This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. The result of the debate was Adopt proposed policy changes. Imperators II(Talk) 15:44, January 21, 2018 (UTC)
Over the last few years, Wookieepedia has become increasingly-reliant on social media posts for adding information to canon pages. This is ultimately to the detriment of our mission to be the premier resource for Star Wars information. While tweets from Story Group members, for example, may illustrate a degree of what Lucasfilm creatives are thinking at the time of a release, the Story Group is never going to make future authors be beholden to what Pablo Hidalgo or Matt Martin said in a tweet. Using these tweets in articles suggests they are clearly-defined canon, when in reality this may not be the case.
There are many examples of this being a problem, from the standpoint of being 100% factual. A few are...
Two popularly-cited tweets are this one and this one from Leland Chee, where he says that it's easier to keep the current names until there's an actual need to change them. Easier though it may be, Wookieepedia is so prominent in the Star Wars fandom that people just accept whatever we write as canon. So to create virtually any page we want, adapted from Legends, on the basis of that tweet alone creates the impression that those names are canonical. It may be true that the name will never be changed, but for our purposes it's prudent to wait for that name to be in an official source, lest it be contradicted, as opposed to creating it now because an editor really really really wants to make the page.
On Interdictor vessel, a tweet from Matt Martin is being used to say that Interdictor-class Star Destroyers and Immobilizer 418 cruisers are the same thing. In reality, Matt said he would "assume it's meant to be the same." An assumption, even from a Story Group member, is not a canonical fact.
Similarly, on Executor-class Star Dreadnought, Matt is being cited as saying he can "imagine" that any ship of that size has a fair amount of customization. This is being used to state, as if canon, that all ships of that type "had some degree of customization." The word "imagine," like "assume," is an expression of an opinion and should not be extrapolated as fact.
Pablo Hidalgo recently set his tweets to auto-delete after a certain period of time, and he has explicitly said in the past that his tweets should not be used to cite canon on Wookieepedia.
To that end, I am proposing that we add a new section to Wookieepedia:Canon policy#New canon titled "What is not a reliable resource?" The clause we would add to that section would make it official that, for the purposes of Wookieepedia, tweets are not a valid source of in-universe information. We can use them for out-of-universe information, such as production info and authorial intent, but not for in-universe content.
That clause is as follows:
Social media posts from Lucasfilm Story Group members or Star Wars authors are not valid independent sources of in-universe information. The only social media posts allowed as independent sources of in-universe information are from official Star Wars brand accounts, such as the official Star Wars Twitter and Facebook page. Posts from Story Group members and authors may be used in out-of-universe pages and page sections as needed, such as to document authorial intent or background development.
Please note that the passage of this CT would mean that the tweet from Leland Chee in example 1 cannot be used as the sole basis for creating a canon page.
Also, the passage of this CT will typically only apply to future page creation. Existing use-cases are generally grandfathered in, though tweets can be removed when found and admins can use their discretion to delete existing pages. References will also be removed if they deal with examples like 2 and 3 above, where opinions are being extrapolated as fact. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 05:06, January 16, 2018 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with just waiting until something shows up in an official source. That's what the Story Group's job is anyways. Not to determine canon through Twitter for Wookieepedia. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 05:12, January 16, 2018 (UTC)
Admittedly, I'm guilty of this too, but its about time we reigned this in. Where would we be if they said something like "It's safe to assume everything is canon until its contradicted"? - AV-6R7Crew Pit 05:15, January 16, 2018 (UTC)
Just a question for background development what would be acceptable? For example we have on the Shaak Ti page that he holocron that shows up on the main SW comic was recorded the night of Order 66 sourced to a tweet, or some Adventures comic characters whose names were not revealed on the comic, but were revealed on a tweet by author is that okay or both should wait for an official confirmation?--DarthRuiz30 (talk) 05:29, January 16, 2018 (UTC)
This policy doesn't need to define what OOU cases are acceptable. For all intents and purposes, anything goes for OOU articles and BTS sections as the need arises. The policy was just giving some broad examples for OOU uses. To answer your specific question, the article's need should determine that. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 05:32, January 16, 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, supposing this policy is active, the new adventures comic story "Rose Knows" comes out and we see a random resistance pilot, later the author says on a tweet or on its facebook page that he's name was Jaack and its from Corellia. Is that valid? Just trying to be careful so I don't confuse in the future while creating any article--DarthRuiz30 (talk) 05:37, January 16, 2018 (UTC)
That would not be allowed. To quote the proposed policy, "Social media posts from Lucasfilm Story Group members or Star Wars authors are not valid independent sources of in-universe information." Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 05:38, January 16, 2018 (UTC)
What you could do, however, is create the page as an "Unidentified" and then say in the Behind the scenes what the author's intention is for the name of the character. But it's important to note that authorial intent is not canon in and of itself, which is why tweets are not valid independent sources of in-universe information under this proposed policy. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 05:39, January 16, 2018 (UTC)
Now its more clear for me. Thanks both for the answers!--DarthRuiz30 (talk) 05:42, January 16, 2018 (UTC)
Wow, this seems big. Just to be clear, would the passing of this policy amendment mean that articles like Venk, XS stock light freighter, and Vizam would be either turned into "Unidentified ..." or deleted/merged into other articles? Imperators II(Talk) 11:26, January 16, 2018 (UTC)
Seconding this question. We aren't talking about a few articles here and there; tons of subjects have a Canon title only because of Chee's tweets. Applying this policy inconsistently (as in allowing pages that already exist) would IMO reflect on us even more poorly. It can't be up to "admin discretion" to decide which Chee-dependent pages are allowed to remain. It's either all or nothing. 1358(Talk) 14:30, January 16, 2018 (UTC)
Upon further reflection, while I’m fine with getting rid of articles that we’ve created solely on the basis of Tweets along the line of “safe to assume canon until contradicted,” I don’t like getting rid of articles like Venk, given the fact they were named in the official script and are unlikely to be named elsewhere. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 19:00, January 16, 2018 (UTC)
Imperators: Articles will need to be judged on a case-by-case basis whether the tweet reference present qualifies as being an "independent" source of in-universe information. But yes, this policy means that some articles will be deleted. Straightforward examples include Ottegru Grey/Canon and Vizam, where there is absolutely no source providing a Canon name for these subjects. That may be a difficult pill to swallow for some, but that's the whole point here -- these articles should never have been created in the first place. To respond to your other named examples, it is my opinion that Venk should be allowed to stay, because that Jordan White post is not purely an "independent" source for the character's name in the same way that Ottegru Grey/Canon is, given that "Venk" comes from the comic's script. Under the current Wookieepedia:Notability policy#New canon subjects, XS stock light freighter would be deleted. However, this CT is the result of a discussion that began concerning whether that Notability policy clause should be repealed or loosened, which certainly deserves greater consideration. In the event this CT passes, we can explore doing that, which would likely mean allowing cases like XS stock light freighter to stay, at least as an unidentified article. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:12, January 16, 2018 (UTC)
That pretty much answers my question and addresses my concerns; thanks. 1358(Talk) 22:10, January 16, 2018 (UTC)
I'm pro-tweets, but after reading this and reflecting upon what's best, I'll have to agree. For example, I created Ottegru Grey/Canon among others, because I saw those tweets used as sources for other articles that were used for justification before, so although I had a part in basing information and creating articles off of tweets and being part of this problem, I think these are all valid points, and I agree. Now, that being said, there are tweets that do help clear things up that I think could be used on a case by case basis. For example, the Galactic Senate (New Republic). In Star Wars Propaganda: A History of Persuasive Art in the Galaxy it mentioned the Galactic Congress on one page and the New Republic Galactic Senate on the other. Seeing this, I tweeted Matt, basically asking if Galactic Congress was another entity from Galactic Senate. He stated that it seemed that the terms are used interchangeably for the New Republic and that governments seemed to have only one chamber, and so for that reason I removed the redlink appearance of Galactic Congress and wrote next to the Galactic Senate appearance that it was also identified as Galactic Congress. Now the question is, was that right of me to do? Things like these would have to be on a case by case basis.--Vitus InfinitusTalk 18:01, January 17, 2018 (UTC)
If this CT passes, that edit would unambiguously be incorrect. Without it, it's still sorta dubious: his use of "seems" pretty clearly indicates he's just guessing. Our articles shouldn't report guesswork as fact. When appropriate, they can mention it, clearly labeled as speculation, in BTS sections. Asithol (talk) 19:58, January 17, 2018 (UTC)