number of films titled Solo, and therefore disambiguation is required. Since the film has an extended title, Solo: A Star Wars Story, it is a much preferable way to disambiguate the film, using an official name for the film, rather than simply resorting to default disambiguation procedure first. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 23:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support, per Erik, Randy Kryn, and others. Why have yet another Solo (20__ film) entitled article, when the title of this film already has a built-in way to disambiguate? DJMcNiff (talk) 23:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support WP:NATDIS. Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:34, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

If you want me to support the move instead of resisting it, answer this: Rogue One and Solo are both Star Wars Story films. You wish to apply WP:NATDIS to only the latter, because there are other articles with name "Solo" as well. But is merely a content of those articles and the media franchise supposed to be enough to explain the connection between them, even though the article names are not written in same style? Does the form of article title "Solo (2018 film)" disturb you supporters more than the difference between "Rogue One: A Star Wars Story" and "Solo" or the difference between "Rogue One" and "Solo: A Star Wars Story"? CAJH (talk) 07:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

In my case, I'm applying NATDIS only to one because only one of the two articles needs disambiguation. There isn't anything else for the term Rogue One to point to, so there's no reason at all to apply NATDIS to it. The inconsistency between this article and the Rogue One article doesn't bother me much, no, because the Rogue One title follows WP:COMMON NAME, though admittedly I don't really care whether or not it's called Rogue One or Rogue One: A Star Wars Story. I just don't believe that article title naming necessarily needs to be absolutely uniform across a topic; article naming, in my belief, is a case by case basis that looks at the individual needs of the particular article. The parenthetical disambiguator "disturbs" me more on this article because it's not strictly our first choice for a disam here. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 10:50, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I may not still support this, but there is no point to resist either. I'll be waiting for the final decision. CAJH (talk) 15:59, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I feel that the benefit of disambiguation resulting from the move would outweigh any drawbacks of title inconsistency. We can always start a discussion as to whether or not we should move Rogue One to Rogue One: A Star Wars Story over on that article's talk page. Weslam123 (talk) 01:47, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support Per WP:NATDIS, and as the official name per announced is "Solo: A Star Wars Story", no need to disambiguate it with "(2018 film)" when it already has a subtitle. Rogue One should be changed as well. --Let There Be Sunshine (talk) 09:54, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support, per the many arguments above. As much as I feel that "A Star Wars Story" is branding that makes the title a bit clunky, Solo definitely requires more sophisticated disambiguation, and this seems the best option. Eight films currently come up in the search bar when entering "Solo (", and someday soon the average reader may not readily know if the film was from 2018, 2017, 2013, or 2011 ... However, I do NOT support changing Rogue One as well, because as others have argued, there is not the same need for disambiguation. The film is commonly known as simply Rogue One, and there is no need to "match" the naming of films in the franchise: we already have acceptable, intentional "disparity" among film articles like Star Wars (film), The Empire Strikes Back, and Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace. The proper naming of each article should be assessed individually based on its particular situation.— TAnthony^Talk 16:46, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support per all the above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

John Williams in the infobox

Per Template:Infobox film: Insert the name(s) of the composer(s) of the original music score. They are usually credited with "Music by". Composers credited for "additional music" and song writers should not be included. Separate multiple entries using {{Plainlist}}. In addition, link each composer to his/her appropriate article if possible. (bolding mine). The part I have bolded applies here in this context. Williams is only writing the theme of the film, which may or may not even be a full track, as themes often tend to be a couple of measures within a larger track. Regardless of this of fact or not, it would still be considered "additional music" for the film and not allowed in the infobox. The info on Williams is appropriately cited and noted in the prose of the article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I would agree with this. Sometimes I think we give undue weight to certain people simply because of who they are. For example, there was a push to include certain producers in the infobox simply because of their famousness within the community, even though they were not actual producers of the film but "executive producers". Putting John Williams here only seems to serve the purpose of saying "The guy that wrote the original music is doing a track for this film so his MUST be included". I would say he needs to be mentioned in the article, but not the infobox if he's not getting co-music credit.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:43, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with not including John Williams since he is not credited as the composer (at this point). Maybe create an anchor link after John Powell's name in the infobox so readers can jump to the "Music" section to learn about Williams's involvement? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:46, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

What would this anchor link idea look like @Erik:? Not entirely sure what you mean by it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Not quite sure. I was originally thinking of a note like the one for "Directed by", but it seems unnecessary when the "Music" section can indicate John Williams's involvement in the opening sentences. I put "more info" as the term in parentheses for the anchor link, see test edit. It could perhaps be others. "see below"? "additional"? "more"? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Is an anchor link even necessary though? Can't we just leave it as prose info in the article? Do we need to highlight it in the infobox. It seems more desire to highlight this info is only because it is John Williams. Devil's advocate, if it was Michael Giacchino doing the theme, would there be such a desire to note this in the infobox? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Nothing is necessary, but John Williams is closely linked to Star Wars that I think it is warranted. We have that flexibility to do an in-between, and I think it's likely that novice editors will think Williams needs to be listed there. Also, I'm not familiar enough with Giacchino to respond to that. :) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

lmao, I believe that's Favre's point. Giacchino is already associated with Star Wars, having composed for Rogue One, but is of significantly lesser fame them Williams—if Giacchino was doing the Solo theme, there would be no impulse to wedge him into the infobox. I don't think it's necessarily to have any sort of go-between in the infobox just because it's Williams. And, well, novice editor instinct isn't really a solid basis for inclusion. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 01:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I get the association, but really, Williams is much more noteworthy than Giacchino with his past famous Star Wars work. There is an overabundance of sources reporting the news that he is writing the theme for this, so it would be due weight to at least direct readers expecting Williams to be in the music part in the infobox to the appropriate section. Of course navigating readers is part of the editing process! Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:10, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I think my issue with needing to include Williams because of his link to the Star Wars franchise seems to insinuate that there is something of significance to him doing the theme. This might be significant if say Williams had stepped away from the franchise and this film brought him back, albeit for one small bit. Except, that isn't the case. The man has scored every Star Wars film (and will score the next), with exception to Rogue One. So it isn't even like he retired and there is significance to his involvement. It just seems tied to his fame, like how people feel the need to include Spielberg or Nolan on films they executive produce simply because of their name even though they are not the actual producers of the film. Our articles shouldn't be filtered through a fame lens when we write them. At least, that's my opinion on the situation.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Character names

It was this thread that made Erik and Dragenflame add the names to the article: https://www.reddit.com/r/StarWarsLeaks/comments/7odqzf/character_names_from_the_lego_solo_sets_its_not/ In my point of view, Newton's and Waller-Bridge's roles can't fully confirmed by this. But if Favre1fan93 decides to undo even the character name changes for Harrelson's and Clarke's roles, let it happen. We can wait. CAJH (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Wait for better source or confirmation. CAJH (talk) 20:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it feels very WP:POISONOUSFRUIT to me. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 20:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Would it then be more of a matter of the means by which the information was obtained, rather than the actual credibility or validity of the source itself? Despite the illegally obtained nature of the content, I'd say that it's fair to conclude that said names are not "rumors" and can be considered finalized, officially valid information. Apologies if I'm overstepping here - I just figured that I might offer that thought. Artakha's Nephew (talk) 13:02, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Like, due to the way we have this information, we cannot verify if it really belongs to this legitimate source or not. We're playing it very conservatively here. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 03:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

As noted in my edit summary, but noting it here: there is now an official character poster with Qi'ra. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 14:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

This article by Deadline, http://deadline.com/2018/02/solo-a-star-wars-story-trailer-video-1202278284/ , confirms that his name is Tobias Beckett. Can we update now? TheMovieGuy (talk) 14:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Including box office prediction

Box Office Pro is saying Solo could open to $150M in the 3-day opening weekend and it has a lengthy-well-written article on why it might be able to do those numbers: https://pro.boxoffice.com/long-range-tracking-solo-star-wars-story/. Hope we can add it into the wiki page for Solo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.50.246 (talk) 01:41, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

When I previously reverted @Disneyisatale: adding it to the article, I cited WP:CRYSTALBALL. Why would we add information that is pure speculation? What is notable about this prediction, and why should it be included? The article doesn't collect every prediction and article about Solo. What is significant about the opening predictions for a movie that's going to open in two months that makes it worth including? ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 02:45, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, you allowed it to happen with Avengers: Infinity War. To sy this can't be allowed, even though the same site's projection for Infinity War's opening weekend can be allowed on it's page is unfair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.50.246 (talk) 13:52, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: just because it exists elsewhere does not mean it's necessarily right to do on this page. My arguments apply to the Infinity War article, which I am not involved with: Why does this projection merit inclusion? How is it significant? Why should this article include speculation and predictions? ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 15:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree with TenTonParasol. Such information is for news sites not encyclopaedias. Box office figures once the film is released are quite sufficient Robynthehode (talk) 21:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

To make another comment, the idea that this is done "for every movie", I haven't seen it until very recently, that box office predictions are added to articles. I do not understand why this doesn't violate WP:CRYSTALBALL and in as far as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments, additions of box office predictions has been removed from at least the Deadpool 2 film article on the grounds that it is speculation and subject to wild change, and that inclusion of box office numbers should be based in firm existing numbers rather than just predictions. I do not know what the merit of including predictions of box office numbers include without some significant context as to why we're going to he including speculation. We don't include any other kind of speculation, even those made by RS, so why does it change when it's box office projection? ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 16:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it also falls under WP:NOTNEWS, as this is purely the sort of overanalysis one finds in the trade press. It's not encyclopedia material and has no place in the article. oknazevad (talk) 17:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC) PS, I changed the breaded of this section to something more descriptive of the topic of discussion, not the misspelled copied headline.

@96.242.50.246: Stop adding the section back to the page. The edit is under discussion and under dispute, the page needs to stay in status quo. Please continue to discuss it here. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 17:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not gonna stop. I want it in there. It should be allowed. It's not speculation. It's long-range forecasting the movie's box office based on audience awareness. It should be allowed. If Solo can't have it, Deadpool 2 shouldn't have it. So, unless u want me to continue getting into an edit war with you, I suggest u back offend let me add in the box office projections. So, TenTonParasol, let me have my way. Or I'll start deleting other box office predictions from other pages, since, u won't let me keep mine in there. You can't just prevent me from adding in from Box Office Pro like if ur the boss of me. That's censorship of freedom of speech. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.50.246 (talk) 01:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

So you state flatly you will not listen to consensus and will continue to edit war. You won't be around here very long if you do that, you know. You're heading for a block, all based on an WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument. Here's a more productive idea: see what people say the the film wikiproject. Maybe they'll agree with you. Or maybe the other articles will have the predictions removed. But since consistency between articles seems to be the issue you have, asking in a broader forum is a better idea than edit warring in a way that will get you blocked. oknazevad (talk) 02:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

As I've stated: I don't feel that the fact that it exists in other articles is firm enough reasoning. And stating that "it's not speculation" just doesn't make sense. Even if it is extrapolating from data, it is still a prediction—which is the same exact thing as speculation in this context. The rest of your arguments (censorship?? WP:ILIKEIT) are tangential and don't address the content on its merits. I've opened up a discussion at WP:FILM: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Box Office Predictions. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 02:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I suppose the inclusion of this content per WP:CRYSTAL, which says, "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses. Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view." So it is a false claim to cite WP:CRYSTAL in removing the content. Furthermore, whether other stuff exists or not is irrelevant. Maybe stuff has not quite existed in the past because of certain editors misapplying WP:CRYSTAL as has just happened here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:40, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I concede the CRYSTAL argument, but my concern over whether or not the numbers are adding anything to the understanding of the topic at hand here in this specific article at this moment in time stand. The numbers don't really add anything to understanding without the context of actual box office numbers. Why is this projection important, in an industry where there will ultimately be a dozen projections—most of which will be promptly forgotten if the box office hits it? ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 15:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Space western

I removed space Western from the lead. Not that I do not think the source or statement is unwarranted, but we need a third-party to suggest sources for the film, not a producer. Per WP:SUBJECTIVE, "Wikipedia articles about art and other creative topics (e.g., musicians, actors, books, etc.) have a tendency to become effusive. [...] it is appropriate to note how an artist or a work has been received by prominent experts and the general public. [...] Verifiable public and scholarly critiques provide useful context for works of art." In short, we need someone outside the production to place the film into categories, not someone who is trying to market the film in any specific way. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:36, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I get what you're coming from, though "space western" does not qualify as "effusive". I'm not seeing any other genre labels available (since everyone knows it's Star Wars). This third-party source does mention "space western" (and the reason for it, at least based on the trailer). Unless we want to just call it a Star Wars film, why not keep "space western" until there's something better? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:55, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards that its mentioned by a producer, and being reported by a third-party source. It comes more off as marketing than any third-party thing. A person can spin a film in any way to make it unique, so I'd rather we keep it straight and just wait it out for a third party source to see a final product, opposed to some marketing type of spin on the film. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Solo: A Star Wars Story runtime revealed

The official site for the 2018 Cannes Film Festival has revealed that the official runtime for Solo: A Star Wars Story has been revealed to be 2 hours and 15 minutes (135 minutes long): http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/infos-communiques/communique/articles/the-2018-official-selection'%20%20rel='noopener. Hope we can add this into the movie's wiki page, because I see this as the official runtime, especially since Ron Howard has finished the final edit on Solo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.50.246 (talk) 23:57, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

John Williams in the Infobox

I feel that is now appropriate to include John Williams in the infobox. The previous discussion of this topic came to the conclusion not to include his name. This decision is outdated now that his name has been included on the official theatrical poster. Keep in mind that he is contributing original music, including a theme that will most likely be used in Powell's cues. This is not the same situation as Rogue One where Giacchino simply referenced old themes, and thus Williams was not included in the billing. Again, putting his name on this one is not related to his fame because his name is actually included on the film poster now. Adervae (talk) 02:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I lean toward agreement. Yes, the infobox documentation strictly read would leave only Powell, but the specific inclusion of Williams on the poster billing block here was clearly done to establish that he's more than just a secondary contributor as usually understood, and therefore is a situation where a strict reading of the infobox documentation does a disservice to the readers. Or, in other words, WP:IAR comes into play. oknazevad (talk) 02:55, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Completely agree! With him receiving actual credit for the music on the poster, and the fact that he's writing new music - Williams' belongs in the infobox.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I think we're running into a slight conflict with how exactly to credit Williams in the infobox, regarding the difference between his new Han Solo theme ("The Adventures of Han" as it's called in the soundtrack) and the original Star Wars themes. I made an edit to separate the two yesterday but it was reverted to make it "just under the whole umbrella" which I disagree with.

As has been said, this isn't a Rogue One situation where Williams didn't contribute anything new for the film and so I think a distinction should be made. Currently it's at "Han Solo theme and Star Wars themes" which seems fine, but I think there should be some agreement. It's worth noting that Williams's poster credit says "Han Solo theme and original Star Wars music" and so I think we should either copy that verbatim, or if it clutters the infobox too much then we should credit Williams for the new theme and that's it. Either as "The Adventures of Han" or just "Han Solo theme." I just made an edit copying the poster credit with smaller text, maybe that will work for everyone.

All of the new music written specifically for this movie will be by John Powell except for this one single John Williams theme. I think that's the most relevant exception to make for the infobox, not the music from previous Star Wars films. My two cents. -- Dlh9690 (talk) 23:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

New poster

Solo: A Star Wars Story has a new international poster that should be the image of this page. I would upload it myself, but every time I add an image it gets removed. The international poster is more in-line with the style of all previous Star Wars films. I think it should be changed to the new poster.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

No, the main poster of the country of production is the appropriate choice. oknazevad (talk) 01:00, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

The 'main poster' in the history of cinema is usually the international poster, as it is more widely distributed. I'm going to upload the newer poster.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 17:39, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

In the context of film articles, the "main poster" is as oknazevad said: the theatrical release poster of its home country. There is no strong reason to use the international poster. Film articles generally use the home country poster unless there is a very specific, strong reason not to do so. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 17:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Seeing as this dicussion, which really has only begun continues to influence editors' reasons for reverting the new poster I added to the article - I will come here and restated my case. The updated poster as released by the studio is the most recent theatrical poster. The image is representative not only of the film in US theaters, but all over the world. It is not only an 'international poster' in the sense of being specific to other countries, but was indeed released in the US as well (aka the country of the film's origin). Along with this, the new poster was made in order to be in unison style-wise with the rest of the franchise. Seeing as it will be most recognizable to readers all over the world - these are all the reasons I keep adding the new poster. There is no valid reason to exclude it, in all reality.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, it is well understood that an international poster may appear in the country of the film's origin. The term "international poster" is used to differentiate it from "the poster used for film's domestic market and seen most commonly in that domestic context". We all understand this. It is common practice to use the domestic theatrical poster. See such in: Hot Fuzz, Black Panther (film), Avengers: Infinity War, A Quiet Place (film), The Shape of Water, Logan (2017 film), Skyfall. Each of these articles uses the theatrical poster most commonly seen in the film's home country. There is absolutely no commentary about the international poster's style and how it's ostensibly more in line stylistically with the franchise; nothing in the article discusses this stylistic decision, so that is not a strong argument to break with common practice. While it is true the poster represents the film's marketing materials globally, again, common practice is to prefer the domestic poster. The poster being the most recent, again, has no bearing as common practice doesn't consider such and prefers the domestic poster. There is no valid reason to break with established common practice and not use the domestic poster. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 05:24, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

User:TenTonParasol, you somehow don't understand what I'm getting at. The poster I keep adding is not the only poster that you are referencing in regards to "international" releases. The difference here is that this poster is the one that is used most recently in the United States. Seeing as this film was made in the US, the poster is made in the US (and also used around the world) it is the poster that is most associated with the film. Your examples of films that use the domestic poster only strengthen what I am saying. A page's image should best represent the article, and a more recent theatrical poster is the way to do it. The one currently on the page is merely a promotional/teaser poster. You argument continues to not really state solidly why you refute using the newer poster. Along with your argument you have no way of proving which poster is "most commonly seen in the film's home country" (to use your own words) - seeing as both were released state-side. The difference is one is more recent, and more stylistically the same to the franchise. Each of my arguments are valid. Your disagreeance isn't a consensus purely based off of 'common practice' as you state.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 06:04, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I understand what you're getting at, and I'm saying it makes no sense nor changes my stance. I have no idea how my citing numerous articles where the domestic poster is used strengthens your argument that the international post be used. "The one currently on the page is merely a promotional/teaser poster." The poster is the official domestic poster. It is used on: Fandango, Rotten Tomatoes, AMC (Coming soon, scroll through), even the official Star Wars site. It is more than a teaser poster. It is the official poster used for all marketing based in its home country. Common practice is a sort of consensus. Myself, Oknazevad, and now RustedAutoParts have all agreed that there is not a consensus to change the poster. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 14:17, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd also like to throw my support in for TenTon et al for their arguments on the poster. It should be this one, not any others. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:51, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Solo budget revealed to be $250 million along with new details about it's troubled production

Variety has an article just put up on Solo's troubled production which includes the reveals of it's production budget to be at $250 million dollars: http://variety.com/2018/film/features/solo-a-star-wars-story-directors-reshoots-ron-howard-1202817841/. Hope we can add this info into the Wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.220.106.162 (talk) 13:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Solo now projected for a $135M 4-day opening weekend

http://deadline.com/2018/05/deadpool-2-box-office-r-rated-record-monday-1202395778/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.220.106.162 (talk) 17:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2018

Production Budget of $250 million and break even at $500 million, as we say, add hide notes which do not change. Carl Tristan Orense (talk) 09:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

This article is not protected now. There's no need for edit request template. -Fnlayson (talk) 11:20, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Someone made a change adding an article claiming the production budget was in excess of $300 million. Why is this source not credible? From what I've seen from other articles it seems like this means we have no choice but to list the budget range as being from $250-300 million. -- 109.79.135.219 (talk) 11:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Set between Rogue One or New Hope?

So I guess this is a bit of a point of contention so I’ll bring it up here. In the lede, it reads “A stand-alone installment set between the events of Revenge of the Sith and A New Hope...” which is how I think it should go since Solo first appears in Episode 4, and RO is mentioned just a sentence before as part of the spin-off series. Yes, Rogue One is set closer to this film on the timeline but since Han Solo is a product of the trilogy and pure film canon I think it should stay “between Sith and New Hope”. Thoughts? TropicAces (talk) 15:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Han doesn't appear in RotS, either, yet it's mentioned. Also, the idea that Rogue One is less canonical is wrong. But that doesn't matter at all, because we write from a real world perspective, and the real-world fact is that Solo is set between RotS and Rogue One among previously released feature films. If we were expanding it to all canon, then we'd state it's set between RotS and Rebels (and there may be some novel or comic in there as well, but keeping track of all that is Wookieepedia material. Limiting it to feature films as the same type of work is reasonable, but we can't ignore a feature film, especially when it's the only other Star Wars Story film released this far. oknazevad (talk) 17:37, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Maybe shorten the whole sentence and say it is before A New Hope? Maybe not mention it at all?

I think the intro trying to being overly specific about a timeline we cannot know for sure is counter productive. -- 109.79.135.219 (talk) 17:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, it's easily established just from the film's themselves when ignorant take a place. But regardless of that, the timeframe was also established by the producers quite some time ago. oknazevad (talk) 17:37, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Well if the producers said it then show your sources, and maybe the wording they use in the sources will support your suggested wording for this article. -- 109.79.135.219 (talk) 18:15, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I actually like the “set prior to the events of A New Hope”, because that’s where Han first appears. Plus it’s a bit cleaner. TropicAces (talk) 18:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)tropicAces

Looks good, hope it stays that way. -- 109.79.135.219 (talk) 20:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Thinking it over, it's a good solution as it is focused on the title character. oknazevad (talk) 03:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Official Solo runtime from BBFC

http://bbfc.co.uk/releases/solo-star-wars-story-film — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.220.106.162 (talk) 14:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Runtime is 2 hours and 15 minutes. Carl Tristan Orense (talk) 10:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Darth Maul

I think the plot section should -- as the cast section currently does -- use the name "Darth Maul" for simplicity and clarity. Anything else makes it significantly less easy to understand for people who are not knowledgable about the Star Wars universe, people who might read an encyclopedia to get an overview.

If you look at reviews that explain his appearance [7] [8] in the film you will notice that they refer to him as Darth Maul at least on the first use and then later shorten it to Maul. It is a clearer way to present his name even if he no longer uses that honorific.

It may be clear to people who are familiar with the extended universe or the newest Disney canon that Maul is Darth Maul but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia not a fan wiki, and clarity is more important than explaining a technicality in the plot section.

Also on a more pedantic level how can people be so sure that at the time of the film he isn't still using the title Darth Maul? The explainer from CNET isn't so sure when he dropped the Darth title only that by the time he was found by the Rebels on Malachor he wasn't using it. -- 109.79.135.219 (talk) 01:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I've put a compromise in the article calling him "the former Sith Lord Maul". This should erase any confusion. Toa Nidhiki05 02:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

That's way worse and far too verbose for film a plot section. -- 109.77.218.235 (talk) 02:52, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

The character is credited as just "Maul", not "Darth Maul", though. It's inaccurate from not just an in-universe perspective, but a real-world production perspective to use "Darth". oknazevad (talk) 03:53, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia includes all kinds of things that aren't strictly accurate, and I say I don't think it's worth reducing the clarity of the plot section over a technicality. I say again I think it would be better to just write Darth Maul, and because of the way Wikipedia and wikilinks work we have to write Darth Maul anyway and then deliberately shorten it to Maul which isn't exactly WP:EGG but I think should be avoided for the same reasons as it reduces clarity. I've stated my point, others disagree. -- 109.77.218.235 (talk) 12:16, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

For similar reasons I disagree with the text "credited as Maul" being removed from the cast section. Readers will not necessarily read the plot section before the cast section. The cast section is a good place to make this distinction clear, far preferable to the plot section, and I do think it should be made clear somewhere. This is me requesting the wording of the cast section be reverted and to please keep the very small bit of explanatory text "credited as Maul". If someone agrees please roll it back for discussion, rather than delete without consensus (which I feel is a bit unfair given I've already raised my concerns about the need to make this clear to casual readers).

I think editors way to close to this to see how much harder to understand they are making this for casual readers. People aren't as familiar with Star Wars outside the films as you all seem to think they are, in addition to the articles I posted above The AV Club also explained why people might be surprised to see Darth Maul enough to offer a deliberate spoiler in advance to avoid confusion. In case anyone can think of a better way to explain it, here's another article, where the the writers explain they included Darth Maul Maul because they thought he was cool. -- 109.79.102.79 (talk) 18:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Not a space western

Following user Oknazevad request ("see talk page for prior discussion")... let's start the discussion.

This edit of mine has been reverted by Oknazevad.

My edit summary was A "space western"? absolutely not... this is a space opera film, like any other Star Wars film, whether or not is an official episode or a spinoff.

How can you disagree with the above, Oknazevad? This is a Star Wars spinoff, set in the Star Wars fictional universe. This is pure Star Wars, pure space opera, nothing more. Cowboys & Aliens, for example, should be ranked within space western films... not Solo: A Star Wars Story. Kintaro (talk) 15:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Have you looked at the space western link? Because it doesn't mean what you think it means. It's a gestalt genre wherein classic structural elements of the western are transposed into a sci-to setting. That's exactly what this film does, right down to a train robbery. "Western" as a genre is also about story structure and themes, not just a setting of the American West in the late 1800s. Solo really is an example of the subgenre. More importantly, that's exactly what the filmmakers intended it to be, as noted in the article. oknazevad (talk) 16:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Have you looked at the space western link? Oh yes, I did...

What about you?

Have you looked at the jidaigeki link?

Have you looked at the Samurai cinema link?

Have you looked at the Star Wars sources and analogues link?

Ok, so there's a "train robbery" scene in the film... and one or two gunfight duels... and so? what about all the other influences from other genres that influenced Lucas to conceive the Star Wars universe and ended clearly visible in Solo: A Star Wars Story? the western elements in Solo are not more prominent than other fictional elements are, like James Bond car chases (transposed to repulsorlift speeders, or even to space ships), the "film noir" singers scene (the singing black lady, and behind her the alien singer submerged in its jar), the "nazi style" uniforms of the Empire, the bikers gang, etc. As a conclusion: you are focusing on only one specific Star Wars influence, the western genre, and this is why you are clearly missing the point about Star Wars. Kintaro (talk) 16:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, there's a ton of influences in Star Wars. It's actually one of the most derivative series in existence. But that's it's brilliance, synthesizing everything together. But this film isn't all of Star Wars. This film was explicitly intended to be a space Western in structure and tone, and has been revered to as such by reliable sources. oknazevad (talk) 19:57, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

The term space western is used by sources outside Wikipedia while discussing the film (just Google "Solo space western" for some quick examples). Yes, it's more "space" and less "western" than I was expecting based on the trailers and promotion, but it's not inaccurate. --CaptainNtheGameMaster (talk) 17:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

All Star Wars episodes and spin-offs are ranked "space opera" and Solo should be ranked "space western"? sounds really odd to me... But it's ok guys, I no longer insist. Let's leave it as it is. Kintaro (talk) 20:20, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

This movie isn't even close the the definition of space western. One of the critical parts of the definition of western is "Exploration", there is really NO exploration to speak of in the Star Wars Universe. You'll have to go Star Trek to get a space western. Is it just one person deciding this issue? Brian T. McDaniel (tAlk) 18:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, not all space westerns have all aspects of the genre. But secondly, the film does contain exploration, in the sense of trailblazing. You know, that part where Han blazes a new route for the Kessel Run in under 12 parsecs. oknazevad (talk) 21:54, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok, after a few days of serious internal reflection, research and communicating with other nerds, it appears that I wasn't open minded, and I was wrong. I now thoroughly support the decision that Solo is a Space Western (although the Star Wars franchise as a whole is not), and Han Solo is a Space Cowboy. Under the pressure of overwhelming evidence and facts - I have been enlightened ! Brian T. McDaniel (tAlk) 19:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Brian T. McDaniel stated:

Solo is a Space Western (although the Star Wars franchise as a whole is not), and Han Solo is a Space Cowboy. Under the pressure of overwhelming evidence and facts - I have been enlightened !

I feel the above was in fact some kind of (well deserved) sarcasm... Kintaro (talk) 21:02, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

No Source, subjective, dubious.

When reverting removal for "no source", the replacing-editor needs to provide a source, not just say there there's one on the talk page.
There's no source in the text calling it a "Space Western". How is it like a western? Prove it with some actual refs! Trouble is, 1) it's a subjective thing, and 2) it just isn't like a western anyway (but that's subjective too).
There was one source early on (from pre-production) saying "it's going to be more like a western", but "going to" be and "is" are very different. Since calling something a "space western" is thoroughly subjective, to call it that we need a number of refs from respectable sources saying it or one good damn-notable one saying it. So, find some refs. Right now we got NONE. It's completely made up and utter WP:OR to call it a "space western" without those sources. Usualzukor (talk) 07:52, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Genres are rarely if ever sourced in film articles. And subjectiveness is always a part of any genre classification. Most importantly your "dubiousness" is your subjective opinion, not the consensus of reviews, many of which have specifically called it a space Western (or Han a space cowboy), as seen in this one, or the explicit intent of the creators, as seen here. The director stating his intent as to genre is not inherently promotional, by the way, and its not-non-neutral to ignore the intent of an artist in creating their works. Removing it because you don't like it against consensus to include it is uncollaborative behavior. oknazevad (talk) 12:37, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Make your point on the main page with actual references there instead of talking about them here. If it's the "consensus of reviews", then find some and add them in. That's the WP:burden policy and that's the way it works.
If your references above are good (they might be), I'm certainly not going to be the one to add them because I disagree with the unencyclopedic/subjective/ridiculous "western" characterization. Realistically, someone who agrees with the characterization would have to be the one to add them in, and that's you! :-) Usualzukor (talk) 17:53, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

While you're at it, material in a lede section is supposed to be a summary of material in the main body. If you want the "western" characterization to have staying power, you should also mention it in the text somewhere with a little more detail and add your citations there. That way, the mention in the lede can be more clearly a summary of material in the main body and you won't need to put the citations in the lede (because they would already be in the main body). Usualzukor (talk) 18:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC)