Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Updating the SW.com clause of WP:CANON
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. Imperators II(Talk) 08:08, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
The result of the debate was No consensus. Imperators II(Talk) 08:08, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello, all! Currently, the Reliable resources section of WP:CANON reads as follows:
"All StarWars.com online content, defunct and otherwise, published prior to the Lucasfilm declaration of April 25, 2014, including but not limited to, the Databank, Encyclopedia, Message Boards, Hyperspace, and Star Wars Blog, as well as content that was published after April 25, 2014 and pertains to Legends source material, such as Star Wars: The Essential Atlas Online Companion, Star Wars: The Essential Guide to Warfare Author's Cut and SkyeWalkers: A Clone Wars Story."
As I assume most of you know, the chronological episode order for Star Wars: The Clone Wars is a notable exception to this rule, as it includes season 7 in its listing and is extensively used on canon articles.
At least, it's an exception in precedent. Currently, no explicit exception for it or any other such articles is denoted in the clause.
Therefore, I propose that the clause be reworded as follows (added section is underlined):
"All StarWars.com online content, defunct and otherwise, published prior to the Lucasfilm declaration of April 25, 2014, including but not limited to, the Databank, Encyclopedia, Message Boards, Hyperspace, and Star Wars Blog, as well as content that was published after April 25, 2014 and pertains to Legends source material, such as Star Wars: The Essential Atlas Online Companion, Star Wars: The Essential Guide to Warfare Author's Cut and SkyeWalkers: A Clone Wars Story. StarWars.com online content published before April 25, 2014 that pertains to or has been updated to account for canon source material also count as valid canon sources, however."
Support
- As nominator. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 20:08, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- Imperators II(Talk) 20:14, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- Dentface (talk) 23:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- I love the sweet smell of precedent becoming policy Dropbearemma
(she/her) 00:11, 9 February 2023 (UTC) - —spookywillowwtalk 01:01, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- Rsand 30 (talk) 11:41, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
- Until concerns bellow are addressed. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 15:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- If it was put in the "New canon" section, I would support, but I'm still confused why a clause specifying what material counts as new canon is in the "Expanded Universe" section. -ThrawnChiss7
Assembly Cupola 01:58, 10 February 2023 (UTC) - SaintSirNicholas (talk) 22:58, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Discuss
- Should specify that my use of the term "also" in the proposed addendum is due to the fact that some of these articles, including, again, the episode chronology, still count as Legends sources as well. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 20:13, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- That wording is a little bit confusing. To me, it sounds like it's saying Encyclopedia entries are Legends, however, we have been considering Encyclopedia content as both Legends and Canon. - JMAS
Hey, it's me! 01:13, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- The "What is considered official canon" section explicitly states that the Encyclopedia is Canon. -ThrawnChiss7
Assembly Cupola 01:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- With JMAS here - mentioning the Encyclopedia is a bit misleading. JediMasterMacaroni(Talk) 15:12, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- It's not at all misleading, if you take the time to notice that the Canon and Legends lists in that policy are independent of each other, i.e., they each list all of the source types/categories that apply to each of them, independently of whether or not they're shared by both continuities. Or to put it more clearly, the Canon section says the Encyclopedia is a source for Canon information, and the Legends section says the Encyclopedia is a source for Legends information - which is 100% correct. Imperators II(Talk) 15:19, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- With JMAS here - mentioning the Encyclopedia is a bit misleading. JediMasterMacaroni(Talk) 15:12, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- The "What is considered official canon" section explicitly states that the Encyclopedia is Canon. -ThrawnChiss7
- This should probably be added to the "New canon" portion of WP:CANON, and not the "Expanded Universe" portion. In the "What is considered official canon" section, you could add a bullet saying "StarWars.com online content published before April 25, 2014 that pertain to or have been updated to account for canon source material", instead of tacking this on to the Legends web-content section -ThrawnChiss7 Assembly Cupola 01:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- The reason this is under the Legends clause is because it defines an explicit exception to it. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 06:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- I'm voting oppose for the moment, because I have the same issue with the proposal than ThrawnChiss7, and I really don't see how your proposal is an exception to the existing rule. However, I would go further as to round up the two bullets about the Databank and the Encyclopedia already under "What is considered official canon?" and round it up together with what you proposing. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 15:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- While I certainly think it should be in the Canon section as well, I still believe it's necessary to clarify the pages that are exceptions to the "before April 25, 2014" clause in the Legends section. If you believe it should be rephrased or reworded I can workshop this, but given that there are exceptions that are not strictly Legends sources, that should be clarified in the section about Legends sources. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- How is this an exeption? ALL material published prior to April 25, 2014 (with the exeption of some Star Wars Rebels material) is Legends, and this addition is not changing that. It is saying that, sources that pertain to canon material count as canon also. This does not change anything about what material wookieepedia treats as Legends, only what material it treats as canon, and thus should go in the "canon" section. -ThrawnChiss7 Assembly Cupola 01:58, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- If someone want to know what should be considered a canon source, why would they even think to check the Expanded Universe section in the first place? That is counter-intuitive. Furthermore, "April 25, 2014" is not a provision, it's the whole foundation of our Canon policy. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 12:58, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- This is why I said it should be rephrased. The point of it being in the Legends section is so people are aware that not all articles - notably, Rebels articles and this page, as well as some other BTS ones - apply under this clause. The vast majority do and you are correct that it should be rephrased from "pertaining to" so we don't have Legends IU information on Canon articles, but it remains ann exception nonetheless. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- How is this an exeption? ALL material published prior to April 25, 2014 (with the exeption of some Star Wars Rebels material) is Legends, and this addition is not changing that. It is saying that, sources that pertain to canon material count as canon also. This does not change anything about what material wookieepedia treats as Legends, only what material it treats as canon, and thus should go in the "canon" section. -ThrawnChiss7
- While I certainly think it should be in the Canon section as well, I still believe it's necessary to clarify the pages that are exceptions to the "before April 25, 2014" clause in the Legends section. If you believe it should be rephrased or reworded I can workshop this, but given that there are exceptions that are not strictly Legends sources, that should be clarified in the section about Legends sources. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- I'm voting oppose for the moment, because I have the same issue with the proposal than ThrawnChiss7, and I really don't see how your proposal is an exception to the existing rule. However, I would go further as to round up the two bullets about the Databank and the Encyclopedia already under "What is considered official canon?" and round it up together with what you proposing. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 15:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- The reason this is under the Legends clause is because it defines an explicit exception to it. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 06:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- Also, I have some concern this could set the condition to introduce a loophole for things related to TCW and the movies... The phrasing "that pertains to" seems to leave the door open to a lot of possibilities (hundred of articles, early episode guides) not accounted by the proposal, and I'm not sure I'm confortable with that. Even more considering that this proposal was sparked by a single SW.com article. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 15:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- There are still articles other than the example provided that contain information from canon, especially those involving BTS information. While I do see your point that it could provide a loophole, it should also still leave room to include the articles that are included under the exception. Perhaps a list of known articles that are exceptions to being Legends-exclusive from before the date? - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- A complete list would maybe go into instruction creep, but the policy would certainly gain from being tighter. This CT could have used a preliminary SH discussion to hammer out those blind spots. Furthermore, I don't follow what you mean with the BTS information... since in its majority (especially in the context of movies and TCW), BTS content has nothing to do with continuities (an argument can be made that the BTS could effectively be moved to it's own tab altogether..., but I digress ^^). NanoLuukeCloning Facility 12:58, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- There are still articles other than the example provided that contain information from canon, especially those involving BTS information. While I do see your point that it could provide a loophole, it should also still leave room to include the articles that are included under the exception. Perhaps a list of known articles that are exceptions to being Legends-exclusive from before the date? - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- On an additional note, please, next time, provides more context when introducing your proposal, none of us know the policies by heart, and I wasn't able to recall that "Reliable resources" is a subsection to "Expanded Universe", which also isn't directly apparent when you open the page directly at the subsection, resulting in some initial confusion. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 15:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- I will attempt to be more specific when referring to the exact policy, though I do believe my mention of the policy not covering canon sources still provided necessary context. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- Don't forgot that what you consider obvious because you recently spent a certain amount of time to familiarize with something doesn't mean it is to others. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 12:58, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- I will attempt to be more specific when referring to the exact policy, though I do believe my mention of the policy not covering canon sources still provided necessary context. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
