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. Advanced Jedi Training Droid 6(Talk to my master) 00:00, April 30, 2016 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, what's the rationale for including the old online Encyclopedia as canon? I can understand the Databank since it's newly on the official site, but has anybody in the Story Group commented on its status? The citations currently up for the Encyclopedia note that it is obsolete, and it looks like not all information has been carried over (and even if the info had been carried over to the current Databank, shouldn't we cite that instead since it's not a dead link?). For example, references to the X-wings length as 12.5m cite the Encyclopedia entry for X-wing, but this technical info is not present in the current version of the site, which makes it seem like this has been intentionally deleted as non-canon. The Encyclopedia was taken down a few months after the canon re-boot, which is what you would expect in terms of web development time. The fact that the specific specifications of ships etc. were not carried over, and the fact that Lucasfilm/Disney seems to be shying away from providing these kind of specifics (smart, helps avoid internal contradictions between lots of newly equal-canon sources), it seemed obvious to me that this is intentional and that the old web site should not be considered canon. Other than tradition/inertia within the community here, is there any good reason to treat this sources as canon? Pointing to the fact that it briefly existed post-reboot seems nitpicky to me since it was removed in short order after the reboot was announced, and I doubt the web developers were the first to hear about it... Gonkgonkgonk (talk) 18:32, March 28, 2016 (UTC)
I'm not going to spend much time in this conversation since we also discussed this on my talk page, but I do just want to make a couple points:
The advent of the Databank was because of an overall revamp of StarWars.com—one that had been in the planning for a long time before the reboot was announced, particularly to align the website with Disney web guidelines and so forth. It was not because of the canon reboot, so to me the argument that "the Databank arrived shortly after the reboot" is irrelevant. It's a logical fallacy to say that because Event B happened after Event A, then Event B must have been caused by Event A.
The Encyclopedia template says the link, not the source, is obsolete, though I agree that could probably be clearer.
So yeah, hopefully that clears up at least those two points! - Brandon Rhea(talk) 18:43, March 28, 2016 (UTC)
This also brings up a larger issue, which is web content being canon at all. Given how changeable content can be, hanging your hat on something that could be surreptitiously deleted in a few months seems pretty... unwise. There must be some reason why much of the same information was carried over but not much of the more specific EU style information. I'd be more comfortable getting something like at the very least a tweet from Leeland Chee or something before relying on Wayback Machine content. If somebody is really dying to know the length of an X-wing until its established again in verifiable canon, the Legends article is one tab away. And what happens once this "forgotten" content starts getting contradicted by real sources? Will it suddenly be declared non-canon or just retconned on a case by case basis? Does the story group expect its authors to scour deleted web sites before writing something? Gonkgonkgonk (talk) 18:48, March 28, 2016 (UTC)
Web content on the pre-Encyclopedia SW.com, like the old Databank, etc. were also subject to change, and they were valid Legends sources. The Encyclopedia still existed after the reboot, and as such is canon. If any info from the obsolete Encyclopedia does get contradicted with new stuff later, then much like Legends contradictions they are looked into case by case, but to say that would hypothetically make the whole Encyclopedia Legends-exclusive is not right. The old Databank for Darth Maul/Legends said he died on Naboo in TPM, but then TCW contradicted that by retconning him to have lived. That didn't make the entire Databank obsolete for the Legends continuity, just overwrote that element at least in Maul's old Databank entry. Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 23:38, March 28, 2016 (UTC)
A lot of Legends content still "existed" after the reboot. I was under they impression that to count in the new canon, content had to be published after the reboot. The Encyclopedia was published on the site well before the reboot and mostly deleted afterwards. To use a book analogy, look at the Heir to the Empire trilogy. As far as I'm aware these books are still in print, meaning they are actively being manufactured. But because they were published before the reboot, just because they are still being actively maintained by the publisher does not count as a loophole. Same should hypothetically go for web content which was still live on the site post reboot, but was not new and was taken down in short order. Gonkgonkgonk (talk) 10:00, March 29, 2016 (UTC)
One more thing I wanted to bring up before I back off and go with the community's decision. I'm a big fan of the X-Wing Miniatures game by FFG, which seems to be a similar example to the Encyclopedia. The game was first released pre-reboot and has continued to release expansions since. Because it's initial release was pre-reboot, it is not considered canon, despite the fact it's still going strong and incorporating TFA and Rebels content. If specifications for say, the T-70 X-wing can't be taken from this game, despite having just been released this month, because its initial publication "start" was pre-reboot, I don't see why T-65 X-wing specifications from a pre-reboot and now defunct web site should be. Gonkgonkgonk (talk) 16:37, March 29, 2016 (UTC)
Wookieepedia's own phrasing in Canon#2014 reboot is, "the only previously published material still considered canon are the six original trilogy/prequel trilogy films and the Star Wars: The Clone Wars television series and film." Most Encyclopedia content was published before the April 2014 cutoff, so by this standard would not be canon. If this wording doesn't reflect the policy of the Story Group, this sentence in the Canon article should be fixed. I'm not sure whether the Story Group has commented on the Encyclopedia. Asithol (talk) 20:49, March 29, 2016 (UTC)
If I may put my two decicreds in, you'll notice that entries of the Databank who had an equivalent in the Encyclopedia mostly use the exact same text (compare this and that for example). True, the Databank does contain some elements that did not appear in the Encyclopedia, but the reverse is true as well. In my humble opinion, it would be best to avoid using the Encyclopedia as a canon source unless we want to reference a bit of information that only appeared there. E.g. Only the Encyclopedia mentioned the existence of anthe Unidentified rogue Jedi who founded the Sith, so we should use the Encyclopedia as a source. However, since both the Encyclopedia and the Databank give the length of an X-wing anyway, we should use the newer one as a reference. --LelalMekha (talk) 14:28, March 30, 2016 (UTC)
I agree that at the very least, the current website source should be used over the archived source. I was just reverted and given a warning at A-wing for replacing the citation for the ship's length from Encyclopedia to Databank. Note that I did not change the actual information, I simply switched the source, because one is a live site and one is a defunct site necessitating use of an impermanent archival link. The only information on the page sourced from the Encyclopedia was the ship length. Yet this was reverted simply for the sake of what, keeping the memory of the old site alive? This is beyond nonsensical. Issues of canon aside, there is no reason not to prefer the Databank when possible. Gonkgonkgonk (talk) 19:15, March 30, 2016 (UTC)
You seem to have a hard time grasping the distinctions between a Sources list and using a source in a reference, and between a link being obsolete and the source itself being so. The references in the infobox and the body of the article are singular—you only need one source to put in a reference note for a fact—while the Sources list includes every source that included the topic, regardless of the sources' accessibility. Hence why the dozens of decades-old magazines, books, and websites that are no longer easily accessible are still listed on our articles. CadeCalrayn 19:23, March 30, 2016 (UTC)
As I mentioned on your Talk page, many of the sources listed in the Sources section do not so much as contain the word "A-wing", and I'm struggling to understand why they are there. Gonkgonkgonk (talk) 19:34, March 30, 2016 (UTC)
To be fair, the abundance of encyclopedia references in infoboxes and text bodies is due to the fact that we started our canon articles when the website hadn't been revamped yet. When the Encyclopedia made way for the Databank, we simply never changed the references. But yes, I do think we should favor references to the Databank unless an Encyclopedia entry has exclusive content. (However, links to the encyclopedia definitely should be kept in the "sources" subsection.) --LelalMekha (talk) 19:27, March 30, 2016 (UTC)