Forum:CT:Ambiguous canon in the main article body

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Ambiguous canon in the main article body


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 No consensus, revert to policy. Content of ambiguous canonicity will be placed in the main body and marked by {{Ambigstart}} and {{Ambigend}} tags. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 23:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Rather than complicate the other CT that's revoting on our policies of what material goes in the main article body by adding a second vote, I'm creating another to deal with an unresolved issue from that same original CT. We agreed two-to-one to keep "ambiguous canon"—a designation entirely created by us to describe material that may not have gone through Lucas Licensing and is therefore unknown whether it is even official—out of the main canon section of an article, though due to disagreements of some on the conclusion of that vote, it was decided that a revote on the issue would be best.

I'm going to quote Havac's original statement on the matter, skipping over the parts that are no longer true or relevant:

The problem is that currently,… so-called "ambiguous canon" -- a fanmade and fanon category of canon supposedly defined by the fact that it could, someday, be referenced and thus have tiny elements of it made canon -- is all included inside the main body of articles alongside canon information.

While it is distinguished by bracketing tags, the fact remains that this information is not canon.… "Ambiguous canon" is material which is not canon but might someday become it.… The second category is that of unlicensed material written in certain magazines. This, quite simply, is not canon. It's not licensed.

Now, there's nothing wrong with including this information in articles. We'd be remiss if we didn't. However, including it alongside canon information in the main section is a horrible idea. It's just an island of noncanon in a sea of canon, surrounded by ugly tags, which adds nothing to the reader's understanding of canon and only detracts from it. By placing this in the main section, it interrupts the flow of an otherwise canonical article. An article which could have flowed from one canonical event to the other now has to interrupt itself to explain something which frequently does not fit with the surrounding events in that timeframe. In order to properly contextualize it, it's required to go into OOU detail which does not belong in the main body. Without that context, the canonical paragraph before it, in order to flow as anything more than a muddled mess, has to transition into something that did not happen. The paragraph after the information then has to transition out of something that did not happen. Quite frankly, it dumps a pile of shit inside the article and expects you to work around it. I don't know how an article like that could possibly be FA'd; this is simply incompatible with our standards of quality.

TL;DR version: "Ambiguous canon" is a category entirely invented by fans, describing material that no one can say was ever licensed, ever vetted by LFL, or is official. While some material has later been incorporated into canon by authors, this follows the same criterion as the cut canon issue: until that happens, or unless we get notice that there is an exception for a particular source, it isn't canon and doesn't belong in the canon section of an article. Like with cut content, this doesn't prevent us from including it in a separate section or the BTS where appropriate, nor does it prevent us from including it in the body if it is made canon in another source.

Also, this doesn't apply to Tales stories, only unlicensed material from Polyhedron, Challenge, Casus Belli, etc. I just want to make that clear to avoid potential misconceptions. Discuss. - Lord Hydronium 22:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Now, just a reminder to anyone who is going to vote or comment on this CT: Regardless of past disputes that have revolved around this topic, the previous-closed CT, or anything of a personal nature related to this "ambiguous" topic, please remember to stay on target with this and vote about the topic at hand. Please don't attempt to turn this into a flame war, or a "He said, she said!" discussion. From my point of view, this CT was simply created to clear up a foggy, unclear, and disputed topic, and therefore its point is to do away with that uncertainty and make it clear. So, please remember this, and lets keep this civil and orderly, and get this decided once and for all :) Thanks, Greyman Jan.png (Talk) 22:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Allow me to make one thing crystal clear: If the anti-ambig [redacted] don't get 20:10 or better, there is still no rule on this. PERIOD. Whatever whining they may do to the contrary, that's what's needed per our own existing rulings on consensus. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 01:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
    • This is false. Please stop making up rules to discount results you don't like. - Lord Hydronium 01:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Wookieepedia:Consensus exists for a reason. Deal. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 01:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Yes, it does. The paragraph you keep pointing to is on matters that are settled, and as according to you the last vote on this issue reached no consensus, this wasn't settled. - Lord Hydronium 02:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
          • This is so simple even [redacted] could understand it. The current policy is to integrate ambig material by use of the {{Ambigstart}} and {{Ambigend}} tags. The status quo has existed since at least August 2006. Both previous attempts failed to change this (along with other angles pursued by the segregation [redacted]). That is how they were settled. Debating this is moot. Whether they ended with the result that you wanted is irrelevant. They were ended or closed, which per Mr. Roget are both synonyms of "settled," with a result of NOT changing the status quo. So if the segregationists want a different rule, they need twenty votes. There is no ambiguity in this, if you'll forgive the pun. This is the only rational and reasonable way to interpret the current policies on consensus. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 23:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
            • On the other hand, since the "Non-canon material" and "Canon/noncanon" discussions both ended in no consensus, there's no consensus to overturn. It may also be worthwhile to point out that the last discussion of this question had 29 total votes, with a 20-9 majority in favour of removing the ambiguous content from the main body of the articles. The current definition on Wookieepedia:Consensus says CT discussions with "25 [or more] votes can be passed by a 2:1" margin. —Silly Dan (talk) 23:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
              • The current definition, yes. We didn't have a definition in November. The status quo that has existed for two years functions by consensus, like all our legacy policies, and to overturn that consensus will require participation equal to or greater than the previous discussion. The only reason the segregation [redacted] is arguing this is because they know they can't win under a strictly logical interpretation of policy. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 23:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
                • True enough, but you really should stop acting as though keeping the ambiguous content in the main part of the article is only opposed by a small group of fanatics. —Silly Dan (talk) 23:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
            • "This is so simple even [redacted] could understand it." - Then I'm surprised it's still so hard for you to grasp (actually, that's not fair; I think you grasp this just fine, you just want any excuse to ignore consensus). No consensus is the opposite of "settling". "Settling" on keeping ambig would be a consensus towards it. In fact, there was a consensus—to remove it—which you chose to ignore well after you proposed your "admin autonomy" idea (I guess that only applies to your decisions, though). So stop trying to find excuses to overturn consensus and, if people choose to keep ambig out of the main body, man up and accept it. - Lord Hydronium 00:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
              • I will, as soon as enough people vote for it according to our rules. Your wish to circumvent our current policies on consensus is irrelevant, and must fail if any semblance of order is to be maintained. The policies we have decided on require you to get twenty votes. There is no other valid interpretation. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 00:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
                • Of course we will abide by whatever the outcome of this CT is, especially per the current rules on this stuff. This whole thing is an attempt to clear up what was a unclear outcome for some, and if it's unclear, even for a few, then it needs to clarified. If it fails, it fails, and I'm sure LH will accept that and abide by it, just like I'm sure you will if it passes. So, if that's understood by everyone involved, can we kindly move this discussion along? Or, better yet, leave it up to the voters? And leave the comments section alone for questions from users who are unsure of certain things, like Jorrel was below? This doesn't need to turn into the old MRN vs. the Site debates. Whatever the outcome of this CT, that outcome will be enforced and followed by the administration. I'm certain that we're all aware of that. Greyman Jan.png (Talk) 00:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
                  • I wasn't arguing that. But this CT will not have an outcome if the segregationists don't get twenty votes. Period. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 00:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Like I said at the top, to everyone, keep your comments civil or don't bother posting. We don't care if "[redacted]" could do whatever. Likewise, replies and retorts to obvious baiting is discouraged too, thank you. I don't care, and other's certainly don't. If you can't comment in a civil and respectful manner, then please don't attempt to derail those who want to post civilly. To everyone involved, continue this like adults, or not at all. Thank you, Greyman Jan.png (Talk) 00:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Does this policy include licensed ambig-canon sources (Tales, certain elements of some questionable sources, some video games) to be removed? JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 02:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd just like to point out that if we can put up with the Gamemechanics and GameLS tags in video-game related articles (for the KotOR RPGs in particular), I don't see what the big problem is with ambig canon section tags within main articles. Besides, doing the BtS dance is hard enough already without having to work ambig stuff out of the natural flow of the article and into that section. That said, it wouldn't be that different from "cut content" subsections within BtS sections.--Goodwood Redstarbird (Alliance Intelligence) 07:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Because the mechanics/LS material is explicitly official. Ambig isn't just unknown as to whether its canon, it's unknown as to whether it's even a valid Star Wars product. As to your second point, a) per Havac's quote in the intro, ambig in the main section more often impedes flow, as it's not addressed by the surrounding material, and b) as you say, it's the same procedure as cut content, which per (a) is more likely to fit into surrounding material than ambig, since at least it was produced with that material in mind. - Lord Hydronium 07:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

(The below comments were cut from the "Allow" section, in response to Tocneppil. It has been moved to the discussion area to keep the vote area clean and proper.)

  • But we're an encyclopedia of canon. "Regardless of their canonicity" is kind of a big thing to ignore, and if there's a timeline placement it can still be given in a separate section. - Lord Hydronium 00:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
    • But you forget I mentioned that I'm reading these from an Out of Universe Perspective, just as someone coming here the first time would. Wookieepedia is, after all, an encyclopedia for us, not the characters within the GFFA. There are people who do have the Marvel series, as well as The Early Adventures and the Dark Horse series and would like to be able to see where all the events tie in with a character without having to hunt around for the information.Tocneppil 06:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I think you're confused about what "ambiguous canon" is. Marvel, Classic Star Wars, Dark Horse are all entirely canon. This is about material like Polyhedron or Challenge magazine, where it's unknown whether it was even licensed by LFL. If it wasn't, it's not official; it would really be a form of fan fiction. - Lord Hydronium 06:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Sorry, I was using myself and my collection as an example and forgot to expand it out to include those who have Polyhedron and Challenge in their collections who would be coming here for the same reason I do.Tocneppil 07:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
          • Someone who has non-canon material—if it is, in fact, non-canon—shouldn't expect to see it included in the timeline, any more than someone who has fan fiction in their collection should expect to see that. It may be an encyclopedia for us, but it's an encyclopedia of canon for us, not an encyclopedia of anything with "Star Wars" on it. Now, because its exact official status is unknown, this is why no one's excluding it from the site entirely, but it doesn't deserve a spot in the main article simply because someone owns it. People own a lot of things that aren't official, canon, or both. - Lord Hydronium 07:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
            • Ah, but 'Ambiguous Canon' is what we are talking about here; information about an event or character that is from a source outside of this encyclopedia that saw publication, and in some cases, even licensing by LFL. Fanon is wholly different.Tocneppil 08:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
            • "...and in some cases, even licensing by LFL." That's where you're making the mistake. None of these sources are known to have been licensed. That's why we're calling them "ambiguous". - Lord Hydronium 08:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
              • Yes, 'Ambiguous Canon' sources of information, which is what we call them when we single them out in the text of articles which contain elements of C-canon and G-canon blended together. As an encyclopedia, isn't it our responsibilty to present as much information relating to an article in an unbiased manner? By placing ambiguous canon material directly into the article we show that we are paying respect to those sources, while at the same time pointing out how they differ from accepted canon. The borders that mark off the ambiguous sections are clear and discrete enough that a reader can skip past them if he or she chooses. Locating them away from the main body of the article can create confusion to those who've read a long article to have to go back to figure out where the ambiguous material fits in with the accepted material.Tocneppil 09:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
                • I'm wondering if you're mixing up S-canon (which is stuff like Marvel that's official and recognized by LFL) and ambig (which isn't recognized by them and only possibly official). As an encyclopedia of canon, our responsibility is to report canon sources. G-canon, C-canon, and S-canon are all explicitly canon, and therefore we include them all mixed together in the main body. Ambig is an entirely separate issue from those three; we literally don't know whether it's even a valid Star Wars product, or whether it's no more than fan fiction. - Lord Hydronium 10:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
                  • Nope, I know the difference -I just feel that Ambiguous Canon has as much a right to appear in the article, albeit with a clear marking, alongside G, C, and S-canon, as opposed to being separated.Tocneppil 11:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

As this is going to end with "less consensus than last time", I'll just comment that I would probably vote "leave it in" if our definition for ambiguous canon weren't so broad. For example, I'd have little problem with leaving in properly marked information from an article which was written by active Star Wars writers, which used elements which had previously appeared in other canon material (and which reappeared in later published or republished material), and which didn't contradict any non-ambig material. Some of the things we've been marking ambiguous don't seem to me to pass those tests. —Silly Dan (talk) 13:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Vote

Place "ambiguous canon" in the BTS or separate section

  1. Lord Hydronium 22:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. I was not "recruited" either. Chack Jadson (Talk) 01:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. Still the same opinion that I had earlier. —Silly Dan (talk) 01:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. There's absolutely no need for this vote to begin with, but if it'll placate the insane, whatever. Havac 01:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 02:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  6. Okay Hydro, I voted. When do I get my five bucks? -- Ozzel 05:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  7. They just don't look good at all. Carlitos Moff 09:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  8. While my vote is indeed quite predictable, the accusation of meatpuppetry was unnecessary and unprofessional. jSarek 11:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  9. Imperialles 22:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  10. Unit 8311 15:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  11. I ARE ROBOT. INTO TOASTER. Thefourdotelipsis 00:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  12. If this will finally get the Polyhedron stuff out, then by all means. Din's Fire 997 23:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
    It wouldn't completely get rid of it, though, as some Polyhedron articles are confirmed canon (being publications from WOTC after they got the RPG license, and which did therefore go through licensing.) As well, there's nothing in the wording of this proposal which would do anything about the articles on concepts which only appear in these ambiguous sources. —Silly Dan (talk) 03:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
    Don't worry, I'm a good little Wook, I've done my research. The main problem I have with them springs from Kadann and the insanity thereabouts. No worries though, this is no vendetta - I would have voted this way regardless. Canon is canon. Until something's confirmed, it's not. Din's Fire 997 04:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
    That information would be kept in, regardless, due to Abel's statement regarding that issue. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 06:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
    Abel's statements aren't canon. jSarek 08:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  13. I can do without having to break up articles with templates, like we are forced to do with KotOR articles, if we can avoid it. And the information isn't vanishing altogether. And while I don't really care too much about continuity, as I think of Star Wars as a collection of stories that share common themes and subjects but don't always have to exist relative to each other, I do want things like ambig to be separate. I really don't see this as a "[redacted]," because it just isn't that extreme a measure. Graestan(Talk) 03:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Allow "ambiguous canon" in the main article body

  1. Psychic prediction: Me and Jaymach will vote on this side. Hydro, Havac, and jSarek will vote to remove ambig from the main body and will bring in meatpuppets but will do so by channels that won't be logged or publicized. Just watch. Their vendetta against ambig is well-known, and really sort of pathetic if you think too hard about it. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 22:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Regardless of how other's feel, it is their choice on how they want to vote—it is not determined by you, me, or anyone else. They are free to voice their opinion through votes, just like you are. If they want to support this CT, that's fine, but please don't attempt to "call them out" since that is not the point of this, or any other, CT. Greyman Jan.png (Talk) 23:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. As I've said before...what about characters who have had their ambig material confirmed to be canon? What of characters who first appeared in "ambig" sources who were later included in canon sources? What of sources written by the editors of West End Games (who decided what was and was not allowed to go into licensed sources at the time)? What of characters who were given additional information by their creators in "ambig" sources? The entire reason we have them at ambig currently is because Chee has said he doesn't know if they went through licensing or not...not because they did not go through but were printed anyway. If they indeed did go through licensing (which is entirely possible) then they would be fully canon and would definitely be included. As we don't know, we try not to assume either way and put them in the article proper with appropriate templates surrounding them. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 02:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
    If the "ambiguous" material actually is confirmed to be canon, then it would no longer be under the scope of this discussion. —Silly Dan (talk) 03:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. RedemptionRedemptionusersymbol(Talk) 03:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. Cull Tremayne 09:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. Tocneppil 10:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)I've always read the articles here from an OOU perspective, so knowing where in the timeline of the article certain events fall is important to me, regardless of their canonicity.
  6. If only for ease of writing and of use...if ambig canon, were it actual, confirmed canon, to fall into different sections of the article, it would simply be easier to kep that flow of information rather than trying to do the BtS dance. That said, I've not actually written an article that did include ambiguous canon.--Goodwood Redstarbird (Alliance Intelligence) 02:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  7. It makes more sense to be written chronologically, if possible. As long as it is clearly marked (and the current way of doing things covers that) then it really doesn't appear to be a problem. Wildyoda 03:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  8. Per Wildyoda; plus, in those cases where OOU context is required, that can go in BTS easily. The tags may be ugly, but functionality > style. And FWIW, this issue seems too minor for the level of intensity here. Gonk (Gonk!) 16:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I'd like to register my intense agreement. Wildyoda 03:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality protest voting option

  1. Because I don't care and because certain conduct here disturbs me. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 22:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
    • If I voted here, would you give me five bucks, Ataru? Graestan(Talk) 23:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
      • That would imply that I care about getting my way on this thread. :-P Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 01:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Yeah, this is about right. Per Ataru. - JMAS Hey, it's me! 16:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made elsewhere.