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 or, if the page was deleted, in the Senate Hall rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was no consensus (insufficient participation). OOM 224 (he/him/they) 14:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Template:Noncanonstart
Current precedent is to make an entire section for non-canon history of a subject under the Behind the scenes sections of articles; while these templates themselves denote they are meant for use in the Behind the scenes sections of articles, there are various articles such as Television set and Potato/Legends that improperly use them within the main body. Other articles, such as Jango Fett/Legends and Dooku/Legends, use the template correctly, but it is already rendered entirely redundant by the fact it is used within sections already labeled via their titles as non-canon. To boot, the template is not used on Canon articles, nor does it have an equivalent that is used on Canon articles. Why on earth do we have a Legends-specific template for denoting page content as non-canon while we already have established practice and precedent that makes it redundant to do so? I think it's time for it to go. For the few articles that use the template within the BTS section and don't use it within a self-contained Non-canon appearances/history subsection (I've not found any yet though), this can easily be reformatted to conform to current precedent.
TL;DR, the template is redundant as it is because of current precedent.
Delete
Keep
- Yeah, no. The above argument ignores the fact that there are two equally valid ways to document said non-canon information: from an OOU perspective (see an example) or from an IU perspective (see an example, or an example that uses the similar-in-spirit {{Cut}} template) — and in the latter case, I'd prefer that we still give the reader an additional heads-up about the canonicity of the material described. Imperators II(Talk) 07:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- That's fair enough; the examples using it I provided use the template redundantly, but per your point there are cases where it wouldn't be redundant. However, it does make me wonder, should this template be changed to be valid for use on Canon pages? It seems incredibly odd to me that it is Legends only. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 08:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, just another case of Wook stuff not yet being updated for Canon. Imperators II(Talk) 08:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- That's fair enough; the examples using it I provided use the template redundantly, but per your point there are cases where it wouldn't be redundant. However, it does make me wonder, should this template be changed to be valid for use on Canon pages? It seems incredibly odd to me that it is Legends only. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 08:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- OOM 224 (he/him/they) 07:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Per Imp - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 21:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Rakhsh (talk) 12:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Tommy-Macaroni (he/they) 16:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Comments
Template:Noncanonend
Same reasoning as above, plus this template is redundant without the existence of the other as it is.