Forum:CT:Status articles: Canon and Legends

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Status articles: Canon and Legends
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 Support proposal. JangFett (Talk) 23:14, May 26, 2014 (UTC)

Now that we are officially implementing the Canon/Legends tab system to articles, we need to determine how we will handle status articles (Featured, Good, and Comprehensive articles). At the most recent Inq, AC, and EC meetings from this past weekend and the weekend before, all members present to discuss the matter were in unanimous approval of treating each tab of a single article as separate status articles. So, for example, Wampa and Wampa/Canon will be treated separately. What happens to one tab will not affect the other, and each tab will undergo separate status reviews by the reviewing panels (Inq, AC, EC). So that's what I'm proposing here. The specifics are very basic and are as follows:

  • Canon and Legends tabs of a single article will be treated as separate status articles.
  • Each tab will be nominated for status as usual on the FAN, GAN, or CAN page. This means that:
    • A) Both tab versions will be nominated for status together on the same page rather than making separate nomination pages for Canon articles (Just to clarify in case this is confusing, by "together" I meant that Canon and Legends tabs will be nominated on a single page. We won't have separate nomination pages for separate tabs. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 00:11, May 20, 2014 (UTC) )
    • B) Canon and Legends articles will therefore be governed by the same set of nomination rules found on the FAN, GAN, and CAN pages. This means that most Canon articles probably won't be eligible for FAN immediately, since they won't be able to reach 1000 words in length. I don't anticipate needing to revise these requirements for Canon articles. If someone wants to see changes made here for some reason, I ask that you please reserve that for a separate discussion thread.
  • The three community-approved reviewing panels (Inq, AC, and EC) will review both Canon and Legends articles as they always have both on the nomination pages and at meetings
  • Status article nomination milestones will be recorded on each tab's respective talk page. For example, when Wampa undergoes status review, its milestones will be recorded on Talk:Wampa. When Wampa/Canon undergoes status review, its milestones will be recorded on Talk:Wampa/Canon.

That's it. Very simple. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 22:32, May 19, 2014 (UTC)

Support

  1. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 22:32, May 19, 2014 (UTC)
  2. In Tope we trust. Clone Commander Lee Talk 22:34, May 19, 2014 (UTC)
  3. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 22:39, May 19, 2014 (UTC)
  4. Yay!--Exiled Jedi Oldrepublic crest (Greetings) 22:41, May 19, 2014 (UTC)
  5. 1358 (Talk) 22:44, May 19, 2014 (UTC)
  6. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 23:32, May 19, 2014 (UTC)
  7. 501st dogma(talk) 23:47, May 19, 2014 (UTC)
  8. The sane way to handle this.
    Master JonathanCouncil Chambers
    23:56 UTC MonMay 19, 2014
  9. Coruscantfan (Talk) 00:10, May 20, 2014 (UTC)
  10. Should be interesting when we finally see some. What'll be up first? Corellian PremierJedi symbolThe Force will be with you always 00:14, May 20, 2014 (UTC)
  11. CC7567 (talk) 05:04, May 20, 2014 (UTC)
  12. Commander Code-8 Felicitations malefactors! 06:12, May 20, 2014 (UTC)
  13. I feel like we need a Featured Subject component to this as well, but this is a good enough start for now. JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 07:22, May 20, 2014 (UTC)
  14. Ayrehead02 (talk) 07:36, May 20, 2014 (UTC)
  15. grunny@wookieepedia:~$ 08:57, May 20, 2014 (UTC)
  16. New Coke Canon can die in a fire. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 12:13, May 20, 2014 (UTC)
  17. Wampalampa Winterz (talk) 12:18, May 20, 2014 (UTC)
  18. Chancellor Tope, treating them separately is my speciality JangFett (Talk) 14:04, May 20, 2014 (UTC)
  19. Green Tentacle (Talk) 17:39, May 20, 2014 (UTC)
  20. Logical. Supreme Emperor (talk) 20:48, May 20, 2014 (UTC)
  21. As if it would go any other way... Manoof (talk) 01:45, May 21, 2014 (UTC)
  22. Sir Cavalier of OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 11:18, May 21, 2014 (UTC)
  23. Fe Nite (talk) 03:08, May 22, 2014 (UTC)
  24. IFYLOFD (Enter the Floydome) 03:23, May 22, 2014 (UTC)
  25. Trip391 (talk) 03:31, May 22, 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

I'm a little confused. Does an article have to both tabs nominated at the same time? Fe Nite (talk) 23:45, May 19, 2014 (UTC)

  • Does an article need to have both tabs nominated at the same time? No. That's why this proposal is to treat them separately. Both tab versions, when they're nominated, will be nominated on the same FAN page. So it's conceivable you might have, for example, Luke Skywalker and Luke Skywalker/Canon nominated at the same time. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 23:49, May 19, 2014 (UTC)
    • I think what you're trying to say is there will not be separate nomination pages for Legends and Canon articles. All nominations (whether for a Legends article or a Canon article) go to the same respective (FAN, GAN, or CAN) nominations page. Right? - Esjs(Talk) 05:07, May 20, 2014 (UTC)
      • That's correct. Something like "FAN/Canon" and "FAN/Legends" would just be nonsensical. CC7567 (talk) 05:09, May 20, 2014 (UTC)

Will the "no redlinks" rule be extended -- i.e. will you require that subjects appearing in canon and Legends sources have both articles existing and properly linked, even if only one is being nominated? (Maybe the Legends one would be an FAN while the shorter canon one is a CAN.)—Silly Dan (talk) 02:57, May 22, 2014 (UTC)