Currently, when placed on canon articles, the non-canon template reads as follows:
"This article is non-canon. This article covers a subject that was published under the Infinities label or that Lucasfilm otherwise declared to be non-canon in the new canon continuity."
I propose changes it to read as follows instead:
"This article is non-canon. This article covers a subject containing comic, obvious non-canon material or material that Lucasfilm otherwise declared to be non-canon in the new canon continuity."
Reasoning - there is no "Infinities" in the new canon continuity. "Infinities" was always a branding term anyway, not a general phrase for "non-canon." At this point we have two types of non-canon - stuff that they've explicitly said is non-canon and obviously non-canon/comic material like the LEGO stuff that clearly doesn't fit into the established continuity and in many cases is intended to be comic. ProfessorTofty (talk) 21:59, May 23, 2016 (UTC)
- I agree, I have been working on several of the LEGO mini-series and what's confusing is that the Eras tag sometimes lists them as Canon or Legends depending on whether they were produced before the April 2014 reboot. Andykatib 22:28, May 23, 2016 (UTC)
- With the way the Lego stories build on each other (like interlocking bricks of some sort?) perhaps a separate Lego template would be in order? —Silly Dan (talk) 23:43, May 23, 2016 (UTC)
- Sounds like a good idea. I'm not sure about one thing. Whether to link the entries in the LEGO episode articles to Canon or Legends articles. It probably depends on when they were produced. Like, The Resistance Rises article links go to Canon articles since it was produced after the Disney reboot. Meanwhile the links in the The Yoda Chronicles go to Legends since they were produced before the reboot. Any ideas for making the links more comprehensive or is allright this way? Andykatib 23:48, May 23, 2016 (UTC)
- I'd be inclined to link all non-canon non-Legends out-of-universe articles to whatever the default article is for the in-universe subjects, actually. For example, Star Wars Infinities: The Empire Strikes Back would link to Yoda rather than Yoda/Legends, while the links to the Legends-only character Vilmarh Grahrk would be fine as is. But that's just my opinion. —Silly Dan (talk) 03:57, May 25, 2016 (UTC)
- Well, but that also opens up a whole new kettle of fish, such as whether to list those non-canon appearances on the Legends article, as they are now, or move them to the canon article. Personally, when it comes to the whole Legends / canon thing, I'm fine with keeping the Legends stuff where it is for stuff like the Star Wars Infinities: The Empire Strikes Back that was released before the switchover. As far as a LEGO template, so long as we're going to continue covering LEGO stuff here, yeah, I would welcome that idea. ProfessorTofty (talk) 16:07, May 26, 2016 (UTC)
- I think it would be a good idea to go ahead with creating a fourth Lego eras header template ({{Eras|Lego}}) that will be separate from the {{Eras|real}} template. Someone got confused about the Freemakers having an "eras real" header while still being written from an In Universe perspective. I'll go ahead if there is no opposition. Andykatib 11:25, June 2, 2016 (UTC)
- I personally would have no objection to that. And as for my original proposed change, seeing as there doesn't seem to be any objection, I plan to go ahead and implement it sometime tomorrow. ProfessorTofty (talk) 03:43, June 3, 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, the sooner the better. I can't change the template myself. Andykatib 07:49, June 3, 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, well I was referring to the noncanon template, but if you mean Eras, you're going to need to have a chat with an admin. I don't have any access to that either. ProfessorTofty (talk) 21:40, June 3, 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, the sooner the better. I can't change the template myself. Andykatib 07:49, June 3, 2016 (UTC)
- I personally would have no objection to that. And as for my original proposed change, seeing as there doesn't seem to be any objection, I plan to go ahead and implement it sometime tomorrow. ProfessorTofty (talk) 03:43, June 3, 2016 (UTC)
- I think it would be a good idea to go ahead with creating a fourth Lego eras header template ({{Eras|Lego}}) that will be separate from the {{Eras|real}} template. Someone got confused about the Freemakers having an "eras real" header while still being written from an In Universe perspective. I'll go ahead if there is no opposition. Andykatib 11:25, June 2, 2016 (UTC)
- Well, but that also opens up a whole new kettle of fish, such as whether to list those non-canon appearances on the Legends article, as they are now, or move them to the canon article. Personally, when it comes to the whole Legends / canon thing, I'm fine with keeping the Legends stuff where it is for stuff like the Star Wars Infinities: The Empire Strikes Back that was released before the switchover. As far as a LEGO template, so long as we're going to continue covering LEGO stuff here, yeah, I would welcome that idea. ProfessorTofty (talk) 16:07, May 26, 2016 (UTC)
- I'd be inclined to link all non-canon non-Legends out-of-universe articles to whatever the default article is for the in-universe subjects, actually. For example, Star Wars Infinities: The Empire Strikes Back would link to Yoda rather than Yoda/Legends, while the links to the Legends-only character Vilmarh Grahrk would be fine as is. But that's just my opinion. —Silly Dan (talk) 03:57, May 25, 2016 (UTC)
- Sounds like a good idea. I'm not sure about one thing. Whether to link the entries in the LEGO episode articles to Canon or Legends articles. It probably depends on when they were produced. Like, The Resistance Rises article links go to Canon articles since it was produced after the Disney reboot. Meanwhile the links in the The Yoda Chronicles go to Legends since they were produced before the reboot. Any ideas for making the links more comprehensive or is allright this way? Andykatib 23:48, May 23, 2016 (UTC)
- With the way the Lego stories build on each other (like interlocking bricks of some sort?) perhaps a separate Lego template would be in order? —Silly Dan (talk) 23:43, May 23, 2016 (UTC)