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 on whether to remove or keep cut content in main article body.
Remove Infinities content from main article body.
Keep ambiguous Tales content in main article body.
Remove ambiguous Polyhedron, etc., content from main article body.
Uh-uh. No consensus on ambig. If Imp won't let me close a CT with less than 3-to-1 as consensus, you don't get to declare consensus on ambig stuff with 2-to-1. -- Darth Culator(Talk) 13:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
As the last CT on this was closed with no consensus quite a while ago and it's recently become an issue, I feel I ought to bring this topic back up. The problem is that currently, cut content, noncanon material, and so-called "ambiguous canon" -- a fanmade and fanon category of canon supposedly defined by the fact that it could, someday, be referenced and thus have tiny elements of it made canon -- is all included inside the main body of articles alongside canon information.
While it is distinguished by bracketing tags, the fact remains that this information is not canon. Cut content is not canon -- it's cut -- infinities material is not canon, explicitly. "Ambiguous canon" is material which is not canon but might someday become it. Moreover, it's broken into two categories. There is Tales canon, which was all published under the Infinities label, minus certain select stories which have been canonized; as such, they no longer fall in the ambig category. There are also stories which have had select elements referenced, canonizing only those references; the story as a whole remains noncanon unless we are told otherwise. The second category is that of unlicensed material written in certain magazines. This, quite simply, is not canon. It's not licensed.
Now, there's nothing wrong with including this information in articles. We'd be remiss if we didn't. However, including it alongside canon information in the main section is a horrible idea. It's just an island of noncanon in a sea of canon, surrounded by ugly tags, which adds nothing to the reader's understanding of canon and only detracts from it. By placing this in the main section, it interrupts the flow of an otherwise canonical article. An article which could have flowed from one canonical event to the other now has to interrupt itself to explain something which frequently does not fit with the surrounding events in that timeframe. In order to properly contextualize it, it's required to go into OOU detail which does not belong in the main body. Without that context, the canonical paragraph before it, in order to flow as anything more than a muddled mess, has to transition into something that did not happen. The paragraph after the information then has to transition out of something that did not happen. Quite frankly, it dumps a pile of shit inside the article and expects you to work around it. I don't know how an article like that could possibly be FA'd; this is simply incompatible with our standards of quality.
Now, there will be a vote. In order to avoid confusion, it will be in four parts, with for and against votes for four topics. No more options may be added. If you want this stuff in the BTS, in its own section -- we'll deal with that later once it's decided if we keep in in the main space or not. It's very simple. Havac 03:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
With the exception of material that contradicts canon. When things have been cut, they generally go through licensing and get added to the holocron in some way. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 03:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
This is really the only thing that I think the tags work well with. Cut content also seems to be "somewhat" regarded, and has some place in the holocron. If it's generally contradicting? Well of course not, but most of what we use this for (Lightsider, Brandls, Other WEG character cut stories) never contradicts and is just a continuation that (unfortunately) never got published. Cull Tremayne 06:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Properly tagged, this should be OK in many cases. Some articles will flow better with the cut content in the BTS section, though. —Silly Dan(talk) 13:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Per Dan. I've seen it work well both ways. Greyman(Paratus) 16:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Depends. Much of the deleted scenes from the OT were covered in the novels and comics. Also, it's official material even if not full canon. -Fnlayson 21:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
If they're included in books and comics...they're no longer cut. Thefourdotelipsis 22:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, depends less then. They're S or C canon, instead of G canon. -Fnlayson 23:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Right. Which is totally irrelevant when writing an article. Cut content, is, by it's very definition, cut. If it's canon, it's not cut. It's back in there. All I hear is "It's in the holocron". Where's the evidence? I see none. Also, how do we know exactly what's in there, and what's not? We don't. The template itself says "This stuff does not exist in the "proper" Star Wars continuity. So, we're giving readers a section of "Hey, Jackie, take a look at this! It's not canon, but I thought you might find it interesting." Thefourdotelipsis 01:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Although it's not canon, it still provides valuble insight into the author's/cartoonist's/designer's original intentions and the development of the charater/event/place. Michaeldsuarez(Activate Holocron) 21:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Stuff that provides that sort of insight without being canon is what goes in Behind the scenes sections, not the main article body. jSarek 08:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, provided it means the actual Infinities comics only. BTS is the place for that. The rest could well stay if it isn't contradictory. Captain Daal 10:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
(Resonding to Captain Daal) No, take it all out. If they bother putting an infinities tag on it, it means it is REALLY NOT CANON and needs to be somewhere other than in a canonical record. Wildyoda 04:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Again, with an exception; not the actual Infinities comics (ANH Infinities, ESB Infinities, and RotJ Infinities) and again, unless it contradicts. Things like Darth Maul's cyborg legs, I don't have a problem with. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 03:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
We don't have a clear list of what is and what is not canon from Tales. We've taken it upon ourselves to label it as "ambiguous" whereas Chee himself has stated that only the stupid stories are non-canon, and he doesn't really say anything about the rest, nor which ones are intended to be stupid. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 03:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Per Jaymach. This is the only *real* ambiguous canon there is, and, generally speaking, the Powers That Be are more likely to look at it as canon than not. See A Practical Man, which was essentially written as a retcon to give a Tales story a better fit with canon. jSarek 03:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
What about stories that simply don't fit with canon? Are we going to have A Death Star Is Born in Tarkin's article because no one has disproved that it's canon? What about the Ben Skywalker tales story? It got his hair color wrong and would require a whole set of retcons to make it work; does that mean we can disqualify it, or does it have to stay in because Abel could, theoretically, someday, if he feels like it, retcon it into truthiness? Again, I think the burden should be to prove it's canon before including it in the main text rather than the Nebulaxian "Prove it's not!" mentality. Havac 06:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
For something like A Death Star Is Born, see jSarek's comment at the very bottom of the page. I'd consider that outrageous. Hobbes15(Tiger Headquarters) 22:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
About time. Doesn't matter if it once upon a time did go through licensing - the Powers That Be don't know it now, and treat it as if it never did. That's non-canon, baby. jSarek 03:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Per the thread below that jSarek posted. Greyman(Paratus) 23:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I have found this SW.com blog thread from Abel which states that some of this information could be considered canon until a newer source contradicts it. Per Abel's comments (which can found near the bottom), I don't feel that I can support this option anymore since there are clearly exceptions to the rule. Greyman(Paratus) 15:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I read that comment as what he, personally, is likely to follow for future writings, since he's the only one likely to write about Merili. Abel has also been known to use fan ideas, too, like Thrawn getting Grievous's mask, but that doesn't mean we should add fanon to articles. At any rate, as much as we love him, Abel isn't the one running the Holocron, or even a Lucasfilm employee, unlike Leland. jSarek 22:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Meh, I stand by this decision, even if me changing my vote doesn't mean squat to the outcome of this CT. Greyman(Paratus) 23:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Again, we label it incorrectly. Chee says that he can't find out if it went through licensing. If it did go through licensing, it's fully canon work....if it didn't, then it's non-canon. But the very fact that nobody can find out makes me want to leave it in just in case. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 03:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
If you really think Picard went through licensing . . . . Even if it did go through licensing, that doesn't mean the LFL of today is obligated to regard it as canon, which it clearly doesn't. There's a one in one hundred chance, if that, it actually went through licensing. Chee's just covering his ass. Havac 03:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
And so, consequently, we also cover our collective ass. I don't see why that's so bad. -- Darth Culator(Talk) 03:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Because we end up with an article containing shit that almost always doesn't fit in it. I'm not saying we don't have it in the page, I'm saying we don't stick it inside the 100% Grade-A guaranteed canon. Our ass is covered just by having it in the BTS or whatever new section we might decide to create. It's the same reasons we don't put "well, it's maybe probably this person" shots in the infobox; we put them in the BTS. If we're not sure, we note it separately, not force it in. Havac 03:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
So rather than suggesting articles like Picard get deleted, you'd label it non-canon? --Eyrezer 07:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
After doing some research into the newer Polyhedron articles, and speaking with other users who have more knowledge of it, I have to vote here. Greyman(Paratus) 16:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
The newer Polyhedron articles did go through Licensing; there's nothing ambiguous about them, they're canon, and thus aren't covered by this vote. jSarek 23:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
That's what I thought, but when I asked Havac about that he said that all Polyhedron material was covered, including the newer articles. I even used examples. Trust me, I did my research before voting here. Greyman(Paratus) 23:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
As long as it's explicitly stated which Polyhedron issues are covered by this, I have no problem switching my vote at that time. Greyman(Paratus) 23:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
The cutoff point is 2003. jSarek 23:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah, excellent. That makes it much clearer for everyone who was curious, including myself. Greyman(Paratus) 23:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
It's "ambiguous," not "ambguous." And I tire of certain people's jihad against this stuff. -- Darth Culator(Talk) 03:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
That's what I get for copy-and-pasting. Havac 03:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and just to get this out of the way in advance: This is a consensus track, which means a simple majority or plurality isn't going to cut it. -- Darth Culator(Talk) 03:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Regarding Tales, Tasty had this to say: "Consider everything that's not completely outrageous or intentionally comic as S-canon. If it's referenced in another non-Tales source, then elevate it to C-canon." jSarek 07:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Just throwing this out here: would the inclusion of ambig-canon material in the article proper be less objectionable if the tag were phrased in a more IU manner? Say, maybe instead of reading "Warning: The following section is based on information which ONLY appears in a Star Wars Tales #1–#20 story that has not been referenced elsewhere; therefore, its level of canonicity is ambiguous", maybe the header should actually say "The following information is taken from a source whose validity is in question. Until further confirmation, the following events may or may not have occured as recorded, if at all." Thoughts? Need some fine tuning? Dumb idea? -- SM-716talk? 20:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I personally think it's best keeping those tags clear for the reader, so they know exactly what's going on. Our in-universe conceit shouldn't interfere with our ability to convey information effectively to our readership. jSarek 20:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, the very idea of canon and canon levels is out of universe. Regarding Tales, we should use common sense as to which stories are obviously "non-serious." -LtNOWIS 02:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Do you mean that "Baby Darth Maul goes to the dentist" isn't canon? My concept of continuity is ruined now! The canon went boom! :-P Atarumaster88(Talk page) 04:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)