I enjoy hitting Random Page to edit sometimes when I don't know exactly what I want to edit, and I came across some unlicensed media this week. Upon further investigation, I found that there are hundreds of articles that come from unlicensed sources. I have multiple questions. Please bear with me, I have not created a Senate Hall, a Consensus post, or a Trash compactor before, so I might do some of this wrong. Hopefully my experience from Discussions will carry over.
The most basic understanding I have on if something is licensed is if Lucasfilm officially approves it. Stuff that is promoted in Star Wars Insider or announced at Celebrations are pretty clear-cut cases. Obviously, they have no reason to promote something that isn't licensed. I guess other stuff, like card or board games might have a trademark on the box or something.
In recent years, we have had the debate of whether to include the upcoming Supernatural Encounters: The Trial and Transformation of Arhul Hextrophon. Even if it was at one time, the current edition is not officially licensed or approved by Lucasfilm, and so we do not cover it. Another example would be the Robot Chicken skits associated with Star Wars. It seems as if we work on a case-by-case basis, but I am of the opinion that an official encyclopedia should cover only official sources.
What is the best course of action when dealing with these unlicensed sources? I have found that most of these are in other languages, commonly found in roleplaying magazines. There is an entire list of unlicensed sources. My question is if we should continue to cover these or move to a focus on 100%, no-doubt-about-it canonical sources approved by Lucasfilm. Thanks, Jade Moonstroller (talk) 03:55, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Discussion
- This is something that's been on the old to do list for so long! My personal thought is if it isn't licensed, we shouldn't cover it. However, I'm not familiar with the sources listed. Supreme Emperor Holocomm 04:13, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- One reason for covering these types of things is that some articles that originated in "unlicensed" material pop up again in licensed sources, ie M-300 hunting blaster. ThrawnChiss7
Assembly Cupola 04:29, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- Indeed, unlicensed content has been referenced in unambiguously-canon sources, such as Star Wars: The Essential Atlas Online Companion and the new canon's Star Wars: The High Republic (cases in point: Shar'Ack, Kyrouac, Miko, Svekk system, Felinian, Galderian, Port Lennax, Battrach). To my knowledge, at least some of the unlicensed roleplaying material is extremely hard to come by, so I think it would benefit readers to know that they existed at some point. Also worth mentioning is that some of this material was written by prominent West End Games authors such as Peter M. Schweighofer and Bill Slavicsek. However, this is just my perspective, and on only a certain kind of unlicensed source, so someone who's more knowledgeable in this matter can provide a more solid reasoning for keeping them on the wiki. UberSoldat93
(talk) 09:24, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- I'd agree that for the unlicensed RPG material specifically I think it benefits the readers more for us to keep it given how frequently stuff from it has popped up in official sources. Clearly authors and LFL consider it something valid to pull from for new work in some regard, and if we remove our coverage of it then I think it's incredibly unlikely anyone is going to notice the origins of these things when they do reappear. When writing up M-300 I certainly wouldn't have known about the origin if not for our page on it. Ayrehead02 (talk) 09:55, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- Maybe this could be something that could be covered in Behind the scenes sections on articles. "This weapon was originally mentioned in an unlicensed source. This is its first official mention in a licensed, approved source." Jade Moonstroller (talk) 21:30, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- In my opinion, that's absolutely sufficient from the perspective of the wiki's readers, yes. But from the perspective of editors, both established and new and potential ones, that approach fails to address the practical issue Ayrehead raises above. Imperators II(Talk) 06:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
- Maybe this could be something that could be covered in Behind the scenes sections on articles. "This weapon was originally mentioned in an unlicensed source. This is its first official mention in a licensed, approved source." Jade Moonstroller (talk) 21:30, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- I'd agree that for the unlicensed RPG material specifically I think it benefits the readers more for us to keep it given how frequently stuff from it has popped up in official sources. Clearly authors and LFL consider it something valid to pull from for new work in some regard, and if we remove our coverage of it then I think it's incredibly unlikely anyone is going to notice the origins of these things when they do reappear. When writing up M-300 I certainly wouldn't have known about the origin if not for our page on it. Ayrehead02 (talk) 09:55, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- Indeed, unlicensed content has been referenced in unambiguously-canon sources, such as Star Wars: The Essential Atlas Online Companion and the new canon's Star Wars: The High Republic (cases in point: Shar'Ack, Kyrouac, Miko, Svekk system, Felinian, Galderian, Port Lennax, Battrach). To my knowledge, at least some of the unlicensed roleplaying material is extremely hard to come by, so I think it would benefit readers to know that they existed at some point. Also worth mentioning is that some of this material was written by prominent West End Games authors such as Peter M. Schweighofer and Bill Slavicsek. However, this is just my perspective, and on only a certain kind of unlicensed source, so someone who's more knowledgeable in this matter can provide a more solid reasoning for keeping them on the wiki. UberSoldat93
- Oh Jade, sweet Jade, opening the Pandora Box so casually :D . One thing is clear: our coverage of this content isn't properly managed and framed. It's a free-for-all in a legally grey area (in regards to our policies) that would requires a very focused work to sort it out. Immi, spooky and myself, as well as others, has already shown interest into "pruning" this content, and Immi already did some preparation work in that regards on a personal workbench (given she left, I'll probably make a copy of it in the future). It's not a single editor work. If we want to resolve this, we need a small taskforce that would establish a rating of each document, then publish their conclusion, leading to further CTs or TCs if required. Maybe it's time we start serious work on this. In fact, I'd like that very much. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 12:47, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- This is something I never understood. If the source is unlicensed, not officially published, and with zero indication that Lucasfilm had any oversight over the story, what makes it any different from fanon? Rsand 30 (talk) 14:18, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- In my mind, what makes this kind of material different is that official Star Wars sources do not (knowingly) officially acknowledge (as exemplified above) just any fanon. :) Imperators II(Talk) 06:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
- Per Forum:CT:Phineas and Ferb, content that is explicitly parody is only permitted on the wiki as long as it's licensed. That covers the published collections of Robot Chicken skits as well, but not any sketches not included in those collections. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 16:54, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
- Right, this post is more about rpg scenarios and stuff primarily in other languages that can be found in the List of unlicensed sources. Jade Moonstroller (talk) 17:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
