Forum:CT:No more flow-walking!

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:No more flow-walking!

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. Grunny (Talk) 01:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's settle this, once and for all. Recently, Sue Rostoni informed us of 2 planned novels being cancelled: Blood Oath and Boba Fett one. While doing regular update of their status on respective pages, I noticed how many pages already included "info" from those novels as a given fact. I'm not talking about Timeline of books or List of Star Wars media, I'm talking about pages like Zekk, Boba Fett and Human that included those novels in their appearances section, like they were already out. And you know it's not a unique case: too often we have users adding appearances or even plot twists based on nothing else other than a cover and a brief publisher's summary. And more often than we'd like they turn out not to be true: covers can depict thing that never made appearance in the comic/novel itself, official summaries are sometimes deliberately written to be misleading, not to mention the cases when the product gets cancelled altogether. I believe that adding such conjectural info based on the unreleased product does no good for Wookieepedia and should be forbidden.

Of course, such info still would be allowed on the OOU pages, like the one for the products itself ("Zekk will appear in this novel"), but not on the IU pages until the actual release (thus, the book will not be added to Zekk's appearances). Of course, if someone's got an actual copy of the book early, he would be free to post spoilers according to our spoiler policy as usual. Also, info based on the officially released previews and excepts will be allowed. Yes, they could also be different from the finished product (Qui-Gon is mention in except from Revelation published in Fury, but not in Revelation itself), but those cases are relatively rare and could be easily fixed.

So, to sum it, my proposal is: "Covers and brief publisher summaries of the future products alone are not valid to add any info to the IU-articles". Support it or not, that simple. MauserComlink 03:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, support the proposal

  1. MauserComlink 03:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  2. I'm all for it. It just makes the most sense. After all, things change between preview and release, and having to go back through related articles and fix what was erroneously added can be a hassle. It's best to just wait til the product is released, then update articles accordingly. Trak Nar Ramble on 03:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  3. Per Track. This CT should be extended to include all soon-to-be-released products. We should wait to update articles until a product is officially released. Toprawa and Ralltiir 04:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
    • That was my understanding as well. All future products, not just novels and comics. MauserComlink 04:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  4. We should be using verifiable sources anyway (i.e. somebody should be able to go to the source and verify the info), but I don't see the harm in spelling it out for some people. - Esjs(Talk) 04:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  5. Grunny (Talk) 08:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  6. This would still allow us to add "Character X is pictured on the cover of Novel Y, scheduled for publication in year Z" to the BTS, right? —Silly Dan (talk) 11:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
    • In OOU BTS - yes. In IU bio - no. MauserComlink 12:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  7. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 12:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
    Though obviously relevant upcoming release info should be present in the respective BtSes. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 14:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
    --Michaeldsuarez (Talk) (Deeds) 15:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
    Per Acky. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 17:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  8. ToRsO bOy 21:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  9. Sounds fine, then. CC7567 (talk) 22:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  10. Chack Jadson (Talk) 11:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
  11. Jonjedigrandmaster (Jedi Beacon) 20:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
  12. Thunderforge 23:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
  13. I'd rather wait until we have all the facts available. -- SFH 00:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
  14. I'd like to see game trailers added to this, as well. Graestan(Talk) 00:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
  15. Per Graestan. A game trailer can easily be just a hypothetical example of gameplay that turns out to not even be remotely close to being canon. —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 02:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
  16. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 23:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  17. See my comment in the discussion. Taral, Dark Lord of the Sith 15:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
    I keep going back and forth on this. I agree that official sources should have those things included in the article. If Sue Rostoni says something on her blog that is official, then it should be added. That said, it should be added to the Bts until confirmed in a canonical source. That is the safest way to handle these things. I also agree with Havac, however. It really is not speculation if it comes from an official source. Articles like the Great Galactic War will need to be significantly adjusted accordingly. Media such as the TOR timelines are canon, in my opinion as they are officially released media. If this vote excludes these, I will change it immediately. — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 17:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Timelines are published sources. Also, sources like Rostoni's blog may be official, but they are not canonical until printed. Also, I keep saying that we will keep the info in OOU articles and BTS section, just not in the main body and not in Appearances. MauserComlink 18:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  18. Per Trak JangFett Talk 19:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

No, keep adding speculative info

  1. There's nothing "speculative" about it. Official people release official information, which is added to articles. If something later changes, we can then change it back. 99% of the time, nothing changes. When we later get more information, we expand it. It's not like we're putting this in concrete for all time. There have been what, half a dozen books canceled in twenty years? This is not an issue. Just like any other information, it's official until it's not. Published stuff gets retconned; doesn't mean we shouldn't include it. Rohlan might be Rohlan or he might be Demagol. Doesn't mean that we don't write the article because we might have to change it; we go with what official sources have said so far. Once in a blue moon, upcoming books get canceled. Doesn't mean we shouldn't include the information from upcoming books. Only from official sources, of course -- no Amazon blurbs or such. But I can't see any reason at all to ban the inclusion of perfectly legitimate information because it might change later. Havac 02:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
  2. Isn't speculation by any stretch of the word. Claiming that announced books will be cancelled or differ greatly from their descriptions, now that's speculation. -- I need a name (Complain here) 23:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
  3. Though I hate changing my vote, upon further consideration I agree with Havac. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 00:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
  4. Anything released on an official site is fair game. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 00:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
  5. Per Havac. If it's released by Lucasarts, I don't see why it shouldn't be treated as normal canon. Things change, yes, but until then, we should take what LA tells us as true. Although I do agree that we shouldn't be infering anything just from the cover. SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is the truth) 02:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
  6. IFYLOFD (You will pay the price for your lack of vision!) 02:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
  7. No, no no. If its reliable info, it should come here. QuentinGeorge 09:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  8. Isn't this the point of a wiki? Dangerdan97 16:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  9. Vote change also per Acky. Havac makes a good point and people are going to come here for information first. We should have the most-up-to-date information and if we have to change something, so be it. We have that flexibility. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 17:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  10. Reconsidered. --Michaeldsuarez (Talk) (Deeds) 23:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  11. I too am sorry to do this, but I changed my vote based upon what Mauser said. I had been waffling before anyway. Sometimes, those official people in LFL do release information that is meant to clear up canon or to offer what is upcoming. Should it be confined to the Bts? Probably, but there are exceptions. Things such as publisher's summaries and amazon.com listings should never be used as canon sources. Official sources and outlets from LFL, however, should still be accepted until a product confirms a change. — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 16:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  12. Havac's argument won me over on this one. - JMAS Hey, it's me! 17:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  13. Per Havac and Dangerdan. Besides, can you imagine the hassle having to keep on removing info from summaries/announcements/etc that will quite likely be in the source when it is published? NayayenOld Republic military symboltalk 17:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  14. Darth Trayus Sith Emblem (Trayus Academy) 19:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

As usual, I will ask you not to add any third vote options without a discussion here first. MauserComlink 03:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Some questions: say, for instance, a character is mentioned in The Complete Star Wars Encyclopedia, but supposedly doesn't appear till The Clone Wars: Season Two. If my understanding is correct, this policy would only pertain to official summaries of soon-to-be-released products, but since the character was mentioned in an actual source, not a summary, the character article would be created with info from the CSWE, right? Or do we just wait for the episode to air, despite not knowing when that'll be? And what if verifiable other sources release info about a future episode? Can articles be updated then? I'm not entirely sure where the line is being drawn here. CC7567 (talk) 16:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
    • This is not even a question, we go with whatever info is present in published sources. So, whatever info is in CSWE of Guide, will be in the articles. The only thing we won't do - is that we won't assume that Grievous appears in the guide just because he is pictured on the cover, that's all. MauserComlink 17:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  • The thing is, we currently DO have information from canceled works in some of our in-universe articles; see, for example, the "Returning to the Emperor once more" section of Adalric Cessius Brandl (an FA), the entire "History" section of M4-78, or the image for Dunc T'racen. How will this practice interact with the new policy? jSarek 22:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Do I have to tell you that everything not from a published source is not canon anyway? MauserComlink 02:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm not the one who engages in the practice, but since I've been fought hard every time I've tried to change it (you should have seen the IRC brouhaha when I tried to get the canceled SWAJ images removed), I figured it was worth bringing up. jSarek 14:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
        • When asked about the canonicity of the cancelled Blood Oath Rostoni clearly said that it's non-canon. MauserComlink 14:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
          • As I understand it, all cut content is non-canon, but if another published work describes those events, it is canon since that work is canon (like the HK factory from KOTOR II, which was cut from the game, but described in The NEG for Droids). -Thunderforge 23:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I just noticed Graeston's comment regarding game trailers and I was wondering if you could clarify if they too are being included in your proposal, Mauser. If so, this would mean that all the info from the recently released The Old Republic trailer could no longer be included on Wookieepedia and would have to be deleted and then added back when the game is released and confirms the trailer as being canon. This would undo a lot of peoples' hard work. --Jinzler 12:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
    • The TOR trailer is a unique case actually. It is a cinematic video done on the level close to movie quality, while footage from the game itself shows much more stylized graphics. So, while it depicts canonical events that we saw in Threat of Peace webcomics, it is safe to assume that the trailer will not be in the game itself and thus we should treat it as a unique piece of media (as we already do). However, early footage from the game itself will fall under this proposal, as we really have no proof that it anything more than just the test footage. MauserComlink 12:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Might there be a place for this info in the Behind the Scenes section though?? As in, under BtS, there could be a section called "Upcoming" where the future of the character is discussed, per official announcements (e.g. Zekk will have an adventure with the cute Hapan spies from Invincible) and, to a lesser extent, author blog posts (e.g. Dash Rendar will have some cool adventures with a holostar, per Maya Kaathryn-Bohnhoff's blog posts)? Taral, Dark Lord of the Sith 15:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Already answered above. In OOU BTS - yes. In IU bio - no. MauserComlink 15:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • So, the question is: "Is pre-release information canon or non-canon?" If, as Thunderforge says, all cut content is non-canon, I would think that applies to pre-release information as well. It doesn't become canon until it is released/published. Perhaps, if this proposal is not adopted, we should be marking the pre-release information as non-canon, speculative, pre-release, or whatever. We could use begin-end templates to warn the reader that the "following" information is from a pre-release source, and therefore let the reader decide how much faith to put into it. - Esjs(Talk) 17:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Wouldn't it be easier to just keep that info in BTS until release? MauserComlink 18:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Maybe... from a certain point of view. If the info is added to the BTS section in the first place, then yes, keep it there. But if somebody adds the info to the IU article, it seems easier to me to just add and remove templates than moving whole blocks of text from one section to another, changing tense and whatnot, and back again. - Esjs(Talk) 19:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)