Talk: First Order-Resistance War

Back to page
Wiki-shrinkable

This is the talk page for the article "First Order-Resistance War."

This space is used for discussion relating to changes to the article, not for discussing the topic in question. For general questions about the article's topic, please visit Wookieepedia Discussions. Please remember to stay civil and sign all of your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Click here to start a new topic.

Page punctuation

For many years, aside from a couple of quickly overturned naming tussles, this page lived at First Order–Resistance war (using the en dash). In 2020, Tommy-Macaroni renamed it to First Order/Resistance War, citing The Star Wars Book. A year later, DarthRuiz30 renamed it to its current name, First Order-Resistance War (using the hyphen), citing Star Wars: Battles that Changed the Galaxy. Was the hyphen intended here? And even if it reflects strict fidelity to a single source that uses a less conventional mark of punctuation, shouldn't all the prior sources that gave it the more punctuationally correct name carry some weight?

The 2021 rename also creates internal inconsistency within Wookieepedia, as things such as Template:First Order–Resistance war still use the dash. Asithol (talk) 04:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

  • On its page, Battles uses FIRST ORDER—RESISTANCE WAR, whichever that translates to Lewisr (talk) 05:26, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Ha, that's a third option, the em dash—which is flat-out wrong in this context. So I guess we can safely ignore Battles. That makes it seem reverting the page name to the en-dash version is best. Any other thoughts? Asithol (talk) 21:59, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
    • In any case, since Battles uses the em dash for the conflict name, DarthRuiz erred by changing our page name to use a hyphen while citing that book to justify the change. Given that (and the fact that the slash that The Star Wars Book uses is an outlier), the best thing seems to be for us to go back to using the en dash in our page name—which I would go ahead and do if the page weren't move-protected. 😐 Asithol (talk) 05:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Separate

Not sure why the two articles should be separate from each other... the "conflict" was always a war of sorts, and it's now evolved into open warfare. I think a simple renaming of the previous article would suffice. Reddyredcp (talk) 19:53, September 10, 2017 (UTC)

  • I agree, it seems unnecessary to have two articles for the same thing. I think merging the pages onto this one seems the best option, unless anyone has any real objections? --Lewisr (talk) 19:54, September 10, 2017 (UTC)
    • I think that he tried to do something similar to Early rebellion against the Galactic Empire and the Galactic Civil War, but in this case I don't see the difference. The resistence was always public about engaging the FO--DarthRuiz30 (talk) 20:04, September 10, 2017 (UTC)
      • the Early rebellion against the Galactic Empire was a conflict that escalated into open warfarce in the GCW. so why shouldn't the same be with the First Order-Resistance conflict and the First Order-Resistance war, the conflict escalated into a full scale war as well.Jkirk8907 (talk) 20:08, September 10, 2017 (UTC)
        • What would could do is merge them together and in the prelude make it about the current First Order Resistance conflict page and the middle part of the page be about the open war between the two, I just don't see the real need to have two separate pages --Lewisr (talk) 20:12, September 10, 2017 (UTC)
        • Alright I'm on board with that Jkirk8907 (talk) 20:16, September 10, 2017 (UTC)
          • Sources said that the GCW started with the battle of Scarif, yet there were conflicts prior to that, thus the need for a separate page. Here, we don't have an official start date or name, so I think merging the two is a good idea.--D9328 (talk) 21:40, September 10, 2017 (UTC)d9328
  • I don't think it's necessary to have two different articles. It hasn't been stated if they're two separate conflicts, such as the Galactic Civil War and the conflicts before it. In that case it was clear that they were two separate conflicts, one leading to the other. That is not the case for the conflicts between the First Order and Resistance. Thus it should remain as one article.--Vitus Infinitus (talk) 01:38, September 11, 2017 (UTC)

New Republic?

Should the new Republic be listed as an combaten? I know that their lost a lot of leadership on Hosnian. But that didn't stop the Empire when the first death star blowed up. Or when the second blowed up. And may add Imperiel high command first death star, and Palpatin and Vater was on the second. —Unsigned comment by RC-0407 (talk • contribs)

  • I think this point could potentially be brought up again, but for a different reason. The New Republic isn't really a "combatant" in this conflict; they don't participate in any battles (as we know) and are just instantly taken out as the opening event of the war. Reddyredcp (talk) 21:59, August 8, 2019 (UTC)
    • I agree, they aren't really a combatant so they shouldn't really be there --Lewisr (talk) 22:03, August 8, 2019 (UTC)

New galactic war

Just thought I'd throw this out there: DJ's Databank entry calls this conflict the "new galactic war." - AV-6R7Crew Pit 22:23, May 2, 2018 (UTC)

  • Here's the full context: ""When Finn objected, DJ showed the former stormtrooper that the Libertine's owner was an arms dealer supplying both sides of the new galactic war". In that light, it's being used as a descriptive phrase rather than a name. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 22:29, May 2, 2018 (UTC)

Name

It was brought to my attention that the war may be named as "The New Conflict" in Star Wars: On the Front Lines. On page 126, in the "Timeline of Battles," there are three colored sections. The first one, which is blue and titled "The Clone Wars," includes the birth of Anakin, Battle of Naboo, Separatist Crisis, and battles of the Clone Wars. The second, in yellow, is the "Galactic Civil War," and includes Mon Mothma's resignation from the Senate in 2 BBY and the key battles, such as Scarif, Yavin, Hoth, Endor, and Jakku. The next and final one, is in red and is titled "The New Conflict," and includes Leia's resignation from the Senate and the Battle of Starkiller base. It could be a name for the Cold War or the First Order-Resistance war, or it could just be a placeholder and unofficial name. Let me know what you guys think.--Vitus InfinitusTalk 20:41, June 25, 2018 (UTC)

  • It's definitely not the actual name of the conflict. It's just a section heading. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 20:51, June 25, 2018 (UTC)

Alright well we definitely need to change the name of this war With the appearance of the Sith fleet, the Final Order and Palpatine himself, the Battle of Exegol really doesn't constitute this conflict as a "First Order-Resistance War"

Shall we Brainstorm new ideas for the time being since this article title is conjectural anyway?MimbanMudGang (talk) 18:39, December 21, 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I like the idea of changing the name of the article. In Legends I know that there was a conflict called The Second Galactic Civil War. What if the new article could be renamed to something similar like New Galactic Civil War, The First Order War, Second Imperial War, etc. (talk)

Ending

Are we really sure the war ended with the Battle of Exegol? After all, there's the uprisings occurring after the battle. -- GalacticRepublicEmblem-SISUsesItToo Commander Awesome (Talk) 22:20, January 6, 2020 (UTC)

Could we Name the Period the First Order Invasion until we get an official name. even matt martin thinks the use of war doesnt make sense.

https://twitter.com/missingwords/status/1221187096557154304

The image on the page shows the Final Order not the First Order

The image of the page are the final order's star destroyer vs the civilian fleet. Shouldn't be something of the first order? Like the supremacy fleet vs the raddus fleet? Something that actually is resistance vs first order is what i'am getting at. —Unsigned comment by LegnÁ 789 (talk • contribs)

  • The Battle of Exegol was a part of the war. Even though it shows the Sith Eternal, it is still an image of the war. VergenceScatter (talk) 16:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
    • I guess, but it still feels odd naming a conflict First order-Resistance war and the main image lacks one of the halfs. —Unsigned comment by LegnÁ 789 (talk • contribs)
      • Please remember to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~. VergenceScatter (talk) 16:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
        • I know this is an old thread, but I have to agree with the unsigned user. Despite the accurate logic that it was a battle during the war, only one First Order ship was present during the Battle of Exegol, so it feels a bit odd to have it as the image at the forefront of said war. Perhaps a battle from The Force Awakens or The Last Jedi would be more appropriate? EthSch13 (talk) 18:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
          • For conflicts, we tend to use the latest chronological battle as the infobox image hence it depicts the Battle of Exegol. I get what you're saying with the name of the conflict. The conflict really should be called the "Second Galactic Civil War" or similar as it's more logical to name it that way if more than two major factions (i.e. First Order and Final Order) comprise of one side. However, no approved sources so far have called the conflict the "Second Galactic Civil War" or similar. Cheers, TomotronRevanchist SithStar Forge 13:21, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
            • I mean, do we really? A quick look at some of the articles for the most prominent conflicts, like Clone Wars, Galactic Civil War, Great Jedi Purge, early rebellion against the Galactic Empire, or Cold War, make this seem to not be the case; in fact, many of them seem to use the first or earlier chronological battles. Should those articles be updated as well? Reddyredcp (talk) 15:58, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
              • Sorry, I should've clarified on what I said. I meant this was practiced in the past but is no longer the case. The infobox image selection for conflicts is either an image that conveys the conflict in the best way or the image meets the "rule of cool." You can change the main image if you want but I believe this requires consensus since it's a major page. Cheers, TomotronRevanchist SithStar Forge 17:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Pyre

Why was Commander Pyre removed from the First Order commanders list? —Unsigned comment by 51.6.53.27 (talk • contribs)

  • I believe we had tried to keep the list to those who were overall commanders of the war itself, and not just listing all the commanders of events during the war, Pyre doesn't really fit in that regard Lewisr (talk) 18:03, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Infobox image

Should the infobox image be changed to something more general rather than a specific battle? The Clone Wars, Galactic Civil War and Cold War pages do this, having artwork of large scale battles rather than a picture from one of the movies. (Shouldn't it also show the First Order, not the Sith Eternal?) 46.208.98.62 (46.208.98.62) 11:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  • Exegol is a large scale battle, I don't see the need to change for the sake of changing Lewisr (talk) 18:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)