The latest issue of Insider has brought up discussion on how we treat out-of-universe Insider articles that are the first post-canon reboot source to use a name that was established in Legends. The only policy currently covering this topic is Wookieepedia:Layout Guide/In-universe which has the following:
"Non-fiction Insider articles that mention subjects by their Legends names that have not been re-canonized will be listed in Legends articles' Sources lists until such a time that the subject is re-canonized, at which point all subsequent Insider mentions will be listed within a subject's Canon article. Previous Insider mentions in a Legends Sources list will not be moved to a subject's Canon Sources list."
The wording here is not incredibly clear as to the exact meaning of this policy, and to be honest this whole section needs a rewrite. It was added as part of Forum:CT:Modernizing Layout Guide Sources section, which was a wider rewrite of the Layout Guide post canon-reboot and doesn't cover the intentions for the second bullet point specifically. My memory of it was that basically we don't treat Insider articles using a name from Legends for a character in a canon source like the films as recanonizing the name. For example, the new Insider has an out-of-universe article about John Knoll that identifies that character we see in Revenge of the Sith as Tannon Praji and gives the character's role as First Minister of the Coruscant Ministry of Ingress, my interpretation would be that under this policy we wouldn't create a canon article for Tannon Praji based on this.
I don't actually agree with this as a policy however, since I think the Insider article stating that name and information in relation to the canon films, without saying anything like "In Legends this character was known as Tannon Praji," shows that that information is still considered accurate in relation to the film today and so the information is therefore accurate in canon. Now if Insider talks about a character only in relation to Legends works, I don't think that we should treat that as re-canonizing the name, for example, if an article on Star Wars: Jedi Knight: Dark Forces II mentions Sarissa as one of the characters in the game, that doesn't mean we should treat that as a recanonization of the name for the the character's appearance in A New Hope.
Star Wars Insider is also not the only source to have non-fiction articles that might mention Legends subject post canon-reboot, with StarWars.com episode guides and many De Agostini products such as Star Wars Bust Collection having similar material. As such, this section could also be rewritten to more broadly cover these other examples and allow for its use for future products following the same vein. As such, I'd propose we rewrite the General Rules section of Wookieepedia:Layout Guide/In-universe as follows:
General rules
- Mentions of an in-universe subject in any non-fiction material released after the April 25, 2014, establishment of the separate canon and Star Wars Legends continuities is to be listed in sources based upon the canon status of media it is mentioned in relation to. This applies to all non-fiction articles in Star Wars Insider magazine starting with Star Wars Insider 150. All prior Star Wars Insider articles up to and including those in Star Wars Insider 149 are to be listed exclusively on Star Wars Legends articles with the exception of articles mentioning canon exclusive media like Star Wars Rebels that was in production prior to the Legends announcement.
- If a non-fiction source only mentions a subject in relation to the Star Wars Legends continuity or material that is exclusively part of the Star Wars Legends continuity, then the source should only be listed on the subject's Legends page even if the subject has been established to exist in canon. For example, the Star Wars Insider 150 article Authors of the Expanded Universe mentions the planet Onderon in respect to its history in the Star Wars: Tales of the Jedi Legends series. Although Onderon has also been established to exist in the current Star Wars canon, the article only mentions it in relation to Legends and so the article should only be listed on the Legends page for Onderon.
- If a non-fiction article mentions a subject exclusively in relation to the canon continuity or any canon material, including material such as the films that exists in both continuities, then it should only be listed on the subject's canon article. This is true even where an article gives information, such as a name, about a subject that is new to the canon continuity but previously existed in Legends. For example, the article "Pushing Boundaries" in Star Wars Insider 217 identifies the character that John Knoll plays in Star Wars: Episode III Revenge of the Sith as Tannon Praji, First Minister of the Coruscant Ministry of Ingress. This information had not previously been established in the canon continuity, but as it is given in relation to the character in the canon film without any qualifier it is treated as canon information and the article is listed on a page for the canon subject under that name.
- If an article mentions a subject in relation to both canon and Legends material then it should be listed on both articles. For example, the article "From Animation to Live Action, and Back Again" in Star Wars Bust Collection 53 mentions Aayla Secura in relation to her original appearances in the Legends Star Wars: Republic comic series and in relation to her appearance in the canon films Star Wars: Episode II Attack of the Clones and Star Wars: Episode III Revenge of the Sith. The article should therefore be listed on both the canon and Legends Aayla Secura pages.
- Star Wars Blog posts are only listed in the Sources section if they contain unique canonical information. Other Blog posts may be listed in the "External links" section as appropriate.
We could also add a line to the Wookieepedia:Canon policy page to make clear that Insider articles are a valid source for recanonization of names in this context. I'd suggest adding the following bullet point to the bottom of the "What about...?" section:
- Non-fiction material. Non-fiction sources such as those covering the real world production of Star Wars may introduce new in-universe canon information if it is given as in-univrse in relation to a piece of canon material. For example, a Star Wars Insider interview that gives a film character's in-universe name may be used as a canon source. A more detailed breakdown of where to list non-fiction material can be found on the in-universe section of the Layout Guide.
Would love to hear feedback on any wording here that could be better clarified and if anyone knows of an actual example for the qualifiers bullet point then let me know so I can add it instead of the hypothetical. Likewise, if you can think of other scenarios that'd be worth clarifying then I'd be happy to add them. The linking in the Tannon Praji example obviously currently links to the Legends page since there won't be a canon page until after this passes, but once the canon pages are made the links will point to those. Ayrehead02 (talk) 16:33, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
- EDIT: I've merged the qualifier bullet point into the Legends only and canon only bullet points for simplicity and clarity per discussion with Imperators. Here's the original text from that bullet point which now won't be included:
- If an article only explicitly mentions the subject with a qualifier regarding one of the two continuities but doesn't mention it in relation to a specific piece of material then it should only be listed on that continuity's page. As a hypothetical example, if a non-fiction source contained the line "Mawhonic is a Gran podracer, in Legends he was established to be from the planet Hok." as the only mention of Hok then the source would only be listed on the Legends page for Hok based on the qualifier, despite no specific Legends material being mentioned in relation to it.
Discussion
- Makes sense to me, no reason why whe should treat that kind of infomation as Legends if it is backround film lore in a post-2014 source, although with an OOU context. -ThrawnChiss7
Assembly Cupola 16:51, 13 March 2023 (UTC) - Our treatment of insider as a source has always confused me. Some users seem to think that information articulated in insider articles should only go in the behind the scenes, which never made sense to me. Look at Red Five column from Star Wars Insider 165, which is framed as an opinion column but describes droids as they exist in universe to explain that opinion Editoronthewiki (talk) 16:54, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
- This seems sensible to me. Imperators II(Talk) 17:54, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
- This makes sense to me. I do think we need to be clearer about when information from Insider can be added to pages, but that's a different discussion. Rsand 30 (talk) 19:43, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
- Besides echoing Editor and Rsand about having a more granular look at what can be used in Insider as a source (for another day), this seems good. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 17:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
