Forum:CT:Non-canon material

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Non-canon material


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 a horrible mess from which no consensus can emerge. Feel free, however, to restart the discussion taking the arguments presented here into account. - Sikon 07:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed the practice of including non-canon information in articles with the noncanon tags (as in the inclusion of information from Infinites in Boba Fett). However, I'm really not comfortable with including noncanon information in the main article. I therefore propose that a new section be added for articles with noncanon information. It could be placed between the main article and the behind the scenes section. We could call it ==Noncanon== or some such. This would keep it out of the canonical information but keep it in the article. I think this would be a cleaner, more professional, and more sensible solution. Havac 21:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Havac 21:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    Imp 21:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    Non-canon info should be moved to "Behind the scenes". It doesn't make sense to put non-canon info with canon info, as that part of an article is in-universe, and in-universe writers wouldn't know about it in the first place. Adamwankenobi 20:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    I think the non-canon section tags are disruptive. -LtNOWIS 20:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. I've always disliked the muddled way we are doing it now. QuentinGeorge 22:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Definitely. --Azizlight 23:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    I don't like the way we currently have it. It seems messy, and stupid. Disruptive. The article just doesn't flow with this in the middle. A seperate section would be great. Chack Jadson 00:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
    Yup, needs to be done. Non-canon info disrupts the flow of a bio. (Rhymes!) .... 02:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
    Green Tentacle (Talk) 09:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
    Angel BlueJedi Order(Holonet)
    The idea of putting info into an article only to say, "Oh BTW, ignore that" has always vexed me. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 19:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Jaina Solo(Goddess Stuff) 19:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Ozzel 23:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  6. Angel BlueHolocron-NEGWT(Holonet) 23:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  7. Kaiburr Adaejan 01:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  8. Trip 07:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC) - Ambiguous or otherwise, anything not explicitly canon doesn't belong in the main text.
    I went back and forth on this for awhile. I agree with Atarumaster88. —Xwing328(Talk) 17:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  9. Yoshi626 03:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support. Nearly all current "ambig" is genuinely noncanon anyway. jSarek 09:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support VT-16 10:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  12. The current situation makes articles look very messy - \\Captain Kwenn// — Ahoy! 15:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  13. --Muuuuuurgh 05:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  14. We should keep the bulk of the article as "pure" as possible. WhiteBoy 18:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  15. --Valin Kenobi 10:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  16. yea i think it should go in its own noncanon section Mandofett 20:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Just no, the policy should stay how it is, its not behind the scenes info, its still part of the chracters bio. Jedi Dude 21:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    • He's not saying it should be behind the scenes info, but a new "Non-canon" section which will be written in the same style as the main article. --Azizlight 23:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Except when the information is Infinities and obviously contradicts with established canon. The only stuff that should be included is information from cut material, and non-contradicting elements of stories that have been branded non-canon (eg. the Darth Maul stuff both on his own page and on Obi-Wan Kenobi's. Star Wars: Infinities material should not be included. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 23:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    I like the current tagging. Surrounding cannon material provides a background for it. -Fnlayson 17:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. I'd rather we leave it as is.--Lord OblivionSith holocronSith Emblem 19:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. No. Having a separate section heading would make the article look worse. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 01:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Darth Culator (Talk)(Kills) 00:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. Cull Tremayne 03:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC) - Changing vote since the non-canon tags are only really used on the Maul page and the Brandls where it is fairly effective. Though moving the Maul info might be better in the BTS. Cull Tremayne 03:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  7.  G.He(Talk!) 03:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  8. Since the ambigs and cut content don't per se contradict anything, and usually fill in gaps in the straight canon, i say keep em where they are; it makes sense where they are usually placed, chronologically, etc.JustinGann 03:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  9. Kuralyov 03:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  10. Current policy works fine. This just complicates stuff. McEwok 04:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  11. Let's not make this any more convoluted - it's not like they're not marked currently. -- Dark Spork 05:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  12. Sikon 05:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  13. Having a banner saying 'Non-canonical information follows' right in with the main section works just fine, that way readers can skip over to pick up after the banner saying 'End of non-canonical section', and the info stays relevant to its position in the article. Otherwise readers might have to go back and forth between the two sections, in order to get the full picture.Tocneppil 10:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  14. Jasca Ducato 12:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  15. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 18:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Seperate only Non-Canon, leave Ambig Canon within the article

  1. The Erl of the CT:Non-canon material talk What I do 22:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. --Eyrezer 00:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Changing my vote to this. -Fnlayson 17:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
    Cull Tremayne 01:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. .... 01:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Grr...switching vote again. —Xwing328(Talk) 03:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. I need a name (Complain here) 18:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. Jaymach convinced me. Chack Jadson 21:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  8. Changed my vote. Jaymach has convinced me as well. As I stated above, although I think the non-canon material should be removed from the in-universe section, I think it should be moved to the behind the scenes section. Adamwankenobi 21:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  9. Imp 00:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  10. Any information from Tales 1-20 and other sources which aren't explicitly set to be canon, but might be brought in as soon as someone refers to them, and which don't contradict existing canon, should be OK in the IU sections, as long as they're clearly marked. Non-canon stuff stays in the BtS sections and real-world articles. —Silly Dan (talk) 05:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  11. Per Silly Dan. - breathesgelatinTalk 09:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  12. Green Tentacle (Talk) 14:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  13. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 21:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  14. BaronGrackle 13:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  15. JMAS 21:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  16. Second breathesgelatin's motion: per Silly Dan. —Mirlen 05:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  17. Just better that way. Besides, would we include Behind the scenes in the main article?---Vladius Magnum(Clan Magnum) 22:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  18. ~~ Commander Jorrel Fraajic Wiki-shrinkable Communications Relay ~~ 15:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  19. I'd prefer to keep the Non-Cannon section and I definitely think we should keep the ambiguously canon stuff as well, so long as they are both properly indicated.Darth Ceratis 19:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  20. Eggmanland 09:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  21. Cutch 23:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  22. Charlii 15:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Is this also about inclusion of ambigiously canon information? There is a lot more of that out there than out-and-out non-canon information. I would support not having non-canon info in the main text, ie where established to contradict or infinites as Jaymach talks about. However info from many of the Tales stories, or ambig magazines fits in well I think. --Eyrezer 08:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I'd suggest that ambig be included in the non-canon section. All information in there should still be tagged as Infinities or ambiguous, but until the ambiguous stuff is confirmed, it isn't canon and shouldn't be in the main space until it is definitively canonized. To do otherwise just seems sloppy to me. Havac 17:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
    • If that was the case, I'd oppose. I like to see the ambig parts in, ie the section on Gial Ackbar. I think they add positively to the articles. --Eyrezer 00:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
      • But they're not, as of now, canon. Regardless of their positivity or negativity, I would think that they don't belong. Havac 00:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
        • In view of the frequent questions about amig canon items, I'm going to add a new section, dividing it into three votes: current policy, seperate non-canon only, seperate ambig and non-canon.--The Erl of the CT:Non-canon material talk What I do 22:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Can we call this policy now? Havac 22:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I notice that a lot of the comments seem to be based on the idea that the ambiguous canon or outright non-canon information "fills in gaps" in the canon. In my opinion, that's exactly the problem. It encourages people to think of this decidedly non-canon information as "true" when it is, at the current moment, not. Havac 00:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
    • But it could be. Often it is the author's intent that it should be (eg. Adalric Brandl). And it doesn't hurt to have it in the article if it doesn't conflict with published canon. The tags make the nature of the information explicit enough. As much as we try to be in-universe, the fact remains that we are not. So the tags are fine. -- Darth Culator (Talk)(Kills) 00:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
      • As jSarek brought up in the Picard VFD, the Polyhedron stuff has been repeatedly denied by LFL as canon. Whether it was intended to be canon or not, the fact remains that it isn't and probably never will be. Same with story ideas that never saw light. I don't see how sticking the end of Brandl's article under a noncanon tag is any cleaner than giving it a heading that establishes that it is non-canon and doesn't muddle the issue in the way tags inside the canon article do. Most of the noncanon information really isn't that notable and doesn't contribute to the article (Luke dueling a hologram Maul? Come on). This is a cleaner, less confusing way of doing it. Havac 01:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Actually, going by statements issued by Chee himself, Luke dueling a holographic Maul would be S-canon...he stated that all of the Tales stories which aren't outrightly stupid should be considered S-canon unless otherwise stated or contain conflicts...I see no conflicts. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 01:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Well, I meant that the Polyhedron isn't canon. The Tales information is generally non-notable and irrelevant to the character, as with including the Maul story on Luke's article, and I also challenge it on stupid grounds. ;-) Besides, it has the Infinities label. It's information that was never designed to be canon and attempts to retcon most of the Tales stuff in is just a clusterfrak of stupidity. Havac 01:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
            • If option 2 or 3 becomes consensus, we may need to have another discussion on what's ambiguously canon and what's "obviously" non-canon. —Silly Dan (talk) 05:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
              • So do we have a consensus? Because at this rate it's going to take forever. Chack Jadson 17:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
                • No consensus currently. It's far too close. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 20:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
                  • I am abstaining from voting any of these three options because I think that Star Wars is a fictional man-made creation and we shouldn't be having fights over what is canon or non-canon like the Infinites and Ambiguous or outright fanon. That issue with those clowns from Shadowscourge changed my perspective of the Star Wars universe and drove me closer to the realworld. I agree that outright fanon created just yesterday should not be in this Wiki however. MyNz 00:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
                    • We do that for the same reasons that the Catholic Church determines the canonicity of elements for their own fiction... Adamwankenobi 00:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
                      • Uh, Adam...that weird looking stuff ahead...kinda looks like thin ice. Seriously, the influx of "Strong Christian" users on this Wiki hoping to enforce decency is scary. Anyone seen Borat? Yeah, you know what I'm talking about. .... 02:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
                        • Good point. I shall digress from the conversation from this point on. Adamwankenobi 03:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • 16-15-19. Consensus Track, why must you be so difficult? Havac 22:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Separate it out, but I think ought we to treat the Tales 1-20 different from, say, other "ambiguous" such as the Polyhedron material which is technically non-canon. I confess I'm not sure how this should be done, since having another section for Tales info would just get messy. In other news, I think we need to tighten the definition of ambiguous to exclude things like Polyhedron material--keep that information since it gets referenced into canon every once in a while, but just move it to non-canon status.--Valin Kenobi 03:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
    • What about the goofy stories that nobody even thinks could possibly be canon that are in star wars tales? I'm thinking of George Binks and Fett Club and the like. To me, that sort of thing is worse than simple non-canon, because it detracts from the seriousness of rest of the article.Darth Ceratis 20:38, 31 January 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.