Forum:CT Archive/Canon/noncanon

As the last CT on this was closed with no consensus quite a while ago and it's recently become an issue, I feel I ought to bring this topic back up. The problem is that currently, cut content, noncanon material, and so-called "ambiguous canon" -- a fanmade and fanon category of canon supposedly defined by the fact that it could, someday, be referenced and thus have tiny elements of it made canon -- is all included inside the main body of articles alongside canon information.

While it is distinguished by bracketing tags, the fact remains that this information is not canon. Cut content is not canon -- it's cut -- infinities material is not canon, explicitly. "Ambiguous canon" is material which is not canon but might someday become it. Moreover, it's broken into two categories. There is Tales canon, which was all published under the Infinities label, minus certain select stories which have been canonized; as such, they no longer fall in the ambig category. There are also stories which have had select elements referenced, canonizing only those references; the story as a whole remains noncanon unless we are told otherwise. The second category is that of unlicensed material written in certain magazines. This, quite simply, is not canon. It's not licensed.

Now, there's nothing wrong with including this information in articles. We'd be remiss if we didn't. However, including it alongside canon information in the main section is a horrible idea. It's just an island of noncanon in a sea of canon, surrounded by ugly tags, which adds nothing to the reader's understanding of canon and only detracts from it. By placing this in the main section, it interrupts the flow of an otherwise canonical article. An article which could have flowed from one canonical event to the other now has to interrupt itself to explain something which frequently does not fit with the surrounding events in that timeframe. In order to properly contextualize it, it's required to go into OOU detail which does not belong in the main body. Without that context, the canonical paragraph before it, in order to flow as anything more than a muddled mess, has to transition into something that did not happen. The paragraph after the information then has to transition out of something that did not happen. Quite frankly, it dumps a pile of shit inside the article and expects you to work around it. I don't know how an article like that could possibly be FA'd; this is simply incompatible with our standards of quality.

Now, there will be a vote. In order to avoid confusion, it will be in four parts, with for and against votes for four topics. No more options may be added. If you want this stuff in the BTS, in its own section -- we'll deal with that later once it's decided if we keep in in the main space or not. It's very simple. Havac 03:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Remove cut content from main article body

 * 1) Canon is canon, and this ain't canon. Havac 03:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Per Havac. &mdash;Graestan [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( This party's over ) 03:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Lord Hydronium 03:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Thefourdotelipsis 03:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Ozzel 03:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep cut content in main article body

 * 1) Kuralyov 03:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Darth Culator (Talk) 03:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) With the exception of material that contradicts canon. When things have been cut, they generally go through licensing and get added to the holocron in some way. &mdash;Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 03:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Remove Infinities content from main article body

 * 1) This is the most brain-numbingly obvious one. If it's under the Infinities tag, it ain't canon, and it ain't got no place in a canonical article. Havac 03:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) &mdash;Graestan  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( This party's over ) 03:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Darth Culator (Talk) 03:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) LtNOWIS 03:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Lord Hydronium 03:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Of course. Thefourdotelipsis 03:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Ozzel 03:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep Infinities content in main article body

 * 1) Kuralyov 03:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Again, with an exception; not the actual Infinities comics (ANH Infinities, ESB Infinities, and RotJ Infinities) and again, unless it contradicts. Things like Darth Maul's cyborg legs, I don't have a problem with. &mdash;Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 03:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Per Jaymach. -- Darth Culator  (Talk) 03:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Remove ambiguous Tales content from main article body

 * 1) If it hasn't been canonized, it -- guess what?! -- isn't canon. Havac 03:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) &mdash;Graestan  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( This party's over ) 03:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Lord Hydronium 03:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thefourdotelipsis 03:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep ambiguous Tales content in main article body

 * 1) Kuralyov 03:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Darth Culator (Talk) 03:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) We don't have a clear list of what is and what is not canon from Tales. We've taken it upon ourselves to label it as "ambiguous" whereas Chee himself has stated that only the stupid stories are non-canon, and he doesn't really say anything about the rest, nor which ones are intended to be stupid. &mdash;Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 03:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Thefourdotelipsis 03:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Remove ambiguous Polyhedron, etc., content from main article body

 * 1) Don't look like canon from where I'm standin'. Havac 03:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) &mdash;Graestan  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( This party's over ) 03:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Lord Hydronium 03:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Thefourdotelipsis 03:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Ozzel 03:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep ambiguous Polyhedron, etc., content in main article body

 * 1) Kuralyov 03:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Darth Culator (Talk) 03:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Again, we label it incorrectly. Chee says that he can't find out if it went through licensing. If it did go through licensing, it's fully canon work....if it didn't, then it's non-canon. But the very fact that nobody can find out makes me want to leave it in just in case. &mdash;Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 03:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) *If you really think Picard went through licensing . . . . Even if it did go through licensing, that doesn't mean the LFL of today is obligated to regard it as canon, which it clearly doesn't. There's a one in one hundred chance, if that, it actually went through licensing. Chee's just covering his ass. Havac 03:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) **And so, consequently, we also cover our collective ass. I don't see why that's so bad. -- Darth Culator  (Talk) 03:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) ***Because we end up with an article containing shit that almost always doesn't fit in it. I'm not saying we don't have it in the page, I'm saying we don't stick it inside the 100% Grade-A guaranteed canon. Our ass is covered just by having it in the BTS or whatever new section we might decide to create. It's the same reasons we don't put "well, it's maybe probably this person" shots in the infobox; we put them in the BTS. If we're not sure, we note it separately, not force it in. Havac 03:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments
It's "ambiguous," not "ambguous." And I tire of certain people's jihad against this stuff. -- Darth Culator  (Talk) 03:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC) Oh, and just to get this out of the way in advance: This is a consensus track, which means a simple majority or plurality isn't going to cut it. -- Darth Culator  (Talk) 03:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's what I get for copy-and-pasting. Havac 03:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)