Forum:CT:Allowing BTS Sources for Canon & Legends

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Allowing BTS Sources for Canon & Legends
This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was Support all. —spookywillowwtalk 13:50, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Over the last few weeks, I've been working to flesh out the Masterlist's coverage of our magazine articles, and it's led me to the conclusion that we really should be listing the BTS interviews from Insider on both Canon and Legends pages. I think we're far enough away from the original 2014 split, and as a community we know well enough to not try and use these old works as justification to canonize names, that I think we can relax the hard-and-fast rule (but for BTS content only).

So I started writing an amendment... and ended up accidentally rewriting a good chunk of the IU Layout Guide. Anyways, we've got two votes:

Vote 1: IU Sources

I noticed our General Rules list of the Sources section doesn't actually discuss IU reference works like Rise and Fall and the Essential Guides, so I felt the following bullet point was worth adding as the first item in the list:

Accordingly, the following line will be removed from the first paragraph of the section: "Note, however, that while the Sources list includes items that are published as real-world canon reference material, many of these sources are nonetheless written as though by an "in-universe" author, such as historian Voren Na'al."

Support

  1. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 02:14, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
  2. CometSmudge (talk) 02:20, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
  3. Rsand 30 (talk) 02:28, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
  4. until we make a separate section for iu reference works. ThePedantry (talk) 02:40, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
  5. Yasen Nestorov (talk) 04:44, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
  6. Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:14, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
  7. OOM 224 10:54, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
  8. Pedantry about to open Pandora's box with that suggestion lmao. Bonzane10 Bonzane10-Sig 11:57, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
  9. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 14:18, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
  10. Imperators II(Talk) 19:30, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
  11. —spookywillowwtalk 22:05, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
  12. NBDani TeamFireballLogo-Collider(they/them)Yeager's Repairs 04:41, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
  13. Master FredceriqueCommerce Guild(talk) (he/him) 09:21, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
  14. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 01:39, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
  15. Tommy-Macaroni (he/they) 14:40, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Vote 2: BTS Content

Currently, the General Rules' first point is the following:

  • Mentions of an in-universe subject in any non-fiction material released after the April 25, 2014, establishment of the separate canon and Star Wars Legends continuities is to be listed in sources based upon the canon status of media it is mentioned in relation to. This applies to all non-fiction articles in Star Wars Insider magazine starting with Star Wars Insider 150. All prior Star Wars Insider articles up to and including those in Star Wars Insider 149 are to be listed exclusively on Star Wars Legends articles with the exception of articles mentioning canon exclusive media like Star Wars Rebels that was in production prior to the Legends announcement.

My proposal is to replace this with the following point and subpoint:

  • Non-fiction sources that discuss an in-universe subject from a real-world perspective, such as Star Wars Insider interviews and real-world reference works such The Making of Return of the Jedi, should be listed in Sources, with the following restrictions for subjects that exist in both continuities:
    • Works with a real-world perspective that focus on behind the scenes information and the making of Star Wars media that is part in both the canon and Legends continuity, such as the original six films and the Star Wars: The Clone Wars television series, may be listed on both the Legends and canon pages for a given subject. For example, the interview "Pernilla August: Universal Mother" from Star Wars Insider 44 should be listed on Shmi Skywalker's canon and Legends pages, while the article "Who's Who in Echo Base" from Star Wars Insider 74 should be listed only on Legends articles as it does not cover behind-the-scenes information. Additionally, Legends articles must use the {{BtsOnly}} template to denote such sources if they were released after the April 25, 2014 establishment of the separate canon and Star Wars Legends continuities, and canon articles must do the same for sources released prior to April 25, 2014. These works cannot be used as the source for any in-universe information such as names or first mentions, and thus should never use templates such as {{1stID}} or {{1stm}}.

The remaining three points about Legends/Canon are unchanged, aside from moving the both-continuity point up to the second position, and making the start of each point having consistent wording — "If a work specifically discusses the subject exclusively", since currently it's inconsistent and uses the words "article" or "source" depending on each line. Full text changes can be seen here.

Support

  1. As proposer. This is long overdue, as we already use such sources in references; it's time we start listing them in Sources too. Primary focus of this is cast interviews in Insider, the Making of books for the films, and other works like The Star Wars Archives: Episodes IV–VI, 1977–1983. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 02:14, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
  2. CometSmudge (talk) 02:20, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
  3. ThePedantry (talk) 04:25, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
  4. Yasen Nestorov (talk) 04:44, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
  5. Yeah I guess it benefits the reader to list in both-continuity subjects' Sources *all* the sources in which they are mentioned, even if it's BTS info only. Imperators II(Talk) 08:12, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
  6. Feel like there'll probably be some tricky cases to figure out as we implement this, but works for me. Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:14, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
  7. Yes please. It never really made sense to me how The Making of Star Wars books are "Legends" and The Star Wars Archives are "canon" solely by virtue of their dates of release. It doesn't matter if we're dealing with behind-the-scenes info. OOM 224 10:54, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
  8. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 14:22, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
  9. —spookywillowwtalk 22:05, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
  10. Master FredceriqueCommerce Guild(talk) (he/him) 09:21, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
  11. Tommy-Macaroni (he/they) 14:40, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Not sure how others will vote, but I personally disagree on this one. Even with the bts template, I feel like doing this might be confusing for readers or editors assuming that something can be used as a Canon source, when it's not. Since we're not using these sources for IU info, only bts stuff, I don't really think it's necessary to list them in sources. Rsand 30 (talk) 02:28, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
    • The Sources section is not reserved only for those that present IU information; we already list cast interviews and the like in Sources. Excluding these from the Sources list but still using the info from them is counter-intuitive at this point; we're a decade on from the canon split. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 03:14, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
      • Ideally the source list should pertain to the subject of the article, so for example listing post-2014 interviews on Canon articles because those are Canon sources. I don't like the idea of listing pre-2014 sources, which we otherwise treat as Legends. (Like if a 1stID comes from one of these sources, we wouldn't make a Canon page from that. Even if the source is primarily BTS info, it's still marked as Legends in other aspects.) Even with a policy note that we can't use IU info, I don't see why we'd need to list them in sources. I'm not arguing against using bts info from these sources, but I'm personally against listing them in sources. Rsand 30 (talk) 04:27, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
    While I otherwise support this, the bullet point is kinda confusing in the way it's written, I wonder if it could be made clearer? ThePedantry (talk) 02:40, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
  2. I think I would prefer a policy like FFG's where we list which sources go can go into both continuity's source list. I understand that would possibly be something we constantly need to add to, but there's something about this policy that doesn't sit right with me. NBDani TeamFireballLogo-Collider(they/them)Yeager's Repairs 04:46, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
    • Such a list is untenable in both the short term (it’d essentially be a second Masterlist) and the long term, as it’d grow infinitely. And as a result it could never be enshrined in policy because any addition would have to go through CTs. FFG was a small, finite set of sources that we were able to categorize, and it was important to make the distinction because the material was in-universe, while the proposed policy expressly forbids IU info-gathering and limits the sources strictly to real-world BTS content. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 06:43, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
  3. Per dani and rsand Editoronthewiki (talk) 15:51, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Vote 2.5: Pictured-Only Addendum

As Thrawn and Imp have so helpfully pointed out, we do need to address the reuse of photos, otherwise it'll result in infinite growth. So I'm adding this in as a separate vote to add the following text at the end of the first sentence for the new subpoint:

" may be listed on both the Legends and canon pages for a given subject, provided it includes information beyond simply including in-universe pictures of the subject."

Support

  1. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 23:02, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
  2. ThePedantry (talk) 23:13, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
  3. CometSmudge (talk) 23:54, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
  4. OOM 224 23:57, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
  5. —spookywillowwtalk 00:27, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
  6. Yasen Nestorov (talk) 05:12, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
  7. ThrawnChiss7 Mitth symbol Assembly Cupola 15:50, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
  8. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 22:29, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
  9. Looks good to me now with the "in-universe" addition. Ayrehead02 (talk) 18:16, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
  10. This change addresses my concern below. Master FredceriqueCommerce Guild(talk) (he/him) 19:23, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
  11. Tommy-Macaroni (he/they) 14:40, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Although this will mean a lot more work for me potentially, for a lot of film extras BTS pictures can still reveal a lot of information about a character who isn't mentioned in the text like the actor portraying them or similar. I believe the wording without this would mean we can still avoid including sources that only have IU pictures of the subject, since those wouldn't provide any new info. Ayrehead02 (talk) 16:52, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
  1. NBDani TeamFireballLogo-Collider(they/them)Yeager's Repairs 05:13, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
    I would be willing to support this were it specifically shared images. The current wording means a unique image that itself reveals info about the subject would not be enough to include the source. Master FredceriqueCommerce Guild(talk) (he/him) 09:21, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
per ayre Editoronthewiki (talk) 15:52, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

  • Quick note: what does this mean for the Masterlist? Nothing, at the moment. No cross-posting of sources on Wookieepedia:Sources/Legends/General and Wookieepedia:Sources/Canon/General is necessary, and I will tweak the Engine logic to permit usage of items from either list—as long as the BtsOnly template is used. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 02:14, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
  • In the proposed amendment, you say such sources "may" be listed. Are they optional for articles or did you mean they "should" be listed. Also, just to clarify, would this count {{Po}} in BTS books? For example, The Star Wars Archives: Episodes I–III, 1999–2005 contains pictures of say, Darth Maul/Legends and thus Dathomirian/Legends. Would The Star Wars Archives be listed at Darth Maul/Legends and Dathomirian/Legends (with a (Picture only) for the latter? ThrawnChiss7 Mitth symbol Assembly Cupola 18:58, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
    • The intention behind "may" was to grandfather in existing status articles that would be affected by this CT, honestly. As for pictured-only, I would say that such cases should not be listed, as they're not BTS information. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 19:31, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
      • I guess another way to think about Po's is: as an example, TPM pictures of Maul are gonna keep getting published pretty much forever. Does that mean that the Legends Darth Maul's article needs to have a Sources list that just continuously grows longer and longer as time goes by? Imperators II(Talk) 19:46, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
        • I agree that they should not be listed, but perhaps the policy amendment could specifically list it to avoid ambiguity. Also Maul'…s article wouldn't need to get updated because this addition is optional. ThrawnChiss7 Mitth symbol Assembly Cupola 02:05, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
          • That's the point of Vote 2.5 above, yeah, to specifically exempt the pictured-only cases. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 02:10, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
            • Sorry, I didn't see that when I commented; thanks for adding the sub-vote to clarify. ThrawnChiss7 Mitth symbol Assembly Cupola 15:50, 19 February 2025 (UTC)