Forum:CT Archive/Ambiguous canon in the main article body

Rather than complicate the other CT that's revoting on our policies of what material goes in the main article body by adding a second vote, I'm creating another to deal with an unresolved issue from that same original CT. We agreed two-to-one to keep "ambiguous canon"—a designation entirely created by us to describe material that never went through Lucas Licensing and is therefore not even official—in the main canon section of an article, though due to disagreements of some on the conclusion of that vote, it was decided that a revote on the issue would be best.

I'm going to quote Havac's original statement on the matter, skipping over the parts that are no longer true or relevant: "The problem is that currently,&hellip; 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.&hellip; 'Ambiguous canon' is material which is not canon but might someday become it.&hellip; 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."

TL;DR version: "Ambiguous canon" is a category entirely invented by fans, describing material that was never licensed, never vetted by LFL, and is not official. While some material has later been incorporated into canon by authors, this follows the same criterion as the cut canon issue: until that happens, or unless we get notice that there is an exception for a particular source, it isn't canon and doesn't belong in the canon section of an article. Like with cut content, this doesn't prevent us from including it in a separate section or the BTS where appropriate, nor does it prevent us from including it in the body if it is made canon in another source.

Also, this doesn't apply to Tales stories, only unlicensed material from Polyhedron, Challenge, Casus Belli, etc. I just want to make that clear to avoid potential misconceptions. Discuss. - Lord Hydronium 22:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Place "ambiguous canon" in the BTS or separate section

 * 1) Lord Hydronium 22:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)