Forum:CT:Template Overhaul

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Template Overhaul
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 Oppose proposal to add {{Noncanon}} to Expanded Universe article. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 02:52, June 3, 2014 (UTC)

As defined by Forum:CT Archive/New canon policy and Wookieepedia:Canon policy, the Expanded Universe is non-canon. No one, including myself, is happy with this. However, according to Lucasfilm and Wookieepedia policy, it is fact. Therefore, I believe that Wookieepdia's template's need to be updated accordingly.

Proposal One

This was touched upon in the New canon policy CT with the ambiguous template, but the new policy also effects the non-canon templates. Essentially, I could go and place a {{Noncanon}} template on every single "Legends" page and I would not be violating any Wookieepedia policy. Now I'm not going to do that because it would effect about 95% of the articles here and would look bad. Instead, since all "Legends" articles conveniently have a link back to Expanded Universe I propose:

That the {{Noncanon}} template be added to the top of the Expanded Universe article.

This way 9/10 pages on Wookieepedia will not have a big non-canon template at the top of them but at the same time, through the Legends banner, it is clear to all readers that the content of the page is non-canon.

Support

  1. Remember: I am only proposing that the non-canon template be placed on one page. The other hundred thousand of formerly canon pages that make up the EU will remain the same. Fe Nite (talk) 13:16, May 18, 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Adding the {{Noncanon}} template to the top of the Expanded Universe would just confuse people. I suggested in another thread that we should make the Legends banner redirect to a new "Legends" article which would clearly explain that all material appearing under the Legends banner is non-canon.--Richterbelmont10 (come in R2!) 22:02, May 18, 2014 (UTC)
  2. Redundant. JangFett (Talk) 01:11, May 19, 2014 (UTC)
  3. The Legends banner already serves this purpose, which was kind of the whole point in not having a non-canon header template on articles just because they're of EU nature. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 17:53, May 19, 2014 (UTC)
  4. Per Tope.
    Master JonathanCouncil Chambers
    23:39 UTC MonMay 19, 2014
  5. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 23:41, May 19, 2014 (UTC)
  6. Exactly. Corellian PremierJedi symbolThe Force will be with you always 00:16, May 20, 2014 (UTC)
  7. Green Tentacle (Talk) 17:31, May 20, 2014 (UTC)
  8. 1358 (Talk) 09:34, May 21, 2014 (UTC)
  9. Per Tope. Supreme Emperor (talk) 03:13, May 22, 2014 (UTC)
  10. Trip391 (talk) 03:30, May 22, 2014 (UTC)
  11. Winterz (talk) 17:42, May 22, 2014 (UTC)
  12. Exiled Jedi Oldrepublic crest (Greetings) 03:02, May 24, 2014 (UTC)
  13. Manoof (talk) 09:26, May 30, 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

This section is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This section is no longer live. Further comments should be made in open discussion area or a new section rather than here so that this section is preserved as a historic record. The result of the debate was I am WP:BOLDly speedily closing the rest of this thread on the basis that all of these votes are, as pointed out by Tope, unnecessarily bureaucratic as they represent tasks for which no formal vote is remotely necessary, and thus it would be a waste of everyone's time to keep them open.
Master JonathanCouncil Chambers
23:52 UTC MonMay 19, 2014

Proposal Two

Now that was the first part. But what about the thousands of pages that already have a {{Noncanon}}, {{non-canon}}, {{ncm}}, {{noncanonstart}}, or {{noncanonend}}? This is tricky. There are two ways to go about this.

Idea One

Everything is non-canon now, so why do some pages have a non-canon template and others don't? Therefore I propose:

That the {{Noncanon}}, {{non-canon}}, {{ncm}}, {{noncanonstart}}, or {{noncanonend}} templates be removed from all articles that are classified as "Legends." Articles that have a "Legends" tab will have the aforementioned templates removed from the "Legends" portion of the page. The only exception to this rule will be the Expanded Universe article (Assuming Proposal One passes).

Idea Two

If an author references our pages in the future they might want to use only the formerly canon subject within the EU. They may not want to use ideas that were previously non-canon. Therefore, Wookieepedia may want to continue to mark the pages as non-canon. But since all the EU is non-canon, I think a new system is in order because we don't want to confuse our readers. Therefore, I propose:

That a new template be created to specify that the subject material is "non-canon within the Star Wars Legends continuity." The template will follow the current non-canon template format. If Proposal One passes the current non-canon template will remain on the Expanded Universe article.

Support Idea One

Support Idea Two

  1. Fe Nite (talk) 13:16, May 18, 2014 (UTC)
  2. R5-X41238-G8-R3-3124-D2 (talk) 16:47, May 18, 2014 (UTC)

Oppose Both

Discussion

  • According to the discussion in the New Canon policy CT, the preferred term seems to be "Unlicensed" rather than "non-canon." It's less confusing that way.--Richterbelmont10 (come in R2!) 22:11, May 18, 2014 (UTC)
    • Some of the non-canon templates have already been edited to use the word non-canon. {{Noncanonstart}} for example. That is why I went this route. Fe Nite (talk) 00:52, May 19, 2014 (UTC)
  • As I've said below, this vote is really unnecessarily bureaucratic, and I reject the need to even have it take place. We're already working on updating the templates, but we just haven't gotten to all of them yet because there's a million and one things to do right now. If I'm understanding this vote correctly, we're already planning on implementing basically what Idea Two is, which is necessary to delineate EU Infinities from former EU canon. We might not even have to make a new template; we can just reword the current non-canon templates that we have and re-implement them as appropriate. We don't need to hold a formal vote to allow us to do this. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 17:58, May 19, 2014 (UTC)

Proposal Three

In a similar fashion the conjecture templates use the word "canonical." However, most of the pages that have a conjecture template are now non-canon. Therefore, I propose:

  • That the format and wording of {{Conjecture|official=yes}} become the primary format and wording of the template.
  • For the template {{Conjecturespell}}, the word "canonical" be changed to "official."
  • That the template {{Nickname}} be changed to match the wording and format found here.

Support

  1. Sorry I did not word my proposal very well. For the first bullet, basically I'm saying change the word "canonical" to "official." Fe Nite (talk) 13:16, May 18, 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

  • I reject the need for a formal vote to allow us to do this. We don't need to bureaucratically vote on every single thing. If you haven't noticed, we have been updating many of these kinds of templates in this manner, but we just haven't gotten to all of them yet, and this CT is unfortunately kind of jumping the gun on us. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 17:50, May 19, 2014 (UTC)

Proposal Four

The {{Twoconflicting}} needs to be reworded to remove the canon elements. This one is pretty straight forward:

For the {{Twoconflicting}} template, the word "canon" needs to be changed to Expanded Universe.

If Disney and Lucasfilm mess up down the road and make conflicting canon, we'll just have to revisit this.

Support

  1. This change is simply for the conflicts between two EU sources. Since they are no longer canon, the template needs "canon" removed. For the conflicts between "new canon" and "Legends" (like Adi Galia's death in TCW compared to the comics), this template is not required at all. The Wook has never used a "conflict" template between non-canon and canon sources; so why start now? Fe Nite (talk) 13:16, May 18, 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

  • I reject the need for a formal vote to allow us to do this. We don't need to bureaucratically vote on every single thing. If you haven't noticed, we have been updating many of these kinds of templates in this manner, but we just haven't gotten to all of them yet, and this CT is unfortunately kind of jumping the gun on us. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 17:48, May 19, 2014 (UTC)

Proposal Five

Since all the Star Wars Tales are now non-canon, the {{tales1-20}} template is in need of renovation. I would say just delete it, but like the ambiguous template it could be useful when referencing EU sources. However, I was unable to come up with an adequate fix for the tales templates (Also, {{Talesstart}} and {{Talesend}}). Therefore, if the community thinks these are necessary changes, I'm open to discussion on the best possible way to handle this situation.

Discussion

Like the ambiguous template this one might be needed for future reference. So does anyone have any idea how to change this template? I am open to suggestions. If we get some ideas rolling, we can start the vote. Fe Nite (talk) 13:16, May 18, 2014 (UTC)

  • "The subject of this article only appears in a Star Wars Tales (#1–#20) story that was published under the Infinities banner and has not been referenced elsewhere; therefore, its level of canonicity in the Legends continuity is ambiguous. --R5-X41238-G8-R3-3124-D2 (talk) 16:42, May 18, 2014 (UTC)
  • These templates still have significant value in helping readers and editors determine what Tales stories are/were Legends canon and Legends non-canon (since it can be confusing). They just need their wording tweaked a little bit, and the Tales categories need to be updated. RoboCade has been running bot scripts day and night for the past week and a half working on this stuff, and the Tales articles are actually the very next thing on our slate, which we're going to start on imminently. We really don't need a vote or a grand community discussion to implement these changes. Once we're done, if you want to see some tweaks, we can smooth it out on the template's talk page. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 17:45, May 19, 2014 (UTC)