Forum:CT:Minor amendment to WP:LG

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Minor amendment to WP:LG

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 Adopt amendment to WP:LG. Grunny (talk) 02:09, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

Wookieepedia:Layout Guide currently contains the following nugget under the "Behind the scenes" header:

  • speculation - only included if the speculation is WIDELY believed by fans, or any speculation made by authors

That's just… wrong. Awful. I hereby propose we change this to read:

  • Authorial intent—information that relevant authors intended to convey in their work, without necessarily being spelled out in the source in question.

Please do not add additional voting options to this CT. --Imperialles 07:13, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Support amendment

  1. Speculation = bad. --Imperialles 07:13, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
  2. Edit out the basis of my joke, why don't you. SinisterSamurai 07:16, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
  3. NAYAYEN:TALK 09:58, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
  4. --Eyrezer 11:03, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
  5. But can we change it to "Author intent"? Authorial just sounds weird. :p - JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 15:14, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
  6. —Tommy 9281 16:18, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
  7. —fodigg BlackRebelStarbird (talk) | 16:09, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
  8. Jedi Kasra (comlink) 02:12, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
  9. Provided that "authorial intent" is retained. ;) Seriously, however, Wookieepedians should not be ones theorizing. There are instances where SW personnel and publications have addressed or talked about fan speculation. Those only should be tossed in. — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 15:57, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
  10. -- 1358 (Talk) 16:04, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
  11. —Master Jonathan New Jedi Order (Jedi Council Chambers) 17:02, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
  12. This is an obvious improvement over the current wording, so I support this "upgrade." But I would still prefer us to put even a greater chokehold on BTS fan speculation by having the wording read "Stated authorial intent." Regardless of how obvious a connection to some real-world thing may be, it's essentially still fan speculation unless an author or someone literally states something to be inspired from or by something else. Toprawa and Ralltiir 17:15, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
  13. A good idea. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 19:24, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
  14. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 03:57, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
  15. Grunny (talk) 04:55, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
  16. CC7567 (talk) 05:37, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose amendment

Discussion

Hopefully you won't mind if I add a Discussion section...

I just wanted to raise the point that there are certain instances of widespread fan speculation that may indeed warrant a BTS mention. For example, how many people believed that Jacen Solo was going to be Darth Krayt, or the large number of people who correctly foresaw that Rohlan Dyre was actually Demagol in disguise. I don't mean to imply that any editor who, upon speaking with three or four friends, feels their theory on the identity of Palpatine's favorite food is justified as a BTS note—not by any means. Just food for thought...er, you know what I mean. :P Bella'Mia 11:21, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

  • By speculation I don't mean verifiable and relevant information. If there is substantial evidence that a "fan theory" is widespread, that's not speculation at all. --Imperialles 15:05, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
    • Substantial is a point of view. For example, under this amendment, would we have been allowed to write anything about the possibilty of Palpatine being the Emperor before it was officially revealed? SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is the truth) 23:42, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
      • If you were able to source that such a theory was held by many people, then yes. If not, it would be pure unencyclopedic speculation. There is a difference between documenting information and making it up. --Imperialles 23:50, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
        • So we would write that down as something widely believed, but also make it clear that it was not confirmed canon? SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is the truth) 10:33, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
          • As a working example, how would this impact the Sith_Emperor#Behind_the_scenes section, which lists a number of contending theories haphazardly sourced to community discussion threads. Personally, I don't think this sort of thing should be included. —fodigg BlackRebelStarbird (talk) | 16:11, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
            • Personally, I don't see the relevance of fan theories at all. It would technically be permissible even if this passes, as long as Wookieepedians aren't the ones doing the theorizing. One could apply criteria from WP:NFP to such information for now (in particular, the "fan recognition" criteria). --Imperialles 16:53, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
              • Agreed, we only report on what is canon or not canon. No need to say, "for a long while, people thought Rohlan Dyre was really Demagol," or anything. We just report on his character creation and anything else that is relevant to the actual article.--Jedi Kasra (comlink) 02:14, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
                • I don't think it's necessarily the importance of the theories so much as it is the ability to use fan sentiment in some manner. For example, I'd think it important to note something like, "The comic did not show Demagol changing armor with Rohlan, leaving many readers of the comic unaware of the impersonation until its revelation in . . . whatever issue. Clues were present in the script, however, which some readers noticed." The important thing isn't that fans had theories, but that the character was presented to audiences in a specific manner, as supported by this evidence of audience reaction. Just like with Krayt, it's not important to a complete article about the character to have every wild fan theory about his identity -- but it is important to a complete article and complete BTS to mention that the character was presented in such a manner that his identity behind the helmet was a mystery to readers -- as supported by evidence of fan speculation over the mystery. Havac 07:40, May 26, 2010 (UTC)