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) 16:41, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
Heya folks I am sure this arguement has been brought up multiple times, the starr wars mangas black/silver they arent canon. I cannot understand why the articles concerning items from the manga are all labeled ambiguosly canon, i think in star wars manga black the infinities stamp is in it six times and in star wars manga silver its in it seven times. Why is there at all an arguement. Before you comment understand that I am fully aware that i am a poor typist do not take my inability as an indication that i am a lesser being. And i am aware i dont have a name for some reason i cannot stay logged in. 18.104.22.168 14:55, October 17, 2009 (UTC)
Well, the articles for both books are labeled Infinities, so my guess is that it's just a matter of clerical work in finding the individual articles that state "ambigiously canon" and replacing them with "non-canon." I don't think there's much argument; you're right the books are clearly Infinities. Unfortunately, I've never read any of the manga, so I wouldn't know where to start in the clerical corrections of the articles. Taral, Dark Lord of the Sith-Just shy, not antisocial: You can talk to me!- 13:12, October 20, 2009 (UTC)
i got into an edit fued over the article tao then it was locked, look that picture infinities every single section of the comic, and someone with hte power to lock an article refuses to awknowledge that page, do you know how hard that comic is to find. There is no question about the continuity, there never will be there used to be but not anymore. please for the love of god somebody fix it 22.214.171.124 04:30, October 26, 2009 (UTC)
As the administrator who locked the article, allow me to explain. The locking of the article and the reversion of your edit does not mean I refuse to acknowledge the page scan you provide. Firstly, despite the fact that you are editing as an anon, I assume that you are Ralok?
The fact of the matter is that it is not the evidence you have provided, but the way you went about it. Tao is currently nominated for Featured Article status, which means that certain procedures have to be followed while editing it. If there is a doubt about its canon status, then you should be discussing it with the nominator of the article rather than continually changing the information within the article. You were told by another administrator to take it to the talk page. While you did this, you also changed the article again before you posted on the talk page. Because of the edit warring, and no discussions taking place, I chose to lock the article until the canon status is resolved.
Now, I have asked the nominator the take a look at the situation and try to find a resolution. As far as I understand it, Leland Chee has commented on the Manga's canonicity, and depending on the dates, this may override the infinities label evidence you provided. Please be patient. - Cavalier One(Squadron channel) 08:56, October 26, 2009 (UTC)
The fact of the matter is that the Infinities label does not automatically mean non-canon. Star Wars Tales #1-#20 were published as Infinities, yet many stories (Extinction, Resurrection and Single Cell, to name a few) have been recognized as canon, either by Chee himself or by references in other sources. Because of that, we consider information from Tales stories as ambiguous here until those stories are explicitly stated to be canon/non-canon. I can't see any reason as to why we should treat Manga stories differently, as they're basically the Japanese equivalent of Tales. QuiGonJinn(Talk) 14:33, October 26, 2009 (UTC)
Yes i am ralok (i am having some sort of wierd problem with logging on), but when exactly did chee make that comment, i am pretty sure it was before it was republished if not then there is a slight problem. Just look at it from a practical viewpoint, it was first announced as infinities, it was published without the label but they later corrected this error. One story was partially canonied and hte planet shumari was referenced but that doesnt mean tao or the story is canon in fact someone said it specifically doesnt mean its canon. Until it is confirmed absolutly that it is canon then an infinities story is non canon, thats what the infinities label is for. 126.96.36.199 17:04, October 26, 2009 (UTC)
QuiGon, I think you are incorrect. For Tales 1-20 the Infinities label was printed once on the entire issue/TPB, but it was specified, that the canonicity of each story was in fact determined individually. For the sixth TPB, each story was marked with either infinities label or an era symbol, if the story was considered canon. Here, we clearly have the same: an Infinites sign near to each individual story, clearly marking them as non-canon. Also, mangas are not exactly Japanese tales.
Really, the situation has gone ridiculous here. For some weird reason we cannot label manga as Infinities, even though Lucasfilm already did. StarWars.com had clearly defined those stories as non-canon when they were first printed (http://web.archive.org/web/http://www.starwars.com/eu/lit/comics/news20051222.html). A year later, Chee said the f-word concerning those stories (fuzzy: 3. Not clear; indistinct), which honestly could mean absolutely anything, from “they are non-canon” to “we haven't decided yet”, I won't speculate. But the English reprint of manga features the Infinities label, which by definition makes the stories non-canon. And yet for some reason we cannot follow the official, printed source, because of a throwaway line made by Chee 3 years ago.
It is kind of obvious that whatever the canon status was at that point, by the time of the English reprint LFL decided to keep manga out of continuity (one of the good things they did). I'd say that this case is very clear, and ignoring the printed source would be rejection of Star Wars canon (or, in this case, non-canon). Because it was a FAN, I already explained the situation in BTS when making changes, but even that doesn't seem to be taken into consideration. Are there any other reasons why we cannot just go with the change? MauserComlink 17:24, October 26, 2009 (UTC)
thank you Mr. Mauser for exlaining that clearly, now can the lock please be removed becauseas far as i am concerned locking it as ambiguosly canon is vandalism, this whole thing is silly there should be an arguement hte facts have been presented and according to the rules that i know it should be labeled non-canon most of the pages concerning hte manga have already been changed tao is the only real holdout i think, and the reference to binks being retired and having a family. ralok 17:49, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
Firstly, Mauser, I am not ignoring the printed source; I am merely asking for clarification. When was this issue reprinted? If anyone has a copy, then providing the date of the reprint (a scanned page for evidence would be appreciated) is necessary so that it can be compared to the date of Mr Chee's comments. Mr Chee's comments were made on the 6th November, 2006, which was a month after the publication of the stories in October 2006.
Secondly, Ralok, be careful who you accuse of vandalism. Administrators have a responsibility to stop situations from devolving into a edit war—an edit war you continued, regardless of the intent, despite being told to take the situation to the article's talk page. The article will remain locked until I—or another administrator—is satisfied, and evidence is presented. If it is non-canon, then it is non-canon and proper adjustments to the article will be made.
So it is simple—provide a scan of the page featuring the publication date of the source in question. - Cavalier One(Squadron channel) 18:31, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
The comic only has the first date of publication which was october 2006 i am pretty sure the uk version was released after chee's comment on the series, it will take a little bit of time for me to figure out. I am pretty sure it was released the next year thought im gonna figure out brb. ralok 20:12, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
I cant find anything but according to Leland chee he hadnt heard any plans for the release of the manga in an english format, but in the manga he is listed on the same page with the infinities stamps in the english version of both mangas so i assume that he approved the page that has his name on it i really hope i dont get in trouble for uploading a whole page but I think doing that should end this pointless arguement ralok 20:49, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
I'm with Mauser on this. We follow the source (i.e. label it non-canon infinities) until something/someone higher up definitively proves otherwise. Right now, we have a vague comment which, regardless of dates, could mean anything. The fact that the comic was at one time released without an Infinities label and now has one seems to point out that at least someone at LFL reviewed it. Also: "Tao is currently nominated for Featured Article status, which means that certain procedures have to be followed while editing it." Not strictly true. Although it would be the courteous thing to do, the same edit guidelines apply to FANs as they do to normal articles. The fact that this article is contested actually goes against FAN rules. Btw, I'm not contesting locking the page - I agree with that - just pointing out that anyone can edit an FAN anytime they want as long as they follow our normal rules like WP:3RR. —Xwing328(Talk) 15:10, October 28, 2009 (UTC)
You're pretty much wrong, in form or function, on every point, X-wing. Of course we follow sources, but we also follow the comments of "LFL VIPs," like Leland Chee, for example. This is one of the overriding premises of our own canon policy. Yes, the comment is vague, but it's neither to be tossed out nor ignored completely. It means exactly what it says: "Fuzzy," or unclear, which, for our purposes is just as good as saying it's "ambiguous." If we're to weigh both the Manga Infinities label and Chee's comment against one another, Chee's comment effectively "raises" its canonicity up one notch, from full non-canon status to our own level of ambiguity. Has anyone stopped to actually look at the dates of the publishing and Chee's comment? Cav pointed it out, so allow me to reiterate his point: The English Manga Infinities label was published in October 2006, and Chee's comment was made in November of 2006. I'm sorry, Mauser. Unless you want to change our canon policy, Chee's comment is not a "throwaway line." And it's certainly not too old to be taken into full consideration. And nothing Cav said in his response about the editing of this article was out of line, X-wing, but we thank you for pointing it out to us anyway. What he means to say is that there's a certain unwritten protocol that has and will continue to be enforced that says you don't just go around and completely alter the shape of a current FAN, or an existing FA for that matter, without at least speaking to the nominator or original writer, and you certainly don't begin an edit war in doing so. It's not just the courteous thing to do. It's the right thing to do. Toprawa and Ralltiir 17:37, October 28, 2009 (UTC)
So, we have to provide proof that English version was reprinted after November 2006, am I right? MauserComlink 00:04, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
I am more than a little bit confused on this subject according to chees comment he didnt even know there was an english version out at the time, are you sure it was the english version that was printed in 2006 this is all very confusing, according to chees comment he didnt know of any plans for an english version when an english version was already released this indicates that he was terribly misinformed but on one page of hte manga his name is listed. This is all terribly convulted what state does mr chee live in i am about ready to call him on the phone to resolve this problem. Plus doesnt the infinities symbol mean that the writers dont wish it part of the continuity isnt the writer more important than a chee, wait a minute if the manga english version was printed in october is that the same thing as shelf date, when did it hit shelves. ralok 00:49, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
It was Japanese version that got published in 2006. English version did not exists until some time later. MauserComlink 01:11, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
according to leland chee it wasnt printed yet, so the dates dont matter please for the love of god dont ask me to prove that chee wasnt a evil robot replacement or something when he made that comment because at this point its getting rediculous, its been proved as non-canon can we right the incorrectness to the wiki now ralok 02:01, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
Mauser, basically, yes I need undeniable proof that editions of the Manga were released with the Infinities label after the date Mr Chee made his comments. And Ralok, you haven't proved anything.
I wasn't going to get involved in this matter. I really wasn't, but the edit war forced me to act. Now, I have conducted research into this matter, and here the publishing/comment timeline that I have managed to pull together:
Sometime in 2006, Japanese editions of Black and Silver are published. This is prior to the 8th JULY 2006. On the 8th, in response to a forum post on the TOKYOPOP message boards, it is revealed that an English language version of the work will be released "this fall". Evidence can be seen here (RobV's comment, 6th post down).
English language versions are published in the UK in OCTOBER 2006, 3 months after the forum posting. Evidence for this is from the credits page for both Silver and Black, which clearly states that the First TOKYOPOP printing was October 2006. Whether or not this means that subsequent print runs were made is unclear; only one date is provided on the issue. Infinities labels are also present, as seen in evidence provided by Ralok.
On 6th NOVEMBER, 2006, Mr Leland Chee comments in the Holocron continuity database questions thread on StarWars.com that the "continuity of the manga comics is a bit fuzzy." This comment seems to "trump" the previous Infinities labels assigned to the stories, elevating them to "ambiguous canon". However, he also states that "I haven't heard of any plans for English version of these comics", although the credits page clearly shows the English works to have been published in the previous month. Mr Chee was possibly unaware of their publication, and his name is inserted into all SW published works as standard procedure due to his position. These comments can be seen here (Leland Y Chee's post, 1st post on page).
On 1st FEBRUARY 2008, a paperback containing both Silver and Black were printed in French. This is the only reprint work I can find. It would be interesting to see what labels (if any) they append to the stories. Amazon.co.uk listing for said book.
As you see, I have researched it as much as possible. The problem is this; in this timeline, Chee's comments seem to clearly "trump" the Infinities labels previously applied to the Silver and Black stories. As Chee's comments are the later source of information, this is what we generally go with in regards to Canon status. As for reprints with Infinities labels being published after Chee's comments, we have no evidence of this and that is the real problem. They may exist, I'm not denying that, but we have no proof of it. The only known reprint I can find is the French language compilation edition, which was published in 2008. It would be interesting to see exactly what they printed within the pages. - Cavalier One(Squadron channel) 10:00, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
CORRECTION according to leland chees version of the universe the manga was not available in english yet, his post then adam_wan_kenobi then jSarek then adam_wan_kenobi then chee again, chee is clearly stateing in a correction that a english version will be available, since you are takeing the word fuzzy as meaning the series in canon i am takeing his comment as meaning the english version wasnt available yet it may have been PRINTED in october but perhaps it wasnt avilable on shelves yet i am going to send this arguement in its entirety in an email to leand chee resolved or not just to show him the dangers of commenting when you have no knowledge of somethingralok 14:52, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
Ralok, thank you for pointing out the extra comment by Mr Chee. However, if you note the post below it, from the user named Eddie, it says that a friend of his picked up the English versions. His message was on the 7th of November, a day after Mr Chee's comments. In this thread, his friend (user name timbolton, 3rd post from the bottom), comments that he has them ... on the 6th of November, the same day as Mr Chee's comments proving that they were commercially available in the UK at the time. - Cavalier One(Squadron channel) 15:47, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
According to the publisher's summary from the French site here, it is non-canon. "ce recueil se situe hors de la continuité officielle." -> "this anthology is situated outside the official continuity." And I'm sorry, I didn't realize the user was completely altering the article by adding a few words to the BTS (now edit warring, sure). And neither did I realize that our FA articles have one author who must be consulted anytime anyone wants to make an edit. Kinda goes against the whole wiki thing. —Xwing328(Talk) 23:32, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
STOP IT CAVALIER ONE this all started because of a comment by leland chee and now it has lead to you disregarding another comment by leland chee stop it for the love of god your sounding like a vandal please stop picking and choosing chee's comments to suit your own purposes paying more regard to the ramblings of fans, someone please kick this man off the website temporarily. Also can we just takethat publishers summary as the difinitive proof i dont want continue this. 14:19, October 30, 2009 (UTC)
Xwing, thanks for the link to the French publisher's site. Since this page had to be made around the publishing date in 2008 at the earliest, I do believe that it constitutes the latest official approved version of the work as authorised by LFL. As long as using the French publisher as a source for the canonical status of the Mangas is acceptable to everyone, I would say that the matter should be closed and the proper labels applied to the article. I will hold the matter open for a further twenty-four hours in case anyone wishes to disagree with this notion and state their reasoning why.
Ralok. That is twice now that you have accused me of vandalism. Do it again, and I will take it as a personal attack and apply administrative action. I'm sorry that you cannot see that I have been trying to help you prove your case. Unlike you, I have no personal vested interest in the outcome of this discussion. I consider myself a neutral party in this, and I went out of my way to track down information for this matter, information that I laid out above if you bothered to read it. My own research led to the discovery of the French reprint that Xwing328 later found the official site for with the comment on the canon status, so I do not see how you can accuse me of picking and choosing information for my own purposes when my own research led to the comment supporting your position. I do not care if the Mangas are canon or not. What I care about is accuracy. There was a dispute over the issue, and I chose to resolve it to whatever end that may be. As I stated above, if it is non-canon then so be it. I'll even change the article myself to reflect the outcome of this discussion. I think it is funny that you accuse me of disregarding Chee's comments when you blithely disregarded a lot more possible evidence, and in fact cited the second of Chee's comments to support your argument while ignoring the first that put the canon status in doubt in the first place. The sad thing is that you will probably take this outcome as the fact that you "won", and got your own way when the only thing that won through was accuracy, research, and the willingness to consider all the evidence without prejudice. - Cavalier One(Squadron channel) 15:07, October 30, 2009 (UTC)
Short of ordering it myself, I have managed to find an image of the back cover of the French one from here that seems to show an Infinities logo. I hope that helps with this. Nayayen(talk) 22:48, October 30, 2009 (UTC)
WHAT, if I htought that I won I wouldnt be back here to continue the conversation, the french version has infinities stamp can we please put the issue to rest and call it non-canon. Please the comment does not matter now the symbol was on a cover i think this silents the arguement. And i think thati am being treated a little unfair, i am sorry about accusing you of being a vandal i would send you flowers Titan arum preferably, but i am not that cruel (intellectual joke) can we just drop the vandal thing alltogether because i think the arguement is over ralok 03:58, October 31, 2009 (UTC)
yaaaaaummm the last post by me didnt turn out the way i expected i inserted a flower joke totry and lightenhte mood but it didnt really work all that well, sorry didnt mean any offense.ralok 06:20, October 31, 2009 (UTC)
Tao has been changed to reflect the non canon status that this discussion has brought to light. I wish to thank both Xwing328 and Nayayen for producing the proof from the French editions.
Ralok: the discussion is over. However, my warning to you stands. I will be watching your future behaviour and suggest that you start to think carefully about what you post. If you do not mean it, and do not want it taken the wrong way then do not say it. - Cavalier One(Squadron channel) 14:03, October 31, 2009 (UTC)
wellit is over oof coursebut alot of changes need to be made in most of the articles it lists the uk version as securing is as non-canon, i figure ill make the neceessary edits least i could do for causing all the fuss,how should iword it though i dont know.ill make the editsoverthe cours of the next fewdays unless of coursethey are already made. ralok 01:50, November 1, 2009 (UTC)