Forum:CT:Handling Visions

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Handling Visions
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 See below.

Okay, so now that Star Wars: Visions is out, how to deal with content from the series has been a subject of fierce debate in Discord for the past few days. Some users have argued that they should be placed in the Appearances section based on timeline placements that can be extrapolated from background details or interviews, but I disagree, as it has been made clear in interviews and other material that these episodes/short films are not intended to fit into the canon timeline/continuity. Preem has even reported a great deal of confusion on Twitter that originates from us having the "Canon" banner on the Visions-related articles, and I'm of the opinion that placing them in the Appearances list—or making it seem like we're treating them as canon in any way like that—is a) misunderstanding the purpose and intention of the series and b) doing a disservice to our readers.

In fact, it even says as much here:

Star Wars: Visions storytelling didn’t have to fit in the timeline: In developing the series, Lucasfilm made the decision to let creators tell the stories they wanted to tell — whether they featured established or original characters — without a need to tie into the larger chronology. “We really wanted to give these creators a wide creative berth to explore all the imaginative potential of the Star Wars galaxy through the unique lens of anime,” James Waugh said. “We realized we wanted these to be as authentic as possible to the studios and creators who are making them, made through their unique process, in a medium they’re such experts at. So the idea was, this is their vision riffing off all the elements of the Star Wars galaxy that inspired them — hopefully to make a really incredible anthology series, unlike anything we’ve seen before in the Star Wars galaxy.”

While some episodes, like The Elder and THE TWINS, have specifically been said to occur before/after the movies respectively, that doesn't mean that they're canon in any way, and shouldn't be treated as such until something that actually *is* canon references them, like how certain stories from Star Wars Tales were later canonized by reference material.

As for the other episodes, they're either entirely separate histories, like the Duel, or only tangentially tied to the timeline, like T0-B1, or were not written with any intention of putting them in the timeline, like the Ninth Jedi and Akakiri.

My proposal is that, until we hear otherwise regarding content from Visions, we treat them as such::

  1. Episodes of Star Wars: Visions should be listed in a subsection of Appearances, with {{Ambig}} denoting their canon status as ambiguous, and should not be listed in the proper chronological Appearances list.
  2. For articles covering content that is not exclusive to Star Wars: Visions and associated media, content from Star Wars: Visions should be covered in the Behind the Scenes sections of articles only. (i.e. Jedi, lightsaber)
  3. For articles covering content that is exclusive to Star Wars: Visions and associated media, content from Star Wars: Visions may be covered in the article body. (i.e. Ronin, Jay, Lop)
  4. As Star Wars: Visions is not strictly non-canon at this time, an Appearances subsection that includes episodes of Star Wars: Visions can be labeled as Non-canon and other appearances if editors so wish.

We are *also* exploring the possibility of switching out the banners in {{Top}} to display "Non-Canon" (with black and gold backgrounds for Canon and Legends respectively) but that's still in the planning stages as we need someone to make those images. For now, I've broken up the votes into several sections.

Update: Per Zed's suggestion, this is the formal language I'm proposing be added to WP:LG#Non-canon appearances if Vote 1 passes:

This subsection should also include content such as Star Wars: Visions, which was expressly created to not conform to the canon continuity but has not been outright declared non-canon. The {{Ambig}} template should be used to denote such appearances.

If Vote 3 passes, the last sentence in the above text will be the following:

The {{Ambig}} template should be used to denote such appearances, and when the subsection includes content of this kind, it can be titled "Non-canon and other appearances."

Point 1: Appearances Listing

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 proposal. 1358 (Talk) 19:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Episodes of Star Wars: Visions should be listed in a subsection of Appearances, with {{Ambig}} denoting their canon status as ambiguous, and should not be listed in the proper chronological Appearances list.

Support

  1. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 00:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  2. YakovChaimTzvi (he/him/his) ChissAscendancyCanonSymbol (talk) 00:33, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  3. Supreme Emperor Holocomm 00:34, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  4. NBDani (talk) 00:39, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  5. Fan26 (Talk) 00:42, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  6. DarthRuiz30 (talk) 00:44, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  7. Immi Thrax RainbowRebellion2 (talk) 01:07, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  8. SilverSunbird (talk) 01:09, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  9. Zed42 (talk) 01:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  10. JediMasterMacaroni(Talk) 01:47, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  11. Imperators II(Talk) 07:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  12. JRT2010 (talk) 07:15, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  13. RattsT (talk) 07:22, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  14. Ayrehead02 (talk) 08:48, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  15. Manoof (he/him/his) (talk) 09:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  16. VergenceScatter (talk) 12:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  17. OOM 224 14:28, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  18. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 21:09, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  19. Dentface (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  20. Rakhsh (talk) 17:17, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
  21. Tommy-Macaroni 18:51, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. I'm essentially opposed to the idea the we should subsection Appearances at all, so I can't support this. {{Nc}} and {{Ambig}} can handle this issue, and save us the trouble of having to go through CTs like this. Stake black msg 12:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Points 2-3: BTS vs. Article Body

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. DarthRuiz30 (talk) 22:12, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
  • For articles covering content that is not exclusive to Star Wars: Visions and associated media, content from Star Wars: Visions should be covered in the Behind the scenes sections of articles only. (i.e. Jedi, lightsaber)
  • For articles covering content that is exclusive to Star Wars: Visions and associated media, content from Star Wars: Visions may be covered in the article body. (i.e. Ronin, Jay, Lop)

Support

  1. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 00:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  2. Supreme Emperor Holocomm 00:34, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  3. If there's more canonically ambigous content like Visions, we'll cross that bridge when we must. Until then, this is the way to go. Fan26 (Talk) 00:43, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  4. DarthRuiz30 (talk) 00:44, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  5. NBDani (talk) 01:04, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
    Using BTS or a subsection of BTS is less speculative than trying to work things into the un-ambiguously canon body.Immi Thrax RainbowRebellion2 (talk) 01:07, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  6. SilverSunbird (talk) 01:09, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  7. Zed42 (talk) 01:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
    I don't like sticking everything in the BTS, but I see the reason for it, so will change my vote Editoronthewiki (talk) 02:52, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  8. Imperators II(Talk) 07:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  9. JRT2010 (talk) 07:15, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  10. Ayrehead02 (talk) 08:48, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  11. Rowan Freemaker, R0-GR, etc, is the correct way to handle things in my opinion --Vitus InfinitusTalk 21:07, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  12. Dentface (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  13. Rakhsh (talk) 17:17, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
  14. Tommy-Macaroni 18:51, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
  15. Re-supporting. Because we have passed the motion to put Visions under "Non-canon appearances," it has become contradictory to have Visions material in article body with warning messages that the status is unclear, rather than in the BTS like other non-canonical appearances. In particular, "The Duel" and Ronin are officially non-canon, so the current state (articles like lightsaber putting material from them in the article body) isn't working. Immi Thrax RainbowRebellion2 (she/her) (talk) 01:52, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
  16. Changing my vote. As unsightly as it is, we should be consistent. Manoof (he/him/his) (talk) 11:43, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. I’m hesitating to support this, but may strike at a later time YakovChaimTzvi (he/him/his) ChissAscendancyCanonSymbol (talk) 00:33, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
    I'm worried about the future of more possibly visions-style content. If more non-canon sources feature Boba Fett will his BTS turn into a 2nd Biography? I'm also confident this part will pass and it will work until that comes possibly comes.NBDani (talk) 00:41, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
    • The issue is that for a lot of these episodes, there's no timeline placement that can be assumed without a *lot* of extrapolation on details that we can't actually use (like the B-wing in Akakiri). Also, the size of the BTS should not be a factor—look at Broon Ters and Revan. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 00:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
      • I fully agree they shouldn't go in the main body. And fully support long BTS. I'm explicity concerned about the future piling too much non-Canon Bio into the BTS. But now that I type it out I feel I'm being ridiculous and if that became an issue we could handle it then, so I'll strike my oppose.NBDani (talk) 01:04, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
    I see the benefit of this policy in terms for episodes like The Duel, but I think the recently created {{Visionsstart}}{{Visionsend}} work well for most of the other shorts. Like the first twenty issues of Star Wars tales, these are effective at telling the reader of the special situation around visions. shorts like The Duel, which is noted to be set in an alternate history, do not applyEditoronthewiki (talk) 00:51, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
    • If this option *does* fail, would you guys be agreeable to outlawing Visions content in the infobox and intro of articles, then, at least? Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 00:53, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
      • I definitely would, Cade. — YakovChaimTzvi (he/him/his) ChissAscendancyCanonSymbol (talk)}~
        • Yes, I do not believe it should be in the intros or infobox, only in the locked off section Editoronthewiki (talk) 01:08, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  2. Also willing to strike, but I think that Visions is as ambiguous as some of the Star Wars Tales stories that we use {{Talesstart}} for, which is why we created {{Visionsstart}}. To Cade's point, I would strongly be in favor of outlawing Visions content from infobox and probably intro as well. JediMasterMacaroni(Talk) 01:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
    • There's a difference here—see the text of Talesstart: "Lucasfilm considered all Tales 1–20 content that was not "completely outrageous or intentionally comic" to have some level of canonicity within the Legends continuity." Unlike Visions, we had an actual source saying that Lucasfilm considered Tales content to be at least *vaguely* canonical; on the other hand, we have numerous sources saying that Visions is *not* anchored in continuity. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 02:18, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  3. This'll be a no from me, for the principal reason that if a Visions character gets a one-off mention in a "more canon" source, then we're gonna end up with more situations like the current Rowan Freemaker page, which is unsightly in my opinion. And to the agrument that we don't have super concrete placing of some these stories, that's never stopped us before. The majority of stories in the Star Wars Adventures line have no solid placement, but we've done our best there. RattsT (talk) 07:22, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Frankly, it doesn't matter if it's unsightly or not, Rowan Freemaker is the correct way of handling it. Actual canon takes priority over the LEGO content, and should be highlighted first in the article before anything else. Size should never be a factor. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 12:44, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
    That Rowan article made me sad, it's essentially an article inside the BTS. Per Ratts Manoof (he/him/his) (talk) 09:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  4. Per Ratts and Manoof. VergenceScatter (talk) 12:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  5. Per Ratts. Stake black msg 12:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  6. That's right, folks, i'm changing my vote again. Per Ratts, Mac, and my original comment Editoronthewiki (talk) 13:16, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  7. Per Macaroni's first point, just use the Visionsstart/end templates. And I disagree with this: "While some episodes […] have specifically been said to occur before/after the movies respectively, that doesn't mean that they're canon in any way, and shouldn't be treated as such until something that actually *is* canon references them" Why should we assume that they're non-canon by default? Like virtually all other new material that isn't specifically labelled as Legends (e.g. TOR, KOTOR Remake) or are re-releases (e.g. Droids and Faithful Wookiee on Disney+), Visions is part of the Canon continuity and, within that, there is little reason to assume they don't fit in canonically. Sure, the creators are unlimited by pre-established lore, but as long as they don't contradict them, they're fine in article bodies as long as they're clearly labelled to be Visions material using the aforementioned templates. OOM 224 21:09, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Per the CNET interview: "Could elements from Visions be brought into canon? Some episodes feel like they should slot into the existing continuity pretty smoothly.
      • Shirasaki: Not immediately, but it might influence the next generation of creators.
      • Waugh: That's right -- every piece of Star Wars influences future Star Wars storytellers in some form or the other. So are there plans to integrate Visions into the timeline saga storytelling? Not currently, but I have no doubt that we will see things that were in Visions become part of the fabric of Star Wars over the next decades."
      • It's clear that Star Wars: Visions is not meant to be included in canon, no matter how conveniently or not it fits into the continuity. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 21:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
        • Just because LFL has no plans to bring Visions into the wider chronology in other material doesn't mean it's not canon. I highly doubt anything from The Vow of Silver Dawn will be brought into any other material, much less any plans for such a move, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be treated as canon. OOM 224 21:26, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
          • The Vow of Silver Dawn is supposed to be part of canon continuity. Simply because it is exclusive to the China market does not mean that it is somehow non-canon. Lucasfilm can release the most obscure story in the most niche market and it will still be canon, like the German Star Wars Rebels Animation-Magazine. Simply because it's niche doesn't mean that it's not canon. Lucasfilm was explicitly asked if subjects from Visions could be brought into canon, and Lucasfilm says that it might inspire other creators and that there are no current plans to integrate Visions into the current saga storytelling. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 21:31, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
            • Then it depends on our different interpretations of what "integrate Visions into the timeline saga storytelling" might mean. The way I see it, it just means there aren't plans to incorporate Visions into future material and thus solidify its canonicity, but it is canon enough to be in article bodies, distinguished by the Visionsstart/end templates. OOM 224 21:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
              • Unless there's something explicit that says "Yes, Story A and Story D from Star Wars: Visions does fit and will continue to fit in to the timeline" or something along those lines, then we shouldn't assume otherwise. I'd love for that to happen, but we shouldn't try to mix things from Visions which are supposed to be part of their own little ecosystem of stories, and the rest of canon, aka the current timeline saga storytelling. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 21:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
                • I see what you mean, but that's just playing it too safe. I don't think we should be separating the "main" canon from the canonically ambiguous in terms of as big a production as Visions (I say "as big as" since we've got unlicensed material in a lot of our articles, distinguished by templates like this one). Wook precedence in regards to canonically ambiguous material aside, the ambiguity is ultimately what those start/end templates are for, so relegating Visions material to out-of-the-way BTS sections when we could just clearly present them as distinct info in the body to readers is not the right move. OOM 224 21:48, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
                  • Is it really ambiguous though? The showmakers have expressed that these stories are not currently part of the saga's timeline and storytelling. LEGO Star Wars: The Freemaker Adventures fits more in canon than many of these Visions episodes, but stories from The Freemaker Adventures are not meant to fit in the saga's timeline. And just like material from The Freemaker Adventures can inspire canon materials (such as Hera Syndulla's New Republic outfit and being the first place to call her General), Visions can also inspire others to do the same. The showrunners are clear, Visions is not currently part of the saga's timeline. It's explicitly said. It would be more of a disenfranchisement to our readers to say that Visions or parts of Visions are or could be canon, when they're said to be otherwise. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 00:47, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
    Now that I've actually started working on Visions articles, I think the {{Visionsstart}}/{{Visionsend}} works better than BTS only. BTS gets away from writing from an IU perspective, which feels weird to write and may be weird to read. Another alternative would be having separate articles for Visions content that also has a canon equivalent, but that's not a great idea ;) I agree with excluding from the intro and infobox. Immi Thrax RainbowRebellion2 (she/her) (talk) 07:05, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
  8. I know I'm late, but I honestly think the {{Visionsstart}}/{{Visionsend}} templates should be kept around, and that ambiguously canon Visions material should be included in the main part of an article until something proves it isn't canon.Roguish Knight (talk) 00:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Point 4: Appearance subsection naming

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 No consensus. 1358 (Talk) 19:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

As Star Wars: Visions is not strictly non-canon at this time, an Appearances subsection that includes episodes of Star Wars: Visions can be labeled as Non-canon and other appearances if editors so wish.

Support

  1. I can see that this one may find less support, so I broke it into a separate vote. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 00:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  2. YakovChaimTzvi (he/him/his) ChissAscendancyCanonSymbol (talk) 00:33, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  3. Supreme Emperor Holocomm 00:34, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
    DarthRuiz30 (talk) 00:44, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  4. Fan26 (Talk) 00:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  5. Immi Thrax RainbowRebellion2 (talk) 01:07, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
    SilverSunbird (talk) 01:09, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  6. I'd like the name to be shortened to "Other Appearances" if possible.NBDani (talk) 01:18, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
    Zed42 (talk) 01:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
    To match our Non-canon appearances list, this should preferrably be something like "Ambiguously canon appearances." JediMasterMacaroni(Talk) 01:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  7. JRT2010 (talk) 07:15, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  8. Rakhsh (talk) 17:17, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Not sure what the point is in allowing editors to name this technical subsection how they see fit to do it. Imperators II(Talk) 07:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  2. I agree with the intent of this proposal, but currently the wording is unclear to me. If we'd go with "Non-canon and other appearances," does that incorporate non-canon stuff like Freemakers alongside Visions under the same heading? I'd rather we go with three separate sections as necessary, being "Appearances," "Ambiguously canon appearances" (to borrow from JMac), and "Non-canon appearances." RattsT (talk) 07:22, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
    • I will point out that, in voting oppose on this, you are supporting the policy that all Visions and LEGO content go under the Non-canon appearances section with no exceptions, and that you can't rename or split the section as you suggest here. I'm fine either way, just thought i'd let you know. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 12:41, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
      • How so? This vote is contingent on Proposal 1 passing, which only states that Visions will be placed in *a* subsection. Proposal 4, as it is currently written, is just deciding what to call that hypothetical subsection, and my opposition is to that name. Nowhere is it stated that opposing this means supporting putting them in the non-canon section. RattsT (talk) 20:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
        • Nope; the WP:LG amendment in Vote #1 specifically states that Visions and all non-canon content must be placed under the Non-canon appearances subsection. Any additional subsections would violate the Layout Guide, both in its current state and after the first vote passes. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 20:51, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  3. Ratts' argument convinced me. SilverSunbird (talk) 07:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  4. Actually, yeah. I'm not 100% for outright calling Visions a non-canon appearance, and would prefer something more like what Ratts suggested above. However, the sectioning format should be firmly either one way or the other, rather than inconsistent. Zed42 (talk) 07:36, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  5. Agreed, either we do it or we don't. No need to make it inconsistent.--DarthRuiz30 (talk) 07:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  6. Ayrehead02 (talk) 08:48, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  7. Per the ambiguity of "if editors so wish" and the breakdown Ratts gave of Canon/Ambig/Non. Manoof (he/him/his) (talk) 09:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  8. Per Imp. VergenceScatter (talk) 12:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  9. Per Ratts. Stake black msg 12:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  10. OOM 224 14:28, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  11. Per Stake black. JediMasterMacaroni(Talk) 21:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  12. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 21:11, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  13. Dentface (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  14. Tommy-Macaroni 18:51, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

I'm confused with our idea that, if a short is referenced somewhere else, it will be treated as "canon." If a future edition of Star Wars: The Complete Visual Dictionary, New Edition made a vague reference to visions (as it does with Star Wars (LINE Webtoon)) would that mean we consider the full short film fully canon, or only the aspects of it referenced in that other material? Editoronthewiki (talk) 02:57, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

  • See how we treat Jek-14 and other Tales-like stuff; if a concept is even marginally canonized, we treat those aspects as canon and they take precedence in the article. If a source references the full events of a short, then I think we can consider the short canon. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 03:20, 24 September 2021 (UTC)