Forum:CT Archive/Non-canon Legends content

Wookieepedia lacks a perfectly defined policy for how to handle the many variations of non-canon information within the confines of Legends articles. Please note that our new Canon policy now states: "Even though all Expanded Universe content is now officially non-canon, Wookieepedia distinguishes Expanded Universe content that Lucasfilm never considered to be canon by covering this content within a Legends article's 'Behind the scenes' section where appropriate." For the most part, this is how we've always handled it, but there remain some inconsistencies in our policy pages as well as certain issues that we've just never fully codified but which are made more clear now that the EU is non-canon.

Several years ago, we had a CT discussion that attempted but failed to clarify some of these issues due to lack of consensus. To summarize:
 * No decision was reached on how to handle cut content
 * Infinities was declared to go into the BTS
 * Ambiguous Tales content was to be left in the article's main body
 * There was no clear agreement on how to handle ambiguous unlicensed content, mostly because this CT thread predated our clearly defined consensus rules

However, the Layout Guide remains contradictory on some of these things. The LG's "Article body" section states that "Articles are allowed to contain non-canon or Infinities information, provided that it is clearly labeled with the above tags." Yet the LG's "Behind the scenes" section states that the BTS should detail "any related Infinities or non-canon information." These are mutually exclusive statements, so we need to redefine how we handle this content in Legends articles.

Therefore, I am proposing we adopt the following system for our Legends articles. Please first note that, as we discussed here and detailed in the new Canon policy, there is no longer such thing as "ambiguous canon" material. That was basically a term we invented and propagated to denote material we weren't sure about, such as unlicensed sources. But now that everything in the EU is non-canon, we may now safely cover in Legends article bodies anything that Lucasfilm didn't fully declare non-canon. This is all discussed already in the Canon policy.

Please note also that this proposal does not apply to Canon articles. We don't know right now if there will ever be Infinities or non-canon information within the new canon continuity. We can cross that bridge when and if we come to it. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 18:24, May 22, 2014 (UTC)

Vote 1: Article body
Now that everything in the EU is non-canon, anything that Lucasfilm did not previously declare to be fully non-canon (such as Infinities content and other material irreconcilably contradicted by higher canon sources) should be covered in the main article body of Legends articles. Conversely, anything that was declared to be fully non-canon within the Legends continuity should now be covered exclusively in the BTS section of Legends articles. In short, that means Layout Guide is now obsolete. I propose adding the following definition to the top of Layout Guide:

'Article bodies of Star Wars'' Legends articles will comprehensively cover all content from applicable officially-licensed sources that Lucasfilm did not declare non-canon within the Legends continuity. Please see Canon policy for a list of officially-licensed sources considered applicable to the Legends continuity.'''

Unlicensed sources should also now officially be included in the article body of Legends articles. But while we are no longer terming their content ambiguous, it's still important, as jSarek noted on the Canon policy CT, to distinguish this material as such within the article, which is done via Unlicensedstart and Unlicensedend. I propose renaming Layout Guide to Layout Guide, with the following definition:

'Star Wars'' Legends articles will comprehensively cover all relevant unlicensed sources within the article body. This content must be clearly labeled with the following advisory tags:

... '''

Support

 * 1) Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 18:24, May 22, 2014 (UTC)

Vote 2: Behind the scenes
Infinities stories and the majority of cut content should then be covered only in the BTS. In addition to specifying this, I'm proposing the following rewrite of Layout Guide, which isn't changing anything but merely presenting it in a better, more detailed format rather than a random, unorganized list:

The "Behind the scenes" section (notice the capitalization) details the development of an in-universe subject from a real-world, out-of-universe perspective. This section may discuss a number of varying topics, including but not limited to a subject's origin, actor portrayal information, significant additions made to a subject's in-universe continuity, and storyline contradictions affecting a subject's in-universe continuity. The following is a more detailed list of potential "Behind the scenes" topics:


 * Origin of subject: In what Star Wars project did the subject first appear or was first mentioned, first pictured, or first named? Was the subject named after a real-world person or based upon a real-world subject or event? For film articles, detail a subject's real-world filming location.
 * Portrayal information: For character articles, detail which actor(s)/actress(es) portrayed the subject in films, television series, video games, radio dramatizations, etc.
 * Canon development: Chronicle a subject's development through Star Wars continuity in different source material. Discuss any significant changes made to a subject, including retcon information. For example, Boba Fett's Legends continuity was heavily retconned with the release of Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones. How did this change in his character's background affect previously released stories?
 * Contradictions: Detail any significant contradictions affecting a subject's continuity. Were any stories rendered non-canon by contradictory higher canon sources?
 * Authorial intent: Authors occasionally release statements outside of their published stories to detail information they intended to convey in their projects without necessarily being spelled out in a given source.

For Legends articles, "Behind the scenes" sections will exclusively cover material that Lucasfilm declared to be non-canon within the Legends continuity, including Infinities stories, certain cut content, and material irreconcilably contradicted by higher canon sources. Cut content from Star Wars Legends sources that was not referenced in other source material was considered non-canon. The only exception to cut content are the deleted scenes of the six films of the Star Wars original trilogy and prequel trilogy. According to Leland Chee, deleted film scenes that were publicly released are G-canon "unless they conflict with something else seen in the films or if the reasoning behind deleting the scene keeps it from being continuity."

Support

 * 1) Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 18:24, May 22, 2014 (UTC)

Tales
This is leaves us with how to handle Star Wars Tales stories. To reiterate, the aforementioned former CT from several years ago decided to cover "ambiguous Tales content" in the main article body. There is no such thing as "ambiguous Tales content" anymore, but we should still cover this content within the main article body.

What makes this situation complicated is the unclear canonicity of Tales content. All Tales stories from issues 1-20 were published under the non-canon Infinities label, but Leland Chee said that all issues 1-20 were included in the Holocron "with varying levels of canonicity" and to "consider everything that's not completely outrageous or intentionally comic as S-canon. If it's referenced in another non-Tales source, then elevate it to C-canon." This means that all Tales 1-20 stories had some level of canonicity (either S-canon or C-canon) except those that were "completely outrageous or intentionally comic." Unfortunately, unless we get Chee to give us a list of everything he personally considered to be "intentionally comic," it's impossible for us to know precisely where he drew the line. So I propose we don't even try and that we keep things as simple as possible.

Vote 3a: Amending Canon policy
The first thing we need to do is amend the Canon policy. In writing it, I overlooked these statements that Chee made. The Canon policy states, in regards to Tales issues 1-20, "The stories appearing in these issues were labeled as Infinities and should be considered non-canon unless referenced by other source material. Similar conditions apply for the rest of the Star Wars Tales run." Instead, this should read:

'''The Holocron continuity database included all of the stories from these issues with varying levels of canonicity. Leland Chee stated, "Consider everything that's not completely outrageous or intentionally comic as S-canon. If it's referenced in another non-Tales story, then elevate it to C-canon."'''

Support

 * 1) Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 18:24, May 22, 2014 (UTC)

Vote 3b: Tales content within articles
Chee considered all of the Tales stories to be either S-canon or C-canon except for stories or elements of stories that he considered to be "completely outrageous or intentionally comic." As I said, it's impossible for us to know what precisely he considered intentionally comic. It's a subjective notion, and we could be arguing about this amongst ourselves forever in trying to define every element of every Tales story as intentionally comic or not.

Instead, I propose we make this as simple on ourselves as we can and avoid trying to define anything we don't know for certain:
 * For articles that include elements from Tales 1-20 stories that were referenced in other sources, we present the information without any advisory tags. For example, the majority of content in the Sheckil article comes from the Tales story Thank the Maker, which was repeated almost verbatim in the book The Rise and Fall of Darth Vader and also referenced elsewhere, so that article has no advisory tags.
 * For articles that have elements from Tales 1-20 stories that were not referenced elsewhere, such content will be labeled in articles with the Talesstart and Talesend tags. Talesstart will be reworded as such: The following section contains information from a Star Wars Tales 1-20 story that was referenced in no other Star Wars Legends source. Lucasfilm considered all Tales 1-20 content that was not "completely outrageous or intentionally comic" to have some level of canonicity within the Legends continuity. Editor discretion is advised.
 * For articles with content entirely from Tales 1-20 stories that were not referenced elsewhere, they will use the header template Tales1-20, which will be reworded similarly, instead of the in-line "Talesstart/end" templates.

And, assuming Vote 1 in this proposal passes, we can then amend the proposed "Unlicensed sources" subsection from that vote to say "Star Wars Tales and unlicensed sources," with the following:

'Star Wars Legends articles will comprehensively cover all non-contradictory stories from Star Wars Tales'' issues 1-20 in the article body. Content from Tales 1-20 stories that were referenced in no other Legends source must be clearly labeled with the following advisory tags:

...

This will replace the current wording in Layout Guide that talks about ambiguous Tales content.

And finally, any Tales 1-20 stories that were contradictory of higher canon will then be covered in the BTS as Infinities.

Support

 * 1) Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 18:24, May 22, 2014 (UTC)