Forum:SH:Information coming from a script

Forums > Senate Hall archive > SH:Information coming from a script

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. EcksBot (talk) 20:43, August 12, 2018 (UTC)

The community has recently decided to not take social media posts expressing authorial intent into account. What about things that come directly from a comic script, though? As you know, it often happens that the name of a character or object is never actually mentioned in the production proper, appearing only in the script. If an author says in a tweet: "In my script, this character is named...", shouldn't that be considered valid? After all, scripts are validated by Lucasfilm. (Truth to be told, we've already done that in the past: Venk's name is only known because Jordan D. White revealed it's in the script, and "Tadd Marteens" is known because Landry Q. Walker told us. I just want to make sure we're all in agreement here. Lelal Mekha ^{(Audience Room)} 08:18, June 10, 2018 (UTC)

For me Venk is the only article that its justified to follow this rule, per the comments section of the Social media CT. In the tweet from Landry Q. Walker there's no mention of script, so I would say that there's no confirmation that Tadd and Jaahn Liddle were named in the script or if the backstory mentioned by Landry's tweets are canon. Its like the situation I mentioned in my comment on the CT which got the answer that authorial intent is not canon. If a subject is named in the script we should first verify if there was a reason on why it wasn't on the comic, if it was just because there was not need to mention the character's name then it should be safe to add the information.--DarthRuiz30 (talk) 09:12, June 10, 2018 (UTC)
- Most of the time, when a name appearing in a script does not show up in the product, it's simply because it wasn't "necessary" for the story to work. But let's see things that way: take "Off the Rails," for example. This story features a party of three card players who are not just background characters, but actual protagonists alongside Lando. If it turns out that Jeremy Barlow did give them names in the script, wouldn't it be better to use them rather than "Unidentified bird-like woman," "Unidentified reptilian card player" and "Unidentified chubby human in a uniform with epaulets?" Lelal Mekha ^{(Audience Room)} 09:25, June 10, 2018 (UTC)
  - As long as it definitely came from the script it should be okay to be made. Looking through the thread Venk was able to be kept because the character was named in the script, meaning Jordan White's post wasn't an independent source for the characters name compared with other pages being made solely off Leland Chee's tweet about species etc being the same --Lewisr (talk) 11:35, June 10, 2018 (UTC)
  - As far the author confirms that it was on the script it would be ok, otherwise like Tadd and Jaahn it would be authorial intent since there's not confirmation that it was on the script--DarthRuiz30 (talk) 17:54, June 10, 2018 (UTC)
    - This feels speculative to me. Do we know that the Story Group considers unpublished but script-supplied names to be set in stone, or do such names merely act as placeholders that are subject to change in later publications? Asithol (talk) 17:20, June 19, 2018 (UTC)
      - Oh, come on! would you rather go for slews of "unidentifieds?" --Lelal Mekha ^{(Audience Room)} 17:53, June 19, 2018 (UTC)
        I would rather document only what we know to be true. If the Story Group considers unpublished names from scripts to be canon, that's good enough for me. If we don't know that they do, it's not our place to make that presumption. Not presenting speculation as fact is longstanding policy with wide consensus. (Anyone concerned about the "slews of 'unidentifieds'" should probably start a campaign to trash-compact the hundreds of unidentified non-notable characters cluttering this wiki.) Asithol (talk) 19:33, June 19, 2018 (UTC)
        Agreed, we shouldn't make any assumptions. So far script names are accepted to have an article created, but you need confirmation that the script indeed had that name on it, not a tweet from the author just saying the name. --DarthRuiz30 (talk) 19:39, June 19, 2018 (UTC)
        
        Yeah, we'll ask the Story Group on Twitter, right? And they probably won't answer. And if they do answer, we won't be able to use that answer because of some policy. We have gone completely mad following the letter of the law to the detriment of the spirit in which it was written. An example? Story Group members have said REPEATEDLY that they use the same map as in Legends. They've also said REPEATEDLY that species, droids and ship names remain unchanged until we're told otherwise (last occurrence is here. What did we choose to do with those statements? Ignore them. Because of policies. Because we care more about our precious bureaucracy than chronicling lore. We've turned into a bunch of paper-pushers. Policies are supposed to help prevent excesses, not impede our work! --Lelal Mekha ^{(Audience Room)} 19:44, June 19, 2018 (UTC)
        You don't like it, that's fine, but those tweet the "We use the same name for species, etc" was used in the same CT that created the policy. You are free to create those articles, of course indicating in the BTS that the author named it in social media. You can ask the SG about the script names if they considered them as true, that can be used to confirm known information. --DarthRuiz30 (talk) 19:52, June 19, 2018 (UTC)
        I get where you're coming from, Lelal—I'm sure every editor here personally disagrees with some policy or other. But policies enshrine consensus arrived at through discussion and debate. Even when I disagree with a policy, I believe in the consensus process that went into creating it.
        You're right that policies do not exist to impede our work: in fact, they define our work. If work you want to do is impeded by a policy, then that work doesn't align with the consensus of editors here, however strongly you personally may want to do it. The will of the community trumps any of our individual preferences. That's the nature of a collaborative wiki.
        DarthRuiz: Where is the policy or consensus discussion that states that "script names are accepted to have an article created"? Because unless we know whether the Story Group considers such names definitive or provisional, it shouldn't be our place to make such a ruling. It seems we would have to treat them like any other cut content: eligible to be either canonized or overturned, but undefined until a later work does one of these. Asithol (talk) 23:56, June 29, 2018 (UTC)
        Not a policy, but it was discussed on the social media CT comment section.--DarthRuiz30 (talk) 00:00, June 30, 2018 (UTC)
        
        Thank you for the finger-wagging lesson in morality; I had no idea rules existed for a reason= I think I will spare myself the trouble of making articles about those German-only stories. Not that anyone beside me seems to care about them anyway. --Lelal Mekha ^{(Audience Room)} 00:08, June 30, 2018 (UTC)
        Wasn't trying to be finger-wagging. Your last post seemed to express some frustration, so I was attempting to give an alternate outlook that might help mitigate it. I apologize if I misread you. Asithol (talk) 00:34, June 30, 2018 (UTC)

I obviously support the idea of not using tweets as independent canon sources, because tweets aren't stories, but if a writer literally says on social media that a name was in a script then that tweet should not be dismissed. That's enough to create an article, because it's confirming what the original source of the story (i.e. the script) actually says. - Brandon Rhea^(talk) 01:00, June 30, 2018 (UTC)

I agree. If a writer confirms that a character was named as such in the script, that should be sufficient for our purposes, IMO. 1358 ^(Talk) 10:32, June 30, 2018 (UTC)
- I also agree with Brandon and Ecks. This reminds me of an instance that could be part of this discussion, which would be the Inquisitor Trooper. They weren't named in the comics but the author, Charles Soule, stated that they were Inquisitor Troopers in his website when summarizing the events of the comic. Otherwise they would be known as "Unidentified clone trooper squad."--Vitus Infinitus^Talk 03:12, July 2, 2018 (UTC)
  - Technically that article has an unconfirmed name, given that Charles Soule never said that the name is from a script--DarthRuiz30 (talk) 03:15, July 2, 2018 (UTC)
    - That's true, which is why I was reminded about it. It could be asked to Soule if that's what they were named in the script.--Vitus Infinitus^Talk 03:22, July 2, 2018 (UTC)
      - Taking a strict interpretation of the canon policy, that's not social media and therefore the unreliable sources clause doesn't apply IMO. - Brandon Rhea^(talk) 04:02, July 2, 2018 (UTC)
        Scripts are unpublished content. In general, we don't consider unpublished content canonical. If we make an exception here, we should have a compelling reason. (One may exist, such as: the Story Group considers scripts canon. But no such reason has been offered yet.) Absent such a justification, treating script-only content as canon remains speculative.
        Scripts obviously reflect authorial intent, which is certainly important and worth documenting in Development (for real-world articles) and Behind the scenes (for in-universe articles) sections. But we well know that authorial intent does not automatically grant canonicity: there are plenty of documented instances of authors' ideas being overruled before publication. Asithol (talk) 22:43, July 6, 2018 (UTC)