[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sequel Trilogy (Star Wars)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus · Katefan0(scribble) 20:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sequel trilogy (Star Wars)

[edit]

This article is speculation about movies that are not going to be made, based largely on conjecture from expanded universe (licensed) Star Wars works. Only one source is cited, and that source, as far as I can tell, only confirms an incidental fact (in which year the movies would be set). - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 05:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Based on further revelations, I'm changing my vote to Keep, with an eye to possibly merging it somewhere. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 10:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support the idea of a sequel trilogy. Originally, Lucas decided to stop making Star Wars films after Return of the Jedi. Contrary to what the media says, there is still a chance for a sequel trilogy. The sequel trilogy would star Ben Skywalker as an adult. It would take place about a decade after the Dark Nest trilogy. There can be up to three sequel trilogies. If there are to be 15 episodes total, Episode XV would take place in 203 ABY. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 08:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Contrary to what the media says, there is still a chance for a sequel trilogy.
      Unless and until someone adds some sort of proof of this claim to the article, it's unverified speculation. (Plus, given Lucas's track record, I think it's exceedingly unlikely he'd make a trilogy of movies based on EU canon.) - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 09:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The sequel trilogy does not necessarily have to be based on Expanded Universe canon. The earlier facts state that it would take place after all Expanded Universe canon, ranging from 40 ABY to 203 ABY. The Dark Nest trilogy, the latest in the Expanded Universe canon, takes place in 35-36 ABY. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 06:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE. This is not a bloody crystal ball for Lucaszoids and basement Jedi. --80.222.69.104 09:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. This is not really speculation. It is based on early facts from George Lucas and on possibility. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 09:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. First off, I am the author of this article, I wrote this article based on actual facts. Actually, this is based on facts from Lucas himself in the 80's. I would never believe that damn Supershadow for a second. The information contained in that page is based on factual information in The Star Wars Timeline Gold by Nathan Butler, which can be found here. The Wookieepedian 10:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You say "facts" twice, but the only source you have cited is a dubious secondary source that doesn't cite primary sources for this speculation, as far as I can tell. If there are primary sources that can be cited, particularly ones I missed from that timeline, please add them to the article. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 10:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Check the new reference I added to the page. The other sources the timeline used I cannot locate.. It found its facts in an old issue of Time magazine, and other off-hand comments Lucas made to the media. The Wookieepedian 10:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wow, that's insanely obscure, but it looks like it's there. (Page 141 of the appendices PDF from the linked timeline page, for anyone who wants to check the timeline page). Well, in that case, the speculation/conjecture needs to be trimmed, primary sources need to be tracked down and cited, and this probably needs to be merged (Star Wars speculation seems like a logical merge target). I've amended my vote in respect of this revelation. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 10:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yeah, the guy who wrote that knows obscurity very well, as his timeline shows. I believe this page needs to be here to let everyone know that Lucas has in fact, based on his own former statements, planned to do such a trilogy, or triloggies at one point. Since he now denies he even considered such a thing, I thought it might be interesting to create a page using his own words against him. I don't knoiw if this would be considered speculation, except for the part about the name of Luke's son. This is more of construcing a basic storyline, based on Lucas' words. The Wookieepedian 11:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Conjectural. Not a crystal ball. I find the fact Lucas mentioned it irrelevant. It doesn't exist until it exists. Marskell 11:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The enitre purpose of the article is to give the reader a good idea of what he had in mind and let people know that he lies when he says he never even considered doing such a trilogy. The purpose of this article is not to say that he is going to make it, or speculate, just show what it would have basically been like, had he made one. It is notable. The Wookieepedian 11:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problem is that the only facts here (as opposed to conjecture) are that Lucas was planning to make some sequels (the number varying, depending on the source and the time he was interviewed), and that he broached the subject of having Mark Hamill play an "Obi-Wan-type character." Other than that, nothing is verifiable (and a chunk of it was borderline fanfic and copyvio, and has been removed), so there's no real verifiable claim about what such movies would have been like if they had existed. Don't make this article out to be more than it is. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 14:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Here's basically what I want to do with this article: I want it to tell only the confirmed, verifyable facts first, in a section of its own. Then, based on these facts, I want to, along with help from others, construct the logical story based on these facts, noting that it isn't the actual story, just an approximation of what it would have been. The only time I will bring in the EU is when mentioning Luke's son, which I will use the name, "Ben," which has been established in The New Jedi Order. I will have a section showing proof of other sequels he has had in mind, but don't need their own page to be mentioned. I will then have one mentioning what many fans have considered the sequel trilogy in their minds (The Thrawn Trilogy for example). Finally, I will need to move the page, in order for its name to be consistant with the original trilogy and prequel trilogy articles. I hope this explains to you and everyone that votes and is involved with this issue what exactly I plan to do. The way it is in its current form isn't nearly what I had in mind. It was just a quick thing I created last night, without expanding it. If it survives deletion, though, I will expand it, becuase I strongly feel the subject is notable.
          • I'm sorry if you have serious plans on this one. "What he had in mind" is absolutely not a criteria for inclusion even if verifiable. Think about it. Every script that makes it to the talking stage of studio consideration could be included. Every plan or future desire of a notable person, subsequently scrapped, could be included. Every agreed upon role for an actor, declined at the last minute, could be included.
          • "Construct(ing) the logical story based on these facts, noting that it isn't the actual story, just an approximation of what it would have been" is absolutely a no go. I—and I'm sure not just I—would delete it in a second. It would actually constitute OR for one thing and the criticism about speculation would only be stronger. Marskell 17:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I haven't got time to disentangle all of this. I will say only this. I'm not much of a Star Wars fan. I saw the first movie, then entitled simply "Star Wars," in 1977 on its first run in Boston and walked out before the end because I was getting just too irritated with winged spacecraft developing lift forces in a vacuum. Anyway, I certainly read interviews at the time, and in fairly mainstream places, possibly Time Magazine?, explaining that it was actually the fourth in a projected series of nine films. I've recently wondered when the seventh, eighth, and ninth will be coming out. Apparently Lucas has now backpedalled on this. Information on what has been said when about this third trilogy is legitimate, and ought to be included somewhere. This is a legitimate topic. I can't speak to whether the information currently in the article is well-researched or not. The article cannot be a reconstruction by a Wikipedia editor of what the third trilogy might have been. However, if a series of well-sourced, verifiable quotations from Lucas and others can be put together in such a way that the reader can construct a plausible storyline for him- or herself, that would be IMHO perfectly legitimate. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's exactly what my goal is. And in response to another editors comments that every author's screenplay or failed production should be listed if this one is, well, that's not exactly so. The talk of a sequel trilogy to Star Wars has been around since the late 70's. The talk of such a thing happening really habven't ceased. That is what makes it notable, the fact that people have known and discussed it for so long. I suppose I couldn't construct the story, but maybe explain, based only on what he has said, what was going to happen in these movies. And, by the way, the man who created the star wars timeline I list as a source is certainly not dubiou, as one said. His timeline is over 1,000 pages, as seen in the PDF, and he has worked it constantly, since 1997. He is sort of a Star Wars historian. Things he has in the timeline, are likely to be true. Also, he happens to be a high school history teacher with a intense interest in chronology. So his project is a pretty trustworthy source. Now, I won't actually construct a story, as in a plot summary, like the movie articles do, just basically what were to happen. I hope to do it in a similar format to the articles for the prequel trilogy and the original trilogy articles. The Wookieepedian 19:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Excellent summary by Dpbsmith. Following that logic, my vote would be to keep, rename as Sequel trilogy (Star Wars), and ruthlessly edit out any "reconstruction" that can't be traced back to things Lucas actually said or wrote. It is therefore likely to remain a very small article or a stub, but that seems appropriate. Bikeable 19:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but retitle, maybe to Star Wars Third Trilogy or something a bit more useful. The fact Lucas planned a third trilogy is an historical fact dating back to around 1977-78 if not earlier, and considering the cultural significance of the Star Wars films, I think it's worthy of its own article. Any speculation regarding plot, etc. should be restricted to statements made by Lucas, though. 23skidoo 21:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The fact that Lucas planned a third trilogy is an historical fact"—hey sure. But there is no third trilogy and likely never will be. How are people dropping the logic ball so completely on this one? If you want to rename it go for: Speculation on the Star Wars Sequel Trilogy. That's all it can ever be. Marskell 21:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, by all means rename it if it needs renaming. And... just being argumentative here, not serious... incomplete works are frequently completed by others, when there is good evidence of the author's intention. Many unfinished symphonies have been finished or reconstructed; Jack London's half-completed novel The Assassination Bureau, Ltd. was completed by Robert L. Fish; Raymond Chandler's novel Poodle Springs was completed by Robert B. Parker; various stories referred to within the Sherlock Holmes stories but never written by Arthur Conan Doyle have been written by others, and it goes on and on and on. If Lucas never makes episodes 7, 8, and 9, I think it is a virtual certainly that someone else will, someday, e.g. after he dies if his heirs see money in it. Of course it would require a crystal ball to write an article on that basis now, but the article could conceivably be more than speculation... someday. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • And when somebody else does create them then add the page. My goodness. From Not A Crystall Ball: "Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate." Simple stuff.Marskell 09:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Star Wars speculation. With the merged material, remove the conjecture and keep it to just the evidence. Saberwyn 22:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't want to write this article in the form of a crystal ball. In its final form, I want it to basically be a place that tells only the story which is based off of facts from Lucas. At the beginning, I tell that these haven't been made, and I never try to speculate what they would be about. I don't want this to be redirected to the speculation page, I'm not speculating on what these films would be like if they were made, just telling what they could have been, according to Lucas. The Wookieepedian 01:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Telling what they could have been" IS BY DEFINITION SPECULATION. Marskell 19:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • As in could, I am referring to what they were going to be if he made them, not what I or others think they were going to be about. I was not using could to mean speculation, I was using it to mean what they were to be. The Wookieepedian 11:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • "I am referring to what they were going to be if he made them" You don't know what they would've been if he made them—it's as simple as that. "I'm not speculating on what these films would be like if they were made, just telling what they could have been" makes as much as sense as "It's not raining, there's just water falling from the sky." Marskell 14:07, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are actually more sources than listed above or in the article: the Annotated Screenplays, for one. --Maru (talk) 03:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep, per The Wookiepedian -LtNOWIS 19:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it's an important part of the Star Wars history - deleting it smacks of a cover-up!
    • Of course it's a coverup! Didn't you see my username? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 13:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Any speculation in this article will be stated in a way where it is presented as the opinion of an outsider, and will be clearly labeled as their opinion or contribution. For this, I will, of course, use the remarks of notable sources (Steve Sansweet, Lucas emploiyees, The Star Wars Timeline Gold). Any information like this will be there for informative purposes only, stating only what those in the know speculate the story would have been, based on their inside jknowledge and actual facts. THIS WILL NOT BE AN ARTICLE TO SPECULATE, ANY SPECULATION WILL BE A RECORD OF WHAT OTHERS HAVE SAID. The Wookieepedian 13:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep - This can be an article of vifiable information on an encyclopedic topic. As long as sources are cited and there is no speculation nobody should have a problem. The assertion that "It doesn't exist until it exists." has absoultly nothing to do with the validity of the topic. There are many things that were planned but did not come to frutiton because of a vairety of reasons. Should we not inculde an article about Copland because there was no released product? As far as the public was concerned there was never a project so it does not exist. I'm sure that there are numerous articles about failed government or NASA projects that never got off the ground, should those be deleted too? Of course not. Assuming the information in this article is not merely speculation there is no reason to delete it. --Ctachme 16:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If someone else have nominated this and I had voted after this, my entry would have been "per Ctachme." These are my exact feelings. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 17:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looking at your example I don't see it as analogous given that it was an up and running project for two years. Granted, "It doesn't exist until it exists" is a touch didactic but it does have something to do with the validity of the topic: Copland "exists" as a scrapped project that reached a significant level of development, which is not the case here. "The Star Wars Sequel Trilogy was a film trilogy originally to be made by George Lucas" is arguably inaccurate. "The Star Wars Sequel Trilogy was a twinkle in the eye of George Lucas that fans really want to be made and really want to speculate about here on Wiki" has more truth. I can think of very few cases where we've opened the door to things that were never or are not now extant, and I think the bar should be high (i.e., World War III makes sense). Marskell 17:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • A sequel trilogy was not sprung from fan fantasies, Lucas said on multiple occasions to several sources in the late 70's abd early 80's that he had plans for such a trilogy. No, it will never be made. On numerous occasions he has firmly stated he will never do another trilogy after this prequel trilogy he just finished. I'm arguing that since he did at once confirm such plans, and people like Gary Kurts have claimed that he even saw outlines for the stories, it is farely notable to eb put on here. We can't forget Lucas' statements in the 1994 release of Splinter of the Mind's Eye where he said "I reallized my story would take a total of nine films to tell." The Wookieepedian 18:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. per The Wookieepedian, Ctachme. This is a very well known part of Star Wars history/lore/whatever, the original plan was for Lucas to make 3 trilogies. This isn't knowledge just limited to Star Wars fans. --Kewp (t) 19:45, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. speculation. Basing speculation on "facts" doesn't mean it's not speculation. Ctachme's points are valid, but "removing speculation" would leave very little verifiable encyclopedic content, and what's left is best merged, along with Star Wars speculation into Star Wars#Conception, and whichever "expanded universe" topics might be appropriate, and mostly offloaded to the Star Wars Wiki. Dystopos 23:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect/or Expand As far as I can tell, there's nothing wrong with the facts of the article. Currently though, I feel that it either needs to be merged with the Star Wars speculation or expanded to cover more information.--FDIS 00:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I plan on adding all known facts about the sequel trilogy to the article, with the help of others, of course. Like the prequel and original trilogies, I feel this needs an article of its own, since you can't really list a group of related facts as speculation, can you? Expand is the option I prefer, merging with the speculation article doesn't do the topic justice. It iswell known, as another user said, beyond the star wars fans. As I have said, it is something that has been known for almost 30 years, by both the fans and the general public. The Wookieepedian 00:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why do bees get in bonnets? I don't know but I can't seem to get rid of this bee. "It is something that has been known for almost 30 years." No: "It is something that has been speculated about for almost 30 years" Marskell 01:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Many facts are not encyclopedic. Reporting that someone speculated is not encyclopedic without some other context. Lucas' statements about the number of films are marginally notable (and already covered in Star Wars#Conception). Fan speculation (even second-hand) about the content of any such films is trivia unbecoming to WP. How many "known facts" do you propose that there might be about these non-existent productions? Dystopos 01:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP: I found this page useful in uncovering needed info...even if it was just speculation.
  • KeepI think this is relevant because the sequel trilogy has been a constant thought of people whether or not they are Star Wars fans. I'm sure there are many people out there who would like to learn about the prospects of Episodes VII to IX, and would like to learn about that here. (Jamandell (d69) 22:24, 8 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep. It is an interesting article, but it needs to be expanded and need more sources. Carioca 22:32, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and expand if only to prevent SuperShadow nonsense from taking over SW articles. Add a paragraph explaining that SuperShadow's claims on a sequel trilogy are entirely false. - Sikon 10:47, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. I made a section linking to his article and explaining that his own words have shown him to be a fraud. I have a bad feeling, though, that I will have to constantly revert SuperShadow editors who come by here and were "inspired" by his "revelations." The Wookieepedian 17:20, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sequel_Trilogy_(Star_Wars)&oldid=1138352138"