Forum:CT:Segregating non-canon stuff into its own Category

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Segregating non-canon stuff into its own Category

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 on the first part, rendering the second point moot. jSarek 03:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Since nobody else bothered to do this, I will. As discussed here, the proposal is that we create a Category:Non-canon and restrict all non-canon to that category. This category could also have subcategories for whatever we need—starships, creatures, fried-chicken-wielding-Jedi, etc.—or just lump it all into one Non-canon category. Certainly it merits its own discussion here, since we're talking about a potentially sweeping change. Gonk (Gonk!) 00:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks Gonk. I've been meaning to do this for a while but haven't had time. --Azizlight 01:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Support creation of Non-canon category and recategorization of appropriate articles

  1. Or does this go without saying (see below)? Chack Jadson 00:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. jSarek 01:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. Havac 01:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  4. Azizlight 01:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  5. Lord Hydronium 08:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  6. See comments in "Oppose subcategories" vote below Wildyoda 18:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  7. KEJ 13:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  8. CooperTFN 08:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  9. Darth Seth (Chewbacca lives!) 20:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose creation of Non-canon category and recategorization of appropriate articles

  1. I don't see the need. If this does go through, however, I expect to see some interesting arguments about the fine line between non-canon and ambiguous-canon. Honestly, I think this is more of an under-the-table effort by certain parties to sweep our ambig content under the rug. Darth Culator (Talk) 01:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
    Ah, no, we're not sweeping anything under the rug. I just feel that non-canon material deserves its own dedicated section of Wookieepedia. If anything, that will encourage more ambig content to be created here. --Azizlight 02:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. Kuralyov 02:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. Per Kuralyov's comment below. Adamwankenobi 02:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  4. No need to make things overly complicated, it's enough to have a big "NON-CANON" tag on the actual pages. Evir Daal 14:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  5. Too much controversy, too many fine details that may be too hard to work out, and IMO pointless with our already-existing non-canon tags. —Xwing328(Talk) 04:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  6. Non-canon articles are marked clearly enough. Somebody who's category-browsing might encounter them now and again, but it shouldn't cause any confusion because the non-canon tags are right at the top. Enochf 12:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  7. Per Evir, Xwing, and Enoch. Though Jean-Luc definitely probably ;) belongs in the preexisting Category:Non-canon articles. Gonk (Gonk!) 13:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  8. Per everyone here. This is a sheer waste of time! There is no difference between "canon" or "non-canon because Star Wars is fictional. Wake up, those nerds who think Star Wars is as real as the War in Iraq. By the way, remember its mother's day. MyNz 20:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Per that logic, we should allow fanfic articles; after all, fanfic is fictional, too. However, some prefer to make distinctions *within* Star Wars fiction to make understanding of the Star Wars universe clearer and easier. jSarek 21:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm glad we've got fifteen-year-olds around to remind us that Star Wars is less real than Iraq. CooperTFN 06:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Support subcategories within Non-canon

  1. Chack Jadson 00:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. jSarek 01:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. So long as we only use categories with a supportable amount of stuff in them and don't duplicate every canon category. Havac 01:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  4. Per Havac. --Azizlight 01:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  5. Put them as subcategories of the regular versions, too (e.g., make Category:Non-canon Humans a subcategory of Category:Humans), to make them just as easy to find. - Lord Hydronium 08:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I particularly oppose this, because it seems to me that would defeat the purpose of moving the non-canon articles OUT of those categories in the first place. Wildyoda 18:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't see how; it would clearly demarcate them as non-canon, but still keep them easy to find. If Non-canon Humans is just a subcategory of Non-canon and nothing else, how is anyone who doesn't already know that we segregate categories by canon status going to find it? - Lord Hydronium 22:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
        • I think anyone who is familiar enough with a wiki to go traipsing through category pages is going to use the search to find something first anyway. And when you come to an article, it is "clearly demarcate[d]" by the Non-canon template and/or category already. To mark it clearly as non-canon is not the goal here. The goal is to remove non-canon articles from the same categories as canon entires. And if it is in a category which is a subcategory of a canon category, then ultimately you have canon and non-canon under the same umbrella category, which is exactly why we're moving them out in the first place. Solve the cause, not the symptoms, remember? Wildyoda 03:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
          • We may want to move this down to the section below, since it's getting kinda long. Anyway, I thought the idea was so that people looking in Humans wouldn't see Bink Otauna and Luke Skywalker next to each other and assume they're equally canon. If Bink's in "Noncanon Humans", that's not an issue, no matter what it's a subcategory of. However, if I'm browsing the Humans category, doesn't it make sense to be able to easily access the categories of any humans from there? Otherwise we're just shoving all non-canon categories into their dark little corner, only accessible if you're already looking at non-canon stuff. - Lord Hydronium 03:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
            • I agree with LH, but a "See also" thing at the top, like with Category:Actors, is an alternative idea. -LtNOWIS 19:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  6. Per Havac.LtNOWIS 19:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose subcategories within Non-canon

  1. I don't think the effort required either to create a second tree of categories or to be able to navigate it is worth it. Particularly the navigation part. While there might be enough non-canon humans or non-canon males to populate a category started for Tag Greenly or someone, how many non-canon fruits or non-canon dining establishments are we really going to have? There will likely be as many categories with only one thing in them as there are actual non-canon articles. Which if you want to spend the effort in making, I applaud, but I just see it being a mess even when it gets done, and particularly in the process of getting there. Wildyoda 18:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments

  • What will we do about articles that only have appearances in Star Wars: Tales, where we don't know if they are canon or not? --Azizlight 01:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd like to point out that there already is non-canon category. see: Category:Non-canon articles. So creating a Category:Non-canon category would seem to be a little redundant. 141.154.188.192 02:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
    • The point of this whole exercise is to remove non-canon articles from the mainstream canon categories. Eg. ensuring that Jean-Luc Picard doesn't share a category with Luke Skywalker.
  • This is a horrible idea, even just from an organizational standpoint. How many months ago was it that we had our 'sweeping weapons category reform' and the weapons categories are STILL fucked up? Kuralyov 02:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
    • It won't be as hard as the weapon category reform, because we're not actually restructuring anything, we're just making a non-canon mirror of categories that already exist. Even a bot could make the changes on the article pages that have the non-canon templates, and then we could click the redlinks to create the non-canon categories. --Azizlight 03:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Exactly. That's a case of the user doing the reform not actually doing it all. I've done massive restructuring of categories before and, besides spamming recentchanges, you'd barely be able to tell it happened, and it was all done in two weeks or so. If you've got someone committed doing the recatting, it's nothing like that weapons mess. Havac 06:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Question. Is this just for non-canon elements like Harland Sanders and Jean-Luc Picard or does it also cover, say, Voli Quana. If the former, then I vote yes, but if the latter, nay. QuentinGeorge 03:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm assuming the latter, but it's definitely something we need to address. Has Leland ever said that the Polyhedron/Challenge stuff is non-canon? --Azizlight 04:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
      • They're non-canon, but the chances are, they will eventually be integrated into the main continuity, like Merilli, for instance. Additionally, Abel Pena has said that "background" info for characters first introduced in Polyhedron can be considered "true" unless contradicted or stated otherwise. So, whereas I wouldn't be surprised to see Voli Quana appear in a licensed product, Col Sanders is never going to appear again. Both non-canon, but some non-canon stuff is more canon than others... :P QuentinGeorge 05:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The Non-cannon articles involved would not involve ambigious cannon stuff such as Infinities and Tales, right? -Fnlayson 05:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Infinities isn't ambig canon. It's noncanon. Tales is ambig (and supposedly the Polyhedron stuff as well), and, while I wouldn't be opposed to putting them in there -- they're non-canon until they're referenced, dammit! -- that might be something that needs to be discussed, but it can be hammered out later. It's not inherent to the proposal. Overall, though, I'd say that common sense recognizes that ambig canon is, until referenced, not canon, and for me at least, as a category aficionado, it's incredibly annoying to be going through a category looking for lawyers or doctors or Imperial generals or something, turn up someone interesting, and then go, "Oh, not real." Havac 06:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Yea duh. I was thinking of Star Wars related vs. non-SW stuff. Fair enough, it's still non-cannon. -Fnlayson 14:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Kura: As Aziz points out, it's a really rather straightforward process, something a bot could do with only minor touch-ups from us. QuentinGeorge: Those articles from Challenge aren't really ambig, no matter what people keep tagging them as. They're unlicensed, which makes them even *less* official than Infinities works and promotional materials like the Defeat the Dark Side stuff. And Abel, when he made his comment, was speaking informally about his own authorial intent, not about what's actually canon; I should also note that, even if he were speaking of actual canon, he's not an official Lucasfilm source on the matter. Yes, we might see some of this unlicensed stuff integrated by savvy authors in the future, but we've also seen them integrate some fanon stuff, as well (Thrawn acquiring Grievous's mask, for instance); this clearly doesn't mean we need to allow fanon free rein on our site, and I would argue that the same is true of these so-called "ambig" articles. jSarek 07:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I know what they are. There is, however, a big difference between complaining about Voli Quana being in a Jedi category and Harland Sanders being in a Jedi category. QuentinGeorge 07:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I think Havac's complaint remains just as true regardless of how obviously acanonical a given topic is. jSarek 08:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • See? I knew this was a part of certain Wookieepedians' vendetta against ambig material. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 11:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I didn't start the vote. I just co-opted it for my fiendish agenda.  ;-) Seriously though, yes, I have a problem with how we present certain materials we call "ambig" here, and would like to see us fix it, and it seems that this CT kind of forces the issue, whether that was the original poster's intent or not. jSarek 19:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Note that we already have Category:Andowyne for one set of non-canon articles. —Silly Dan (talk) 12:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)