This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. The result of the debate was no consensus.–SentryTalk 00:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
When we get a case of C-Canon blatantly disregarding previously established C-Canon, I propose that we consider the new material non-canon, or put some sort of tag on it to identify that the information's canonicity is dubious, unless:
The new material has been designed to retcon the previous material
The old material's canonicity is weak at best
The new material is closer tied to G-canon.
This initiative should only occur when no tangible reason can exsist to explain the two conflicting stories.
Sorry for not signing, but the Tydirium thing is just stupid. I mean, you read the article, and tell me it makes sense. Thefourdotelipsis 05:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Against. Contradictions are handled by Lucasfilm on a case-by-case basis, and not always in favor of newer material. We should do what we've always done - mention both if they can't be coherently synthesized without fanonical interpretation. If it's important enough, we ask Leland Chee on the Official Site's message boards, but he doesn't always have an answer for us, which means back to square one. We shouldn't be afraid to *not* have an answer if there isn't one. jSarek 06:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Then I alter the proposition. When a discrepancy such as the two I have cited occur, there should be an initiative to accertain the truth from Lucasfilm representatives.Thefourdotelipsis 06:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.