Forum:CT:Non-Canon FAs

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Non-Canon FAs

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 against forbidding non-canon FAs. - Sikon 15:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

We shouldn't have non-canon FA's on the wiki. Plain and simple. I think that to even have the information here on the site is very unencyclopedic. I can't change that maybe, but I think we should add a rule to the FA requirements that states that FAs must be canon. If non-canon articles are featured I think that it would undermine all we do here. Perhaps a rule would be worded as such:

An Article must... "...be comprised of mostly canonnical information (this does not include the exclusion of out-of-universe information)."

I think a vote is necassary to decide this (since we seem to be voting on everything else).--Shaelas(HoloConference)CzerkaCorporationLogo-KOTOR 22:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

This rule should be added to the FA requirements

Support

  1. --Shaelas(HoloConference)CzerkaCorporationLogo-KOTOR 22:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. We have a non-canon tag to tell people anyway. And heck, a non-canon article has more to do with Star Wars than an out of universe one. - Lord Hydronium 22:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Imp ATATatarismall.png 22:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Bah! -- Darth Culator (Talk)(Kills) 22:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. It's got a big LFL stamp on it. .... 22:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. —Silly Dan (talk) 22:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. If it's licensed by Lucasfilm and meets all the other FA requirements, why not? You don't have to vote for it. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 02:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. FAs are about the quality of the article, whatever its subject. If it is valid enough to deserve an entry here, then the work that went into making it great should be rewarded just as much as the hard work that goes into any other article. Wildyoda 02:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. If this passed, no articles would be able to be FA, because none of them do or can contain "canonnical" information. Havac 05:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  9. Non-canonical does not necessarily equal irrelevant. KEJ 11:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  10. Per Ataru. --Azizlight 13:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  11. CooperTFN 19:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  12. No, sorry. Stake black msg 20:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  13. No way. -- Ozzel 21:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  14. Gonk (Gonk!) 23:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  15. Even if I agreed with the original poster's principle (still up in the air about that one), as currently worded the proposal would kill all real-world articles. As I said in another CT on FA rules, "Any rule that would exclude perfectly executed articles on George Lucas, Harrison Ford, or Samuel L. Jackson from the possibility of obtaining FA status is a rule that needs to be avoided." jSarek 06:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  16. If the article must "...be comprised of mostly canonnical information." then only this one meets the requirements.... QuentinGeorge 06:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  17. Heh.....Cannon go boom. tzzA 20:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  18. Non-canon articles can be interesting too. Dak Ryshard 02:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  19. I might support an IU requirement, but not this yet. —Xwing328(Talk) 00:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  20. I need a name (Complain here) 20:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  21. IU requirement yes, definitely, otherwise our journey ends in tragedy. But to exclude the alternate history Infinities et al is too much. Evir Daal 08:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

I can't decide. I love the purely factual aspect of canonical information but I also love fan-based speculations and all that stuff. TitanSithspit! Talk to me! 13:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Do you mean out-of-universe non-canon articles as in real world ones? Non-canon IU is covered tags for ambig. canon and such. -Fnlayson 23:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Articles like Melvin Fett. I don't think they should be featured. The fact that they are non-canon is a reason for them to not be featured, because it is not true Star Wars.--Shaelas(HoloConference)CzerkaCorporationLogo-KOTOR 23:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
    • You'd probably have better luck with 'most of the article containing canonical information.' -Fnlayson 23:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I agree. - JMAS 19:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
        • I modified it so that it reflects your suggestion. Maybe that will be more acceptable.--Shaelas(Ahto High Court)CzerkaCorporationLogo-KOTOR 23:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.