Propose rename
In comics, books that have the same name tend to be referred to as different volumes. Marvel Star Wars would be "Star Wars Vol 1", the first 45 issues of Star Wars: Republic would be "Star Wars Vol 2", and this series would be "Star Wars Vol 3". I propose renaming them as such. Thoughts? Taral, Dark Lord of the Sith -Just shy, not antisocial: You can talk to me!- 19:47, January 15, 2013 (UTC)
- Point me to an official source that explicitly calls them that, and then you can move them. Otherwise, we go by what official sources say. We don't create our own conjectural names when we have a known official name. —MJ— Training Room 20:16, January 15, 2013 (UTC)
- I understand your point, MJ, but Taral isn't wrong either. Whether Vol 2/3/whatever is printed on the cover or not, it's common practice amongst both comic publishers and readers to refer to each subsequent identically-titled line as a Volume number even if the two stories have nothing to do with one another. — DigiFluid(Whine here) 20:30, January 15, 2013 (UTC)
- But unless you have evidence that the publisher is actually calling them that, then it's tantamount to moving Luke Skywalker to That kid from Tatooine just because we think it would be a better title. Pure and simple, we go by what the publisher actually calls it, and never do we use a conjectural title (which is what these would be in absence of evidence that the publishers use them) when a canonical or official title exists. Bottom line: either show evidence that the series is/are explicitly referred to as Vol. 1/2/3, or else the articles stay where they are now. —MJ— Holocomm 20:47, January 15, 2013 (UTC)
- ...because Dark Horse calls their line "Star Wars (Dark Horse)"? The page already bears an at least semi-conjectural title. While I don't really have any strong opinion one way or the other on re-naming the article, it seems more than a little silly to sit here and carry on that one conjectural page name is more valid than another. — DigiFluid(Whine here) 21:17, January 15, 2013 (UTC)
- The presence of "(Dark Horse)" in the page name does not make it a conjectural title. "Star Wars" is the official title, so we use that. The fact that we must add a parenthetical disambiguator, like we do with probably thousands of other articles, because there are other articles for which the official name is "Star Wars" does not in any way make the title conjectural, because the parenthetical disambiguator is, from an encyclopedic standpoint, not part of the title of the article; it is only there because of technical limitations and because it's more helpful to readers than the simple "(1)", "(2)", etc. used by the CSWE. The actual encyclopedic title remains simply "Star Wars". Your and Taral's proposal is that we should throw out the official title and insert conjecture directly into the encyclopedic title proper. We do not ever do that. —MJ— Training Room 22:30, January 15, 2013 (UTC)
- In which reply did I propose or advocate it? In my first, I deliberately stated that I understood what you were saying, and what you've just said again. And in my second, I explicitly said I have no strong feelings either way. All I've pointed out is that putting either "Dark Horse" or "Vol 2" at the end in parentheses after "Star Wars 1", as an organizational principle seems equally as valid. I wasn't pushing for either direction, and I was very clear about that. — DigiFluid(Whine here) 22:47, January 15, 2013 (UTC)
- I'd like to clarify that my idea was not to throw out an official title and replace it with an unofficial one. My idea was to throw out an imprecise title and give it a precise one (noting that "Star Wars (Dark Horse)" equally describes the first 45 issues of Star Wars Vol 2). Comic book companies writ large refer to their products by volumes, and this is the third volume of a book called "Star Wars" (second one published by DHC). And MJ, I'll abide by consensus, but I want to note that I don't appreciate the tone of this discussion (especially in the first post, which reads more like "shut up and stop being stupid" than a constructive remark). You're an admin; please be more respectful. Taral, Dark Lord of the Sith -Just shy, not antisocial: You can talk to me!- 14:42, January 17, 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry for the tone. However, it's still incorrect to use "vol 1" etc. If you want to distinguish the two Dark Horse versions, use the years in the parentheses, e.g. Star Wars (Dark Horse; 2013) or possibly even just Star Wars (Dark Horse 2013). Both of those will work without straying away from the official title. Unless the publisher has actually used the title "Vol 1", etc., however, then it's incorrect any way you slice it. If you still disagree, I would suggest starting an SH discussion since it affects multiple articles. —MJ— Holocomm 19:31, January 17, 2013 (UTC)
- I do like the idea of using the year. That's probably the most effective and accurate solution. Star Wars (Dark Horse 2013) would clearly be the comic series that began in 2013, and subsequent series of the same name (like if Marvel gets the license again, it will probably have a fourth volume) would be similarly structured. Thanks for working with me on this. Taral, Dark Lord of the Sith -Just shy, not antisocial: You can talk to me!- 15:51, January 18, 2013 (UTC)
Story arcs division
This series is currently being published in Brazil, and the latest issue was Star Wars 7, listed as the seventh part to Star Wars: In the Shadow of Yavin. Is this an organization mistake by our publisher? Do the original versions state that From the Ruins of Alderaan starts there, or is this coming from the TPB division? Lele Mj 
(Holoprojector) 03:10, February 18, 2015 (UTC)