Forum:CT:Sources and social media

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Sources and social media
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 proposals 1, 3, and 4; reject proposal 2. 1358 (Talk) 19:05, March 6, 2013 (UTC)

Recently, Lucas Online has been increasing its presence in various social media outlets, such as Facebook and Twitter. That's even what led to the creation of {{Facebook}} and {{Twitter}}. Particularly for The Clone Wars TV series, there have been more promotional material released through these sites that should be considered canon. Examples include:

There have also been noteworthy Tweets and Facebook comments from Lucasfilm officials like Leland Chee that have been used for citations in articles, including:

We've been using all of these as citation references so far, but we haven't been very consistent about what to do when it comes to compiling Sources lists. Both WP:CANON and the Layout Guide would need to be updated to reflect any changes we decide on, because in their current form we don't have a specific method of handling them. Out of the above list, we only have a policy for how to treat the second list of Tweets (the comments from Chee), as they would fall under "All comments from Leland Chee or other VIPs regarding the content of the Holocron continuity database or official Lucasfilm decrees."

As of right now, the above list of Facebook posts and Tweets—with a few exceptions—would be the only things affected by this proposal, since they're the only promotional material released so far. Please see below.

Although it's not really social media, the Official Star Wars Blog has been seeing more activity recently as well; see Forum:SH:Recategorizing the Official Blog. Chee's Chronicling The Clone Wars series on the Official Blog is the main concern. Currently, the Layout Guide categorizes all Star Wars: Blogs posts as External links, yet Chee's series doesn't really fit that category. If anything, it's closer to the articles we used to get on the old StarWars.com before its revamp in September 2011, which we categorize as Sources—such as Evil Never Dies: The Sith Dynasties, The Written Word, Xim Week: The History of Xim and the Tion Cluster, and Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Praji.

In addition to the proposals about Facebook and Twitter, I'm also introducing updates, mainly to the Layout Guide, about recategorizing the Official Blog in light of these blog entries from Chee. See below as well.

Any suggestions for rewording the proposals are welcome. Please make sure to introduce them in the respective "Discussion" sections. CC7567 (talk) 17:56, February 3, 2013 (UTC)

Updating WP:CANON for Facebook/Twitter

This vote is to add another bullet point to the Canon policy about treating Facebook posts and Tweets as citable resources. We're already using them as such by citing them in articles, so it makes sense to adopt this practice into policy for clarification.

The following bullet point would be added as the second from the bottom of What is considered a valid resource? (right before, "Officially licensed toys and any descriptions on their packaging"):

  • All promotional material released by Lucas Online and its licensees through social media outlets such as Facebook and Twitter, as well as posts that contain unique canonical information

Adopt proposal

  1. CC7567 (talk) 17:56, February 3, 2013 (UTC)
  2. Stake black msg 18:17, February 3, 2013 (UTC)
  3. —MJ— Jedi Council Chambers 21:26, February 3, 2013 (UTC)
  4. Haven't we recently accepted Facebook and Twitter as canon (Chee, ect)? I guess this could finalize it as policy. Nevermind, I reread what CC said above. :P JangFett (Talk)
  5. Definitely. Corellian PremierJedi symbolThe Force will be with you always 22:42, February 3, 2013 (UTC)
  6. —Jedi Kasra ("Indeed.") 22:45, February 3, 2013 (UTC)
  7. Menkooroo (talk) 00:33, February 4, 2013 (UTC)
  8. ~SavageBOB sig 21:43, February 4, 2013 (UTC)
  9. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 21:37, February 5, 2013 (UTC)
  10. Green Tentacle (Talk) 21:52, February 5, 2013 (UTC)
  11. —Cal JediInfinite Empire (Personal Comm Channel) 21:00, February 10, 2013 (UTC)
  12. 1358 (Talk) 23:40, March 1, 2013 (UTC)
  13. Rokkur Shen (talk) 00:27, March 2, 2013 (UTC)
  14. Exiled Jedi Oldrepublic crest (Greetings) 15:30, March 3, 2013 (UTC)

Do not adopt proposal

Discussion

  • I'd word it as "All promotional material released by Lucas Online and its licensees". Stake black msg 18:13, February 3, 2013 (UTC)
    • It's been adjusted. CC7567 (talk) 18:15, February 3, 2013 (UTC)

Updating LG Sources for Facebook/Twitter

This vote is to add another bullet point to the Layout Guide about listing Facebook posts and Tweets—from the official Twitter/Facebook accounts, as well as from Chee and other VIPs—in Sources lists.

The following would be added as the second bullet point on the Sources list, right before "For Databank and Encyclopedia entries…":

  • Facebook posts and Tweets containing official promotional material with unique canonical information, as well as comments published through those sites from Leland Chee or other VIPs regarding the content of the Holocron continuity database or official Lucasfilm decrees

Adopt proposal

  1. CC7567 (talk) 17:56, February 3, 2013 (UTC)
  2. Definitely. Corellian PremierJedi symbolThe Force will be with you always 22:42, February 3, 2013 (UTC)
  3. —Jedi Kasra ("Indeed.") 22:45, February 3, 2013 (UTC)
  4. —MJ— Training Room 00:14, February 4, 2013 (UTC)
    Menkooroo (talk) 00:33, February 4, 2013 (UTC)
  5. I believe this is our best option. It doesn't seem practical to me to list these items anywhere else (External links or a new section, for example). Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 21:49, February 5, 2013 (UTC)
  6. —Cal JediInfinite Empire (Personal Comm Channel) 21:00, February 10, 2013 (UTC)
  7. 1358 (Talk) 23:40, March 1, 2013 (UTC)

Do not adopt proposal

  1. Changing my vote per GT and Bob below. Allowing forum posts, tweets, and facebook posts that describe what's in the Holocron to go into "Sources" sections would lead to overbloated Sources sections. Forum posts have never been treated as Sources before, and I don't see why they (and similar means of communication) should be now. External links is there for a reason. Menkooroo (talk) 13:48, February 6, 2013 (UTC)
  2. Seriously? Imagine listing every tweet in the sources section of TK329. Imagine it. Tweets and Facebook posts should be treated as the same as any other link to websites outside the main online content stable. The templates are shorthand so we can keep it organized; they are specialized {{Cite web}} templates. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 23:17, February 7, 2013 (UTC)
  3. Per my reservations below, I think forum posts and the equivalent should not be treated as "sources" proper, but should appear in "Notes and references" sections where relevant. ~SavageBOB sig 20:55, February 10, 2013 (UTC)
  4. Per the above. Stake black msg 01:59, March 2, 2013 (UTC)
  5. Exiled Jedi Oldrepublic crest (Greetings) 15:30, March 3, 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

  • It seems these posts and tweets are in a gray area between external links and sources. They don't fit very well in neither category. What if we introduced a new section, like for instance, "External sources"? Stake black msg 18:16, February 3, 2013 (UTC)
    • I don't think treating them as Sources is that much of a problem. We already categorize a lot of off-site material as Sources, and the promotional material released through social medial is meant to be treated as canon, too. The "Treaty of Iziz" and "Reformation of Jedi military command" posts are intended as in-universe material, in the same vein as The Jedi Path and Book of Sith. CC7567 (talk) 18:20, February 3, 2013 (UTC)
      • Good point, but The Jedi Path and the Book of Sith aren't links. I agree, this is not much of a problem, but in terms of aesthetics, I think it'd do well to have a separate section for these hybrid sources (what's the point of having an External links section if links are being placed in the Sources section?) Stake black msg 18:26, February 3, 2013 (UTC)
  • If we start listing every promotional post, our Sources lists will probably get very bloated very quick. I'd prefer to restrict the Sources list to only those posts that provide unique canonical information. —MJ— Jedi Council Chambers 21:26, February 3, 2013 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I see what you're saying, Jonathan, and I do like the idea of inserting only canonical information. My only worry is that I hope Facebook wall posts/Twitter posts won't be hard to find if a user wants to write an article. You might have to dig and search until you find the right post with canonical information. JangFett (Talk) 21:35, February 3, 2013 (UTC)
      • Yes, it should have been "unique canonical information" to avoid random promotional photos, videos, etc. It's been adjusted. CC7567 (talk) 22:44, February 3, 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm unsure about this. While the examples cited above seem valid as sources, other tweets and Facebook posts do not. For instance, Sompeetalay recently got a response from Chee on Facebook that the Ewok Nho'Apakk is a particular character seen in a promotional set photograph. That's a canonical identification, but Chee's "yes" hardly seems worthy of listing on a "Sources" list. But I"m not sure the currently proposed policy would keep it off. ~SavageBOB sig 21:47, February 4, 2013 (UTC)
    • I understand your hesitation on something like that, Bob, but as perhaps unorthodox and insignificant as a comment like that from Chee is (if those are the right words to describe it), it's still unique canon information that cannot be found anywhere else with potentially significant ramifications for article content (depending on how significant the substance of Chee's comment is), and it's something that I think really deserves to be documented within our articles. The only alternative, I think, would be to stick it into the External links, which just doesn't seem appropriate to me given its canonicity. Outside of creating another section entirely as is being discussed above, I think this is our best option. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 21:48, February 5, 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm hesitant too. We never listed forum posts as sources and Chee's Twitter and Facebook posts don't strike me as any different to his forum posts. Green Tentacle (Talk) 22:07, February 5, 2013 (UTC)
    • That's a good point. One of his posts on sw.com is still the only source to date the Holiday Special, for instance, and I would vote against adding that to a "Sources" section. Menkooroo (talk) 23:14, February 5, 2013 (UTC)
      • This is for both Tope and Menk: so why not leave such minor comments in the "Notes and references" section, since they'll presumably be cited there? That's how we treat forum posts currently. ~SavageBOB sig 01:08, February 6, 2013 (UTC)
        • I think the idea is to give the article, and by extension the reader, an easily navigable list of official sources/comments dealing with the subject's canonicity -- the same purpose we maintain Appearances and Sources lists on article subjects. The Notes and references section is often not an easily navigable list of material. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 01:12, February 6, 2013 (UTC)
          • That makes sense. I'm just uneasy, since there's something I can't put my finger on that, I think, needs to be the way we distinguish between what is a "Source" and what is a comment not worth more than a footnote. There's something essentially different between the examples cited above, which are in-universe posts, and forum posts and random "yes" notes from Chee. It's not necessarily an in-universe/out-of-universe distinction, since his Clone Wars organizing blog posts are sources in my book. Like I said, I can't quite put my finger on it. But I just don't think "yes" should count as a "source" the way we've historically used that category in our articles. ~SavageBOB sig 01:19, February 6, 2013 (UTC)
          • Just to add: I wonder if the distinction I'm trying to make is between a product and a comment. By product, I mean an officially licensed, canon-producing work that was planned, executed, probably went through some sort of licensing and/or vetting process, and was finally published. By comment, I mean an off-the-cuff remark via social media that did not go through such a process. I don't think comments should be on source lists, whether they be tweets, Facebook posts, or forum posts. I do believe products should, and they can be transmitted via those same media. Yeah, maybe that's it. ~SavageBOB sig 02:21, February 6, 2013 (UTC)

Updating LG Sources for Official Blog

This vote is to allow Official Blog entries like Chee's Chronicling The Clone Wars series to be listed in Sources lists.

The update would modify the first bullet point of "Sources" on the Layout Guide, which currently reads:

To:

Adopt proposal

  1. —MJ— Jedi Council Chambers 21:26, February 3, 2013 (UTC)
  2. CC7567 (talk) 22:03, February 3, 2013 (UTC)
  3. This can only be helpful. Corellian PremierJedi symbolThe Force will be with you always 22:42, February 3, 2013 (UTC)
  4. —Jedi Kasra ("Indeed.") 22:46, February 3, 2013 (UTC)
  5. Menkooroo (talk) 00:33, February 4, 2013 (UTC)
  6. ~SavageBOB sig 21:47, February 4, 2013 (UTC)
  7. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 21:40, February 5, 2013 (UTC)
  8. Green Tentacle (Talk) 21:54, February 5, 2013 (UTC)
  9. —Cal JediInfinite Empire (Personal Comm Channel) 21:02, February 10, 2013 (UTC)
  10. 1358 (Talk) 23:40, March 1, 2013 (UTC)
  11. Rokkur Shen (talk) 00:30, March 2, 2013 (UTC)
  12. Exiled Jedi Oldrepublic crest (Greetings) 15:30, March 3, 2013 (UTC)

Do not adopt proposal

Discussion

Updating LG External links for Official Blog

This vote is to clarify in the "External links" section of the Layout Guide that some Blog entries should be considered as sources.

The following would be added as a sub-bullet on the External links lists, right after "For Wikipedia articles…"

→See [[Forum:CT Archive/<--Link to wherever this CT ends up after archiving, assuming its passage-->]]

Adopt proposal

  1. CC7567 (talk) 17:56, February 3, 2013 (UTC)
  2. —MJ— Jedi Council Chambers 21:26, February 3, 2013 (UTC)
  3. JangFett (Talk) 21:32, February 3, 2013 (UTC)
  4. Absolutely. Corellian PremierJedi symbolThe Force will be with you always 22:42, February 3, 2013 (UTC)
  5. —Jedi Kasra ("Indeed.") 22:46, February 3, 2013 (UTC)
  6. Menkooroo (talk) 00:33, February 4, 2013 (UTC)
  7. ~SavageBOB sig 21:48, February 4, 2013 (UTC)
  8. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 21:41, February 5, 2013 (UTC)
  9. Green Tentacle (Talk) 21:55, February 5, 2013 (UTC)
  10. —Cal JediInfinite Empire (Personal Comm Channel) 21:00, February 10, 2013 (UTC)
  11. 1358 (Talk) 23:40, March 1, 2013 (UTC)
  12. Rokkur Shen (talk) 00:31, March 2, 2013 (UTC)
  13. Exiled Jedi Oldrepublic crest (Greetings) 15:30, March 3, 2013 (UTC)

Do not adopt proposal

Discussion

General discussion

Don't forget Youtube, which also deserves its own template. Channels from official SW licensees should also be included. Just to mention a few, SW.com, RovioMobile (Angry Birds), Fantasy Flight Games etc. Stake black msg 18:04, February 3, 2013 (UTC)

  • I think in regards to YouTube, we've been less reliant on using YouTube videos as sources or citable resources. Most of the videos have been appearing on the official Star Wars site, so we don't use YouTube as much now. Not to sound dismissive, but it would be a separate topic that should be pursued outside of this CT because it has a lot of different issues. CC7567 (talk) 18:08, February 3, 2013 (UTC)