Unlicensed/Cancelled status
Mr. Bongiorno has recently elaborated on the licensing status of SE here: http://www.starwarstimeline.net/Supernatural_Encounters.htm?fbclid=IwAR2xqVMdeM4xAxHN-DMUEYerNrLeynUsV-vwOwe8K3EEEFoGJ-Rdk2MXgB4#Supernatural%20Encounters%20FAQ
The relevant sections:
-Is Supernatural Encounters licensed?
Yes; I filled out the requisite legal documents (freelance worksheets and tax forms and such) when the stories were first approved for publication by Pablo Hidalgo, the same licensing process I went through for my previous contributions to the Expanded Universe. There isn't any Lucasfilm licensing process beyond this.
-Will Supernatural Encounters lore appear on Wookieepedia?
That is for the fans to decide! As far as I'm aware, fans have already started chronicling some lore on Wookieepedia, although I believe Wookieepedia is taking the stance that the work is "cancelled" (which it never was) or "unlicensed" (which isn't accurate either) and labelling it as such. I'm not involved with any of that as it's not my call, but at the suggestion of fans, I did forward some of my emails with Lucasfilm executives to the administrators so as to help the folks at Wookieepedia properly categorize the work.
-Is Supernatural Encounters canon?
That's a tricky question to answer, as canon means something quite different now than when I wrote the work. Matt Martin understood the work to be a so-called "Legends" work and approved it for publication as such, although I had incorporated some elements of lore from the so-called new canon. It was certainly intended to be an Expanded Universe work, and due to being both Lucasfilm-licensed and approved for publication via my website, I believe it would be categorized as C-canon in the old classification system, although how that applies to post-Disney works of the old Expanded Universe (particularly those which have been published somewhat unconventionally such as SkyeWalkers and Supernatural Encounters) is unclear to me (and I haven't received any further guidance from Lucasfilm), and as I'm not Keeper of the Holocron, I can't state things regarding canonicity authoritatively.
So...should we start removing the mentions of "cancelled" or "unlicensed" here and in pages related to it? Or is this a topic for the forums? - Sombraptor (talk) 22:12, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree, the "cancelled" and "unlicensed" templates should be removed. Its been months and I wish an admin would respond to this. -Groosenat0r (talk) 16:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- The problem is that the author has greatly expanded Supernatural Encounters after it was decided that it wouldn't be released. As such, we cannot consider it canon. VergenceScatter (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- If the author released the final version of Supernatural Encounters that was approved by Lucasfilm, we could add information from it to the site as cancelled media. As it stands, anything added to the essay after that point is no better than fanfiction. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 17:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Just adding a note to back up what AV-6R7 said: On Twitter, Matt Martin discussed that only the content that was purchased at that time would have been considered canon. I cannot find the tweet now, but not really looking for it, either. It's been at least a year since it was posted. Most likely a couple or three years. Sorry but I can't remember how long. Either way, (only adding my thought) it only makes sense that after a story is purchased by anyone, the rights to that specific work and only that specific work then belongs to the purchaser. The author no longer owns the rights. Anything the author adds to the story afterward shouldn't be considered part of the original work in regards to ownership. Ownership in this specific case of Lucas Licensing would equate canonicity. Lucas Licensing never reviewed nor purchased additional content from the author, thus the additional content was never canon.Red Heathen (talk) 22:12, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- If the author released the final version of Supernatural Encounters that was approved by Lucasfilm, we could add information from it to the site as cancelled media. As it stands, anything added to the essay after that point is no better than fanfiction. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 17:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
you forgot to consider the following on the starwarstimeline.net site. With this, I don't see the harm in including this licensed masterpiece in Legends canon.
-What material is restored in the "extended edition?" Why was it cut?
Somewhat hurrying to publish Supernatural Encounters before my window of opportunity closed, I cut out swathes of material that I felt needed more time, development, or which might conflict with Star Wars: The Old Republic. I have since restored these and other sections, as well as made some additional revisions and improvements, as is normal for the editing process. In addition, full-color illustrations by the amazing Chris Cold and Guillaume Ducos have been provided. The plan to edit the work further was understood and approved, and typical of online Star Wars publications (such as my colleagues' publications on Hyperspace and the Wizards of the Coast website), so fans shouldn't worry about it making-or-breaking the approvals process at Lucasfilm. I consider the extended edition to be the definitive version —Unsigned comment by 79.181.203.162 (talk • contribs)
Senate Hall
Be aware that this article is the subject of a public discussion on Forum:SH:Regarding the status of the Encounters duology. I would advise editors to familiarize themselves with the conversation before attempting to edit any related articles. --NanoLuukeCloning facility 05:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Status as a canceled project
Citation needed and/or further evidence required to support the assertion that this work was canceled. It was commissioned but then left in limbo because its intended platform became defunct, which is not tantamount to being canceled - a significant distrinction in light of ongoing debates about its canonicity in the Legends continuity. —Unsigned comment by 97.90.251.64 (talk • contribs)
- Its status has been decided by the community here. VergenceScatter (talk) 23:44, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
- "Canceled" may not be the most accurate word since that implies something was at one time officially announced by Lucasfilm. This project, however, was never officially announced and has since become an unofficial ongoing fan project. Perhaps a different header message would help avoid confusion? Immi Thrax
(she/her) (talk) 04:20, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Infobox image
Supernatural Encounters is in a similar situation as Heart of the Jedi, both were cancelled works that the authors independently published. We don't use the cover for The Heart of the Jedi because it is technically fanon, since it was never officially published by Lucasfilm. Should we remove the infobox for Supernatural Encounters, since it's also unofficially published? Rsand 30 (talk) 12:34, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
- I think the image can stay, but framed within the article, not the infobox, with proper context added under. The image file should also be updated so it's description provide same context. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 12:23, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Recommendation: Consideration of SE Content and Proposed Segmentation
In a thorough review of the proceedings within the Senate Hall, it has come to my attention that the treatment towards SE by certain enthusiasts some years ago was notably adverse. It is indeed surprising to observe that even subtle references to SE in the "Behind the Scenes" sections have been disallowed. Arguably, the content made available on JB's official website in 2017 ought to at least be considered, given we possess documented approval and, notably, the absence of an official cancellation announcement. While one might understand reservations about subsequent material added after 2017, it is noteworthy that a significant portion of the Legends audience not only acknowledges but also actively embraces the recently released expanded edition. I suggest this article be categorized under "Legends," elucidating within its context the contested and ambiguous nature of the content within the Legends continuity. Or at least go with a prudent approach with the establishment of two distinct articles: one focusing on the 2017 edition labeling it as Legends and the other on the expanded edition labeling it as non-canon. Artemaeus-Creed (talk) 16:45, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- As the author of said Senate Hall discussion (along with it's Concensus Track follow-up), I can assure you I do not arbor negative feeling about this work. In fact, I'm certain I would take pleasure in reading it, but I far too much overwhelmed with more urgent matters (and my reading list already number close to the 200 items...). However, as proved then, and confirmed again since, SE does not fall under the purview of Wookieepedia's mission. While the definition of said mission is somewhat in a grey area (there's still work to be done regarding older works of uncertain licensing status), the CT did provide a more rigid definition in this case. However, to be clear, I do not think there is any ground to have this work be segmented depending on what stage it was, as again, this is not sufficiently relevant to our mission. Wookieepedia can't be everything, and other specialized Star Wars wikis Could provide a better fit, such as the Star Wars Fanon Wiki, or even it's own dedicated wiki. If such content existed, it could then be linked in the external links section of this article. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 12:51, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
- The biggest problem is that the whole "extended edition" already appears to be bordering on copyright infringement with ideas and some trademarked names ripped straight from several other franchises that are not currently in the public domain and I suspect this is why Lucasfilm is keeping it at arm's length. Vast chunks of the 2017/2023 versions also appear to have originated from material/ideas on the fanon RPG forums of sithempire dot net that appeared AFTER the original submission to Lucasfilm. Even some of the artwork is repurposed from that commissioned for one user's homebrew RPG campaign. Some of the editors are also now appearing to be claiming that they ghost-wrote significant sections of the 2023 edition in collaboration with Lucasfilm while editing it, which has been proven to be false. Misrepresenting the facts like this comes across as these editors trying "to write themselves into the Grail legend" as it were. The 2017 material also appears to contain significant changes to names, places and orders of events to that of the 2023 version, with some sections once referring to one concept or thing, now referring to multiple of conflicting concepts/things. Other names/places etc. have also been removed entirely. We have no possible way of knowing what was or wasn't originally submitted to Lucasfilm. The only way I can ever see any material being considered for BTS sections is if Joe released the original unedited manuscript first submitted to Lucasfilm around the time of its preparation for inclusion in the magazine. I agree with Pablo that yes it may have had some cool ideas to begin with but it's spun way out of it's originally conceived scope into full blown fanon. Supplemental material such as it's Maps and Atlas also appear to contradict established Legends concepts and placements and even refer to things not even contained in the text of the released 2023 version.—Unsigned comment by 95.214.53.28 (talk • contribs)
- Well, that certainly... interesting. Still, those are your claims, and, don't take it personally, for it to be considered into an argument about the status of SE, sources would need to be provided. At any rate, there no need for all that, because this would still draw the debate to the same conclusion and most importantly, this was settled the moment members of the Story Group offered their insight on the matter. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 14:24, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- The biggest problem is that the whole "extended edition" already appears to be bordering on copyright infringement with ideas and some trademarked names ripped straight from several other franchises that are not currently in the public domain and I suspect this is why Lucasfilm is keeping it at arm's length. Vast chunks of the 2017/2023 versions also appear to have originated from material/ideas on the fanon RPG forums of sithempire dot net that appeared AFTER the original submission to Lucasfilm. Even some of the artwork is repurposed from that commissioned for one user's homebrew RPG campaign. Some of the editors are also now appearing to be claiming that they ghost-wrote significant sections of the 2023 edition in collaboration with Lucasfilm while editing it, which has been proven to be false. Misrepresenting the facts like this comes across as these editors trying "to write themselves into the Grail legend" as it were. The 2017 material also appears to contain significant changes to names, places and orders of events to that of the 2023 version, with some sections once referring to one concept or thing, now referring to multiple of conflicting concepts/things. Other names/places etc. have also been removed entirely. We have no possible way of knowing what was or wasn't originally submitted to Lucasfilm. The only way I can ever see any material being considered for BTS sections is if Joe released the original unedited manuscript first submitted to Lucasfilm around the time of its preparation for inclusion in the magazine. I agree with Pablo that yes it may have had some cool ideas to begin with but it's spun way out of it's originally conceived scope into full blown fanon. Supplemental material such as it's Maps and Atlas also appear to contradict established Legends concepts and placements and even refer to things not even contained in the text of the released 2023 version.—Unsigned comment by 95.214.53.28 (talk • contribs)
Ongoing edits to Supernatural Encounters
In the last few days, the pdf that was representative of the printed edition has been removed from Bonjiorno's website and replaced with a new pdf under the same name that omits the egregiously erroneous fanon maps by Edward Dodds while adding further significant changes to the text. New paragraphs start at: "Straightaway discerning what they intended..." New images have also been added to the pdf.—Unsigned comment by 185.114.33.4 (talk • contribs)
- µWhen reversed and inverted, the artwork by Chris Cold (of a blue-hued cityscape) placed just before the Chapter 48 section "GUARDIANS OF INFINITY" actually contains a picture of a car and watermarked copyright text attributed to an external website which the artwork may have been taken from. This further demonstrates that the commissioned images were also did not go through an approval processs by Lucasfilm as some fans are still claiming and are therefore also not Legends canon.—Unsigned comment by 185.114.33.4 (talk • contribs)
- Good catch! It looks like nobody caught it in later revisions either. The "car" and "watermarked copyright text" are still present on page 459 of the 3rd edition. TrekTrek (talk) 09:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
2024 edits
With yet another removal of previously modified/edited pdf (combined with being uploaded to Google storage instead of being hosted directly on Bongiorno's site) it is getting difficult to track and archive the numerous changes since the publication of the "final" extended edition of Supernatural Encounters. There have now been at least 3 different pdf's hosted since publication of the print edition. Even more edits have been made to the document starting with the Hexnotes: "Among their resultant offspring, the warlike Koven – outwardly Human in every way save for their crimson complexion – were dispatched to the Kadar system and tasked with laying the groundwork for future conquests through infiltration, manipulation, and espionage." Corey Carter, the editor for responsible for the supplemental atlas appendix, has also come out and stated that mapping and galactic cartography are really not his thing which may explain why Supernatural Encounters has so many issues aligning with (and downright contradicting) established cartography in the official Essential Atlas. —Unsigned comment by 185.114.33.5 (talk • contribs)
Review and Discussion on Recent Article Revision
Greetings,
I recently undertook a comprehensive rewrite of this article, which I published yesterday. Unfortunately, my revisions were reverted on the grounds that they did not adhere to a neutral point of view, though no examples were provided to substantiate this claim.
In my rewrite, I endeavored to present the information as explicitly and clearly as possible, addressing a significant lack of clarity and coherence in the current version of the article. Additionally, I've attempted to address unneeded repetition. For instance, within the vicinity of the lead section alone, there are three non-canon statements: a non-canon labeling, a non-canon disclaimer, and a non-canon mention. This redundancy is unnecessary. I streamlined the Conception section and relocated the final paragraph to the Production section, enhancing the overall structure. Furthermore, I clarified dates, provided updated citations, and revised sentences to accurately reflect the given statements. Where possible, I included direct quotes to maintain the integrity of the information. The Status of Officiality section was reorganized to allocate a paragraph to each member of the story group. I updated quotes that better fit their respective sections.
I firmly and sincerely believe that my contributions improve the quality and accuracy of this article. I welcome all to read through my contribution to see if you enjoy it and further discuss specific feedback to address any concerns regarding NPOV, and to work collaboratively towards an improved version of this article. Artemaeus-Creed (talk) 04:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry for not being more specific about what I meant by "NPOV issues." I believe the changes in general do not provide new information but mostly change the rhetoric more in favor of the novella's officiality/licensing. Replacing "Bongiorno claimed that the work was officially licensed; however, it was not reviewed by Lucasfilm editorial and was never officially released, making it non-canonical to any official continuity." with "According to Bongiorno, the work is officially licensed; however, it has not been reviewed by Lucasfilm editorial and has never been formally released by them.," but meanwhile replacing "As Supernatural Encounters had expanded beyond what was originally commissioned, Hidalgo was unable to review the modern work due to rules against accepting unsolicited material" with "Despite the work being greenlit by Matt Martin and Dan Brooks in 2015, Hidalgo claimed he was unable to review the modern work due to him being bound by rules against accepting unsolicited material" just looks like a rewording to give more credit to the work's official status but treat Hidalgo's inability to review it as a mere claim. And the term "non-canon" is only used once in the entire prose, so repetition shouldn't be an issue either, in my honest opinion.
AnilSerifoglu (talk) 03:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- I understand your concerns. I would like to propose a solution that maintains the integrity of the article while addressing the issues you've raised. Could we consider restoring the changes I made to the article, and then specifically reverting only the sentences you find problematic? This approach ensures the article remains enhanced for the reader while we continue our discussion on the disputed statements. Allow me to elaborate on my rationale for the modifications in question. The lead statement regarding the work not being official to any continuity is redundant. Readers are already informed of this through the non-canon labeling and disclaimer. Reiterating this point a third time is unnecessary and may give the impression that Wookieepedia is attempting to discredit the work. As contributors, our role is to present the facts objectively. In this case, the crucial facts are its licensure and its status as unreviewed and unreleased by Lucasfilm. Imagine if we applied what has been said in the lead currently to every officially licensed work; every canon and Legends article would state "it has been reviewed by Lucasfilm editorial and henceforth is official to [x] continuity." We refrain from this practice because the canonicity labeling itself serves this purpose. Regarding Pablo's statements, context is paramount. The conversation you're referencing involves him being asked if he is willing to read the modern-day work. Additionally, within the same conversation, Matt Martin confirms the discussion with it potentially being published on Starwars.com. Despite this, Pablo indicates an inability to read it. The interpretation of this is ultimately up to the reader, but providing the full context is essential for an encyclopedic entry. Just my 2 cents. Artemaeus-Creed (talk) 04:09, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- Just to chime in, I'm pretty sure the current version (what Anil has reverted to) is how Wookieepedia does treat SE's content per this Senate Hall and its following CT vote. Our scope only will ever concern the historical documentation of the cancelled work; its unofficial, unlicensed expansions or any such released content past that are briefly noted but not the main focus here. The proposed enhancements are something that several Wookieepedians who have reviewed the edit in question find to be detrimental to the article per the reasoning above. While much smaller, individual changes would be interesting to consider (ones that do not very broadly change the scope, structure, and tone of the article), hard disagree on reverting to the proposed version even as this sorted out via talk page; the version that is in place at the moment was put together by several Wookieepedians knowledgeable with the subject enough so that the community was able to vote properly on the matter. WP:NPOV is definitely a big issue because, sitewide, we treat LFL Story Group members' words with a lot of weight (weighed more heavily than most if not any other SW contributors), which this edit tries to diminish as much as possible in favor of the author's claims.—spookywillowwtalk 16:44, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- Despite this the article still has flaws. This edit provided some well needed updates, corrections, and clarifications. The issues with the edit should have been removed individually instead of purging the entire change.Logan.Likes.Legends (talk) 03:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed with the above. Clarity should be the number one concern when dealing with as dense and complicated subject matter as SE, where there are numerous misconceptions floating around the fanbase. Sombraptor (talk) 21:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Numerous editors who looked over it saw the majority of the edit had more issues than additions; hence reiterating the above, due to the deep flaws it being introduced. It is longstanding standard practice of reverting to the version remaining prior to the contention (regardless of any debate or which revision is correct, standard practice defaults to the pre-edit-warred version) and then adding pieces individually. Clarity, I might add, is also not achieved by diminishing LFL's words in favor of authors.—spookywillowwtalk 21:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Can you provide the specific instances so they may be properly addressed on a case-by-case basis?Logan.Likes.Legends (talk) 19:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Numerous editors who looked over it saw the majority of the edit had more issues than additions; hence reiterating the above, due to the deep flaws it being introduced. It is longstanding standard practice of reverting to the version remaining prior to the contention (regardless of any debate or which revision is correct, standard practice defaults to the pre-edit-warred version) and then adding pieces individually. Clarity, I might add, is also not achieved by diminishing LFL's words in favor of authors.—spookywillowwtalk 21:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed with the above. Clarity should be the number one concern when dealing with as dense and complicated subject matter as SE, where there are numerous misconceptions floating around the fanbase. Sombraptor (talk) 21:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Despite this the article still has flaws. This edit provided some well needed updates, corrections, and clarifications. The issues with the edit should have been removed individually instead of purging the entire change.Logan.Likes.Legends (talk) 03:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Just to chime in, I'm pretty sure the current version (what Anil has reverted to) is how Wookieepedia does treat SE's content per this Senate Hall and its following CT vote. Our scope only will ever concern the historical documentation of the cancelled work; its unofficial, unlicensed expansions or any such released content past that are briefly noted but not the main focus here. The proposed enhancements are something that several Wookieepedians who have reviewed the edit in question find to be detrimental to the article per the reasoning above. While much smaller, individual changes would be interesting to consider (ones that do not very broadly change the scope, structure, and tone of the article), hard disagree on reverting to the proposed version even as this sorted out via talk page; the version that is in place at the moment was put together by several Wookieepedians knowledgeable with the subject enough so that the community was able to vote properly on the matter. WP:NPOV is definitely a big issue because, sitewide, we treat LFL Story Group members' words with a lot of weight (weighed more heavily than most if not any other SW contributors), which this edit tries to diminish as much as possible in favor of the author's claims.—spookywillowwtalk 16:44, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- I understand your concerns. I would like to propose a solution that maintains the integrity of the article while addressing the issues you've raised. Could we consider restoring the changes I made to the article, and then specifically reverting only the sentences you find problematic? This approach ensures the article remains enhanced for the reader while we continue our discussion on the disputed statements. Allow me to elaborate on my rationale for the modifications in question. The lead statement regarding the work not being official to any continuity is redundant. Readers are already informed of this through the non-canon labeling and disclaimer. Reiterating this point a third time is unnecessary and may give the impression that Wookieepedia is attempting to discredit the work. As contributors, our role is to present the facts objectively. In this case, the crucial facts are its licensure and its status as unreviewed and unreleased by Lucasfilm. Imagine if we applied what has been said in the lead currently to every officially licensed work; every canon and Legends article would state "it has been reviewed by Lucasfilm editorial and henceforth is official to [x] continuity." We refrain from this practice because the canonicity labeling itself serves this purpose. Regarding Pablo's statements, context is paramount. The conversation you're referencing involves him being asked if he is willing to read the modern-day work. Additionally, within the same conversation, Matt Martin confirms the discussion with it potentially being published on Starwars.com. Despite this, Pablo indicates an inability to read it. The interpretation of this is ultimately up to the reader, but providing the full context is essential for an encyclopedic entry. Just my 2 cents. Artemaeus-Creed (talk) 04:09, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
It's been weeks since this discussion was active, and no further input has been added. Overall, it appears that there is a general consensus to keep most of the changes in question, although there was a dispute regarding the changes made to the sentences on the work's licensing, as highlighted by AnilSerifoglu. Besides that part, there seems to be a general agreement that the other changes have improved the clarity, coherence, and other issues present in the article, minus the disputed portion mentioned. I would refer to the comments made by Artemaeus-Creed, Logan, Spookywilloww, and Sombraptor above. Furthermore, no objection was mounted to the other changes that did not involve the licensing bit. As such, I have decided to reinstate the changes from the edit in question minus the ones involving the licensing. I believe that the general consensus from this discussion supports this action. Any further disputes should be arbitrated here, rather than resorting to more reversions. TheNeoTachyonDragon1007 (talk) 02:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Since there was a prior consensus reached about the page, it would be better to discuss potential changes at the Forum:Senate Hall Lewisr (talk) 03:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Uhh, literally the opening statement of the Senate Hall says "feel free to post questions, suggestions, and comments not related to specific articles. Questions related to specific articles should be asked on the associated talk pages." This is merely a discussion on the changes made to the article within the framework of what was established about the article. All of the references and information is the same, but it has been reworded to ensure clarity, adherence to NPOV, and improved article layout. Artemaeus-Creed (talk) 12:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- It's been repeatedly stated that foundational changes to the proposed revision should be made rather than reinstating the same, unchanged one repeatedly without fixing any of the issues. Either way one feels about the issue at hand, there's little to no point in trying to force through an edit that doesn't meet the style standards required. The revision prior to dipsute is usually the one locked as this now goes to Forum:Senate Hall for a full sitewide discussion; edit-warring, revering WP:CON edits without a SH or CT vote to back it up, is ultimately not productive for either side. As stated above; individual pieces should've been added, rather than forcing sweeping changes that heavily minimize LFL employees, which is never done on Wook. —spookywillowwtalk 03:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- If I may kindly remind you, posts on the Senate are for "questions, suggestions, and comments not related to specific articles. Questions related to specific articles should be asked on the associated talk pages." Therefore, this is the appropriate forum to discuss Supernatural Encounters. :) I see that you have opposed my edits, but I would be delighted to reach a compromise and collaborate with you to improve the article. I mean that sincerely. Artemaeus-Creed (talk) 04:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- I will kindly remind you in return that the vast majority of edit disputes don't require an edit-warring page lovk. Furthermore, Wookieepedia has voted on how to treat SE in the past. I point you to WP:CON, the voting policy of the site that is final law when something passes or fails CT. That is why this has to go to SH and then to a CT vote proper; for most of that edit to ever be acceptable by community voted policies, the underlying policies must be changed. And policies always require a full formal vote and cannot in any way be handled on a talk page.—spookywillowwtalk 05:53, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- No edit war has taken place. After proposing significant improvements to the article and seeing it reverted I took it to the talk page. After some discussion, no further input or suggestions from yourself or Anfil was given. Last night it appears Tachyon presumed consensus, and I agree. The reversion and subsequent locking of the page were abrupt actions taken without addressing the discussion that had already taken place, not to mention it completely disregards the wishes of the majority who were involved in said discussion. I understand the importance of adhering to community policies and the results of prior votes. However, in this instance, the changes I proposed were intended to improve clarity, coherence, and accuracy, addressing existing flaws in the article within the framework of said policies. The majority of editors involved in the discussion supported these improvements. As per WP:SILENCE Anfil's lack of further response can be taken as consent. This situation is a clear 5v1 in favor of the proposed changes, with only yourself objecting, and not even willing to compromise at that. You've stated that it does not follow Wookiepedia's manual of style, but you've not once given a specific example. Artemaeus-Creed (talk) 12:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- "As per WP:SILENCE"—I'd ask that you provide a link to the vote in which "WP:SILENCE" is a thing on Wookieepedia, as it isn't in our policies, and anything other than Fandom's Terms of Use doesn't apply as a rule if it's not in here. It doesn't exist on Wookieepedia and to my knowledge never has; or if it did, it must have been repealed and deleted. A nonexistent "WP:SILENCE" cannot be enforced in any capacity given it is, quite genuinely, a redlink and not voted on as such. We operate on WP:CON, per OOM; we did vote in the past, on how to handle Supernatural Encounters. You—and anyone—can start a vote to overturn that or any of Wookieepedia's other policies. Simply demanding that it be put back in place does no good, especially on the back of a nonexistent policy. "With only myself objecting" is also flagrantly false given Wookieepedia's standing consensus and following vote on how we view this work that Pablo Hidalgo isn't allowed to read.—spookywillowwtalk 21:14, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Ahh gotcha. Well, keep in mind It's a general principle that most Wiki's follow. In that case it would be a 4 to 2 majority. The prior consensus track vote was regarding its canonicity status, correct? It's officiality. How we view the duology. That's not even what is being discussed. In fact, you may appreciate my expanded officiality section. I urge you to go read it and offer suggestions. :) And again, I am more than willing to collaborate. That is the purpose of this. I must reiterate this is NOT a policy discussion but rather a discussion on and collab (or at least formerly until administration interfered in the democratic process on my revision and how to make it better). Artemaeus-Creed (talk) 13:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- yeah uh, per Spooky-there is no such "WP:Silence" policy and ignoring this invocation of nonexistent rules, Anil not responding further still doesn't indicate "consent" to move forward with the edit that, as said, is overturning community consensus, i.e. actual votes held to determine policy, on concurring with the obvious fact that Supernatural Encounters is not an officially licensed work. Fan26 (Talk) 21:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- "As per WP:SILENCE"—I'd ask that you provide a link to the vote in which "WP:SILENCE" is a thing on Wookieepedia, as it isn't in our policies, and anything other than Fandom's Terms of Use doesn't apply as a rule if it's not in here. It doesn't exist on Wookieepedia and to my knowledge never has; or if it did, it must have been repealed and deleted. A nonexistent "WP:SILENCE" cannot be enforced in any capacity given it is, quite genuinely, a redlink and not voted on as such. We operate on WP:CON, per OOM; we did vote in the past, on how to handle Supernatural Encounters. You—and anyone—can start a vote to overturn that or any of Wookieepedia's other policies. Simply demanding that it be put back in place does no good, especially on the back of a nonexistent policy. "With only myself objecting" is also flagrantly false given Wookieepedia's standing consensus and following vote on how we view this work that Pablo Hidalgo isn't allowed to read.—spookywillowwtalk 21:14, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- No edit war has taken place. After proposing significant improvements to the article and seeing it reverted I took it to the talk page. After some discussion, no further input or suggestions from yourself or Anfil was given. Last night it appears Tachyon presumed consensus, and I agree. The reversion and subsequent locking of the page were abrupt actions taken without addressing the discussion that had already taken place, not to mention it completely disregards the wishes of the majority who were involved in said discussion. I understand the importance of adhering to community policies and the results of prior votes. However, in this instance, the changes I proposed were intended to improve clarity, coherence, and accuracy, addressing existing flaws in the article within the framework of said policies. The majority of editors involved in the discussion supported these improvements. As per WP:SILENCE Anfil's lack of further response can be taken as consent. This situation is a clear 5v1 in favor of the proposed changes, with only yourself objecting, and not even willing to compromise at that. You've stated that it does not follow Wookiepedia's manual of style, but you've not once given a specific example. Artemaeus-Creed (talk) 12:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Additionally, policies aside, final word on editing disputes for content (even how to name individual pages) is taken to a vote. Every established editor I've spoken to disagrees here. Then, others here disagreed, fundamentally, with how Wookieepedia has chosen to do this in a previous vote in which we summarily took off a lot of that off our site. If the consensus truly is so clear, then do take it up for a vote and prove such.—spookywillowwtalk 05:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- The purpose of this discussion is to work collaboratively towards a better article. While I acknowledge that foundational policy changes require formal votes, the specific changes proposed here were aimed at improving the article's quality based on existing policies. If specific concerns remain, I am more than willing to address them individually to ensure the article meets Wookieepedia's standards. However, the editors that you've mentioned failed to appear in this discussion. You are the only one who has mentioned these mysterious editors that seem to disagree. If they are here, I urge them to come and voice their concerns and suggestions on how to improve the article (as I did weeks ago). We simply cannot proceed based solely on your word. It is essential that all relevant voices are heard to reach a fair and comprehensive consensus. Artemaeus-Creed (talk) 12:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Individual article disputes, when particularly contentious, are very regularly handled on the Senate Hall- to as you said - acquire relevant opinions rather than isolating a conversation to a single talk page, as talk page discussions easily get lost in the RC. This dispute in particular contests WP:CON, WP:3RR's spirit via repeated reversion, WP:ATT our treatment of LFL Story Group statements, subverts WP:AA by pulling unrelated admins into this, and conflicts with the other vote on record deciding how we now handle Supernatural Encounters. People are more than welcome to fundamentally disagree with how we do things. But this is a fundamental disagreement with our site policies, so Senate Hall proposals should be made and voted on to change the things ya'll would like to have done because it is not how things are done as of now. No amount of back and forth on a talk page will change the way this counters current policy; which means admins can and will continue to revert or keep this locked WP:A. That said, any user can msle a CT for anything as said above; so take the vote up and let the community judge said content for themselves.—spookywillowwtalk 13:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- There were never 3 reverts. In fact, from what I can tell TachyonDragon's edit was slightly different from mine, keeping the contested sentence within the lead. This was reverted by myself once, due to the consensus from TachyonDragon, Sombrator, and Logan. From what I can tell, you are the one pulling other administration into this conversation and urging them to lock the article for no good reason, not myself. I merely alerted two other admins so we could get other "relevant opinions". The LFL Story Groups comments are given high regard in my revision, just as they are in the current version. However, in mine they are actually organized. I urge you to tell me specifically how my revision does NOT do this, so we can work it out. Again, I point you to literally the top of the Senate hall and concensus track page: "Please feel free to post questions, suggestions, and comments not related to specific articles. Questions related to specific articles should be asked on the associated talk pages" and "The Consensus track page is a forum for organizing votes on site-wide changes, such as new policies and amendments to existing policy". Again, we are NOT discussing the officiality of this work. This is literally a reword of the article using THE SAME sources. No where have I ever said this was a discussion on the officiality and our stance on encounters. I point you back to my very first post. Artemaeus-Creed (talk) 13:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- And I would like to point you to WP:POINT. OOM 224 (he/him/they) 14:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- "Merely alerted" another two admins/Fandom Staff members by requesting they unilaterally choose to unlock the page and restore your edit is not what most folk would consider "merely" given the messages asked them to undo an administrative action (protection of a page) of another admin. Either way, as is public record, you're welcome to view the hundreds, if not in the thousand range of Senate Halls for individual article revisions that have been taken to Senate Hall, such as one within the last few months for Darth Caedus's page name. Refusal to use the Senate Hall to put this outside of an isolated talk page, despite numerous requests), to overturn something that has already been voted on (and thus, cannot ever be overturned without another CT vote) speaks to wikilawyering the nature of the Senate Hall, which is supposed to be an open forum for the site; being shy to take it there implies trying to force a "consensus" (consensus is put in quotes because anything that is not a WP:CON-compliant vote is not "consensus") in a backroom where it won't have enough eyes on it. The Senate Hall is a place widely seen by active site members to get this "consensus" claimed here; which has essentially been a few people corralled on a not-seen talk page and, until the last day, very few vote-eligible Wookieepedians (because people generally don't spend time stalking individual talk pages, and rather head up to the Senate Hall to see what's going on). Supernatural Encounters as a page, due to the recorded and enforced vote held on it, is an issue that must be handled sitewide because it has been past consensus. In 2024, talk pages are rarely if ever used, and often get swept away in the RecentChanges; they are not and haven't been the status quo for any sort of debate for more than half a decade now. Whether individuals choose to forward it ya'lls choice, but per numerous colleagues above and below, am finished with wikilawyering and engaging with refusal to bring this to the community in full; if it's truly so clear cut, there should be no resistance to putting this in the spotlight and I agree with the consensus amongst editing Wookieepedians that this has to be taken up to a proper vote.—spookywillowwtalk 20:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- There were never 3 reverts. In fact, from what I can tell TachyonDragon's edit was slightly different from mine, keeping the contested sentence within the lead. This was reverted by myself once, due to the consensus from TachyonDragon, Sombrator, and Logan. From what I can tell, you are the one pulling other administration into this conversation and urging them to lock the article for no good reason, not myself. I merely alerted two other admins so we could get other "relevant opinions". The LFL Story Groups comments are given high regard in my revision, just as they are in the current version. However, in mine they are actually organized. I urge you to tell me specifically how my revision does NOT do this, so we can work it out. Again, I point you to literally the top of the Senate hall and concensus track page: "Please feel free to post questions, suggestions, and comments not related to specific articles. Questions related to specific articles should be asked on the associated talk pages" and "The Consensus track page is a forum for organizing votes on site-wide changes, such as new policies and amendments to existing policy". Again, we are NOT discussing the officiality of this work. This is literally a reword of the article using THE SAME sources. No where have I ever said this was a discussion on the officiality and our stance on encounters. I point you back to my very first post. Artemaeus-Creed (talk) 13:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Individual article disputes, when particularly contentious, are very regularly handled on the Senate Hall- to as you said - acquire relevant opinions rather than isolating a conversation to a single talk page, as talk page discussions easily get lost in the RC. This dispute in particular contests WP:CON, WP:3RR's spirit via repeated reversion, WP:ATT our treatment of LFL Story Group statements, subverts WP:AA by pulling unrelated admins into this, and conflicts with the other vote on record deciding how we now handle Supernatural Encounters. People are more than welcome to fundamentally disagree with how we do things. But this is a fundamental disagreement with our site policies, so Senate Hall proposals should be made and voted on to change the things ya'll would like to have done because it is not how things are done as of now. No amount of back and forth on a talk page will change the way this counters current policy; which means admins can and will continue to revert or keep this locked WP:A. That said, any user can msle a CT for anything as said above; so take the vote up and let the community judge said content for themselves.—spookywillowwtalk 13:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- The purpose of this discussion is to work collaboratively towards a better article. While I acknowledge that foundational policy changes require formal votes, the specific changes proposed here were aimed at improving the article's quality based on existing policies. If specific concerns remain, I am more than willing to address them individually to ensure the article meets Wookieepedia's standards. However, the editors that you've mentioned failed to appear in this discussion. You are the only one who has mentioned these mysterious editors that seem to disagree. If they are here, I urge them to come and voice their concerns and suggestions on how to improve the article (as I did weeks ago). We simply cannot proceed based solely on your word. It is essential that all relevant voices are heard to reach a fair and comprehensive consensus. Artemaeus-Creed (talk) 12:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- I will kindly remind you in return that the vast majority of edit disputes don't require an edit-warring page lovk. Furthermore, Wookieepedia has voted on how to treat SE in the past. I point you to WP:CON, the voting policy of the site that is final law when something passes or fails CT. That is why this has to go to SH and then to a CT vote proper; for most of that edit to ever be acceptable by community voted policies, the underlying policies must be changed. And policies always require a full formal vote and cannot in any way be handled on a talk page.—spookywillowwtalk 05:53, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- If I may kindly remind you, posts on the Senate are for "questions, suggestions, and comments not related to specific articles. Questions related to specific articles should be asked on the associated talk pages." Therefore, this is the appropriate forum to discuss Supernatural Encounters. :) I see that you have opposed my edits, but I would be delighted to reach a compromise and collaborate with you to improve the article. I mean that sincerely. Artemaeus-Creed (talk) 04:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm unsure why this article was locked. The changes I proposed had garnered support from several editors, including TachyonDragon, who pointed out that there was no additional input nor suggestions for improvement from Spooky or Anfil following the initial discussion. While Anfil did highlight specific sentences of concern, I proposed retaining those unchanged, a suggestion that TachyonDragon incorporated. Given that a consensus was reached with the majority supporting the modifications and no further objections were raised, it is unclear why the page was reverted and subsequently locked. I believe that the changes reflect a well-discussed and agreed-upon improvement to the article. Therefore, I request that my contributions be reinstated and the page unlocked to allow for continued collaborative editing.Artemaeus-Creed (talk) 03:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- The article was locked because, as stated above, you and your group have continually ignored our policies on edit warring, and numerous users have objected to both the quality and content of the edits in question. The article in its current state is fine IMO; please listen to the advice above. Cade
Calrayn 04:11, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Just to clear things up, I am not affiliated with any "group." I merely saw that this page needed some serious improvements and pushed them through. Any other resistance you've received has come as a natural consequence of this. When I look at the history of this page since I made my edits, I have seen no evidence of edit warring as you claim. In fact, I immediately took the issue to the talk page to discuss what could be done. No other reversions were made until last night when consensus was presumed. Anfil explained his reservations, and I suggested keeping the sentences he preferred. Spooky objected, but three other editors agreed with my recommendation. Even in Anfil's case, as per WP:SILENCE, his silence can be taken as consent. This is literally a 5v1 situation, with Spooky being the only one objecting. I am very willing to work with others here, which is why I started this discussion, to improve the article. However, the current version of this article that the community agrees upon is the one pushed through last night by TachyonDragon. Artemaeus-Creed (talk) 12:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- WP:SILENCE does not exist on Wookieepedia, and no one has any right to interpret another person's "silence" as consent. Wookieepedia operates by a formal system of consensus—Wookieepedia:Consensus. That means voting via WP:CT, if you wish to press this matter. OOM 224 (he/him/they) 13:11, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- I agree, though the principle still applies as this is a wiki. ....Uh.... WP:CT "is a forum for organizing votes on site-wide changes, such as new policies and amendments to existing policy". That is not what is being discussed here. What is being discussed is improvements to the article regarding the lack of clarity and coherence in the current version. Everything is within the confines of current policy. Artemaeus-Creed (talk) 13:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- The community stance on Supernatural Encounters was decided by the Consensus Track, and your additions violate that stance; thus, the community stands against your changes. Also, the "community" is far larger than you and the other Supernatural Encounters supporters; I can count at least a dozen people who have agreed with the decision to reverse the page in the community elsewhere. Before attempting to use our own rules to justify your additions, I'd suggest actually learning said rules, one of which includes a policy against meatpuppetry and brigading. Cade Calrayn 13:34, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- This is NOT a discussion on our stance regarding SE. Please specify exactly what in my revision violates our stance. I'm being sincere—once I know, I can rewrite it to be acceptable. The only examples given were by Anfil weeks ago, and the community agreed to keep those in the article (as TachyonDragon did). I refer you back to my first post: this is merely a collaboration (or WAS until it was locked without warning) on my edit. If other contributors disagree with it, they are free to voice their concerns here. I want to collaborate on this to create a better article. Artemaeus-Creed (talk) 13:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Only WP:CON consensus votes are considered binding, and CTs can be used for contentious individual article changes too, as talk page messages are not binding and easily get lost. Let's take this to the WP:SH to get more input from the wider Wookieepedia community. OOM 224 (he/him/they) 13:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- I point you to the top of the Senate Hall and Consensus Track pages: "Please feel free to post questions, suggestions, and comments not related to specific articles. Questions related to specific articles should be asked on the associated talk pages," and "The Consensus Track page is a forum for organizing votes on site-wide changes, such as new policies and amendments to existing policy." Again, we are not discussing the officiality of this work. This is literally a rewording of the article using the same sources. Nowhere have I ever said this was a discussion on the officiality and our stance on "Supernatural Encounters." I refer you back to my very first post. There are plenty of people here to offer suggestions on how to make the article better, yourself included. We should be collaborating and compromising. Please, tell me what you dislike specifically in my revision and let's work on this together. Artemaeus-Creed (talk) 13:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- seconding Cade and OOM, to change the current policy you'd need to go through CT, ideally also taking the debate to SH first to get more people's thoughts on it Sanathestarr (talk) 13:46, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- That's NOT what we are trying to do. We are merely discussing an article revision. See the first post. Besides the first two sentences Anfil mentioned (which were kept in TachyonDragons revision), administration has yet to give specifics of what is in violation of our stance in my revision. Despite constant appeals to collaborate and work together, they appear unwilling. Artemaeus-Creed (talk) 13:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- The community stance on Supernatural Encounters was decided by the Consensus Track, and your additions violate that stance; thus, the community stands against your changes. Also, the "community" is far larger than you and the other Supernatural Encounters supporters; I can count at least a dozen people who have agreed with the decision to reverse the page in the community elsewhere. Before attempting to use our own rules to justify your additions, I'd suggest actually learning said rules, one of which includes a policy against meatpuppetry and brigading. Cade
- I agree, though the principle still applies as this is a wiki. ....Uh.... WP:CT "is a forum for organizing votes on site-wide changes, such as new policies and amendments to existing policy". That is not what is being discussed here. What is being discussed is improvements to the article regarding the lack of clarity and coherence in the current version. Everything is within the confines of current policy. Artemaeus-Creed (talk) 13:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- WP:SILENCE does not exist on Wookieepedia, and no one has any right to interpret another person's "silence" as consent. Wookieepedia operates by a formal system of consensus—Wookieepedia:Consensus. That means voting via WP:CT, if you wish to press this matter. OOM 224 (he/him/they) 13:11, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Just to clear things up, I am not affiliated with any "group." I merely saw that this page needed some serious improvements and pushed them through. Any other resistance you've received has come as a natural consequence of this. When I look at the history of this page since I made my edits, I have seen no evidence of edit warring as you claim. In fact, I immediately took the issue to the talk page to discuss what could be done. No other reversions were made until last night when consensus was presumed. Anfil explained his reservations, and I suggested keeping the sentences he preferred. Spooky objected, but three other editors agreed with my recommendation. Even in Anfil's case, as per WP:SILENCE, his silence can be taken as consent. This is literally a 5v1 situation, with Spooky being the only one objecting. I am very willing to work with others here, which is why I started this discussion, to improve the article. However, the current version of this article that the community agrees upon is the one pushed through last night by TachyonDragon. Artemaeus-Creed (talk) 12:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Just to note, admin page locks are determind by Administrative autonomy so asking other admins who aren't involved to overturn the decision by another comes across as a bit of bad faith. As mentioned above your best course of action is to either accept the current consensus or take any potential discussion to the Forum:Senate Hall and then to the CT to overturn anything Lewisr (talk) 06:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hey, so I got warned this proposed big change would remove or minimize a bunch of the work myself and another editor put into this article? A great deal of effort was put into transcripting the modern reality of Supernatural Encounters from the likes of Pablo Hidalgo with those edits. It may seem redundant at times, but much of it was ensuring every angle was covered and the article was "complete" Editoronthewiki (talk) 18:53, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Rest easy. Nothing has been removed. If anything, it has been expanded, including the Status of officiality section. I urge you to see my revision and give your thoughts. Artemaeus-Creed (talk) 13:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, so I skimmed through this after someone asked me for input and from what I can tell, the disputed edit in question would come close enough to overturning the community vote to regonise what is Lucasfilm's official stance, that this is canceled material that is no longer canonical to the Legends continuity. I don't understand why it's disputed that Supernatural Encounters is formally an unlicensed work at this point, but any dispute to that fact is not simply an edit to an article but moving to disagree with community consensus on how these articles should be handled (consensus that, for the record, simply was Wookieepedians voting to recognize Lucasfilm's longstanding official stance on this canceled work, whose contents are effectively fanfiction by this point, and remove all information on it that is not relevant to Wookieepedia's mission of documenting official materials and canon). I don't think the edit should be restored, but if there must be a dispute over it, better it's handled in the senate hall rather than simply forcing the page to be unprotected and restoring it because a couple people feel strongly that consensus ought to be overturned. Fan26 (Talk) 21:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- It's officiality is NOT what is being discussed. How specifically would my revision overturn "the community vote to recognize what is Lucasfilm's official stance"? I refer you to my first post lol. My revision is merely a reword using the same sources. It's status as an unofficial work is clearly said in my revision. Before engaging in the talk page I urge you to please read through my edit and compare it to the current version and give your thoughts. Artemaeus-Creed (talk) 13:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- First of all, you're trying to push wholesale a lot of things into a single controversial edit. Then, you're trying to sell some kind of talk-page consensus with a small group of like-minded editors while refusing to even consider bringing this forth to the more wider community EVEN WHEN INVITED TO by the administration... And then you engage in wikilawyering with the administration, hoping to gain an edge to force the hand of the administration. Not likely to happen, even more when citing a Wikipedia policy (I could bring "Wikipedia:Tendentious editing" to even the field). Even without acknowledging that the topic has been subjected to a PROPER community consensus, you are still knee deep into NPOV, which the administrator as all right to enforce. If I could offer a piece of advice, stop trying to sell the previous edit as it is, and start to propose the change you want to bring to the page in smaller bite size, section by section or even paragraph by paragraph (one at a time), with you argument as to why you think it should be changed. Otherwise, you're just trying to force people to engage with a major edit all at once, which will obviously ends up nowhere. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 23:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- This discussion was up for weeks. I literally went on vacation for 2 weeks, came back, and found I had some support. Anfil mentioned a couple of sentences he disliked. The only detractor was Spooky, but he gave no specifics of what in the article he disliked. It sat for weeks allowing others to contribute but to no avail. Consensus on the article was achieved. It's only now that consensus was achieved on a new revision that this has blown up. And no, the Senate Hall and Consensus Track are not where these kinds of discussions belong. This is not a policy nor site wide discussion, merely a collaboration (or was) on my edit. People edit in different ways. For myself, I like being bold. And indeed, that is what I did here. I expected this to get reverted, but I also expected that other editors and most certainly administrators if they ever were involved would collaborate, not gatekeep. I urge you to read through my edit and give me examples of what you dislike, and how you would do it better. That is how wiki's work. Artemaeus-Creed (talk) 13:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Stop wiki-lawyering, please. And stop misgendering Spooky and misspelling Anil's name, too. We are going in circles, so take it to the Forum:Senate Hall or Forum:Consensus track, or I will be forced to lock this talk page due to the continuing bad faith discussion here, in accordance with Wookieepedia:Talk page policy and Wookieepedia:Protection policy. OOM 224 (he/him/they) 14:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- This discussion was up for weeks. I literally went on vacation for 2 weeks, came back, and found I had some support. Anfil mentioned a couple of sentences he disliked. The only detractor was Spooky, but he gave no specifics of what in the article he disliked. It sat for weeks allowing others to contribute but to no avail. Consensus on the article was achieved. It's only now that consensus was achieved on a new revision that this has blown up. And no, the Senate Hall and Consensus Track are not where these kinds of discussions belong. This is not a policy nor site wide discussion, merely a collaboration (or was) on my edit. People edit in different ways. For myself, I like being bold. And indeed, that is what I did here. I expected this to get reverted, but I also expected that other editors and most certainly administrators if they ever were involved would collaborate, not gatekeep. I urge you to read through my edit and give me examples of what you dislike, and how you would do it better. That is how wiki's work. Artemaeus-Creed (talk) 13:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
It seems the debate is getting pretty heated here. Instead of pushing for this entire edit to be restored like Artemaeus-Creed has, I believe it would be more productive to have a discussion on what sections of the edit are problematic and work through them case-by-case to determine which individual parts provide an actual improvement to the main article.Logan.Likes.Legends (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Innumerable 2025 3rd edition changes
Once again, a version of this tome has been removed. The 2nd edition of Encounters has now been replaced by a 3rd edition (as of Dec 2024/Jan 2025) that boasts thousands of changes that drastically change how innumerable passages are fundamentally interpreted. It seems this fanwork will truly never remain immutable and seems to be in an endless state of flux. The main page article needs to be updated to reflect this. TrekTrek (talk) 09:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- As far as Wookieepedia is concerned, since the status of the work has been cleared, any further development of this work, in whatever form, needs not be covered, as it iss no longer notable under our policy regarding fan works. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 22:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think we risk this latest 3rd revision spreading further falsities here and elsewhere by not addressing this latest development here on the Wook. The cohort working on this body of work appear to be actively trying to influence and change established Legends facts particularly surrounding ATLAS placements. There are so many bewildering divergences from established placements, for example: the Antares system which has long been established at the Inner Rim N-12 being merged with the Disney-canon Kaldar Trinary system and now being placed by SE at a Outer Rim location together with fanciful grid co-ordinates as well that we would be negligent NOT to mention these changes and stamp out this fanon. The now numerous authors of this work claim to have thoroughly researched this tome but there are simply too many oddities for them not to be deliberate attempts at influencing past and future canon to suit a small minorities own head-canon. TrekTrek (talk) 11:27, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Fear not, we have a strong consensus established since 2021 that forbid any lore addition to Wookieepedia in relation to this work. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 12:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think we risk this latest 3rd revision spreading further falsities here and elsewhere by not addressing this latest development here on the Wook. The cohort working on this body of work appear to be actively trying to influence and change established Legends facts particularly surrounding ATLAS placements. There are so many bewildering divergences from established placements, for example: the Antares system which has long been established at the Inner Rim N-12 being merged with the Disney-canon Kaldar Trinary system and now being placed by SE at a Outer Rim location together with fanciful grid co-ordinates as well that we would be negligent NOT to mention these changes and stamp out this fanon. The now numerous authors of this work claim to have thoroughly researched this tome but there are simply too many oddities for them not to be deliberate attempts at influencing past and future canon to suit a small minorities own head-canon. TrekTrek (talk) 11:27, 24 January 2025 (UTC)