This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments or questions on this topic should be made in a new Senate Hall page rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. Graestan(Talk) 23:54, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
I was recently checking out some of our site policies and I noticed that Wookieepedia:Canon policy is still only a proposed policy, and has yet to be ratified. I think that it is high time that we adopted some sort of version of it, to clarify Wookieepedia's position on canon in the site rules. However, the proposed policies are going to need revising before anyone even considers CTing them, as there are a number of problems with them. For example, the policy claims that if an article contains only non-canon information, it should be placed in the trash compactor, thus implying that Tag and Bink and all of their non-canon friends from offical non-canon sources would all have to go.
I would like to hear what people's views are on this subject, so we can clarify what we want as our official canon policy, and then CT this. --Jinzler 21:36, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
Other than the points you've raised, Jinzler, I think there's a lot to like in its current form, simply since we as a site do seem to operate under the validity of the page as is. I think any discussion here would be to make only minor revisions that won't change the state of the page by very much. Otherwise, I would definitely recommend taking this to a CT. I think it's something we can all generally agree upon. Toprawa and Ralltiir 21:43, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
Pffft. Nothing after or taking place at the same time as Return of the Jedi is canon. Anakin brought balance to The Force. :p </sarcasm> But, seriously, now... That needs some updating. Here are some suggestions:
While I'm sure there are a number of no-objections, under it's current wording TCW is not considered a valid source.
I've added TCW to the list of acceptable TV series on the Canon page. Toprawa and Ralltiir 04:03, May 14, 2010 (UTC)
I'm currently not sure where Living Force fits, if we are taking this as a literal yes/no/sometimes guide. (I'm not sure of LF in general. Were the event results/play-by-plays published somewhere? It looks like the Wizards pages are just introductions/hooks for the individual campaigns.)
We should differentiate between an invalid resource (fan-fiction) and a non-canon resource. That way, the current wording of the article, (about deleted pages with 100% invalid resources), remains the same.
Although a Canon policy would imply that it only applies to IU articles, if we make Deleting Invalid Articles a part of it, that difference needs to be spelled out, basically as a safety to prevent OOU articles from getting trash compacted. SinisterSamurai 01:36, May 14, 2010 (UTC)
With regard to the Living Force campaign, it is like any other RPG campaign in that there are authorised pdfs for the gamemaster that lay out the plot, characters, stats, etc. The outcomes are not specified but the structure of the adventure is given. --Eyrezer 10:35, May 14, 2010 (UTC)
With regards to the publishers, I think it would be worthwhile adding something about Random House's international imprints. In other words, make it so that my copy of Dynasty of Evil, published by one of RH's UK imprints is technically a valid source. Just because Del-Rey is the first publisher (I guess, that or because it's the US one) doesn't mean that the international imprints are invalid. NAYAYEN:TALK 16:25, May 14, 2010 (UTC)
I have ammended the proposed policy slightly, per the issues raised here. Unless anyone finds any more problems with it, I will CT this thing somewhen soon --Jinzler 23:02, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
It all looks about what I had assumed we were already using, although I had expected to see two other items listed as valid sources: Toys (descriptions on an action figure's box for example) and author/creator clarifications (which are often used as references to source articles). —fodigg(talk) | 20:08, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
Added these. I have put author/creator clarifications in the "What is unclear section?", because they may or may not be canon, as authors do not own their characters and can be over-ruled by Leland Chee and Lucasfilm. For example, if tomorrow Karen Traviss decided to say that in Bloodlines, Boba Fett is not in fact Fett, but instead an evil droid version of him, that statement probably wouldn't be canon. --Jinzler 18:32, May 23, 2010 (UTC)