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 Option 2 adopted for BTS sections: "Obvious real-life correlations and similarities are allowed, as long as no un-sourced direct connection is stated."Toprawa and Ralltiir 19:16, September 12, 2011 (UTC)
We seem to have a difference of opinion here on what can be in the BTS section of articles. There have been several Senate Halltopics discussing this. I figured I'd make a CT for it.
It’s been pretty clearly stated and generally accepted that speculation is forbidden. For example, this change. While the LG has some very clear examples, many BTS sections include connections to real life things. These connections to real-life things, that while they are factually true, may be trivial and/or coincidental.
Basically, this CT is to see if we can formally state what can be put in a BTS section.
NOTHING in the BTS unless it can be properly sourced and connected.
BTS should only be for canonical sourced relations to real-life things. We are not a general purpose encyclopedia and including real-life similarities either implies that the creator based the IU thing on it, or otherwise it is simply trivial information that doesn’t expand the IU topic. <-Omicron(Leave a message at the BEEP!) 21:26, August 26, 2011 (UTC)
See my comments on the Homages Senate Hall page to see more, but I have to say that Wookieepedia is a place for verified information. We cannot have any kind of speculation on Wookieepedia. Even though something may resemble something else in real-life, we cannot assume that the author intended it this way, or that the next person will agree with us. The only way to be certain is to keep it out.Cal Jedi(Personal Comm Channel) 03:09, August 27, 2011 (UTC)
Option 1 is much too restrictive, and incompatible with the "logical deductions" provision of WP:ATT. We can work detailed restrictions later if need be, but the nuclear option is uncalled for. -- Darth Culator(Talk) 00:46, August 27, 2011 (UTC)
The examples provided are not the best. The Landmaster that was the subject of the SH thread that led to this CT is a good example. Darth Trayus(Trayus Academy) 03:38, August 27, 2011 (UTC)
Per Culator. Option 1 seems too restrictive to me. ~Savage 14:27, August 27, 2011 (UTC)
I personally find real world similarities to IU topics very interesting. It's not that difficult to state the information so that the reader knows whether or not the correlation was intentional is unknown. If anything, we should have the information simply because it IS interesting to our readers. If it wasn't, we wouldn't be having all this discussion about in the SH. Also, it's really not that hard to source this stuff, if you just put your mind to it. It requires a little more creative referencing, and that should never stop us. MasterFred(Whatever) 16:46, August 27, 2011 (UTC)
Per Culator. Regardless, adding this rule or the first option is completely unnecessary. We already have perfectly comprehensive rules stating that no speculation is allowed. People just fail to understand what speculation is. For example, stating that there are real life parangs in the BTS of the parang article is relevant and 100% verifiable. What we can't do is make any kind of connection. For example, it is original research to say that the Star Wars parangs are based on real life parangs. But just saying that real world parangs exist is not original research; it's a verifiable fact. Jonjedigrandmaster(Talk) 18:04, August 27, 2011 (UTC)
With the caveat that defining "obvious" in this context is either doomed to failure or will end up defaulting to option one, so editors will need to use discretion. —Silly Dan(talk) 02:45, August 29, 2011 (UTC)
Per Culator and MasterFred --Craven 17:56, August 29, 2011 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be a discussion area, so I'll say it here. I'm having a hard time with this discussion because I can understand both sides. I think that what MasterFred and Jugs said make almost complete sense. But I've run into so many users that will twist this rule that it is not even funny. I feel that this rule is not strong enough against these types of users. I think that down the road we will have trouble with users that say that it's fine what they're doing because of this rule. If we could somehow draw the lines better between what is really speculation and what is not, I wouldn't have such a problem with it. In response of MasterFred, I think that it would be great if we could find a source to verify [whatever]. But a source isn't always available and I believe that users in the future will use the excuse of "Well, I couldn't find a source, but it's as plain as day." But, this wiki isn't for "as plain as day" information. Another user may think that it is not as plain as day and then this rule will just create confusion. I believe we need to find a way to bring the two rules together to explain more clearly that the information must still be sourced, even if it is "as plain as day". Cal Jedi(Personal Comm Channel) 00:47, August 28, 2011 (UTC)
If it's "plain as day", then what's wrong with just saying it? Do we really need to insult the intelligence of our readers with a reference, which implies "you're so stupid you probably don't know this, so we have to prove it to you"? Master Jonathan — Jedi Council ChambersSunday, August 28, 2011, 01:06 UTC
True, but then why do we have to put it in there at all then, if people already know it. That would be an insult to say "you're so stupid, we have to point out the obvious to you." Cal Jedi(Personal Comm Channel) 02:08, August 29, 2011 (UTC)
By that logic, Han Solo as an article is potentially insulting to everyone who's seen Star Wars. As an information resource, isn't it always better to err on the side of inclusion? DD97Which bear is best? 19:22, August 30, 2011 (UTC)
The canon side of the Han Solo article must be sourced though. Which is why I say that this should be, too. Cal Jedi(Personal Comm Channel) 01:58, August 31, 2011 (UTC)
That kind of sourcing is not what this is about. Even with the second option, yes: obvious facts still have to be sourced. The second option is just saying that obvious facts should be allowed to be included in BTS sections. For my parang example above, you should still add a real life source that parangs actually exist. The point is that as long as you don't make unverified connections (such as saying that parangs in the SW universe are based on real life parangs) you can state that parangs exist in real life. The second option isn't actually a change in our current rules. It's just reaffirming how we already are supposed to be doing things. Jonjedigrandmaster(Talk) 03:25, August 31, 2011 (UTC)
Well, if we can do what you said in your above example, than I guess I'll switch my vote. I like what your example was, but I was stuck on the first example because of what other users had said about not having to source it. Cal Jedi(Personal Comm Channel) 12:51, August 31, 2011 (UTC)
I find both options not suitable to my vote, I would accept the second option IF it were presenting a clear notability requirement for the realworld-similarities. Now, how I see it, it does leave someone a possibility to argue that the information how some character shares a same name with their cat is suitable, not that we would ever let that pass, but still. –Tm_T(Talk) 12:29, August 28, 2011 (UTC)
To show concrete example for my concern: Taivas has an interesting Bts, but I'd say until there's anything that makes that finnish meaning of the word relevant (like some character comparing the place to heaven?), it shouldn't be mentioned. Now we are not making any decision where we would draw the line, should it be separate discussion entirely? –Tm_T(Talk) 15:21, September 3, 2011 (UTC)
That is a perfect example of why I consider those BTS as trivial. It has absolutely no relation to the topic of the article. I would remove it. <-Omicron(Leave a message at the BEEP!) 15:22, September 3, 2011 (UTC)
I think that sort of thing can be left up to the discretion of editors and, if it's up for FA/GA/CA, reviewers. We don't need to encode everything in policy. This just allows people to add such connections; there's still an implicit requirement that it be relevant to the topic, just like how we know there shouldn't be info on Darth Malgus on Luke's page even though it's canon info and no policy specifically says "no". - Lord Hydronium 16:19, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, so, what I hope to see is to have the second option to say something like "Obvious real-life correlations and similarities are allowed, as long as no un-sourced direct connection is stated and the information shows some relevance and notability" or along those lines. Just something that gives a rough limit that it cannot be anything. I know I'm bit overcautious on this, but I also foresee some heated discussions about what should be included and what not. I also hope that showing some demand on the inclusion would push writers to pay bit extra patience on the Bts section, which could lead to have more and better sourced information there. To use the example with Taivas: if one could find something that would make it relevant (the IU comparison or alike) it would make the Bts way more informative and useful, and, sourced. But I don't see much demand or interest to dig this information bit up if there's no guidelines kindly encouraging to that way. (: –Tm_T(Talk) 07:57, September 5, 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Tm. That is why I changed my vote in hope that people would follow the guidelines. Cal Jedi(Personal Comm Channel) 15:46, September 5, 2011 (UTC)