Talk: Geekmasterflash

Geekmasterflash, welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wookieepedia. I hope you like the place and choose to join our work. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wookieepedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the Community Portal talk page or ask me on my Talk page. May the Force be with you! --Azizlight 03:44, 26 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Wonders of the Galaxy

Watch it when you place stuff in new categories. You're marking them all as asterisks. Kuralyov 06:05, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Early Polyhedrons

Please see Talk: Polyhedron 59. Please also revert the noncanon tags back to ambig, as I have discussed them and the magazines they are to be used on with the Wookieepedia admins.

  • I made them noncanon in the first place, they were ambig before. Geekmasterflash 12:12, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • I know, that is what I am asking you to change back. They are to be ambig as per both Pena's post (which I shall find) and discussions I have had with Wookieepedia admins. -Jaymach Ral'Tir 12:14, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)
      • You have another problem there, I just found a post from his saying they are NOT canon:

"If there's any line to be drawn, I tend to do so at the Polyhedrons (i.e. Challenge, etc. don't count) mostly because Polyhedron actually had the license only in recent years.

The safest way I know to think of them is as easter eggs. If you see a reference to one of the old articles, just smile and nod knowingly. happy

Take care, Abel"

Which makes the DB admin, and an author saying to ignore the old polys. Geekmasterflash 12:20, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)

  • Um... we know this. That was us asking the questions. But while not canon (or better, not canon), material in Polyhedron (and to a certain extent, other RPG magazines) has been directly referenced in later canon material by other authors, and is regarded as fair game for retrospective usage. So far, we've caught Church of the Dark Side, Merilli and her connection with Kashyyyk, Jedi Master Bear. Add to this the fact that these pieces were often written by SW pros like Slavicsek. Because of this, while not strictu sensu "canon", the RPG material as a whole has an informal but fairly specific specific "apocryphal until proven canonical" status. The {{ambig}} label was created specifically to distinguish this sort of stuff from generic non-canon material - at a guess, we could add some of Patty Jackson and Charlene Newcomb's online material to the category, too. Does that make sense to you? --McEwok 13:32, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • I am just making the case that ambig doesnt seem to cover it when they actually (2 of them) say that it isn't canon, not that it could be considered canon unless it it overrulled, but that it stated blankly non-canonical, were the ambig tag states that the canonicty is disputable....Does that make sense to you? Geekmasterflash 13:36, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)
      • Here is what I am getting at:
Stop_hand.png

The subject of this article originates in an unlicensed source that has not been deemed definitively canon. Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page.

This line right here: "The subject of this article originates in an unlicensed source that has not been deemed definitively canon." Meaning that its a question, right?

Well compare to this:

Stop_hand.png

This article covers a subject that has been deemed non-canon by either the author or the Star Wars liscensees, and thus should not be taken as a part of the "real" Star Wars universe.

"This article covers a subject that has been deemed definitively non-canon by either the author or the Star Wars public." See. when both Leland AND Pena say definitively non-canon, I think the non-canon tag HAS to apply, or else all non-canon articles could be considered ambiguious. I mean you dont get much more "author" or "star wars public" than these two. --Geekmasterflash

  • I think you're missing the point of the subtle distinction between "not canon" and "not canon". You might have more success in persuading us if you suggested that the {{ambig}} tag could be rephrased; but really, I think you're hung up on a specific meaning of "canon". There is material that has a "better" status than pure non-canon fanon, and that's what we're referring to with {{ambig}}. You're simplifying your interpretation of some quite careful statements from Chee and Pena, to argue for an elision between the tag slapped on this careful, in-continuity, and eminently useable material which is used as a direct source by later canon material; and the tag slapped on say, SuperShadow's stuff, or the references to Star Trek and Doctor Who in the Book of Imperial Shuttle Plans. I don't grasp the logic of that. When the non-canon label says definitively non-canon, it means that the stuff being cited doesn't fit in SW continuity. And that is clearly not true of this material, for the simple reason that some of it appears in later canon. --McEwok 14:04, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • On a purely technical note, there is the clear question of an apparent lack of LFL approval. As you cite here, Leland Chee defines canon by "the listing of a Lucas editor in the credits", which he assumes that the Polyhedron stuff doesn't have. But a quick check of the Imperial Sourcebook credits Slavicsek as editor. Considering that he's credited as author on the Polyhedron material... anyone know if he wore a LFL editor's hat of any sort? It may be that, given the mess with which WEG ended up, Chee's records are incomplete. Just a possibility.... --McEwok 14:04, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)

P.S. - Just as an FYI, can you remember to sign yourself off with --~~~~ every time? Thanks! :-) --McEwok 14:10, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)

    • Just because he has done canonical work doesnt mean he retroactivly has all his work magically become canon, and if you look the Poly in question has never been referenced to in any other work. And takeing into account that we have two established sources saying the polys this old are definatly not canon, I really think it is nostalga that is holding us on to the ambig tag. Geekmasterflash 14:17, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I understand the subtly involved, but ambig is out of the question when you have a point blank statement from an author that its not canon. I dont see how it could be ambiguious as to its canon status. Perhaps a reword is in order, or simply noteing that two very important people have stated quiet openly that the canoncity of these articles is nothing without LFL approval. Geekmasterflash 14:11, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)

P.S - Woops. Geekmasterflash 14:12, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)

  • Yep, that's right - stick a ~~~~, without no-wiki'ing it, at the end of everything you write. Otherwise, the people you're talking to have to add your signature to make clear where your comments end and theirs begin. Also, you need to put the required number of *s at the start of every paragraph to make them sit in a line.
  • As to the actual topic, I think you're doing a thing a lot of people do, and focusing too much on words rather than meaning. Chee is saying that these articles weren't (to his knowledge) formally approved, hence, not canon. Pena, however, doesn't use the word "canon" at all: he calls the Polyhedron stuff "Undefinables", "infinities, of an informal sort", and valid "until something newer should supercede". In terms of material from these articles that has become unambiguous canon, we can note that Merili comes from Polyhedron, the Church of the Dark Side comes from Polyhedron, and Jedi Master Bear in Dark Rendezvous comes from an utterly obscure RPG source. Essentially, the {{ambig}} material represent ambiguous continuations of official canon, "innocent until proven guilty" - stuff that, while perhaps not canon, is not actively not canon, either. This is a clearly seperate status fron the definitively non-canon status indicated by {{noncanon}}. --McEwok 14:27, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • You got Pena and Chee backwards, but I will forgive you this time cause it is cute. I can see what your saying, but I have to again disagree based on the wording of both templates. The ambig DOESNT work for it, because offical sources have said without the LFL signoff, its is defacto non-canon. Their is no question of the canoncity of it, and the NEWER quotes (dated 10/28/05) are what we work with, since new material always supersedes old. Based on the quotes themselves, from the very qualifiers of the difference between ambig and non-canon... the polyhedron in question is offically non-canon. I suggest a rewrite of the template if you seek to keep the article ambig, or else further confusion is very possible. Geekmasterflash 14:35, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)
      • Um, no I didn't. I got them the right way round. But that's okay. :) And again, I think you're overismplifying a complicated issue. If we mean "are they clearly, unambiguously official", then no, they're not (though see my query on what Slavicsek's status was!); hence the {{ambig}} label. But they're also not excluded in the way that actively non-canon material would be; elements have been incorporated in canon, and on the whole, they're innocent-until-proven-guilty. Hence the need for something other than {{noncanon}}. There's some talk currently of centralizing discussion on this sort of thing, so I suggest we leave off our disagreement (which is really simply one of the phrasing of the two distinct tags) until that's settled. In the meantime, I'll {{ambig}} up some stuff on Brandl and Garos IV.... --McEwok 16:04, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)

File:Vadersuit3.jpg

Image deletion warning The image File:Vadersuit3.jpg has been listed at Wookieepedia:Images and media for deletion. If you feel that this image should not be deleted, please go there to voice your opinion.