Forum:CT:Non-canon material

Wookieepedia > Consensus track > CT:Non-canon material

I've noticed the practice of including non-canon information in articles with the noncanon tags (as in the inclusion of information from Infinites in Boba Fett). However, I'm really not comfortable with including noncanon information in the main article. I therefore propose that a new section be added for articles with noncanon information. It could be placed between the main article and the behind the scenes section. We could call it ==Noncanon== or some such. This would keep it out of the canonical information but keep it in the article. I think this would be a cleaner, more professional, and more sensible solution. Havac 21:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Havac 21:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
2. Imp 21:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
3. Non-canon info should be moved to "Behind the scenes". It doesn't make sense to put non-canon info with canon info, as that part of an article is in-universe, and in-universe writers wouldn't know about it in the first place. Adamwankenobi 20:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
4. I think the non-canon section tags are disruptive. -LtNOWIS 20:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
5. I've always disliked the muddled way we are doing it now. QuentinGeorge 22:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
6. Definitely. --Azizlight 23:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
7. I don't like the way we currently have it. It seems messy, and stupid. Disruptive. The article just doesn't flow with this in the middle. A seperate section would be great. Chack Jadson 00:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

   Yup, needs to be done. Non-canon info disrupts the flow of a bio. (Rhymes!) .... 02:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

8. Green Tentacle ^(Talk) 09:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

   Angel BlueFile:Jedi Order.jpg^(Holonet)

9. The idea of putting info into an article only to say, "Oh BTW, ignore that" has always vexed me. Atarumaster88 File:Jedi Order.jpg ^{(Audience Chamber)} 19:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
10. Jaina Solo^{(Goddess Stuff)} File:Jaina sig.jpg 19:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
11. Ozzel 23:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
12. Angel BlueFile:Holocron negwt.jpg^(Holonet) 23:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
13. Kaiburr Adaejan 01:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
14. Trip 07:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC) - Ambiguous or otherwise, anything not explicitly canon doesn't belong in the main text.

    I went back and forth on this for awhile. I agree with Atarumaster88. —Xwing328^(Talk) 17:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

15. Yoshi626File:Yoshiegg.jpg 03:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
16. Support. Nearly all current "ambig" is genuinely noncanon anyway. jSarek 09:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
17. Support VT-16 10:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
18. The current situation makes articles look very messy - \\Captain Kwenn// ^{— Ahoy!} 15:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Just no, the policy should stay how it is, its not behind the scenes info, its still part of the chracters bio. Jedi Dude 21:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
   • He's not saying it should be behind the scenes info, but a new "Non-canon" section which will be written in the same style as the main article. --Azizlight 23:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
2. Except when the information is Infinities and obviously contradicts with established canon. The only stuff that should be included is information from cut material, and non-contradicting elements of stories that have been branded non-canon (eg. the Darth Maul stuff both on his own page and on Obi-Wan Kenobi's. Star Wars: Infinities material should not be included. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 23:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

   I like the current tagging. Surrounding cannon material provides a background for it. -Fnlayson 17:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

3. I'd rather we leave it as is.--Lord Oblivion^{Sith holocron}File:Oldsith.png 19:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
4. No. Having a separate section heading would make the article look worse. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} File:Implogo.jpg 01:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
5. Darth Culator ^{(Talk)(Kills)} 00:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
6. Cull Tremayne 03:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC) - Changing vote since the non-canon tags are only really used on the Maul page and the Brandls where it is fairly effective. Though moving the Maul info might be better in the BTS. Cull Tremayne 03:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
7.  G.He_(Talk!) 03:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
8. Since the ambigs and cut content don't per se contradict anything, and usually fill in gaps in the straight canon, i say keep em where they are; it makes sense where they are usually placed, chronologically, etc.JustinGann 03:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
9. Kuralyov 03:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
10. Current policy works fine. This just complicates stuff. McEwok 04:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
11. Let's not make this any more convoluted - it's not like they're not marked currently. -- Dark Spork 05:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
12. Sikon 05:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
13. Having a banner saying 'Non-canonical information follows' right in with the main section works just fine, that way readers can skip over to pick up after the banner saying 'End of non-canonical section', and the info stays relevant to its position in the article. Otherwise readers might have to go back and forth between the two sections, in order to get the full picture.Tocneppil 10:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
14. Jasca Ducato 12:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
15. StarNeptune^{Talk to me!} 18:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Seperate only Non-Canon, leave Ambig Canon within the article

1. The Erl of the CT:Non-canon material ^{talk What I do} 22:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
2. --Eyrezer 00:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
3. Changing my vote to this. -Fnlayson 17:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

   Cull Tremayne 01:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

4. .... 01:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
5. Grr...switching vote again. —Xwing328^(Talk) 03:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
6. I need a name (Complain here) 18:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
7. Jaymach convinced me. Chack Jadson 21:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
8. Changed my vote. Jaymach has convinced me as well. As I stated above, although I think the non-canon material should be removed from the in-universe section, I think it should be moved to the behind the scenes section. Adamwankenobi 21:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
9. Imp 00:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Is this also about inclusion of ambigiously canon information? There is a lot more of that out there than out-and-out non-canon information. I would support not having non-canon info in the main text, ie where established to contradict or infinites as Jaymach talks about. However info from many of the Tales stories, or ambig magazines fits in well I think. --Eyrezer 08:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• I'd suggest that ambig be included in the non-canon section. All information in there should still be tagged as Infinities or ambiguous, but until the ambiguous stuff is confirmed, it isn't canon and shouldn't be in the main space until it is definitively canonized. To do otherwise just seems sloppy to me. Havac 17:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • If that was the case, I'd oppose. I like to see the ambig parts in, ie the section on Ackbar. I think they add positively to the articles. --Eyrezer 00:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
    • But they're not, as of now, canon. Regardless of their positivity or negativity, I would think that they don't belong. Havac 00:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
      • In view of the frequent questions about amig canon items, I'm going to add a new section, dividing it into three votes: current policy, seperate non-canon only, seperate ambig and non-canon.--The Erl of the CT:Non-canon material ^{talk What I do} 22:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Can we call this policy now? Havac 22:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's gotten enough attention yet. -- Darth Culator ^{(Talk)(Kills)} 00:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• I notice that a lot of the comments seem to be based on the idea that the ambiguous canon or outright non-canon information "fills in gaps" in the canon. In my opinion, that's exactly the problem. It encourages people to think of this decidedly non-canon information as "true" when it is, at the current moment, not. Havac 00:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)