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 may not have gone through Lucas Licensing and is therefore unknown whether it is even official—out of 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 no one can say was ever licensed, ever vetted by LFL, or is 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)

Discussion

 * Now, just a reminder to anyone who is going to vote or comment on this CT: Regardless of past disputes that have revolved around this topic, the previous-closed CT, or anything of a personal nature related to this "ambiguous" topic, please remember to stay on target with this and vote about the topic at hand. Please don't attempt to turn this into a flame war, or a "He said, she said!" discussion. From my point of view, this CT was simply created to clear up a foggy, unclear, and disputed topic, and therefore its point is to do away with that uncertainty and make it clear. So, please remember this, and lets keep this civil and orderly, and get this decided once and for all :) Thanks, Greyman  http://images.wikia.com/central/images/9/9c/Jan.png ( Talk ) 22:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Allow me to make one thing crystal clear: If the anti-ambig jihadists don't get 20:10 or better, there is still no rule on this. PERIOD. Whatever whining they may do to the contrary, that's what's needed per our own existing rulings on consensus. -- Darth Culator  (Talk) 01:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This is false. Please stop making up rules to discount results you don't like. - Lord Hydronium 01:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Consensus exists for a reason. Deal. -- Darth Culator  (Talk) 01:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does. The paragraph you keep pointing to is on matters that are settled, and as according to you the last vote on this issue reached no consensus, this wasn't settled. - Lord Hydronium 02:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This is so simple even a developmentally disabled child could understand it. The current policy is to integrate ambig material by use of the Ambigstart and Ambigend tags. The status quo has existed since at least August 2006. Both previous attempts failed to change this (along with other angles pursued by the segregation jihad). That is how they were settled. Debating this is moot. Whether they ended with the result that you wanted is irrelevant. They were ended or closed, which per Mr. Roget are both synonyms of "settled," with a result of NOT changing the status quo. So if the segregationists want a different rule, they need twenty votes. There is no ambiguity in this, if you'll forgive the pun. This is the only rational and reasonable way to interpret the current policies on consensus. -- Darth Culator  (Talk) 23:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, since the "Non-canon material" and "Canon/noncanon" discussions both ended in no consensus, there's no consensus to overturn. It may also be worthwhile to point out that the last discussion of this question had 29 total votes, with a 20-9 majority in favour of removing the ambiguous content from the main body of the articles.  The current definition on Consensus says CT discussions with "25 [or more] votes can be passed by a 2:1" margin. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 23:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Does this policy include licensed ambig-canon sources (Tales, certain elements of some questionable sources, some video games) to be removed? Jorrel[[Image:Wiki-shrinkable.png|20px]]Fraajic  02:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Explained via IRC. Jorrel[[Image:Wiki-shrinkable.png|20px]]Fraajic  02:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Place "ambiguous canon" in the BTS or separate section

 * 1) Lord Hydronium 22:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) I was not "recruited" either.  Chack Jadson  (Talk) 01:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Still the same opinion that I had earlier. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 01:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) There's absolutely no need for this vote to begin with, but if it'll placate the insane, whatever. Havac 01:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Jorrel[[Image:Wiki-shrinkable.png|20px]]Fraajic  02:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Okay Hydro, I voted. When do I get my five bucks? -- Ozzel 05:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) They just don't look good at all. Carlitos Moff 09:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) While my vote is indeed quite predictable, the accusation of meatpuppetry was unnecessary and unprofessional. jSarek 11:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Imperialles 22:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Allow "ambiguous canon" in the main article body

 * 1) Psychic prediction: Me and Jaymach will vote on this side. Hydro, Havac, and jSarek will vote to remove ambig from the main body and will bring in meatpuppets but will do so by channels that won't be logged or publicized. Just watch. Their vendetta against ambig is well-known, and really sort of pathetic if you think too hard about it. -- Darth Culator  (Talk) 22:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) *Regardless of how other's feel, it is their choice on how they want to vote&mdash;it is not determined by you, me, or anyone else. They are free to voice their opinion through votes, just like you are. If they want to support this CT, that's fine, but please don't attempt to "call them out" since that is not the point of this, or any other, CT. Greyman  http://images.wikia.com/central/images/9/9c/Jan.png ( Talk ) 23:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) As I've said before...what about characters who have had their ambig material confirmed to be canon? What of characters who first appeared in "ambig" sources who were later included in canon sources? What of sources written by the editors of West End Games (who decided what was and was not allowed to go into licensed sources at the time)? What of characters who were given additional information by their creators in "ambig" sources? The entire reason we have them at ambig currently is because Chee has said he doesn't know if they went through licensing or not...not because they did not go through but were printed anyway. If they indeed did go through licensing (which is entirely possible) then they would be fully canon and would definitely be included. As we don't know, we try not to assume either way and put them in the article proper with appropriate templates surrounding them. &mdash;Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 02:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If the "ambiguous" material actually is confirmed to be canon, then it would no longer be under the scope of this discussion. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 03:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1)  Redemption [[Image:Redemptionusersymbol.png|25px]] (Talk) 03:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Cull Tremayne 09:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Tocneppil 10:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)I've always read the articles here from an OOU perspective, so knowing where in the timeline of the article certain events fall is important to me, regardless of their canonicity.

Neutrality protest voting option

 * 1) Because I don't care and because certain conduct here disturbs me. Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.svg|20px]] ( Talk page ) 22:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) *If I voted here, would you give me five bucks, Ataru? Graestan ( Talk ) 23:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)