Forum:CT:Phineas and Ferb

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Phineas and Ferb
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) 06:37, 18 April 2023 (UTC)


Forum:SH:Reconsidering Our Coverage of (Official) Parody Content
In a recent Senate Hall thread (linked above), I made the proposal to increase our coverage of parody content on Wookieepedia, insofar as the parody content we cover is explicitly licensed. Intense discussion on the Senate Hall and Discord showed support both for and against expanding our coverage in this manner, but it seems that the discussion has come to a standstill with no clear picture of how this vote may go.

My proposal is as follows:
Revise the following excerpt from the Coverage clause of our in-universe Layout Guide (found here) from how it currently reads:
"Canon and Legends mainspace articles shall not document content from Star Wars "parody" projects (examples: Family Guy: "Blue Harvest," Phineas and Ferb: Star Wars, and Robot Chicken: Star Wars) unless there is a specific referential need in the article's "Behind the scenes" section."

to (new/rephrased portions underlined, removed portions not included):
"Canon and Legends mainspace articles shall not document content from unlicensed Star Wars "parody" projects (examples: Family Guy: "Blue Harvest," Spaceballs) unless there is a specific referential need in the article's "Behind the scenes" section. Licensed parody content, such as Phineas and Ferb: Star Wars and Robot Chicken: Star Wars, may be covered in mainspace articles, with content regarding pre-existing Canon and Legends subjects covered in the "Non-canon history" sections of articles' "Behind the scenes" sections, and original content covered on their own pages with {{Noncanon}} at the top of the pages."



Revise the following excerpt from the Behind the scenes clause of our in-universe Layout Guide (found here) from how it currently reads:
"The "Behind the scenes" section need not document any content from Star Wars "parody" projects (examples: Family Guy: "Blue Harvest," Phineas and Ferb: Star Wars, and Robot Chicken: Star Wars) unless there is a specific referential need."

to (new/rephrased portions underlined, removed portions not included):
"The "Behind the scenes" section need not document any content from unlicensed Star Wars "parody" projects (examples: Family Guy: "Blue Harvest," Spaceballs) unless there is a specific referential need."



And revise the following excerpt from the Non-canon appearances clause of our in-universe Layout Guide (found here) from how it currently reads:
"This section will not list Star Wars "parody" projects that were created entirely or primarily outside of Lucasfilm's purview, such as Family Guy: "Blue Harvest," Phineas and Ferb: Star Wars, and Robot Chicken: Star Wars."
to (new/rephrased portions underlined, removed portions not included):
"This section will not list unlicensed Star Wars "parody" projects that were created entirely or primarily outside of Lucasfilm's purview, such as Family Guy: "Blue Harvest," and Spaceballs."

Support

  1. As proposer. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 21:11, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
  2. As the Phineas and Ferb: Star Wars opening crawl puts it wisely: "And none of this is canon, so just relax." OOM 224 (he/him) 21:16, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
  3. I'm pro covering material that LFL itself recongizes. NBDani TeamFireballLogo-Collider(they/them)Yeager's Repairs 21:18, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
  4. There are a handful of pages (such as Q-wing) that already do this, glad to fully allow it. Rsand 30 (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
    • Oh my gosh, that ancient Q-wing article, haha. But I should clarify that the reason Robot Chicken content was allowed there initially was because the subject matter originated from said parody source, so it still complies with the current status quo. OOM 224 (he/him) 21:41, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
    If were going to pride ourselves on being the number one Star Wars wiki, it kinda makes sense to cover these if we're going to cover LEGO, which is kinda sorta similar... ℳÅℕ☉❂Ⅎ (he/him/his) RainbowRebellion2 22:02, 3 April 2023 (UTC) (Vote struck, reason: Per policy: Blocked user -- OOM 224 (he/him) 16:41, 12 April 2023 (UTC))
  5. We're the Star Wars wiki, that covers everything Star Wars. That includes parody content like this. Having these here is beneficial to the reader. Supreme Emperor Holocomm 22:15, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
  6. The Phineas and Ferb one was sorta in-house so it's in the same vein as Lego content Fan26 (Talk) 22:21, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
  7. As others have said there is no benefit to not covering these and no disadvantage to doing so. Enderdrag64 (talk) 22:23, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
  8. Can't wait to list Phineas & Ferb in Makeb's appearances section. Dentface (talk) 22:39, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
  9. I don't see any reason not to. Also I love Phineas and Ferb!!! AmazinglyCool Nightsisters symbol - JFO (talk) 23:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
  10. Per Manoof - I don't see the difference between this and LEGO stuff. Dropbearemma LesbianRebellion (she/her) 23:51, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
  11. Per Supreme Emperor. - JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 00:13, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
  12. REBELPUS!!! Bonzane10 (talk) 03:30, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
  13. It's officially licensed, so let's cover it. Even if it's technically not within our scope, I say we expand the scope! Master FredceriqueCommerce Guild(talk) (he/him) 04:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
  14. Kinda per SE and Fred. I don't see why we can't aim to be the ultimate resource for Star Wars, period - instead of just "serious" (?) Star Wars. Imperators II(Talk) 14:13, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
  15. I have came around the idea of letting people have their fun, but someone better make Gary the Stormtrooper a FA before the end of the year! NanoLuukeCloning Facility 15:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
  16. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 00:01, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. BloodOfIriziSabine Starbird(Syndicure) 21:36, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
  2. 01miki10 Open comlink 21:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
  3. JediMasterMacaroni(Talk) 21:40, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
    • To me, the difference between this stuff and LEGO SW is that LEGO is purely Star Wars, just in a non-canon and LEGO format.The other things (though I'd hear an argument for Robot Chicken) are parodies of Star Wars within already-existing series, like Phineas and Ferb, which I personally just see as outside of our scope. JediMasterMacaroni(Talk) 23:56, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
  4. Samonic Signatureicon (Talk) 21:59, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
  5. —spookywillowwtalk 22:03, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
  6. Lewisr (talk) 22:22, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
  7. Parody material certainly warrants coverage, but there's no reason that coverage has to be on Wookieepedia rather than a wiki where it's more appropriate, perhaps one expressly dedicated to parodies, or perhaps Star Wars Fanpedia, where in fact a Phineas and Ferb: Star Wars article already exists and could use some love. Wookieepedia articles could link to this wiki when appropriate as we already do for, say, the Indiana Jones wiki on occasion (e.g., the BTS in the Indiana Jones article). Then you don't even have to worry about licensing status; all parodies are fair game—which to me makes more sense than determining whether to include material based on what contracts some lawyers have signed. Asithol (talk) 19:10, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
    • I don't understand how it wouldn't be appropriate for Wookieepedia; they are Star Wars content, and being a crossover/parody doesn't change that. As the best Star Wars wiki it should 100% be our responsibility to cover as much as we can. As for finding out whether or not it's licensed, that shouldn't be complex to determine at all and the parody content this CT explicitly mentions is already confirmed to be licensed. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 01:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

  • Apologies, I was going to change what I was going to name this CT before I posted it but I forgot beforehand. The CT isn't only regarding P&F. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 21:17, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
  • For anyone curious, the decision to originally codify this is apparently logged here. Rsand 30 (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
  • For those wondering, my inclusion of Spaceballs in the revised excerpts is to provide an additional example of unofficially licensed parody, seeing as, should this CT pass, we would begin distincting between the unofficially licensed and officially licensed stuff, and Family Guy would have been the only example otherwise. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 21:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
  • As far as I can tell with DPL, the only status articles or nominations that may be affected by this change are Dancing-girl costume and Q-wing ℳÅℕ☉❂Ⅎ (he/him/his) RainbowRebellion2 22:20, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
  • If this doesn't pass, I'd like to see us investigate CTs for individual parodies, for example: one to document Robot Chicken, another for Phineas and Ferb, another for Family Guy, etc. NBDani TeamFireballLogo-Collider(they/them)Yeager's Repairs 00:47, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
  • The proposal should be worded in a meaningful way. A license is a written legal agreement. A written legal agreement either exists or it doesn't. There is no such thing as an "unofficial license," and our policies should not be amended to include nonsensical phrases. Material is either licensed or it isn't. If Seth MacFarlane had lunch with George Lucas, and George said "Sure, go ahead and do a Family Guy parody, sounds great!," that's not an unofficial license, that's a lack of license. (I voted Oppose because I disagree with the expansion of the Wookieepedia mission, but if it does pass, it should pass in a form that makes sense.) Asithol (talk) 19:21, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
    • Watch your tone, please. Describing the proposal as "should be worded in a meaningful way" and "nonsensical" do not belong in civil discourse. OOM 224 (he/him) 19:25, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
      • I apologize for the tone. You're correct, my first sentence was overly broad and out of line. My intent was to be factual, on a purely factual basis, the phrase "unofficially licensed" has no real meaning. This is not a personal criticism or a dig, but an effort to strengthen wording that it appears will become policy. Asithol (talk) 20:01, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
        • That's a good point, actually. I suggest changing it to either "unofficial" or "unlicensed". 01miki10 Open comlink 20:05, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
          • "Unlicensed" appears to be the intent. "Unofficial" could be a little ambiguous and open to interpretation on what makes something "official," but a license is an unambiguous legal document. Asithol (talk) 20:14, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
    • Thanks for catching that, I'll change "unofficially licensed" to "unlicensed" and "officially licensed" to just "licensed." - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2023 (UTC)