Forums > Senate Hall archive > I suck. I can't find a good S-canon tag

Seeing as Marvel Star Wars is S-canon, and thus almost no better than N-canon in terms of factual reliability, I feel it would be wise to add a tag to topics which exclusively comes from Marvel SW. As it stands, it is far too easy for readers to mistake them for the real thing among the multitude of C-canon articles. I'd like to start doing this here and there, but I can't find a tag for it.

Help? DarthMRN 12:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

  • There is no tag, and that is intentional. We don't separate S and C canon, just as we don't separate C and G canon. S Canon isn't "non canon" or "no better than N-canon", it is a valid canon source and needs to be treated as such. Please don't go and retroactively change a deliberate editorial decision that was made as far back as the beginning of this wiki. If you do, I will take it upon myself to revert all your changes. If you persist after warnings, I will ban you. Thanks. QuentinGeorge 13:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • If people want to know what sources something comes from, that's what the "ref" tags are for. We don't need messy and complicated sections dividing up our articles by source. We're not the OS, and I wish people would stop labouring under the belief that we are. QuentinGeorge 13:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    • And a good day to you too. I'm afraid I'm gonna need some clarification on that then, cause last I checked, logic dictates that when something is to be disregarded or taken into account by the larger EU at the individual EU creator's own discretion, that quite clearly means it is non-canon until proven otherwise. And what does the OS got to do with it? DarthMRN 13:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
      • S-canon = N-canon? That's news to me, Mr. Spock. -- Ozzel 17:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
        • For factual purposes, at least. Now, I can't claim to be infallible, but as far as the info from the Canon article and Lelands statements in the Holocron thread goes, that is the only interpretation I can think of. If anyone can think of another, one that supports what QG says, I'm all ears. DarthMRN 20:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
          • How's about "canon until proven otherwise"? -- Ozzel 20:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
            • That is an interpretation, but it would be nice to hear how you arrived at it. DarthMRN 20:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
              • The fact that Leland Chee, who came up with it in the first place, says that "S" stands for "secondary" continuity and that it applies to "some older published materials and things that may or may not fit just right" and that "non-continuity 'N'" is rarely used "except in the case of a blatant contradiction or for things that have been cut." Now, how did you arrive at yours? -- Ozzel 21:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
                • In it's unsourced state, I will not use our own Canon article as evidence. Instead (p. 59 of the Holocron thread [1]):

"Is the holiday special, or at least most of it, considered C-canon? If so, which specific parts aren't? Aside from things already referenced in later sources, I'd consider it S-Canon. EU creators can take or leave those parts however they see fit."

"What is the current canon ranking of the Marvel comics? S-canon, with stuff that has been referenced as C-canon."

Quote 1 proves that S-canon elements that aren't referenced by a separate C-canon work aren't C-canon. Quote 2 proves that Marvel SW is S-canon. My conculsion: Marvel SW and S-canon in general don't share the factual value of C-canon. Now the burden lies on you to prove why it should be treated as factual, and how these 'facts' should relate to C-canon ones. Chee didn't say S-canon is factually comparable to N-canon, but he also didn't say S-canon should share any of the qualities of C-canon on its own. DarthMRN 21:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

  • No one here is saying that S-canon shares any of the qualities of C-canon either. So far you've only illustrated that S-canon is equal to S-canon. -- SM-716 File:716chiss.gif talk? 22:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Exactly. If you are going to say that S = N, then you need something to back that up. -- Ozzel 22:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
      • You are right in this regard. My claim is opposite to yours, but neither are verified officialy. The difference is that I say: "It is worthless, and only has a place on the Wook for the same reason Infinites do -because we record all SW", while you guys say: "It should be treated such and such in regards to factuality" without even an attempt at clarifying that there is no definite proof backing that up. From what little I know of logic, the burden of proof then lies on you. Unless you claim lacking qualities is a quality in itself, which must be proven, in which case I am saddened by the power tradition holds over the workings of Wookieepedia. DarthMRN 23:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
        • I realize I can afford to clarfiy a little: All we know of S-canon is that EU authors are free to take it or leave it when creating C-canon. We know nothing of its "truth"-value. I think I've clarified my interpretation of this issue, and that the interpretation currently held by this site has nothing official to back it up. DarthMRN 00:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Alright, contoversial issue. Fresh start. Disregard whether or not I am right. I interpret, you interpret, neither are facts which we can source. The Canon ambiguity has to be LFL's problem, not ours. We merely record SW, we don't fill in the blanks. The facts are: 1) S-canon is less true than C-canon. 2) We don't know in what way it is less true, simply that it is. I am not advocating putting a non-canon tag on S-canon articles. That would be original research, and hardly community sanctioned. I am simply advocating we tag articles to reflect facts as we know them: that articles and sub-sections which contain S-canon material are in some undefined way, less true than articles of C-canon value. As a simple reminder to the reader that what goes here should be taken with a bigger pinch of salt than the rest, without specifying in what way. Where is the harm in that? And it cannot possibly be worse than presenting S-canon information as if though it was equal to C or G info. The average reader cannot be expected to know the nuances of Canon well enough to know that Marvel Star Wars is less trustworthy than other material on the site. I think it is a fair request that we make and put up S-canon tags on appropriate articles and subsections. DarthMRN 01:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
    • The problem with this is that it will give way to classifying content by its canon status. C-canon is after all, less true than G-canon. So why don't we make a template for that? I don't think it's something we need or want here. Besides, almost all the Marvel issues have been referenced in one form or another in recent SW literature. All this seems like is a vendetta against Marvel content. If you go to a page that is Marvel content, and you think, "What? Huh?", then you'll go to the source page which will tell you it's canon status. It's mentioned as S-canon on the Marvel page. That is enough. Cull Tremayne 01:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
      • The difference between this and the C vs G issue, is that we know in what way G supercedes C: If in conflict, G takes presendece. Thus Wook material is always up to date, Canon-wise. There is no need to make a distinction. For S vs C, we don't have that sort of info. Also, you can't be serious when you say 'most' of Marvel has been referenced. We are talking about more than lead characters here. A multitude of new species, cities, characters, names etc. and a fair deal of either outright contradictory or terribly implausible pieces of info. Furthermore, the Holocron tracks Canon by entry, not by source, thus something being referenced does not make the rest of the comic C-canon. At least not as far as we know.

But I am done with politics. I have made the issue clear, and my views on it. Take it or leave it. DarthMRN 01:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

  • We'll leave it then. You obviously don't understand canon, and that's your problem, not ours. I don't see why you would even care about this issue since you don't edit articles anyway... unless, perhaps, the only reason you stick around here is to argue. But of course that's not the case, now, is it? This party's over. Have a nice day. -- Ozzel 03:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.