Forum:CT Archive/If something appears in a source, does it really appear?

I've noticed that, while sometimes a character "appears" in a source (video game, usually) but doesn't truly, canonically, appear - I'm using "canonically" in the sense that it doesn't show up in the canonical storyline - it's awfully vague on whether or not to use that as an official appearance, without any qualifier. For example, take Talk:Han Solo. From what I've seen, we don't have a policy on this kind of "Appearance" one way or the other. I'd like to change that, to finalize it some way or the other.


 * Benefits:
 * I recall an episode with User:Toprawa and Ralltiir over Tenk Lenso and Tarrin Datch and their "appearance" in Star Wars: Empire at War: Forces of Corruption. While it is true that they are in the finalized game (not cut, etc.), they aren't in the story portion of said game. However, the article merely stated that they appeared in the game; no qualifiers to say that they weren't in the game's canonical part, just that they were in the game. Obviously, since their appearing in FOC conflicted with other, established canon on their respective fates, etc., he was able to correct the problem himself (and both article were able to go onto FAs, etc.) - others, such as Kyle Katarn's appearance in FOC, isn't as easily rectified. With this new policy in place, there'd be no confusion for either the reader or the editor as to a person's extent.
 * I touched on this part a little bit on the above note. In appearances that are awfully ambiguous (anything concerning Kyle Katarn's appearance in FOC, or Han Solo's appearance in Battlefront II), this new policy would help clarify their extents, saying that, while it is possible to play as them/see them in action, it doesn't happen in the canonical storyline of said game.
 * For the sake of consistency, a policy like this would help rectify such issues as the one dealing with Han Solo and his appearance in Battlefront II - instead of "did he appear really, or didn't he appear" questions, a simple new template (I'll talk about that later) would clearly qualify.

I'll post more benefits if I think of them, and others are free to post their ideas either in the same list or down in the discussion area.

Note that this would apply not only to characters but really anything that shows up in any particular source (once again, usually video games) - things like planets, ships, vehicles, etc., that don't show up in the storyline would be tagged appropriately in their respective areas. This would extensively affect Star Wars: Galactic Battlegrounds, Star Wars: Empire at War and its sequel, and the multiplayer facets of any games (Battlefront series, Jedi Knight series, TFU, etc.), as they all have set storylines, and then extra-storyline material.

Now, how would we go about displaying such a clarification? I'm drawn to the way we use the 1st, Mo, etc templates - a new one, something simple, that would tell the user "Only seen in multiplayer/skirmish" for the ambiguous appearances. In this regard, the template would not apply to Tenk Lenso or Tarrin Datch, whose timelines both conflict with their ambiguous appearance in FOC and can thereby be labeled as such, but rather to the Han Solos and Kyle Katarns and Imperial pummels (I'm assuming they don't show in the storyline anywhere). Template is shown below. 02:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Short version
I realize I got a tad wordy there; I apologize. In short, this CT is attempting to set a policy to clarify appearances in non-storyline events for characters, planets, etc. Two parts, one concerning the policy itself and another concerning how to implement it, are set for voting below. 02:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion/Comments
Forum:Are appearances in Instant Action modes canon pretty much came before this, but this CT here encompasses that CT, and goes beyond. Admins, decide to do what you will with the other - merge, delete, etc. I don't really want two going on the same topic at the same time. 02:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Voting on codifying policy

 * The two voting options are fairly self-explanatory - what you stand for is clearly put in the title.

Yes, I feel we need such a policy

 * 1) But of course. 02:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Voting on new template for execution of policy
Something along the lines of:

Shorter voting titles for this one.

Yes

 * 02:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)