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 Adopt Wookieepedia:Canon policy as an official policy. Grunny (talk) 04:48, June 2, 2010 (UTC)

Wookieepedia:Canon policy is currently only a proposed policy. I have ammended it per some of the suggestions brought up here and I would like to suggest that we accept the policy, as it is basically what we follow at the moment anyway. --Jinzler 18:38, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Accept the policyEdit

1. Jinzler 18:38, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
2. I'm voting to approve this proposal and accept the policy as is right now because, by and large, it is something that we all largely adhere to already in its current form when writing articles and determining what is and and isn't canon. For the most part, I would go out on a limb and say the majority of everything we cover and work with is mentioned or discussed in some form on this page. Does that mean this Canon policy page is complete and finalized and covers everything? Of course not. There's always going to be something that needs updating or revising as Star Wars continues to evolve and develop. And I'm sure as we foresee future consequences, some elements of this page will need to be expanded and changed for clarification. But that's not a bad thing. That doesn't mean we can't accept what we already largely treat as fact. As someone said on another CT not too long ago, nothing is permanent. We can update the page as needed in the future. Toprawa and Ralltiir 18:21, May 29, 2010 (UTC)
3. Completely per Tope. —Master Jonathan ^{(Jedi Council Chambers)} 18:50, May 29, 2010 (UTC)
4. Grand Moff Tranner ^(Comlink) 18:52, May 29, 2010 (UTC)
5. -- 1358 ^(Talk) 18:52, May 29, 2010 (UTC)
6. CC7567 ^(talk) 18:54, May 29, 2010 (UTC)
7. Jonjedigrandmaster ^(Talk) 18:55, May 29, 2010 (UTC)
8. Chack Jadson ^(Talk) 19:00, May 29, 2010 (UTC)
9. IFYLOFD ^{(Floyd's crib)} 02:34, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
10. Tired of enforcing "proposed policies" and so forth, let's make more of these real so it's solid. Graestan^(Talk) 02:52, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
11. Ok. Let's do it. We can always amend it along the way if there is an oversight. For now, though, I don't see any major issues. — Fiolli ^{{Alpheridies University ComNet}} 02:56, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
12. Xicer9^(Combadge) 03:06, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
13. Cavalier One^{(Squadron channel)} 07:44, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
14. Grunny (talk) 09:31, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
15. Imperialles 09:45, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

Reject the policyEdit

DiscourseEdit

Okay, I'll have at it. I've read through the proposed policy and taken the time to consider it. Much of it is good, to be honest. Rather than vote to reject, I'd like to highlight the one thing that troubles me most: "Content published on Starwars.com, including the Databank and blogs by Leland Chee or other VIPs, brings any information to a near-film status of acceptability." Technically, this is a loophole that could allow virtually anyone who has done something in Star Wars to say something and we could then take it as canon. We need to clarify who these VIPs (meaning acceptable sources) are and where their word applies. If Dan Wallace, for example, were to say something about the Fate of the Jedi series that he is not directly involved in at this time, would we take that as canon? He is Dan Wallace. (My apologies to Mr. Wallace for using him as an example.) What about minor VIPs who are only involved in some tasks or isolated publications. We have Wookieepedians who fall into this category. I understand taking their word as authorial intent, but we need to draw the line somewhere. If Leland Chee or Sue Rostoni say something, I absolutely agree that such should be considered canon. If anyone else does, and they are not involved in the project in question, we need to really take a look at it so we don't end up being misled or following someone's speculation. — Fiolli ^{{Alpheridies University ComNet}} 13:36, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

• Good point, I have edited it to apply to only Leland Chee and Sue Rostoni --Jinzler 16:51, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
  • Okay. Just so you know, Jinzler, I'm reading through it again and weighing some things. I haven't forgotten about the proposal, and so far it looks pretty good. I'm just going to comb through it again. — Fiolli ^{{Alpheridies University ComNet}} 17:56, May 29, 2010 (UTC)

The TCW film isn't explicitly linked to. It isn't included in the Star Wars films link nor is it covered properly in the TV series article. Also, where are other spin-off films like the Ewoks ones covered? It is indeed pedantic and should be common sense that they are included but the less chance we give people the opportunity to say "Well, technically, it isn't there", the better. NAYAYEN:TALK 10:05, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

• Then the pipelink needs to be changed. In my mind, "Star Wars films" applies to everything. From TPM to Noa Briqualon himself. Easy fix. Toprawa and Ralltiir 18:02, June 1, 2010 (UTC)