Talk: Mirror, Mirror

Back to page
Wiki-shrinkable

This is the talk page for the article "Mirror, Mirror."

This space is used for discussion relating to changes to the article, not for discussing the topic in question. For general questions about the article's topic, please visit Wookieepedia Discussions. Please remember to stay civil and sign all of your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Click here to start a new topic.

Ambiguously canon?

Based on the fact that the article appears to suggest that the authors of the article are speculating how the two card games could cross over, if Decipher (and more importantly if Lucasfilm and Paramount allowed) ever decided to create rules and cards allowing them to cross over, I don't see how it could be seen as any kind of canon, let alone "ambiguosly canon". There are alot of copyright and trade mark hurdles for such a thing to even be allowed. Its one thing to talk about it, and speculate, its another for Lucasfilm and Paramount to actually do it. Its ok for a writer to discuss copryighted material in hypothetical situation, as long as he acknowledges the owners of the material he discusses, his right to do that is protected under "fair use". But that in no way means that the material involving both IPs from both companies was endorsed by both companies. There are alot of legal ramifications if one company was to endorse such a thing without the other's permission. That wouldn't be permissible.

Not to mention the article was written by some InQuest author, not a Decipher employee. Falling under fair use? Yes. Fan fiction idea? Most definitely. Baggins 03:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

  • If you want a prove it's non-canon, find a person inside LucasLicensing (Leeland Chee would be best choice), ask him directly if this article in this magazine is considered canon, then show us the proof of his answer. Until then, the article will stay as it is. MauserComlink 18:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Like I said the article was written by InQuest author, not by Decipher, in the first paragraph it even says, "Inquest shatters the barrier between the Star Trek and Star Wars CCGs with eight crossover cards". It doesn't say "Decipher shattered the barrier between Star Trek and Star Wars". InQuest was owned by Wizard Eterntainment (not to be confused with Wizards of the Coast).
Secondly as it says in the first paragraph; If they [Decipher] were ever to give it a try, we have a few thoughts on how to mix the two..."
Are people just blind to these facts? Sure I'll ask Leland, but its not like anyone would believe me if I posted quotes from him...Baggins 18:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Mauser's right. Like it or not, we need canon evidence, such as a statement from Chee, that it's non-canon. Chack Jadson (Talk) 18:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • If you post a link to his reply on StarWars.com ot TheForce.net message boards, that would suffice. MauserComlink 18:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
There, you go both Leland Chee, and Nathan and Nathan Butler answered. It was never a licensed article, not official.[1] Now, you can start move that "ambigious canon" tag off it of it, its not even official non-canon. Its not much more than a what-if fanfic. You could have saved alot of time by paying attention to who LFL has actually said are licenced companies.Baggins 00:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Except he didn't say it wasn't official, he said he wasn't aware of it being licensed. You're unaware of my first name. Does that mean I now have no first name? -- I need a name (Complain here) 00:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, this time I have to agree with Mr. Baggins. If Leeland didn't heard of InQuest being licensed, it probably never was. Mr. Butler's response seems to support that. MauserComlink 02:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Let me see if I get it. InQuest is not a fanzine, but a profit-making magazine published by a company with experience in this kind of business (also publishing Wizard, Anime Insider, etc). If such a publication includes an article with new Star Wars material and without LFL's authorization (or authorization from other party that could provide it, maybe Decipher, WotC) as a part of their profit-making book, then that publication could be facing legal action from the owners of Star Wars(TM). InQuest editors are probably aware of this fact, thus I believe they would not do that. Maybe this was done through intermediary companies (say Decipher), and this is why Chee is not aware of it.
But: If Wookieepedia openly says that InQuest published Star Wars material without authorization, and this is proved as false, then Wookieepedia could be facing serious accusations of libel and/or defamation. Not to say that Wookieepedia hasn't asked InQuest for their version of the facts, which could give some useful light about the details you are looking for (maybe they are the only ones that can give this information).
Thus, I strongly believe Wookieepedia should have solid proofs before considering these articles as fanon.
As a personal note, I agree with I need a name's penultimate point and with Darth Paulus's last point in Talk:Jean-Luc Picard. --Skippy Farlstendoiro 06:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Please read the rest of the SW.com thread. Nathan Butler explained that this article was simply an article about the card game and thus didn't have to be licensed. A magazine does not need a Lucasfilm license to write an article about Revenge of the Sith or Knights of the Old Republic. And of course anything in those articles would not be just non-canon, it would have no relevance to canon at all. MauserComlink 06:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Chee's comment is consistent with a previous comment he's made somewhere about how he's unsure if articles like the Polyhedron stuff are canon because they were made long before the Holocron system was implemented and there's no record of whether they were or weren't officially licensed. It's the entire reason we have Template:Ambig to begin with. -- I need a name (Complain here) 20:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, but we also have Mr. Butler clarifying the situation for us. Unlike RPG adventures from Polyhedron, articles from Inquest weren't even written from IU perspective. They are just articles about the card game, much like another magazine would write about Star Wars: Episode III Revenge of the Sith or Jedi Knight II: Jedi Outcast. The fact that they suggested a crissover is not just non-canon, it doesn't fall under any canon category it all. Besides, if stuff is not in Holocron, it's non in canon, right? (Yes, Energizer Bunny, I'm looking at you). MauserComlink 21:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

your all right and if star trek was a part of star wars. star wars would be ruined.p.s star trek. not a good show or movies or movie