Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:In-universe Layout Guide General Rules rewrite
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. Imperators II(Talk) 20:19, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Support proposal. Imperators II(Talk) 20:19, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
As discussed here, I believe that the current wording of Wookieepedia:Layout Guide/In-universe regarding how we treat in-universe info like character names from Legends appearing in post-reboot out-of-universe articles is vague and only covers Insider currently despite many other examples existing. I also believe that depending on the context we ought to be treating these as confirmation that this information is still canonically accurate. Therefore I'm proposing we update the General Rules subsection of the Sources section of the In-universe Layout Guide to read as follows:
General rules
- 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.
- If a non-fiction source only mentions a subject in relation to the Star Wars Legends continuity or material that is exclusively part of the Star Wars Legends continuity, then the source should only be listed on the subject's Legends page even if the subject has been established to exist in canon. For example, the Star Wars Insider 150 article Authors of the Expanded Universe mentions the planet Onderon in respect to its history in the Star Wars: Tales of the Jedi Legends series. Although Onderon has also been established to exist in the current Star Wars canon, the article only mentions it in relation to Legends, so the article should only be listed on the Legends page for Onderon.
- If a non-fiction article mentions a subject exclusively in relation to the canon continuity or any canon material, including material such as the films that exists in both continuities, then it should only be listed on the subject's canon article. This is true even where an article gives information, such as a name, about a subject that is new to the canon continuity but previously existed in Legends. For example, the article "Pushing Boundaries" in Star Wars Insider 217 identifies the character that John Knoll plays in Star Wars: Episode III Revenge of the Sith as Tannon Praji, First Minister of the Coruscant Ministry of Ingress. This information had not previously been established in the canon continuity, but as it is given in relation to the character in the canon film without any qualifier, it is treated as canon information and the article is listed on a page for the canon subject under that name.
- If an article mentions a subject in relation to both canon and Legends material then it should be listed on both articles. For example, the article "From Animation to Live Action, and Back Again" in Star Wars Bust Collection 53 mentions Aayla Secura in relation to her original appearances in the Legends Star Wars: Republic comic series and in relation to her appearance in the canon films Star Wars: Episode II Attack of the Clones and Star Wars: Episode III Revenge of the Sith. The article should therefore be listed on both the canon and Legends Aayla Secura pages.
- Star Wars Blog posts are only listed in the Sources section if they contain unique canonical information. Other Blog posts may be listed in the "External links" section as appropriate.
I am also proposing that we add the following bullet point to the bottom of the "What about...?" section of the Wookieepedia:Canon policy page to make clear that Insider articles are a valid source for re-canonization of information in this context:
- Non-fiction material. Non-fiction sources such as those covering the real world production of Star Wars may introduce new in-universe canon information if it is given as in-universe in relation to a piece of canon material. For example, a Star Wars Insider interview that gives a film character's in-universe name may be used as a canon source. A more detailed breakdown of where to list non-fiction material can be found on the in-universe section of the Layout Guide.
Support
- As proposer. Ayrehead02 (talk) 09:55, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- 01miki10 Open comlink 09:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- Finally, we can have a page for the best character, Irya Kirsch. Rsand 30 (talk) 11:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- NanoLuukeCloning Facility 11:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- Imperators II(Talk) 09:27, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- Master Fredcerique
(talk) (he/him) 10:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC) - OOM 224 (he/him) 10:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- LucaRoR
(Talk) 11:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC) - JediMasterMacaroni(Talk) 02:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- —spookywillowwtalk 03:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- ThrawnChiss7
Assembly Cupola 13:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC) - Lewisr (talk) 16:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- ℳÅℕ☉❂Ⅎ (he/him/his)
13:04, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
- What about material such as Light & Magic, a making-of documentary released in 2022 and currently listed as a source on the Legends FA Hoth asteroid field? I think we need to clearly create a separate class of material that is behind the scenes and should be listed on both pages. Just to be clear, an episode guide saying "X first appeared in the [Legends work] Y" a mention of X in both the canon and Legends continuities, for examples as in Mapuzo/Legends and Lieda Mothma. (Other articles such as Rahm Kota/Legends do not list the episode guide in sources). I think it is technically talking about the subject both in relation to the original appearance and the subjects Legends appearance, so it should be listed both times.ThrawnChiss7 Assembly Cupola 12:25, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- I actually don't think Light & Magic should be listed on the Legends asteroid field page given its release date, it's certainly not precedent (I've not watched Light & Magic so I'm assuming it doesn't specifically say something about the asteroid field in relation to Legends specifically). Every piece of OOU media includes in-universe info like names that is presented as accurate in universe at the time it was released. The stuff being covered here presents it as accurate in the current canon since it was released during the current canon, which is why I'm suggesting the change to how we treat it. Light & Magic was also released during the current canon and will be presenting in-universe names as accurate to the current canon. Listing it as a Legends source could therefore potentially make it confusing for readers. A good example of the reverse with listing Legends on canon is something like Dressing a Galaxy: The Costumes of Star Wars, an OOU book about costume making released pre-canon split. Despite being on an OOU topic it includes many in-universe names that haven't been confirmed at all in the new canon. Listing it on the sources for a canon article is going to confuse readers as they'll then assume it's a valid canon source. Ayrehead02 (talk) 13:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- Just for clarity, a canon-era source like Light & Magic can still be used as a BTS reference for a Legends article, the OOU info is still valid. It's only the sources section I'm saying shouldn't include it. Ayrehead02 (talk) 09:31, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah we do have some examples of that, such as Saw Gerrera/Legends: the bts has info from The Art of Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (a canon book) but that's not listed in the sources. Rsand 30 (talk) 12:33, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- Just for clarity, a canon-era source like Light & Magic can still be used as a BTS reference for a Legends article, the OOU info is still valid. It's only the sources section I'm saying shouldn't include it. Ayrehead02 (talk) 09:31, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- I actually don't think Light & Magic should be listed on the Legends asteroid field page given its release date, it's certainly not precedent (I've not watched Light & Magic so I'm assuming it doesn't specifically say something about the asteroid field in relation to Legends specifically). Every piece of OOU media includes in-universe info like names that is presented as accurate in universe at the time it was released. The stuff being covered here presents it as accurate in the current canon since it was released during the current canon, which is why I'm suggesting the change to how we treat it. Light & Magic was also released during the current canon and will be presenting in-universe names as accurate to the current canon. Listing it as a Legends source could therefore potentially make it confusing for readers. A good example of the reverse with listing Legends on canon is something like Dressing a Galaxy: The Costumes of Star Wars, an OOU book about costume making released pre-canon split. Despite being on an OOU topic it includes many in-universe names that haven't been confirmed at all in the new canon. Listing it on the sources for a canon article is going to confuse readers as they'll then assume it's a valid canon source. Ayrehead02 (talk) 13:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- For additional clarification, would "we can still bring back great things like Thrawn of the TIE defender" (from "Keeper of the Holocron" — Star Wars Insider 178) count as a mention of Thrawn, Thrawn/Legends, TIE defender, TIE defender/Legends or just Thrawn and TIE defender? I think it should be both because of the way "bring back" is used, how would you view it?
- I'd agree that the article's talking about both continuities and so would be listed on both sets of pages. Ayrehead02 (talk) 09:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
