Forums > Senate Hall archive > SH Archive/Need help marking noncanon articles
Leland Chee recently revealed on the message boards here, at the bottom that all unlicensed material, such as the unlicensed stuff in roleplaying magazines for the SWRPG is noncanon no matter what. Thereby, I could sure use some help going through that List of unlicensed sources, clicking on each individual article that's been made for each magazine's content and marking 'em as noncanon. Any hep here would be hot, as Jar-Jar would say. Crowe 15:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Ah, I forgot to mention something. It'd eliminate a lot of backtracking if you post which mags you've got marked off completely here (magazines that have had every one of their materials, whether it be characters, ships etc marked noncanon). I've completed onlyBackstab 30 so far. I think that it goes without saying though that material that appears in these articles that has other sources or appearances can be left ambiguously canon. Only materials appearing exclusively in the magazines should be marked noncanon. Thanks! Crowe 15:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Cassus Belli 89 done. Crowe 16:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I redirected Template:Ambig to {{noncanon}}, one just needs to "touch" (do a null edit) articles that reference this template to put them into a proper category or replace that template with noncanon. R2 can do it tomorrow. - Sikon [Talk] 16:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Ah, thanks! That saves us a lot of trouble. However, won't that redirect some ambiguous articles that actually are undecided as to canon status? I cite the Class VI freighter as a prime example, though it's one of the few....Crowe 17:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
      • The ambig template was designed for articles from unlicensed sources. If it was used for something else, it was a mistake. - Sikon [Talk] 18:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Ah, well, that's now clear to me. From the usage of the word "ambiguous", I naturally assumed that it meant that the product had not been definitively placed in the canon yet, but that it was licensed. Perhaps a new word should be used instead, one that more properly defines it as unlicensed? Merely a suggestion to save new users hassle, and to prevent what happened here from happening in the future... Crowe 20:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
          • How about {{unlicensed}}? —Silly Dan (talk) 23:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
            • That would be far superior to the ambiguous one, for certain. There's no way to confuse unlicensed with the "licensed but awaiting clarification" vibe you get from the word "ambiguous". Crowe 01:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)