So, the subject of where to place in-universe media like the HoloNet News website, the KOTOR backup media, Galaxywide NewsNets, Galactic Timeline, and Rey's Survival Guide, among many others, has been a subject of debate for a while now. We're largely inconsistent with whether they're placed in Appearances or Sources, and I've seen the same piece of media listed in either section depending on which article lists it. So, a few weeks back, when it came up again, the idea was floated for a new, third section, but we kinda dropped the topic until today.
So, basically, the idea is that any media - print, web, video, etc. - that is presented as a true in-universe document or piece of media, would be listed in this section, instead of us choosing arbitrarily whether to put it in Appearances or Sources. This includes:
- Reference books that are presented as an in-universe publications, like Star Wars: The Rise and Fall of the Galactic Empire, Xim Week: The Despotica, and Jedi vs. Sith: The Essential Guide to the Force
- Books or other publications that are presented as an in-universe character's journal, like The Secret Journal of Doctor Demagol, Rey's Survival Guide, Rebel Journal by Ezra Bridger, and so forth.
- In-universe news publications, like the original HNN website, the Tumblr HoloNet videos that tied into Rebels, and SWTOR's Galactic Timeline
- Other media that falls under Category:In-universe source material
This section would be listed either above, below or between the Appearances and Sources sections, and would function just like the other sections. However, there are several outstanding questions that have to be decided, and will form the votes of the forthcoming CT. The big one, what to call it, i'll leave as its own discussion section below.
- Where to put it? Between Appearances and Sources, after Sources, before Appearances? (my vote: between Appearances/Sources)
- How to sort the entries in this section? Chronologically by release date, or by in-universe timeline placement?
- Should this section allow the use of {{1st}}? (my vote, no, only 1stm)
Discussion
- General discussion of the idea and the questions can go here. Cade
Calrayn 20:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- Not a fan. It doesn't make sense to create a third section in addition to Appearances and Sources (or fourth if you include External links) since Appearances and Sources already cover just about everything: media featuring a narrative, and everything else. Just because a small number of SW works are presented as in-universe documents, that does not necessitate the creation of an entire new section when it would be more straightforward to place them in Appearances and/or Sources. If a work's placement is arguable, a thread and vote can always be held. There is also the matter of some media presented as in-universe documents that swap between that in-universe presentation and OOU material, which would not cleanly fit into this proposed new section. SorcererSupreme21 (talk) 00:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- I can see the argument for this new proposed section being a subsection of Appearances and/or Sources. I do not think it is necessary to create an entirely new section in addition to Appearances and Sources, since these works are still appearances/sources that happen to be presented (at least in part) from an IU perspective, but subsectioning them like how non-canonical works are also subsectioned may be sensible. SorcererSupreme21 (talk) 18:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- Love it. We have been *so* inconsistent about this, and demonstrably have had *so* many different opinions or whether or not something belongs in Appearances or Sources, that it's best to both eliminate this extra source of ambiguity and introduce some consistency via this new section - this *is* the more straightforward route. I suggest that in the case where a work is presented as an IU work but also contains OOU material it is nevertheless placed in this new section. Placing it between Appearances and Sources makes sense to me, as does sorting it by release order. It absolutely should not use 1st, as that should remain confined to the actual narrative Appearances. Imperators II(Talk) 10:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- Generally in favor of the idea, but what about things that are "partially IU"? If I remember correctly, there were some WEG sourcebooks that we only treat the annotations as IU, and Warfare contains segments from IU documents such as Industry, Honor, Savagery: Shaping the Mandalorian Soul, Dha Werda Verda, Mitth'raw'nuruodo Reconsidered: A Patriot's Perspective. ThrawnChiss7
Assembly Cupola 17:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- Partial IU would qualify them as Sources; Warfare came up in the discussion but as it's an OOU book as a whole that includes IU snippets, it would be a Source. Cade
Calrayn 22:59, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- Per my comment above I'd personally suggest works that are predominantly framed as IU works, such as those WEG sourcebooks, as falling into this new section. Imperators II(Talk) 07:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- Partial IU would qualify them as Sources; Warfare came up in the discussion but as it's an OOU book as a whole that includes IU snippets, it would be a Source. Cade
- I don't really think this is necessary. The LG already says these should go in sources, people just incorrectly put so many of them in appearances it became precedent to do so. Even the ones that are placed in appearances are essentially treated like sources where we don't use 1st and everything is treated as a mentioned only. It seems like we're going to continue doing that in the new section, so why bother making a new section that we treat exactly like sources instead of just putting everything in sources? CometSmudge (talk) 20:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
What to call it?
So, there have been many suggestions as to the name of this section, with the word diegetic being floated, and "in-universe documents" or "in-universe media" being the other front runners. Personally, my vote is for "In-universe documents"; OOM also suggested a possible small disclaimer that we could append to the top of the section explaining what we mean by this section header, but that can be decided at another time. My current plan is, for the CT, to include "In-universe documents" and the one or two other most popular options, and present those as voting options for a vote separate from the question of "should we have this section." Cade 
Calrayn 20:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- "In-universe documents" makes sense to me and feels sufficiently short ("diegetic media" would be ideal but yeah, that word is just not commonly used enough that, *meh*). Imperators II(Talk) 10:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- Haven't got a preference amongst most of the suggestions, other than generally being opposed to the usage of diegetic because it's a word that many a casual reader won't understand, which somewhat defeats the point.—spookywillowwtalk 18:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- As much as I like "diegetic" in terms of accuracy, it being a somewhat niche word is a valid point - it's best to be clear as to what this new section entails, particularly when some casual readers likely wouldn't think too much about the differentiation from Sources to begin with. I think "In-universe documents" is the suggestion that works the most so far; any of the longer names proposed during the discussion felt a bit too verbose. Zed42 (talk) 22:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- How about "Naratives" which is a synonym of Diagetics but commonly known word. - JMAS Hey, it's me! 23:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- Eh, at least in Discord conversations the adjective "narrative" has been pretty heavily used to refer to exactly the opposite - the Appearances which aren't framed as published media and are instead presented to the reader as if they were an omniscient observer. Imperators II(Talk) 07:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- Even though diegetic is less common, it's the only suggestion that both accurately and clearly describes the purpose of the section. There are many in-universe works/documents that exist only in-universe and are not diegetic, and basically every story would be considered in-universe. I really think no matter what we name it, readers will be confused by the title, but at least they can google the meaning of diegetic and instantly understand what the section is for, which they can't really do with the other suggestions. CometSmudge (talk) 20:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
