This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep.
Evir Daal's stipulation is good to keep in mind, as well. —Silly Dan (talk) 01:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Category:Jedi Guardians ([[Talk:Category:Jedi_Guardians|talk]] - history - links - logs)
A category for . . . RPG gameplay mechanics? Shall we have Category:Individuals with under 10 Dark Side Points as well? RPG mechanics are for the convenience of gameplay characters -- they can tell you something general about the character, but RPG classes are not canon. JJM brought the Jedi Consular class into canon with a KOTOR reference, but even that doesn't canonize the RPG mechanic, just the general concept and the fact that the Covenant masters belong to a certain group designated by the Jedi as such. There's not even such a tangential canonization for Jedi Guardians. It's pure gameplay mechanics. Delete. Havac 03:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Because. -- Ozzel 03:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Despite being game mechanics, they ARE canon. And have been ever since they were-referenced in IU dialogue in the KOTOR games. Additionally, it enables us to divide up the still over-populated Jedi categories. QuentinGeorge 05:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm actually going to be working on those categories sometime in the future. At any rate, the assignation of classes to anyone other than Juhani, who is canonically referenced as a Jedi Guardian in the databank, is noncanonical. Canon only goes so far as it actually goes; referencing Stacy in Allegiance only established that a pilot with mannerisms similar to Stacy existed; it did not bring Pink 5 into canon. Similarly, a reference to the existence of a group known as "Jedi Guardians" in-universe does not bring the gameplay mechanic designation of a character class by the same name into canon for every other character with that class. Voss Parck has classes in "noble" for gameplay reasons, yet that does not make him canonically nobility in-universe. Similarly, Jerec was a Jedi archaeologist. He didn't serve as a Jedi Guardian; his gameplay classes simply reflect that he's supposed to be a tough opponent with a lightsaber. There's no in-canon reference to him being part of a group known as Jedi Guardians; moreover, the Jedi Guardian dialogue in KOTOR (blue lightsabers, etc) is not necessarily any more canonical than Trask Ulgo telling you to press the "A" button and how Revan needed to access an "inventory" to change clothes. The gameplay mechanic designation "Jedi Guardian" is not inherently a 1-to-1 correlation with the in-universe group known as Jedi Guardians any more than Voss Parck's gameplay identification as a noble correlates with a position as nobility in-universe. Havac 06:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- I agree about the lightsaber bit, but not the rest. I added all those from the RPG to prevent people populating those lists with out and out fanon. Your mention of Stacy is a red-herring - she was from a fanfilm, not a bonafide licensed source like the RPG. I don't see why you think that being a Jedi Guardian is incompatible with being something else. Kenobi, for instance, is variously a Jedi Master, a Jedi investigator, a Jedi Guardian; Yoda a Jedi Consular and a Jedi instructor, etc, etc. Before you say that "stats in RPG books aren't canon, only prose", may I point out that certain individuals are labelled "Jedi Guardian" outside of statblocks? As long as its sourced, like the Jedi Guardian page is, I don't see the objection. QuentinGeorge 06:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, certain individuals are. But the rest of them aren't; I brought up a lot of examples, but I think the most relevant here is the Parck one. Parck is classed as a noble for purposes of gameplay. That doesn't mean he's actual nobility. Similarly, Jerec is classed as a Jedi Guardian for purposes of gameplay. That doesn't inherently mean he's a member of the in-universe group known as Jedi Guardians. If he's later mentioned in something that isn't RPG stats as a "Jedi Guardian" or a "member of the Jedi Guardians", then he would belong in the category. Until then, it's just a noncanon gameplay mechanic. To look outside the realm of RPG stats, let's look at Kyle Katarn. In Jedi Outcast, gameplay mechanics allow him to carry ten different weapons at a time, most of them large rifles. An article mentions, as a clear reference to the games, that Katarn was known to carry a vast array of weaponry. However, that doesn't inherently canonize Katarn's weapon selection in JKII; if it said that Katarn was equipped with weapons A, B, C, D, E on his campaign against Desann, then it would. It establishes only that Katarn was known to carry a lot of weapons as a general fact of his style. Similarly, a Databank reference to Juhani as a Jedi Guardian is a clear reference to the game classes, but it only establishes Juhani as a member of a group known as Jedi Guardians; it doesn't in and of itself canonize the gameplay mechanics of anyone else. But I still think the Parck one is the best example; bringing up the others may only confuse my point, and if so I apologize. Havac 06:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- I agree about the lightsaber bit, but not the rest. I added all those from the RPG to prevent people populating those lists with out and out fanon. Your mention of Stacy is a red-herring - she was from a fanfilm, not a bonafide licensed source like the RPG. I don't see why you think that being a Jedi Guardian is incompatible with being something else. Kenobi, for instance, is variously a Jedi Master, a Jedi investigator, a Jedi Guardian; Yoda a Jedi Consular and a Jedi instructor, etc, etc. Before you say that "stats in RPG books aren't canon, only prose", may I point out that certain individuals are labelled "Jedi Guardian" outside of statblocks? As long as its sourced, like the Jedi Guardian page is, I don't see the objection. QuentinGeorge 06:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm actually going to be working on those categories sometime in the future. At any rate, the assignation of classes to anyone other than Juhani, who is canonically referenced as a Jedi Guardian in the databank, is noncanonical. Canon only goes so far as it actually goes; referencing Stacy in Allegiance only established that a pilot with mannerisms similar to Stacy existed; it did not bring Pink 5 into canon. Similarly, a reference to the existence of a group known as "Jedi Guardians" in-universe does not bring the gameplay mechanic designation of a character class by the same name into canon for every other character with that class. Voss Parck has classes in "noble" for gameplay reasons, yet that does not make him canonically nobility in-universe. Similarly, Jerec was a Jedi archaeologist. He didn't serve as a Jedi Guardian; his gameplay classes simply reflect that he's supposed to be a tough opponent with a lightsaber. There's no in-canon reference to him being part of a group known as Jedi Guardians; moreover, the Jedi Guardian dialogue in KOTOR (blue lightsabers, etc) is not necessarily any more canonical than Trask Ulgo telling you to press the "A" button and how Revan needed to access an "inventory" to change clothes. The gameplay mechanic designation "Jedi Guardian" is not inherently a 1-to-1 correlation with the in-universe group known as Jedi Guardians any more than Voss Parck's gameplay identification as a noble correlates with a position as nobility in-universe. Havac 06:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Canon, but I agree that it's almost the same as having a category for the "Super awesome Sith Lords". Just a way for pervasive fanon to enter, and would almost be as bad as having a category for "Gray Jedi". Cull Tremayne 05:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Per Quentin. Ajrand 15:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep the category, but put only Guardians confirmed in canon (i e, not merely listed in RPG stats) in it. Evir Daal 19:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep; it's canonical, and not merelt gameplay mechanics. Darth Anxor 20:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep only canonically confirmed per Evir Daal. (Really good solution). Wildyoda 18:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep: IU reference in KOTOR. KEJ 12:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Keep provided that (1) Evir's stipulation is made very clear at the top of the category page, (2) it's likewise made clear that the category is only for members of the actual class—otherwise idiots will add Jedi Bob to the category just because he guarded somebody one time, (3) somebody else maintains this beast 'cuz I sure as hell won't, and most importantly (4) this category is culled ASAP (along with the Jedi Guardian page) per Evir's stipulation. Gonk (Gonk!) 14:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, they are canon. --Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 09:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Keep. If there are enough guardians that fit Evir Daal's criteria to make the category worthwhile (we'll say, more than 3 or 4), than it deserves to stay. But if only one person actually fits, delete it. Hobbes15(Tiger Headquarters) 04:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, no one-person categories. Evir Daal 07:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)