Forum:TC:Sith Peanut Butter

Forums > Trash compactor archive > TC:Sith Peanut Butter

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 delete. Green Tentacle (Talk) 12:56, December 26, 2009 (UTC)

Sith Peanut Butter (talk - history - links - logs)

This article is about a joke made by a TOR developer in the interview. Here's the quote:

"Well, back before he was dark, Revan and Malak went out into space, and something bad happened, and they both turned. And they came back and declared themselves Sith and said there starting a new Sith empire, and they were supposed to, except Malak - as we know - betrayed Revan, and he took over. And he basically built his own Sith empire and started calling everything Sith. So we had Sith troopers, Sith ships, Sith peanutbutter, and Sith everything. But they weren't actually culturally Sith. They were all people who had come back with them, who were Republic people that had gone into deep space."
―Daniel Erickson, Lead Writer at BioWare[src]

That "peanut butter" part should not be treated as a canonical statement, because it was used as a comical effect to exaggerate the effect of Revan and Malak calling everything "Sith". I understand that this article was created to achieve similar comical effect, however we should not allow it to stay, because to a casual reader it will look silly, out of place and diminish the overall quality of the wiki. Not to mention that it wasn't intended to be canonical in the first place. MauserComlink 11:57, December 12, 2009 (UTC)

Delete

  1. MauserComlink 11:57, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
  2. Chack Jadson (Talk) 13:51, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
  3. Ugh. Green Tentacle (Talk) 14:27, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
  4. Jonjedigrandmaster (Jedi Beacon) 14:31, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
  5. —B-Boba Fett! Make the check out to "Boba Fett" JasterMereelsSigil-TESB 14:36, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
  6. Not everything out of the mouth of a game developer is canon. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 14:49, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
    It was a great joke, possibly quoted under the Darth Revan's Sith Empire article to put across the same point? Darthkenobi0 20:45, December 12, 2009 (UTC) (Vote stricken per policy, --Xd1358 Talk 20:53, December 12, 2009 (UTC))
  7. --Xd1358 Talk 20:53, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
  8. If somehow this ends up being kept, I will be slapping a Template:Ambig tag on it. - JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 21:40, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
  9. Going by the logic of those who have voted to keep this, we might as well duplicate our every article and add the term "Sith" to it, just because the guy said "Sith everything." QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 21:55, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
  10. Per Tranner. jSarek 23:15, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
  11. Back in the good old days, I'd have deleted this outright. Bureaucracy accomplishes little more than ensuring we are all at odds with one another at some point over something before all is said and done. Graestan(Talk) 23:16, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
  12. Author jokes are not canon. Common sense can tell us how this is different from a developer providing actual info that will appear in a canon source. - Lord Hydronium 05:37, December 13, 2009 (UTC)
  13. CSD. There's nothing even remotely canonical about it. Havac 05:46, December 13, 2009 (UTC)
  14. —Silly Dan (talk) 06:37, December 13, 2009 (UTC)
  15. Grunny (Talk) 06:37, December 13, 2009 (UTC)
  16. I'm really disinclined towards the idea of considering any statement by any creator (aside from those of GL) to be canon and creating in-universe articles based on them. Even when creators are discussing details regarding a yet-to-be-released source's story or characters, we should refrain from including that in the main in-universe section of that article and instead keep the relevant info in the article's BTS section as these things can be subject to change. Only when the actual source is released should we add the information that ths source confirms to be valid to the in-universe section and keep the invalid stuff in the BTS as it is relevant to the OOU development of the subject.--Muuuuuurgh 07:43, December 13, 2009 (UTC)
  17. Pranay Sobusk ~ Talk 14:07, December 13, 2009 (UTC)
  18. This was just a metaphor or imagery used to convey a topic or message. Andykatib 19:33, December 13, 2009
  19. Per Graestan. Darth KarikaAnswering Machine 19:35, December 13, 2009 (UTC)
  20. Jedi Kasra (comlink) 19:37, December 15, 2009 (UTC)

Keep

  1. SinisterSamurai 14:45, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
  2. -- I need a name (Complain here) 20:38, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
  3. Info from developers is official enough to justify a page, even if we have to tag it so people don't take it too seriously. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 20:48, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
  4. IFYLOFD (You will pay the price for your lack of vision!) 20:54, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
  5. If this damages the wiki then we have a pretty damn weak wiki. Darth Trayus Sith Emblem (Trayus Academy) 21:10, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
    "Conan Antonio" was also a joke. Pranay Sobusk ~ Talk 21:31, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
    • And as can be seen from the talk page, that was an intensely contested topic, even though the joke was from Lucas himself, and was only resolved when the Death Star dramatis personnae came out. jSarek 23:20, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
    Sith Peanut Butter is silly, but makes about as much sense as making Revan into the Sith Emperor's stooge in the plot. So I'd give it the same level of relevance. Both are equally stupid to canon, so if we have to live with a Revan retcon, then we have to live with this as well. Jediphile 02:55, December 13, 2009 (UTC) (Vote stricken per policy. Green Tentacle (Talk) 12:54, December 13, 2009 (UTC))
    • Except this is different. First off, it's not a retcon, as Revan's turn to the dark side was never detailed before (and, honestly, your opinion on the matter really has no effect on this TC thread). Secondly, Revan actually existed in canon, whereas Sith peanut butter is merely a joke made up by a game developer to make a point. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 03:02, December 13, 2009 (UTC)
      • Revan being the stooge of the Sith Emperor is a major retcon that drastically conflicts with anything we know of Revan's character. As for Revan turning to the dark side, we already know three reasons from the KotOR games (fighting the Mandalorian Wars, finding the Trayus Core, and using the Star Forge). I have no problem with Revan having his rear kicked by the Sith Emperor, but Revan being a henchman is completely out of character. Consequently I no longer dare tell when Bioware and Lucasarts are joking about these things anymore. And thus I vote this entry should stay. It's ludicrous, yes, but then so is Revan's retcon... and the attempt to subvert the voting process by invalidating my vote, btw. After all, I'm only the source of this information. Jediphile 13:04, December 13, 2009 (UTC)
  6. Per Culator--Darth Oblivion 06:48, December 13, 2009 (UTC)
  7. Silly as it may seem, if pre-release interviews are to be treated as canon at all, they must be done universally. If Revan worked for the Emperor, than so too is there Sith Peanut Butter. Din's Fire 997 23:49, December 13, 2009 (UTC)
  8. Gotta earn the "hyper" in my hyperinclusionism. Dangerdan97 21:38, December 16, 2009 (UTC)
  9. Nayayen...TALK 11:16, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

Epic meh

  1. Both sides' viewpoints are pretty weak IMO. On one side, it is nothing but a joke, but such articles have been kept before. On the other hand, anyone familiar with the site will understand why we have it, but it might damage the wiki from the perspective of someone who's not familiar with Wookieepedia ("I thought this was supposed to be a serious site. WTF?"). In the end, I just don't see a compelling reason to vote either way. —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 21:43, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
    • No, instead you make a point of sneering at your fellows. Congratulations. Graestan(Talk) 23:18, December 12, 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Energizer Bunny, Max (bunny), Cult of the Power Droids, Wookieepedia:Ruined FOREVER. I'm afraid I don't see how Sith Peanut Butter drags down the quality of the wiki. Perhaps all it needs is an Ambig-Canon tag to be brought up to "standards." Seemingly Innocuous statements and writer slip-ups lead to the creation of new articles all the time. SinisterSamurai 14:46, December 12, 2009 (UTC)

  • Thing appearing in licensed SW product, canon thing, canon thing, page made for fun and not located in the main namespace. None of those mean that if a developer farts during an interview, it becomes canon. - Lord Hydronium 05:40, December 13, 2009 (UTC)
  • Also, if by some miracle this article keeps, be sure to follow up with an article on that Kaleesh cotton candy factory! Dangerdan97 05:43, December 18, 2009 (UTC)