Forums > Senate Hall archive > SH Archive/Sources that blend the SW world with ours
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. 1358 (Talk) 07:32, October 30, 2011 (UTC)
Hey, Wookieepedians. I need some advice.
They know we're reading them!
Almost every issue of Star Wars Tales opens with a one-page comic intro that features the editor, whether it be Dave Land, Jeremy Barlow, Randy Stradley, or who-have-you, interacting with characters and species from the SW universe and breaking the fourth wall to address the reader. See, for example, the image to the right. I was considering creating an article for these nameless intros and adding it to all of the relevant "Appearances" sections, using {{Tales}}, so that it would look something like this:
"Introduction" — Star Wars Tales 20 (Non-canonical appearance)
However, I'm just... not sure if this is appropriate. If we considered each Tales introduction a valid non-canon source, then by extension, we would have to create articles for the (non-canon) In-universe equivalents of everything that the characters mention. Like, if a character says "I'm the Editor of Dark Horse Comics," we'd have to create an article for the IU, non-canon Dark Horse comics. In one intro, Boba Fett and Jeremy Barlow discuss Star Wars Infinities: The Empire Strikes Back. Do we create an article for the IU version of that too? As cool as I think writing and FA'ing an article on the IU Jeremy Barlow would be, I don't think I'd be at all comfortable filling in those redlinks.
I'm honestly not sure. That's why I want your opinions. Return of the Ewok seems to be a comparable example; it merges elements from the SW universe with the real world, but as far as I know, we don't include it in anybody's "Appearances" section.
Another concern involves the recently-created article on the Drunk Driving PSA. This has worked its way into several characters' "Appearances" sections, but that can't be right, can it? "External link," maybe, but I don't think that commercials like that should be treated as non-canon appearances. It seems like a really bad precedent to set. If you treat one PSA as an "Appearance," you have to treat them all that way. Like this anti-smoking ad. I don't think that anyone would argue that it should be treated as an "appearance." Or C-3PO and R2-D2 on Jeopardy. None of the PSAs are LFL products, so I think that this one is pretty clear-cut. The Tales intros, on the other hand... I dunno. Menkooroo 04:50, September 1, 2011 (UTC)
- Some more musing... would it be acceptable to add a pipelink such as Star Wars Tales 10 intro to something's "Appearances" section and not worry about creating articles on IU Jeremy Barlow and IU Dark Horse Comics? That's how it's currently done in articles like Midi-chlorian and Triclops. Menkooroo 05:04, September 1, 2011 (UTC)
- I'd say go with that. It's an appearance either way, canonical or not. The way I see it, a non-canonical appearance is a non-canonical appearance. Trak Nar Ramble on 05:29, September 1, 2011 (UTC)
- I like that idea. But even if we did make articles, there's no need to make IU Dark Horse pages and the like. The intros are little different from, say, KJA's intro to the Dark Empire TPB. It's just that Barlow and company are drawn next to pictures of Triclops and say amusing things about him. When they say "Dark Horse Comics", they're talking about the real Dark Horse comics. The intros don't mean the existence of an IU Dark Horse any more than KJA is Chancellor of an IU Star Wars University. - Lord Hydronium 05:32, September 1, 2011 (UTC)
- I like the pipe-linking as a solution for several reasons. You're right in that the Tales intros are part of an official LFL product; accordingly, we should treat them as non-canonical appearances, unlike, say, Return of the Ewok, Soul Calibur IV, or an anti-smoking PSA, which aren't LFL products. So this solution wouldn't discard it entirely. Additionally, simply pipe-linking it and not creating an article on it would avoid the (IMO) ridiculousness of, for example, creating an article on the IU Dark Horse Comics when we know for a fact that the characters are actually referencing the OOU Dark Horse comics. I like it as a compromise. We wouldn't stick info from it into a character's bio, but we could still discuss it in a character's "Behind the Scenes" section, where using links to OOU stuff is OK. Menkooroo 05:37, September 1, 2011 (UTC)
- I don't have any objection, I'd just like to make clearer what other's said that using the Drunk Driving PSA in Appearances sections would not be such a good idea. Considering that, not to my knowledge, LFL never even recognized it officially and it is not an LFL product. If we were going to do that, like you said, we'd have to add appearances for every time that a new commercial is made with Star Wars in it. So, yea, I like the idea about the pipelinking, but good job thinking this through though. Cal Jedi
(Personal Comm Channel) 13:05, September 1, 2011 (UTC)
- I don't have any objection, I'd just like to make clearer what other's said that using the Drunk Driving PSA in Appearances sections would not be such a good idea. Considering that, not to my knowledge, LFL never even recognized it officially and it is not an LFL product. If we were going to do that, like you said, we'd have to add appearances for every time that a new commercial is made with Star Wars in it. So, yea, I like the idea about the pipelinking, but good job thinking this through though. Cal Jedi
- I like the pipe-linking as a solution for several reasons. You're right in that the Tales intros are part of an official LFL product; accordingly, we should treat them as non-canonical appearances, unlike, say, Return of the Ewok, Soul Calibur IV, or an anti-smoking PSA, which aren't LFL products. So this solution wouldn't discard it entirely. Additionally, simply pipe-linking it and not creating an article on it would avoid the (IMO) ridiculousness of, for example, creating an article on the IU Dark Horse Comics when we know for a fact that the characters are actually referencing the OOU Dark Horse comics. I like it as a compromise. We wouldn't stick info from it into a character's bio, but we could still discuss it in a character's "Behind the Scenes" section, where using links to OOU stuff is OK. Menkooroo 05:37, September 1, 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand the problem. An officially licensed source or appearance is an officially licensed source or appearance. Whether it's non-canon or not is another matter. In the case of the Dark Horse Tales intros, they are stories that are printed in officially licensed products, so they should be given articles and written up. Pipelinking the things mentioned to the real-world counterparts (like Star Wars Infinities or Dark Horse Comics) would work well. As for the PSAs, they, too, are officially licensed products, so why should they be treated differently? Again, canon/non-canon is the operative question, not whether the thing is an actual "appearance" or not. Why wouldn't it be? The canon/non-canon thing would then have to be determined on a case-by-case basis (i.e., drunk-driving PSA breaks no canon I can determine, but the anti-smoking one does, as it breaks the fourth wall). That's my take anyway. In sum, officially licensed, narrative product = appearance, whether it's a commercial or not. ~Savage
14:43, September 1, 2011 (UTC)
- I honestly can't really understand how a Drunk Driving PSA sanctioned by the United States Department of Transportation --- that just happens to include SW characters --- should be considered something to be added to an article's Appearances section. Believing that it should be considered an "Appearance" constitutes, IMO, a gross misunderstanding of what we at Wookieepedia consider a "Source" or an "Appearance." I can't figure out which item of WP:CANON it falls under --- it seems that it would require a CT in order to be considered an "Appearance."
As for the Tales intros, giving them articles and writing them up presents a problem: Linking to OOU subjects in the IU part of an article isn't what we do around here. Like Hydro said above, these are just humorous intros, and they're not intended to be taken as non-canon works akin to Fett Club or The Emperor's Court. They're a different realm entirely. Menkooroo 15:38, September 1, 2011 (UTC)- My question is this: Why is the PSA any different from any other short film? What makes it inherently different from any other licensed Star Wars product that we do include in Appearance sections, like, say, the trailers for the upcoming The Old Republic game? If we declare it non-canon because it has the OOU narrator, so be it, but it's still an appearance, or at least it seems to to me. I'm having a problem seeing how it's not one.
- As for the Tales intros, I think they need to be accounted for, since if a Talz, say, appears in one, it needs to be accounted for on the Talz page to make that page comprehensive. Perhaps they should be counted as "sources" since they are primarily OOU? That would solve the "everything linked in an appearance must be in-universe" conundrum. ~Savage 16:24, September 1, 2011 (UTC)
- I think Bob's hit the nail on the head here. The PSA is no different than any other licensed Star Wars product. Canon or non-canon, I don't care, but treat it like you would any other licensed product. As for the Tales intros, I agree that they should be treated as "sources" since they're mainly OOU. Master Jonathan — Jedi Council Chambers Thursday, September 1, 2011, 16:33 UTC
- LFL approval doesn't equal licensing. Stuff like Tales is published under LFL's license, and you can see the LFL logo on it as a result. PSAs simply get approval to use the characters. It doesn't make them licensed products any more than Pixar getting approval for the word "droid" in The Incredibles makes that a licensed product. Including anything with any officially approved SW item as an "appearance" sends you down a really slippery slope; would anyone list The Muppet Show as an appearance of Luke Skywalker, for example? - Lord Hydronium 18:19, September 1, 2011 (UTC)
- Hydro's got it. The PSA is no different than C-3PO and R2-D2 appearing at the Oscars, or, even more comparably, that Adidas commercial with David Beckham in the Cantina. The PSA was made by the United States Department of Transportation and featured the Cantina Aliens. The Beckham commercial was made by Adidas and featured the Cantina Aliens. As I mentioned above, PSAs and commercials don't fall under anything listed as "What is a valid resource" in WP:CANON. As for the Tales intros, I think it might be something worth CT'ing so that we can get a community consensus on it... Menkooroo 23:59, September 1, 2011 (UTC)
- Why aren't they licensed products? I don't get it. The PSA is licensed by 20th Century Fox before LFL was a viable entity. And what's the problem with listing Adidas sources as non-canonical appearances on the appropriate articles? In short, we don't get the luxury of deciding what an appearance is... ~Savage 07:22, September 2, 2011 (UTC)
- Once again: WP:CANON. Please don't re-add the PSA to all of those Appearances sections when it's apparent that you don't understand what a licensed product is. You seem to be arguing that anything involving SW characters that's approved by LFL is a valid resource. That is false. Like Hydro said above, LFL approval does not equal licensing. If it did, then The Incredibles would be a non-canon appearance of droid. We have policies on what is considered a valid resource. The PSA fails them, so please stop adding it to Appearances sections. In short, what you're doing is against policy. Menkooroo 07:30, September 2, 2011 (UTC)
- Apologies if I came off a little harsh there. To elaborate a little more on the difference between an officially-licensed product (everything covered by WP:CANON) and something which receives LFL approval: LFL approves lots of things. They're actually very relaxed about letting others use their intellectual property. They gave some guy permission to sell T-shirts with Luke on them. They let Robot Chicken and Family Guy do their SW spoofs, but we don't include those in "Appearances" sections. C-3PO and R2-D2 have been on Jeopardy and the Muppet Show, and have presented at the Oscars. All with LFL approval. An officially-licensed product is something released by Lucasfilm Ltd. and, well, officially licensed as a SW product. An Adidas commercial does not fall under that category, and it does not meet our criteria for what is considered a valid resource. Menkooroo 08:00, September 2, 2011 (UTC)
- (Wow, I've never seen Menkooroo mad before… ;) ) In the case of the PSA, is the argument that it doesn't have an LFL insignia anywhere? The very end shows it's copyright 20th Century Fox, but not LFL, although it's obvious it was LFL approved. But just to clarify, LFL releases very little: Dark Horse Comics does, Del Rey does, Hasbro does, and we count all that stuff. In this case, the Department of Transportation did. So what's the key difference? Also, whether or not we end up adding the PSA to appearances lists, what's the harm in having an appearances list in the article itself? Without it, the "What links here?" trick fails, which prevents folks from finding it and adding information from it (wherever that information is supposed to go) to the articles. ~Savage 14:19, September 2, 2011 (UTC)
- The difference with something like DHC or DR is that LFL gives franchise rights to them to make Star Wars stories (under certain limitations, with approval of the stories, etc.). Anything made by them under the LFL imprint is, just be default of how the licensing process works, an official Star Wars product. On the other hand, with something like a PSA, or the droids' appearances, or possibly something like the Robot Chicken episodes (though I'm not sure of the legal situation there, since it would be allowed as parody anyway), LFL doesn't franchise anything out. They give permission to use the characters, brand name, logos, or whatever. But they're not saying to the USDOT "here, you can make Star Wars products", they're just letting those characters out for the purpose of the ad. - Lord Hydronium 17:37, September 2, 2011 (UTC)
- OK, fair enough. I still think information from such sources (in a general sense of the term) needs to be incorporated into articles for those articles to be comprehensive, though. They should probably be discussed in BTS sections and potentially linked to in "External links", which I think most of us would not disagree with. However, one thing I'm still unclear about is why we can't have an "Appearance" section on the PSA page and other articles on such "approved by not licensed" productions. If we remove the "Appearances" section, "What links here?" fails, and pertinent information becomes harder to find. ~Savage 17:54, September 2, 2011 (UTC)
- I don't have any problem with mentioning the drunk driving thingy in the appearances section because I don't believe that there is a particular rule against it, but I just wonder where to draw the line on Appearances. Because I don't think that we should or even could list the appearances of every time that 3PO is on a commercial. It would get to be where the Appearances sections would be longer than the article. I think that we should draw the line between guest appearances or whatever and official releases. For example, I think that the Story of Star Wars featurette that came with the special edition DVD bundle of OT Star Wars should be mentioned as a non-canon appearance of 3PO and R2 since it's an official release, even though they're just pretty much giving back ground info of the Star Wars saga. But, when they show up on a commercial for A.B.C. Warehouse or something, I think it should be left out because then they're just there to advertise and not in an official role. Cal Jedi (Personal Comm Channel) 18:07, September 2, 2011 (UTC)
- I don't have any problem with mentioning the drunk driving thingy in the appearances section because I don't believe that there is a particular rule against it, but I just wonder where to draw the line on Appearances. Because I don't think that we should or even could list the appearances of every time that 3PO is on a commercial. It would get to be where the Appearances sections would be longer than the article. I think that we should draw the line between guest appearances or whatever and official releases. For example, I think that the Story of Star Wars featurette that came with the special edition DVD bundle of OT Star Wars should be mentioned as a non-canon appearance of 3PO and R2 since it's an official release, even though they're just pretty much giving back ground info of the Star Wars saga. But, when they show up on a commercial for A.B.C. Warehouse or something, I think it should be left out because then they're just there to advertise and not in an official role. Cal Jedi
- OK, fair enough. I still think information from such sources (in a general sense of the term) needs to be incorporated into articles for those articles to be comprehensive, though. They should probably be discussed in BTS sections and potentially linked to in "External links", which I think most of us would not disagree with. However, one thing I'm still unclear about is why we can't have an "Appearance" section on the PSA page and other articles on such "approved by not licensed" productions. If we remove the "Appearances" section, "What links here?" fails, and pertinent information becomes harder to find. ~Savage
- The difference with something like DHC or DR is that LFL gives franchise rights to them to make Star Wars stories (under certain limitations, with approval of the stories, etc.). Anything made by them under the LFL imprint is, just be default of how the licensing process works, an official Star Wars product. On the other hand, with something like a PSA, or the droids' appearances, or possibly something like the Robot Chicken episodes (though I'm not sure of the legal situation there, since it would be allowed as parody anyway), LFL doesn't franchise anything out. They give permission to use the characters, brand name, logos, or whatever. But they're not saying to the USDOT "here, you can make Star Wars products", they're just letting those characters out for the purpose of the ad. - Lord Hydronium 17:37, September 2, 2011 (UTC)
- (Wow, I've never seen Menkooroo mad before… ;) ) In the case of the PSA, is the argument that it doesn't have an LFL insignia anywhere? The very end shows it's copyright 20th Century Fox, but not LFL, although it's obvious it was LFL approved. But just to clarify, LFL releases very little: Dark Horse Comics does, Del Rey does, Hasbro does, and we count all that stuff. In this case, the Department of Transportation did. So what's the key difference? Also, whether or not we end up adding the PSA to appearances lists, what's the harm in having an appearances list in the article itself? Without it, the "What links here?" trick fails, which prevents folks from finding it and adding information from it (wherever that information is supposed to go) to the articles. ~Savage
- Apologies if I came off a little harsh there. To elaborate a little more on the difference between an officially-licensed product (everything covered by WP:CANON) and something which receives LFL approval: LFL approves lots of things. They're actually very relaxed about letting others use their intellectual property. They gave some guy permission to sell T-shirts with Luke on them. They let Robot Chicken and Family Guy do their SW spoofs, but we don't include those in "Appearances" sections. C-3PO and R2-D2 have been on Jeopardy and the Muppet Show, and have presented at the Oscars. All with LFL approval. An officially-licensed product is something released by Lucasfilm Ltd. and, well, officially licensed as a SW product. An Adidas commercial does not fall under that category, and it does not meet our criteria for what is considered a valid resource. Menkooroo 08:00, September 2, 2011 (UTC)
- Once again: WP:CANON. Please don't re-add the PSA to all of those Appearances sections when it's apparent that you don't understand what a licensed product is. You seem to be arguing that anything involving SW characters that's approved by LFL is a valid resource. That is false. Like Hydro said above, LFL approval does not equal licensing. If it did, then The Incredibles would be a non-canon appearance of droid. We have policies on what is considered a valid resource. The PSA fails them, so please stop adding it to Appearances sections. In short, what you're doing is against policy. Menkooroo 07:30, September 2, 2011 (UTC)
- Why aren't they licensed products? I don't get it. The PSA is licensed by 20th Century Fox before LFL was a viable entity. And what's the problem with listing Adidas sources as non-canonical appearances on the appropriate articles? In short, we don't get the luxury of deciding what an appearance is... ~Savage
- Hydro's got it. The PSA is no different than C-3PO and R2-D2 appearing at the Oscars, or, even more comparably, that Adidas commercial with David Beckham in the Cantina. The PSA was made by the United States Department of Transportation and featured the Cantina Aliens. The Beckham commercial was made by Adidas and featured the Cantina Aliens. As I mentioned above, PSAs and commercials don't fall under anything listed as "What is a valid resource" in WP:CANON. As for the Tales intros, I think it might be something worth CT'ing so that we can get a community consensus on it... Menkooroo 23:59, September 1, 2011 (UTC)
- LFL approval doesn't equal licensing. Stuff like Tales is published under LFL's license, and you can see the LFL logo on it as a result. PSAs simply get approval to use the characters. It doesn't make them licensed products any more than Pixar getting approval for the word "droid" in The Incredibles makes that a licensed product. Including anything with any officially approved SW item as an "appearance" sends you down a really slippery slope; would anyone list The Muppet Show as an appearance of Luke Skywalker, for example? - Lord Hydronium 18:19, September 1, 2011 (UTC)
- I think Bob's hit the nail on the head here. The PSA is no different than any other licensed Star Wars product. Canon or non-canon, I don't care, but treat it like you would any other licensed product. As for the Tales intros, I agree that they should be treated as "sources" since they're mainly OOU. Master Jonathan — Jedi Council Chambers Thursday, September 1, 2011, 16:33 UTC
- I honestly can't really understand how a Drunk Driving PSA sanctioned by the United States Department of Transportation --- that just happens to include SW characters --- should be considered something to be added to an article's Appearances section. Believing that it should be considered an "Appearance" constitutes, IMO, a gross misunderstanding of what we at Wookieepedia consider a "Source" or an "Appearance." I can't figure out which item of WP:CANON it falls under --- it seems that it would require a CT in order to be considered an "Appearance."
- (De-indenting) Yeah, I see your point; we don't necessarily need to list all the magazine covers C-3PO's been on either. I think it's something that should probably be left to editor discretion, as some of these non-traditional appearances are more noteworthy than others. But our articles on things like the PSA should have "Appearances" sections to make them easier to find for the subjects that appear in them. ~Savage 18:30, September 2, 2011 (UTC)
- The biggest problem with a "approved but non-official" appearances section is that, as mentioned, it makes for a shaky precedent. Ads, promo appearances, random stuff like The Incredibles...there's not really any clear line to draw, and at a certain point I think everyone would agree that okay, we don't need to list the Energizer commercial/Muppet Show/whatever. I also think trying to catalog all that is going beyond the purview of the site; not quite into fanfilm/fanfiction area, but close. I understand why you say that a lot of them are important to mention, but I think that's what BTS is perfect for. "Cultural impact" or "other appearances" or whatever title for the section, and then you can also discuss the usage of the subject a bit rather than just a list. - Lord Hydronium 19:04, September 2, 2011 (UTC)
- I agree, but I'm specifically talking about the "Appearances" section in the article on the "approved-but-not-licensed" thing's page. Consider this diff. What's the issue with having the list there? It makes finding the article easier from the linked pages. ~Savage 19:38, September 2, 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, you mean the Appearances on the work's page itself. Sorry. Yeah, I don't see a problem with that, long as we keep in mind what's IU and what's OOU (so no IU "Dark Horse Comics" page, and so forth). - Lord Hydronium 20:26, September 2, 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah. Sorry if I was a little too vehement in removing that. :S Feel free to re-add it. If I'm ever being a jerk, just tell me. It happens. Menkooroo 04:58, September 3, 2011 (UTC)
- Adding just the appearance section to the article sounds reasonable, but another thought is then adding the incident to something like this, and maybe even add an "See Also" section to something like the Drunk Driving thingy to link it to that reference page so people can see it for theselves. Cal Jedi (Personal Comm Channel) 15:01, September 3, 2011 (UTC)
- No sweat, Menk; it was an honest misunderstanding on my part of what I still consider to be our nebulously defined categories of "appearances" and "sources", so sorry for any undue stress. :) CJ, that's a good idea. I tend to ignore those huge list pages, but that's not a bad idea. ~Savage 22:04, September 3, 2011 (UTC)
- No sweat, Menk; it was an honest misunderstanding on my part of what I still consider to be our nebulously defined categories of "appearances" and "sources", so sorry for any undue stress. :) CJ, that's a good idea. I tend to ignore those huge list pages, but that's not a bad idea. ~Savage
- Adding just the appearance section to the article sounds reasonable, but another thought is then adding the incident to something like this, and maybe even add an "See Also" section to something like the Drunk Driving thingy to link it to that reference page so people can see it for theselves. Cal Jedi
- Yeah. Sorry if I was a little too vehement in removing that. :S Feel free to re-add it. If I'm ever being a jerk, just tell me. It happens. Menkooroo 04:58, September 3, 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, you mean the Appearances on the work's page itself. Sorry. Yeah, I don't see a problem with that, long as we keep in mind what's IU and what's OOU (so no IU "Dark Horse Comics" page, and so forth). - Lord Hydronium 20:26, September 2, 2011 (UTC)
- I agree, but I'm specifically talking about the "Appearances" section in the article on the "approved-but-not-licensed" thing's page. Consider this diff. What's the issue with having the list there? It makes finding the article easier from the linked pages. ~Savage
- The biggest problem with a "approved but non-official" appearances section is that, as mentioned, it makes for a shaky precedent. Ads, promo appearances, random stuff like The Incredibles...there's not really any clear line to draw, and at a certain point I think everyone would agree that okay, we don't need to list the Energizer commercial/Muppet Show/whatever. I also think trying to catalog all that is going beyond the purview of the site; not quite into fanfilm/fanfiction area, but close. I understand why you say that a lot of them are important to mention, but I think that's what BTS is perfect for. "Cultural impact" or "other appearances" or whatever title for the section, and then you can also discuss the usage of the subject a bit rather than just a list. - Lord Hydronium 19:04, September 2, 2011 (UTC)
