Forum:CT:If something appears in a source, does it really appear?

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:If something appears in a source, does it really appear?

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 the new template and its implementation. Graestan^(Talk) 23:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

---

I've noticed that, while sometimes a character "appears" in a source (video game, usually) but doesn't truly, canonically, appear - I'm using "canonically" in the sense that it doesn't show up in the canonical storyline - it's awfully vague on whether or not to use that as an official appearance, without any qualifier. For example, take Talk:Han Solo#Justification of Edit. From what I've seen, we don't have a policy on this kind of "Appearance" one way or the other. I'd like to change that, to finalize it some way or the other.

• Benefits:
  • I recall an episode "a pleasant discussion" with User:Toprawa and Ralltiir over Tenk Lenso and Tarrin Datch and their "appearance" in Star Wars: Empire at War: Forces of Corruption. While it is true that they are in the finalized game (not cut, etc.), they aren't in the story portion of said game. However, the article merely stated that they appeared in the game; no qualifiers to say that they weren't in the game's canonical part, just that they were in the game. Obviously, since their appearing in FOC conflicted with other, established canon on their respective fates, etc., he was able to correct the problem himself (and both article were able to go onto FAs, etc.) - others, such as Kyle Katarn's appearance in FOC, isn't as easily rectified. With this new policy in place, there'd be no confusion for either the reader or the editor as to a person's extent.
  • I touched on this part a little bit on the above note. In appearances that are awfully ambiguous (anything concerning Kyle Katarn's appearance in FOC, or Han Solo's appearance in Battlefront II), this new policy would help clarify their extents, saying that, while it is possible to play as them/see them in action, it doesn't happen in the canonical storyline of said game.
  • For the sake of consistency, a policy like this would help rectify such issues as the one dealing with Han Solo and his appearance in Battlefront II - instead of "did he appear really, or didn't he appear" questions, a simple new template (I'll talk about that later) would clearly qualify.

I'll post more benefits if I think of them, and others are free to post their ideas either in the same list or down in the discussion area.

Note that this would apply not only to characters but really anything that shows up in any particular source (once again, usually video games) - things like planets, ships, vehicles, etc., that don't show up in the storyline would be tagged appropriately in their respective areas. This would extensively affect Star Wars: Galactic Battlegrounds, Star Wars: Empire at War and its sequel, and the multiplayer facets of any games (Battlefront series, Jedi Knight series, TFU, etc.), as they all have set storylines, and then extra-storyline material.

Now, how would we go about displaying such a clarification? I'm drawn to the way we use the {{1st}}, {{Mo}}, etc templates - a new one, something simple, that would tell the user "Only seen in multiplayer/skirmish" for the ambiguous appearances. In this regard, the template would not apply to Tenk Lenso or Tarrin Datch, whose timelines both conflict with their ambiguous appearance in FOC and can thereby be labeled as such, but rather to the Han Solos and Kyle Katarns and Imperial pummels (I'm assuming they don't show in the storyline anywhere). Template is shown below. ^Jorrel_Fraajic 02:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Short version

I realize I got a tad wordy there; I apologize. In short, this CT is attempting to set a policy to clarify appearances in non-storyline events for characters, planets, etc. Two parts, one concerning the policy itself and another concerning how to implement it, are set for voting below. ^Jorrel_Fraajic 02:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion/Comments

Forum:Are appearances in Instant Action modes canon pretty much came before this, but this CT here encompasses that CT, and goes beyond. Admins, decide to do what you will with the other - merge, delete, etc. I don't really want two going on the same topic at the same time. ^Jorrel_Fraajic 02:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• First, I'd like to clarify that the Datch/Lenso cases weren't really "episodes." That makes it sound like there was a fight. :P It was a pleasant discussion, and Jorrel was very helpful in helping me cover their involvements in FOC. Now, concerning the topic, is this not why we have the Ambiguous canon template? Toprawa and Ralltiir 02:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I was under the impression that the ambig canon template was for appearances which the subject themselves were ambiguous, not the characters' appearance. Even so, there's no concrete policy for explaining or performing any actions on such qualifiers that I'm talking about. ^Jorrel_Fraajic 02:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
    • You may very well be correct about that, but I think I've used it in the manner that I am thinking. Specifically, for Hoth asteroid field and the asteroid field level for Flight of the Falcon, which is pretty ridiculous on a canonical level. Toprawa and Ralltiir 03:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Once again, however, that use contradicts established canon, much like Lenso/Datch. The main things that would fall under this policy are the Han Solo/Kyle Katarn and single-source SWGB mentions. ^Jorrel_Fraajic 03:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Voting on codifying policy

• The two voting options are fairly self-explanatory - what you stand for is clearly put in the title.

Yes, I feel we need such a policy

1. But of course. ^Jorrel_Fraajic 02:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
2. Even if I have no clue how Tenk and Tarrin got in FOC or where.--Goodwood ^{(Alliance Intelligence)} 02:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
3. I'm not sure we "need" a policy, but it helps clarify. I know there was some confusion from reviewers when Lenso and Datch were going through. Toprawa and Ralltiir 03:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
4. Per Toprawa. Unit 8311 17:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
5. Indubitably. NaruHina ^Talk 15:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
6. Master Aban Fiolli ^{{Alpheridies University ComNet}} 23:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
7. Stake black ^msg 19:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Voting on new template for execution of policy

Something along the lines of: (Appears only in non-storyline event)

Shorter voting titles for this one.

Yes

1. ^Jorrel_Fraajic 02:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
2. Goodwood ^{(Alliance Intelligence)} 02:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
3. This'll definitely help clarify some things. Unit 8311 17:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
4. NaruHina ^Talk 15:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
5. Graestan^(Talk) 14:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
6. Master Aban Fiolli ^{{Alpheridies University ComNet}} 23:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
7. Stake black ^msg 19:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• That template is assuming that any multiplayer mode is not a part of the storyline. Is this a safe assumption? And what exactly is Solo's role in Battlefront that makes it so strange? Toprawa and Ralltiir 03:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • For everything except Star Wars Galaxies, any multiplayer is not part of the storyline. As of now, there are no co-op games, so any multiplayer aspect those games would have (since the games don't exist) wouldn't fall under that category either. This template is mainly to differentiate the gameplay elements (for anyone who has played Empire at War or Star Wars: Galactic Battlegrounds knows what I'm talking about) from the stoyline ones. As for the whole Solo issue, Han appears in the skirmish mode as a hero you can play as in several maps; however, he never appears in the story mode (except indirectly by piloting the Falcon in the Battle of Hoth level). ^Jorrel_Fraajic 18:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)