As it stands, it is generally standard practice to list cast and crew in the credits of a work's article here on Wookieepedia. As fine and good as this is, and as much as this helps lend credit to the individuals not given it in the works themselves, it also raises a major issue:
How do we know for certain these people were involved in the work?
For many of them, we have valid, concrete sources indicating their involvement. For others, it was largely word of mouth. At times, their involvement is added purely from their IMDb pages or Wikipedia articles, which can both be publicly edited. With the latter, I'm sure you all recall the rumors of Matt Smith's involvement in The Rise of Skywalker. Yet-to-be-released or unreleased material is a semi-unique beast but I'm sure you get the point.
If we're absolutely certain the individuals in question were involved in a work, I have absolutely no qualms with listing them as uncredited cast or crew. My issue lies within the matter of potentially uncredited cast and crew for whom we have no proof of involvement. We can't exactly decry it as false that they were involved if we have no proof to the contrary, but at the same time, how can we be certain that we should list them if we have no proof of their involvement? We've established in a recent TC that we should not always trust word of mouth, so what can we trust? At what point do we cross the line for what should and should be added? To what extent do we trust an added uncredited cast/crew member to be true without a source for the claim?
I'm not proposing here that we simply remove all redlinked or unsourced cast and crew members that are uncredited. That would be absolutely asinine. However, I want to spur some sort of discussion on this matter, as I believe it should be our responsibility to better keep in check those we credit, both so we can ensure it's given to whom it's truly due, and so we can ensure those who don't deserve credit for a work are not given it.
I would love to hear any thoughts and possible ideas for solutions on this matter. I understand it isn't a clear-cut matter and there is no easy solution, but unless we really gauge discussion on the matter I don't see it being solved soon.
Discuss
- Coming off the heels of my tirade above, my first idea is that we perhaps remove uncredited individuals—for which we have no source—from the articles to which they would apply, but NOT remove traces of their inclusion altogether. Instead, we could relegate them to a Forum page similar in function to Forum:SH:Remaining Canon pages. Or, perhaps, we can simply list the allegedly uncredited individuals on the talk pages pertaining to the individual works. This solution ensures we're still able to find and research the individuals in question if we so choose to do, but we aren't potentially listing false information on the mainspace articles we have due to the lack of valid sources for the uncredited folks. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 09:24, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
- I also realize this solution doesn't exactly address the articles for uncredited individuals. As far as I'm aware, most of them will have valid sources for their involvement listed on their respective pages, but the aforementioned Trash Compactor thread above has shown that to not always be the case, so I'm open to suggestions for cases on that side of things. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 09:26, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry for my delay in responding! Ironically, I was working on verifying the end credits of Star Wars: Episode VI Return of the Jedi when you posted this, and then going through the uncredited cast and crew compiled in The Making of Return of the Jedi to add them as well. The issue of poor sourcing for uncredited contributions has been bugging me for over a year! There are certain kinds of sources that I consider low quality and unreliable, but others might not--for instance, a fan's autograph collection doesn't necessarily contain authentic autographs, but an authorized dealer or a convention is more likely to have done due diligence to limit how many imposters slip through (unfortunately, it happens!). Fansites are generally not reputable sources, but some have gotten nods in Lucasfilm sources such as StarWars.com. Others, I simply don't know enough about to judge if they're reputable or not. Having only one source is a problem, as well, and when that sole source is questionable, I really don't think we should rely upon it. I agree that keeping the information around somewhere is good in case better verification comes along later, but not in mainspace articles. We have several dozens of articles (at least) that I have doubts about. However, Ayrehead02 recently gathered up a list of sources used on OOU articles with a {{Verify}} on them--maybe that's a good place to start! Immi Thrax
(she/her) 09:19, 9 December 2022 (UTC) - Here's a good example of why we should not rely on the fan site Aveleyman. It has said of Wullf Yularen's unknown actor that he was "[p]reviously incorrectly thought to be named Robert Clarke; possible correct name is Robert Carrick." Meanwhile, the name "Robin Clarke" shows up on the Star Wars Aficionado blog as one of the Imperial officers, but without specifying which one. Despite having three possible names circulating for one actor, we previously had a page titled Robert Clarke that was moved to Robin Clarke. Immi Thrax (she/her) 22:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- I'll make an informal CT proposal here then: "Uncredited cast and crew members should not be listed on mainspace out-of-universe articles without a verifiable source provided. If their authenticity can be neither proven nor disproven, they should instead be listed on the article's talk page." Alternatively, "article's talk page" could perhaps instead be a pinned SH thread in a similar vein to Forum:SH:Remaining Canon pages. Thoughts? - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 18:38, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
- Should also have the clause "or receive mainspace articles" to go just before "without a verifiable source..." - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 18:40, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
- I like this idea. Perhaps a WookieeProject should be created for it too so that they aren't just moved and then forgotten about. Enderdrag64 (talk) 03:08, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- Should also have the clause "or receive mainspace articles" to go just before "without a verifiable source..." - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 18:40, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
- I'm kind of confuse by this SH. There is no ambiguity in my mind or in our policy: either an information is attributable to a source and that source is reliable, or it is not, and in the later case, must be removed from Wookieepedia. What debate is there to be had when it is the application of the fundamental pillars of wiki-editing, as already covered by our policies? The only problem we face is to determine reliability of sources, which is another subject that the one you're laying before us. I understand that in practice movie pages don't respect the rules entirely, but so does thousand of old pages, we just need to find them and take the time to deal with them with appropriate prejudice. I've already done so in the past with one, maybe two movie pages. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 15:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- The primary issue that differs uncredited cast & crew from any other type of unverified information is that it's much, much more difficult to verify uncredited cast and crew. We don't really have a way of verifying them as absolutely true without an insane level of research, and much of the time that may not even be conclusive enough or even possible. We also can't immediately discredit them based on a complete lack of information. It's essentially the same reason {{Fact}} exists, though as I've mentioned, with how widespread this particular issue is I don't feel using {{Citation}} or {{Fact}} would suffice. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- Something being difficult shouldn't let it overrule one of our core principles, though. Like NanoLuuke, I'm not sure I see the point of creating policy specific to this issue when our general policy already covers it. We can move all questionable credits to a SH thread without needing a policy amendment. And {{Fact}} exists, as its own page notes, for information an editor believes can be sourced but hasn't yet, a different situation from most of the information this thread is about. Asithol (talk) 04:19, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- The issue with using {{Fact}} for an issue as widespread as uncredited cast and crew, however, is how readers perceive it. While I'm sure some may notice the little (source?) that pops up next to statements with the template attached and editors certainly notice it, I don't believe general readers are going to care that much about things said in a little bubble—I doubt they even check the references that often. And as I mentioned before, this leaves an unfortunate amount of room for readers to take that information as certain fact. With uncredited cast and crew, this can result in consequences such as certain individuals receiving undue credit over those who actually deserve it—like the situation Immi mentioned above—and I think as a respectable wiki it's our job not to have any part in that. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 04:23, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- Er, yes, that's the point I was making: {{Fact}} is inappropriate for these unverified uncredited individuals. Asithol (talk) 05:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- I misread your original statement so that is my bad. I do agree that it maybe doesn't need to be codified, but if it isn't then it also doesn't prevent the issue from arising in the future. As for {{Fact}} being inappropriate, it would not be. Aside from me being the one who literally wrote the template's description (well, the part explaining how to use it anyway, not the part about how not to), I'm not saying uncredited cast and crew cannot be cited. I'm saying it's significantly more difficult to. Thus, {{Fact}} is an insufficient solution to the problem. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 08:34, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- Well, sure, but no amount of policy wording can prevent a problem from arising in the future. Some new editors will jump in without reading a single policy page first. (I did, and I bet I'm not the only one.) The important thing is to have a policy you can point to when an issue does arise...which, as NanoLuuke pointed out and I agree with, we already have. Asithol (talk) 11:23, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- I misread your original statement so that is my bad. I do agree that it maybe doesn't need to be codified, but if it isn't then it also doesn't prevent the issue from arising in the future. As for {{Fact}} being inappropriate, it would not be. Aside from me being the one who literally wrote the template's description (well, the part explaining how to use it anyway, not the part about how not to), I'm not saying uncredited cast and crew cannot be cited. I'm saying it's significantly more difficult to. Thus, {{Fact}} is an insufficient solution to the problem. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 08:34, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- Er, yes, that's the point I was making: {{Fact}} is inappropriate for these unverified uncredited individuals. Asithol (talk) 05:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- The issue with using {{Fact}} for an issue as widespread as uncredited cast and crew, however, is how readers perceive it. While I'm sure some may notice the little (source?) that pops up next to statements with the template attached and editors certainly notice it, I don't believe general readers are going to care that much about things said in a little bubble—I doubt they even check the references that often. And as I mentioned before, this leaves an unfortunate amount of room for readers to take that information as certain fact. With uncredited cast and crew, this can result in consequences such as certain individuals receiving undue credit over those who actually deserve it—like the situation Immi mentioned above—and I think as a respectable wiki it's our job not to have any part in that. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 04:23, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- Something being difficult shouldn't let it overrule one of our core principles, though. Like NanoLuuke, I'm not sure I see the point of creating policy specific to this issue when our general policy already covers it. We can move all questionable credits to a SH thread without needing a policy amendment. And {{Fact}} exists, as its own page notes, for information an editor believes can be sourced but hasn't yet, a different situation from most of the information this thread is about. Asithol (talk) 04:19, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- The primary issue that differs uncredited cast & crew from any other type of unverified information is that it's much, much more difficult to verify uncredited cast and crew. We don't really have a way of verifying them as absolutely true without an insane level of research, and much of the time that may not even be conclusive enough or even possible. We also can't immediately discredit them based on a complete lack of information. It's essentially the same reason {{Fact}} exists, though as I've mentioned, with how widespread this particular issue is I don't feel using {{Citation}} or {{Fact}} would suffice. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2023 (UTC)