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 vote held. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 03:07, August 7, 2012 (UTC)
In a recent email I received from author Jason Fry, one of the questions I asked was whether the Star Wars articles and adventures or any of the characters and locations from Casus Belli were considered canon. His reply was:
"EA: No, not canon. For the Atlas, we discussed these ambiguously canon works with Lucasfilm, and agreed to treat as canon the planets/star systems introduced by authors who had done licensed Star Wars work elsewhere. However, the other information in those articles is not treated as canon, and nothing in the articles by other authors is treated as canon. The Casus Belli material would fall under this last category."
The entire list of answers and the questions I asked him can be found HERE.
So then lets discuss the fate of the Casus Belli and related articles on the wiki. --Victory93 (talk) 04:03, July 11, 2012 (UTC)
- We've known this for years, but some parties have been adamant about leaving the material as ambig anyway. I'm down for any attempt to mark the Casus Belli material (and many other ambig pages) as non-canon, as should have been done years ago. I do think we ought to keep pages on the articles, though, for the sake of completeness and historical interest. jSarek (talk) 04:26, July 11, 2012 (UTC)
- Are the articles at least officially licensed by LFL? If not, aren't these all candidates for fanwiki migration? DD97Which bear is best? 16:28, July 12, 2012 (UTC)
- They were created before Leland Chee was hired, and he could find no record of them ever being licensed. The articles' supporters claimed that this was a problem with LFL's records, since copyright law would preclude such articles from being published without permission, though the situation isn't always that cut and dry. At any rate, whether they were licensed our not, Chee doesn't have record of that and is treating them as non-canon, and it's about time we followed his lead in that regard. I'd still keep pages on the articles here, though, since they're notable and since they might be confused for official works if we don't have pages saying otherwise. jSarek (talk) 19:17, July 12, 2012 (UTC)
- I'm actually kind of surprised you received such a concrete answer from someone as influential as Fry. The very nature of Chee's job leaves him, of all people, virtually powerless to ever make such binding statements about practically anything and everything. I also support officially classifying this stuff as non-canon for our purposes, and I agree there is enough here to warrant keeping these articles. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 22:51, July 12, 2012 (UTC)
- I, too, support marking them as non-canon but leaving all the articles for completeness, clarity, etc. —Xwing328(Talk) 04:48, July 13, 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, indeed. Is there any reason why we can't vote on this, then, and officially get it over with?—Cal Jedi
(Personal Comm Channel) 04:55, July 13, 2012 (UTC)
- They were created before Leland Chee was hired, and he could find no record of them ever being licensed. The articles' supporters claimed that this was a problem with LFL's records, since copyright law would preclude such articles from being published without permission, though the situation isn't always that cut and dry. At any rate, whether they were licensed our not, Chee doesn't have record of that and is treating them as non-canon, and it's about time we followed his lead in that regard. I'd still keep pages on the articles here, though, since they're notable and since they might be confused for official works if we don't have pages saying otherwise. jSarek (talk) 19:17, July 12, 2012 (UTC)
- Are the articles at least officially licensed by LFL? If not, aren't these all candidates for fanwiki migration? DD97Which bear is best? 16:28, July 12, 2012 (UTC)
- I have to play devil's advocate here and point out that "not treated as canon" does not necessarily mean "treated as non-canon," particularly in the case of the material from which the now-canon star systems were taken. I believe the current "ambiguous" tag is sufficient for its purpose, though perhaps the wording could be clarified. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 05:29, July 13, 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I should clarify that I was referring to the Casus Belli articles, and others that lack a Star Wars alumni as author. The ones that do have previously licensed authors should probably retain the ambig tag, as it seems their status is somewhat negotiable, dare I say even ambiguous. jSarek (talk) 06:31, July 13, 2012 (UTC)
- That's probably the best way to go. Make a list of the materials Fry did take information from and keep an ambig tag on them, and possibly tweak the wording on it to clarify their status. Then take all the other unlicensed stuff and either put a non-canon tag on it or whip up a new, more severe version of the ambig tag for them. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 13:44, July 13, 2012 (UTC)
- There we go. Change the wording of Template:Ambig to {{AmbigNew}} and stick {{Fried}} on all the articles from Atlas-referenced materials, maybe. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 14:22, July 13, 2012 (UTC)
- So none of the Casus Belli articles and adventures seem to feature an author who would later write official material, however they do feature illustrators who would. Would they come under {{Fried}} too? --Victory93 (talk) 10:58, July 16, 2012 (UTC)
- Only if the locations they introduce were referenced in the Atlas. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 14:17, July 16, 2012 (UTC)
- Also, this CT hasn't passed yet, so you shouldn't actually be doing anything we're discussing here yet. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 14:18, July 16, 2012 (UTC)
- So none of the Casus Belli articles and adventures seem to feature an author who would later write official material, however they do feature illustrators who would. Would they come under {{Fried}} too? --Victory93 (talk) 10:58, July 16, 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I should clarify that I was referring to the Casus Belli articles, and others that lack a Star Wars alumni as author. The ones that do have previously licensed authors should probably retain the ambig tag, as it seems their status is somewhat negotiable, dare I say even ambiguous. jSarek (talk) 06:31, July 13, 2012 (UTC)
OK, so I think at this point there are two questions to resolve. One, are there any items in the "ambiguous" category for reasons other than being published outside of the Lucas Licensing process as we now know it. That is, has anyone misused the category or has Jaymach been as thorough in policing it as I think he has? And two, what sources did Fry take locations from, and what articles in the ambig category come from those articles? If the answer to one is "no" and we have a good list for question two, we can basically just have a yay-or-nay vote to swap {{AmbigNew}} into Template:Ambig straight away, turning the entire category into non-canon, and then retag the Atlas-connected material into the new ambig with {{Fried}}. Anyone want to chime in here? -- Darth Culator (Talk) 18:18, July 16, 2012 (UTC)