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 Amend WP:CANON with option 2.Grunny (talk) 23:55, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
WP:CANON currently lists, under the What is considered a valid resource? section: "All Databank entries and other articles on StarWars.com". As it reads, this statement implies that every article on The Official Site is a source. Which makes it seem like every single article that has ever been on sw.com that mentions something must be included in its source list. Which... would make FA'ing or GA'ing a lot of articles impossible. My proposal is that the line be changed to:
Amended: "All Databank entries and source material on StarWars.com, as well as any other articles on the site that provide unique canonical or behind the scenes information."
A little bit about my reasoning: This article., that teaches us how to draw a Lego Han Solo, is not a source for Han. This article., which includes nothing more than a picture of Cad Bane on a book cover, is not a source for Cad Bane. The monthly comic solicitations are not sources for Cade Skywalker. This seems like WP:Common sense to me --- however, the current wording of the WP:CANON statement implies otherwise.
Um... don't create other voting options? I guess I'm supposed to say that. If you want to tweak my wording, lemme know in the "discussion" section. Menkooroo 14:43, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
Update: I'm open to jettisoning "or behind the scenes" from the proposed sentence, as those still seem more like external links to me than they do sources. Like... an interview with an actor that provides unique bts info could easily be on a third-party site, ya know?
So here is proposal #2:
"All Databank entries and source material on StarWars.com, as well as any other articles on the site that provide unique canonical information."
I included the word "unique" because... well, if an article reads "The lovable Tatooine farmboy Luke Skywalker", that's canonical info right there. So, for example, a preview of a TCW episode would be a source until the episode aired. Unless the preview included some cut content, or something --- then it would have unique bts info. Menkooroo 14:43, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
Hmm... the only problem I see with this is that legitimate source materials on the site might just say "Luke Skywalker was a farmboy," but under this wording they wouldn't be included in the sources. And that's no good. I think some sort of other wording, perhaps that all articles classified as short stories, source articles, whatever must be included, but promotional pages, competitions, indirectly related interviews with the likes of Dane Cook et all should be under External links, if they need to be linked at all. Unless, of course... unique canonical information. Thefourdotelipsis 14:51, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
I guess this is difficult to get around, when, as you pointed out in IRC, things like The Written Word are technically "articles". Including those in the source list seems like WP:Common Sense, though, and I doubt any of them would be published if they didn't include unique canonical info. I guess there's a little wiggle room in the word "unique". Menkooroo 15:15, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
What about actually using the phrase "source material"? I mean, I think we all have a pretty good idea of what that entails, as opposed to interviews, promotional materials, and the like. Then an exception for any other materials not included there that contain unique canonical info (like if a preview or interview had info not in other sources). - Lord Hydronium 18:47, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
I like it. Can I change it, or do we have to start a new CT? Menkooroo 23:47, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
You can change the proposal as long as you notify everyone who has already voted (in this case, just Trayus and Imp) on their respective talk pages. —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 23:51, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
Whatever decision we make, we should probably find a way to apply it to non-SW.com sources. There are no shortage of Star Wars Insider articles, for instance, that mention Luke Skywalker in no way that's meaningful to us. jSarek 22:18, June 17, 2010 (UTC)