Forum:SH:Reconsidering Our Coverage of (Official) Parody Content

This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments or questions on this topic should be made in a new Senate Hall page rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. C4-DE Bot (talk) 23:52, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Forums > Senate Hall archive > SH:Reconsidering Our Coverage of (Official) Parody Content

Hello one, hello all. My name is DFaceG, and I am here today to talk about Robot Chicken.

Well, not just Robot Chicken, but I'm sure you already get the gist.

Star Wars is a massive franchise, and in this franchise there are, of course, parodies that make fun of (and with) the content from across the entire saga. Most famous of these are the multiple Robot Chicken specials, but there are also examples such as Phineas and Ferb: Star Wars and (not covered on this wiki) the Family Guy Star Wars parodies.

While I'm not sure how official the Family Guy parodies are (they were under Fox, the former publisher of the original six Star Wars films, but also not made by or—as far as I'm aware—with involvment from Lucasfilm), the Phineas and Ferb special is 100% official and was produced after Disney's acquisition of the franchise, while the Robot Chicken specials have been extensively acknowledged to an official extent by Star Wars, so much so that they have been openly promoted both on the official Star Wars website and at past Star Wars Celebrations. Robot Chicken sketches made post-Disney acquisition are up in the air, but the older ones have been officially acknowledged and promoted.

Currently, we do not cover parody content on articles other than their sources. However, I feel that this is a disservice to the material in them, and contradicts our role as a comprehensive encyclopedia of Star Wars content. Why shouldn't we cover official parody content beyond articles for the sources? For non-canon information we simply add that information to the "Behind the scenes" sections of in-universe articles; why not do the same for parody content?

I should certainly clarify that I am not proposing that we cover every Star Wars parody ever—only those officially licensed or extensively acknowledged by Lucasfilm or Disney. But it seems odd to me that when we cover content from Star Wars Detours, we don't cover at least content from the Phineas and Ferb special. I would be a bit more understanding if Robot Chicken was still just the source material's article, but Phineas and Ferb was fully licensed and fully official. Irregardless, however, I believe we should cover as much parody content as is clarified in the scope I gave in the first sentence of this paragraph.

I've mentioned this in the past in Discord, and it seemed to be an unpopular idea to incorporate parody information—even official parody content—into our articles. However, as I've said, it seems to be a disservice to our role as a comprehensive encyclopedia to not cover it.

Please share your thoughts, I'm interested to see how others think this should be handled. Thanks,
- Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 21:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Addendum:
Relevant to this SH are the coverage clause of our In-Universe Layout Guide and the September 10, 2016 Mofference.

Addendum 2:
As discussed below, the Family Guy Star Wars specials are unlicensed, so despite some minor involvement from Lucasfilm (basically just a stamp of approval), they are NOT within the scope of this SH and have been TC'ed in the past.

Discuss

  • I'd rather prefer we keep the status quo on this subject as it is. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 23:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
    • If you don't mind, could you perhaps elaborate as to why? Currently, I don't believe we should exclude officially-licensed content, especially since we have precedent for recording non-canon content as it is. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 21:22, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Personally, I'd have no issue with us bringing back articles on official parody content, such as the Family Guy specials and Phineus and Ferb. While not something we would cover in depth in in universe articles, these are officially licensed things, and thus us covering them in some form would make sense. Supreme Emperor Holocomm 23:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
    • We do have an article on the Phineas and Ferb special itself, but we don't have articles or coverage on any of its content outside of the special's own article, which is what I feel is where we're lacking in comprehension. We don't have articles for the Family Guy stuff at all. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 23:29, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
  • I feel like every article we currently have on the wiki (except for the real world ones) can somehow fit into the SW universe. Relevant example: Tales from the Jedi Temple could be canonical info about a couple Padawan's training; Grogu and the Dust Bunnies part of Grogu's early life; Visions could be just a couple of the many stories going on in the vast galaxy of billions of worlds. Then there's parodies. Darth Vader didn't die the way he did in P&P; we know nobody evacuated the Death Star like we see in the finale either. Robot Chicken shorts show events that are explicitly covered by movies and change the way they happened. Etc. Another thing to consider is how serious these approaches are. For example: should we have a character article for Kylo Ren's janitor persona from the SNL skit? To my knowledge, it's officially licenced. Should we write an article about Ben Solo with his short undercover boss adventure as part of the Biography? Should the Dwath Star be credited as having been designed by Darth Doof? My point being: as long as the only two (ish) distinctions we do is Canon and Legends content (and real world documentation), parodies don't fit anywhere in the spectrum and it's also very, very hard to set up solid rules on how to deal with them when the source material doesn't treat them consistently or seriously either. AxMech (talk) 23:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
    • I've already responded in Discord but I'm popping this here to keep people in the loop, but I am not proposing we treat parody content as canon, but instead as non-canon, because it... well, is. Obviously anything regarding existing characters would be in the respective pages' BTS sections, but if it's a parody-unique subject its article would be explicitly marked as non-canon with the templates we have available. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 21:08, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
  • I'm with Nano on this. JediMasterMacaroni(Talk) 00:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
  • I don't understand why our policy on this differs from our policy on LEGO video games etc. - they're also very clearly parody. Dooku turns up to a boss fight in Skywalker Saga in a shower cap, having just been in the shower. In the opening of ANH, there are heaps of rebels in rebel themed pyjamas, and there are so, so many characters we see wearing heart pattern boxers for gag reasons. Gonkatine exists, as does Gonk-Stores Paradise. And yet we allow that, but not these? They're clearly not canon, and Thannus isn't suggesting we incorporate info from them into articles, in the same way we don't cover LEGO stuff for canon characters in their articles, otherwise I would have added that Yarael Poof spent time on Kamino, having been mistaken for a Kaminoan and not allowed to leave, or that Kit Fisto keeps a "hit listo". Dropbearemma LesbianRebellion (she/her) 01:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
    • Well sure, but games are a different thing entirely and we already have special rules in place for them (the whole "this part of the article assumes 100% completion" etc). Episodic serials and parody movies don't follow a video game logic and frankly I'm not even sure why we'd want them on the wiki. AxMech (talk) 08:02, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
      • We already cover non-game content—both LEGO itself and in cases such as Star Wars Detours and Star Wars: Jedi Academy. We don't cover them because of the medium, we cover them because it's official and it's our responsibility to do so. Parody shouldn't be an exception if it's official and the content we do cover is ALSO effectively parody. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 21:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
    • I mean, we do cover the non-canon stuff for canon characters, just in their BTS sections. Yarael Poof has all of the stuff regarding his questline, as I've added it in preparation to nominate him. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 21:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Ultimately the point I convolutedly tried to convey in the initial SH post is the same as Emma's—if it's officially-licensed Star Wars content, why don't we cover it? Why does being parody somehow disqualify it as opposed to any LEGO or Detours content? - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 21:08, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
  • per Nano and JMac. dont see the need to document all this. the argument that "its official means we should cover it" falls flat when you realize theres toys and other merchandise thats officially licensed, but we dont (and should not) cover it. BloodOfIriziSabine Starbird(Syndicure) 21:25, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
    • Except we do... If new information is revealed in merchandise, we record the information and cite the merchandise. But parody content isn't just merchandise, it's explicitly story content, even if comedic and explicitly non-canon. LEGO and Detours are parody and we include content from those. Why are we cherry-picking what we do and do not cover when we have a precedent to cover the same type of content? - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 21:28, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
      • Also we have articles for the parody films themselves (well, the robot chicken and Phineas & Ferb ones thus far, at least), so we already treat them as story content as it is. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
        • we cover the information from the merchandise, not the merchandise itself (from what I understand; could be wrong). regardless, im of the mind that detours, phineas and ferb and the likes shouldnt be covered either. LEGO id say is an exception BloodOfIriziSabine Starbird(Syndicure) 22:12, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
          • But why do you feel we shouldn't cover them? They're officially-licensed story content, not merchandise. And why would LEGO be an exception if it's the same type of content? - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 22:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
          • On the point of merchandise, I did mean we just covered the info from the merch, yes. But that also means if the parody content was just merchandise (which it isn't), wouldn't we still cover the information from it as well? - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 22:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
  • I agree with covering these. Enderdrag64 (talk) 23:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Per extensive discussion on Discord, while the Phineas & Ferb and Robot Chicken specials are officially-licensed and thus still covered by this Senate Hall, the Family Guy specials, as far as we can tell, only got a basic LF stamp of approval and are thus not currently within the scope of the SH. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 00:05, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
  • For the record, Family Guy stuff was Trash Compacted here for being unlicensed. Rsand 30 (talk) 00:55, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
    • Also relevant is Forum:TC:Parodies. However something that we do inexplicably cover are unlicensed sources. They were done completely outside of Lucasfilm but for some reason we have pages and even in-universe information from these sources. Just because they were published in magazines doesn't change the fact that these are fanon. Rsand 30 (talk) 01:02, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
      • I think that the unlicenced magazines that we cover are honestly a whole nother can of worms - one that should be addressed at some point, but not necessarily the same issue as this SH is looking at. JediMasterMacaroni(Talk) 03:49, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
    • Actually I noticed that there are cases, though very rarely, where we cover parody content in the bts: such as Royal Award Ceremony/Legends, Order 67, or the status article Q-wing. Rsand 30 (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Sure, these topics should be covered. But why do they need to be covered on Wookieepedia? There are more appropriate wikis for unofficial content. Covering it here dilutes, rather than enhances, Wookieepedia's position as the documenter of official content. Asithol (talk) 18:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
    • This senate hall is specifically regarding parodies that are officially licensed. They are not unofficial content. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 19:47, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
      • A license is a real-world legal agreement to allow use of copyrighted material. There is no official continuity in which Luke and Vader had a "Yo mama" battle in the Emperor's throne room. (There's not even a "Robot Chicken continuity" in any meaningful sense: I promise you no one on that show was checking to make sure new skits never contradicted old ones.) That's what I meant by unofficial. Lucasfilm does not consider this content part of any IU continuity, and that's what Wookieepedia is here for. This isn't a ruling about the merits of the material: I like a lot of it, but there are plenty of other forums in which to post information about unofficial content, so I just don't see the need to expand Wookieepedia's mission. Asithol (talk) 22:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
        • That's what we have non-canon pages and non-canon sections of canon pages for. And it's still official content, it isn't unofficial just because it's non-canon. I'm not sure I understand your argument. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 15:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
          • Well, if it were up to me, a lot of those other non-canon pages would go away. They're here by consensus, and I respect that, but I can still oppose expanding the amount of that material. (And at least on this issue, I'm not alone.) Asithol (talk) 20:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)