I don't know if this has been dicussed before -- I had a look, but I couldn't really see anything and got a lot of irrelevant topics -- so apologies if this is already settled. So, currently we have two articles for most things, Canon and Legends. We also have, on most articles, a BTS section. In some cases, this is probably fine enough, with the different versions being different enough that the sections don't end up pointless to each other.
I still think it leads to a lot of redundancy on the whole, though. For instance, the conception of characters (e.g. half of Jabba the Hutt#Behind the scenes) and a lot of The Clone Wars stuff is going to be the same regardless, and articles like Chiss/Canon are reliant on the EU enough that any behind the scenes for either is going to have to bring up the other by necessity. Plus, there are things like LEGO Star Wars which don't really fit into either continuity -- though admittedly are considered "Legends" by the wiki currently.
Still, it could be argued that a lot of BTS information isn't worth including on the canon/Legends version, but I think from an out-of-universe perspective either is going to be really tied with other.
Assuming there is an issue, I know Jedipedia has this three tabs thing going on: Canon, Legends, Behind the scenes. (See here, except it is in fact in German). That's not an ideal solution, it splits the content across three articles and might make getting to whatever information more difficult than it should be. You could also make a third-"shared" page and substitute it in both pages (e.g. ==Behind the scenes== {{:Luke Skywalker/Behind the scenes}}), but that's simply the same solution in a kind of different format. I don't really have a clean, elegant solution here. – The Millionth One (talk) (contribs) 20:40, July 6, 2015 (UTC)
Discussion[]
- Since you say you don't have a proposed solution here, I've moved this forum to the Senate Hall, which is more for these kinds of open-ended discussions. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 20:48, July 6, 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. Wasn't entirely sure which forum was more appropriate. – The Millionth One (talk) (contribs) 22:16, July 6, 2015 (UTC)
- One thing to note - some stuff like more recent LEGO stuff is no longer being listed as "Legends," but rather as "non-canon within the new canon continuity." I still feel like there could be great separation / marking for non-canon stuff, but perhaps that's another issue. ProfessorTofty (talk) 02:34, July 7, 2015 (UTC)
- I always kind of wondered if Non-Canon stuff should just stay on the Legends BtS section, or should get it's own thing. It's get confusing when you start to have Legends and Canon Non-Canon, when it's all Non-Canon anyways. --Clonehunter(Report your W.M.D.) 13:18, July 10, 2015 (UTC)
- I think both of these are good ideas. I also think it might be worth linking images, audio files and quotes as tabs as well, though too many might look cluttered and ugly. --Alientraveller (talk) 17:13, July 12, 2015 (UTC)
- I definitely see the need to make a distinction between Legends and general non-canon. While it's true that anything that originates purely from Legends is now considered non-canon, not everything that's non-canon is Legends. Labeling non-canon Star Wars Rebels material, for example, as "Legends," would just be weird. And so long as we're doing things the way we are now, I feel labeling the old non-canon stuff as "non-canon within the Star Wars Legends continuity" makes sense, because it says, essentially, "this stuff isn't considered now, nor was it at any tie ever intended to be considered canon." ProfessorTofty (talk) 03:33, July 13, 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe just streamline the process entirley. Make a third non-canon tab and don't distinguish Legends non canon and canon non canon. After all, non-canon is non-canon. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 14:13, July 21, 2015 (UTC)
- Well, if non-canon is non-canon, then why even have a Legends tab at all? Just have canon tab and a non-canon tab. Because Legends is non-canon. Sorry, but well, it is. If the idea is not making distinctions between types of non-canon, then that's what Legends is. It is not canon. I don't agree with that way of doing things, but that's the logical end of that thinking. ProfessorTofty (talk) 19:27, July 22, 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe just streamline the process entirley. Make a third non-canon tab and don't distinguish Legends non canon and canon non canon. After all, non-canon is non-canon. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 14:13, July 21, 2015 (UTC)
- I always kind of wondered if Non-Canon stuff should just stay on the Legends BtS section, or should get it's own thing. It's get confusing when you start to have Legends and Canon Non-Canon, when it's all Non-Canon anyways. --Clonehunter(Report your W.M.D.) 13:18, July 10, 2015 (UTC)
- One thing to note - some stuff like more recent LEGO stuff is no longer being listed as "Legends," but rather as "non-canon within the new canon continuity." I still feel like there could be great separation / marking for non-canon stuff, but perhaps that's another issue. ProfessorTofty (talk) 02:34, July 7, 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. Wasn't entirely sure which forum was more appropriate. – The Millionth One (talk) (contribs) 22:16, July 6, 2015 (UTC)
- This discussion is interesting, but doesn't address the original point raised, namely that for in-universe articles, the out-of-universe information in Behind the scenes is neither canon nor noncanon, thus logically should exist separate from a Canon or Legends distinction. The current system—of including a separately maintained BTS section under each tab—creates practical problems as well, including potential duplication of information and it being less clear to readers where to find certain information.
The idea presented is to decouple BTS from either category, and maintain it as a separate page. This page could then be presented to the user in one of two ways: as a third tab for each in-universe article, or subsumed into the text of the two existing tabs (i.e. leaving presentation largely as it exists now, but removing the internal redundancy).
I think the presentation issue is less important than whether the framework is worth implementing. Aside from the work involved, what are the downsides to such a framework? Asithol (talk) 05:01, July 27, 2015 (UTC)- Well, I think the main problem with adding another tab is screen clutter. Two tabs just feels right to me, one or the other - canon or Legends. You start adding in more than that and it starts to become a bit of a mess to navigate. And then, getting to BTS, the fact is that there's going to be Behind the scenes information that applies only to the canon version in some cases, and in other cases is of interest only to the Legends version. I don't know if there's an ideal solution, but I'm not sure if I'm convinced that the alternative is better than what we have already. ProfessorTofty (talk) 21:07, July 27, 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response, Professor. I believe that discussing whether to add another tab is putting the cart before the horse: we should first settle on whether to separate BTS information from Canon and Legends versions of the same article; if so, then it makes sense to discuss how this separation should be presented in the user interface. Thus my comments address the concept of such a separation.
As you say, some BTS info might apply only to Canon or only to Legends. I've gathered no statistics, but my intuitive sense from reading articles over the years is that much of it spans the two, pointing out connections and discrepancies between various works. Further, even if an article's BTS text does only cover, say, Legends sources, it can still be of interest to readers of the Canon article, and vice versa. Along with the practical problems in the current system that I pointed out before, this leads me to believe such a separation would improve on what we have now. However, lack of response to this topic seems to indicate that The Millionth One and I are the only ones with concerns about the existing framework, so it's probably a moot discussion. Asithol (talk) 21:48, August 21, 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response, Professor. I believe that discussing whether to add another tab is putting the cart before the horse: we should first settle on whether to separate BTS information from Canon and Legends versions of the same article; if so, then it makes sense to discuss how this separation should be presented in the user interface. Thus my comments address the concept of such a separation.
- Well, I think the main problem with adding another tab is screen clutter. Two tabs just feels right to me, one or the other - canon or Legends. You start adding in more than that and it starts to become a bit of a mess to navigate. And then, getting to BTS, the fact is that there's going to be Behind the scenes information that applies only to the canon version in some cases, and in other cases is of interest only to the Legends version. I don't know if there's an ideal solution, but I'm not sure if I'm convinced that the alternative is better than what we have already. ProfessorTofty (talk) 21:07, July 27, 2015 (UTC)