Forum:CT Archive/Tab system

With the recent announcement regarding canon within the Star Wars universe, the entire Expanded Universe has been relegated to the status of "Legends." As we currently understand the situation, the new canon consists only of the six films, Star Wars: The Clone Wars, Star Wars Rebels, and any future material published from this point forward. As far as we know, this includes the StarWars.com Encyclopedia, though there are some exceptions like Star Wars: Rebel Heist, other ongoing comics, and the Warfare Author's Cut.

As is clearly evident by the ongoing CT, Wookieepedia is against the idea of splitting the wiki, and thus Wookieepedia will continue to cover both Legends and new canon material. In order to achieve this, we have developed a system of tab templates and subpages that will separate Legends material from the new canon. This CT is composed of several votes, each of which addresses part of this proposed system.

''' Please note that a fifth vote has been added on 04:36, May 6, 2014 (UTC). '''

Vote 1: Tab system
Articles on subjects existing in both new canon and Legends will be split&mdash;one continuity tab will remain on the page, while the second continuity will be shifted to a subpage named either X/Legends or X/Canon. Canontab, a template that is built into Eras, will feature links to both the canon and Legends versions of the article.


 * For articles that have different names under the two continuities&mdash;for example, Moraband and Korriban&mdash;the tab template takes parameters as to which page to link to. In the case of Korriban, the Moraband redirect will be turned into an article covering only the information presented in the new canon.
 * With this system, articles of a specific continuity will link to other articles of their respective continuity using pipelinks.
 * At this time, the old publishing eras do not apply to the new canon as far as we know, so they will not show up in a canon article's Eras template. However, if we learn otherwise or a new set of eras come into play in the future, the template can be amended to allow them.

Here are example pages for each situation:
 * Kanan Jarrus &mdash; Canon article.
 * Hero of Tython &mdash; Legends-only article.
 * Luke Skywalker &mdash; Legends version of the Luke article.
 * Luke Skywalker/Canon &mdash; Canon version of the Luke article.
 * Korriban &mdash; Legends article with differently-named Canon article.
 * Moraband &mdash; Canon article with differently-named Legends article.
 * Star Wars: The Old Republic &mdash; Real-world and Legends publishing era.
 * Star Wars Rebels &mdash; Real-world and New Canon only
 * The Tale of the Aiwha Pod &mdash; Real-world and Legends, but no era info.

Support

 * 1) Cade  StupidRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit.svg  Calrayn  00:06, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 2)  Clone Commander Lee  Talk 00:08, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 3)  IFYLOFD  ( Enter the Floydome ) 00:09, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 4)  JangFett  (Talk) 00:13, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) --  Darth Culator  (Talk) 00:14, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Those tabs are freakin' HUGE. Winterz (talk) 00:24, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) *They were a lot bigger originally. Cade  StupidRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit.svg  Calrayn  00:24, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 8) **Yeah but it's hard to focus on the article when those huge letters are staring at me. It's distracting actually, so I think they should be rather.. more "delicate." One would notice them passively and they wouldn't distract. Winterz (talk) 00:33, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 9) ***They have to be a bit large in order to catch the attention of the lowest common denominator, I am pretty sure. --Imperialles 00:35, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 10) This is clearly the most practical and visually appealing option. It effectively keeps all information collected on a single page, which in turn keeps things more manageable. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 00:45, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 11) Absolutely. Corellian Premier Jedi symbol.svg Force will be with you always 01:29, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 12) Makes the most sense in this senseless situation.&mdash; Cal Jedi Infinite Empire.svg (Personal Comm Channel) 02:16, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 13) A good solution, but a shame that it's the only option being presented. Its development should have been more transparent and with more user input. Menkooroo (talk) 02:30, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 14) R5-X41238-G8-R3-3124-D2 (talk) 02:35, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 15) EU shall always be superior. Supreme Emperor (talk) 03:00, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 16) Per Winterz. I'm not sure exactly what's gained by having the tabs bigger than the title, but it's certainly not enough for me to oppose the idea. JorrelWiki-shrinkable.pngFraajic 03:05, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 17)  Exiled Jedi  Oldrepublic crest.svg (Greetings)  03:48, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 18) This makes the most sense in the long run. To me at least.--Dionne Jinn (Something to say?) 04:24, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 19) Adamwankenobi (talk) 05:31, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 20) MasterFred Commerce Guild.svg(Whatever) 08:24, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 21) Ayrehead02 (talk) 09:30, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 22) I like it. And the size is good enough to warn the common reader about the tabs existence. Alexrd (talk) 10:46, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 23) 1358  (Talk)  11:30, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 24) 501st  dogma ( talk ) 12:33, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 25)  QuiGonJinn  Senate seal.svg(Talk) 14:54, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 *  CC7567  (talk) 14:59, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) -- SFH (talk) 16:08, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Green Tentacle (Talk) 16:46, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Lord Dreist (talk) 17:00, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Coruscantfan (Talk) 18:11, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) I think some tweaks to style and detail might be needed, but we can hammer those out in a future CT. We need to hit the ground running with an approach for going forward, and this is it. jSarek (talk) 20:49, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Trip391 (talk) 05:57, May 4, 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Although another CT to reduce the size of the tabs is definitely in order. You know the tabs are too big when they're the same size or larger than the title. undefined
 * 8) *Actually I think the oversized tabs may be a good thing, at least for now. These tabs will be an entirely new feature on Wookieepedia. Many visitors may not even be aware of the new separation between Canon and Legends, nor what the tabs mean. The size of the tabs will grab their attention, and hopefully this will help bring them up to speed on the situation. -- Richterbelmont10  ( come in R2! ) 03:22, May 5, 2014 (UTC)
 * 9) --The-Boy.png 15:59, May 4, 2014 (UTC)
 * 10) &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 17:28, May 4, 2014 (UTC)
 * 11) With graphical issues to be fixed in future Manoof (talk) 01:31, May 5, 2014 (UTC)
 * 12) Jinzler (talk) 12:20, May 5, 2014 (UTC)
 * 13) Tainb&#39;ocu&#39;chulainn (talk) 13:34, May 5, 2014 (UTC)
 * 14) This is now the necessity for us. It is best that we at least build our infrastructure ahead of major canonical changes. The release of A New Dawn may be where we will see how well this works, but thankfully that is still several months away. The size or format of tabs can be altered in the future as we see fit. --  Riffsyphon  1024 15:07, May 5, 2014 (UTC)
 * 15) Needs some graphical tweaking imo, but otherwise Tabs seems to be the right way to go. Wonder how nominated articles will work, but it's probably simple. Each Tab will count for it's own "nom tag," I assume. --Clonehunter(Report your W.M.D.) 19:05, May 5, 2014 (UTC)
 * 14:50, May 5, 2014 I agree with seceral of the comments made by my fellow editors that just some minor tweks to help make the final product excellent. But still, so stupid to completly overhaule the EU.

Discussion
A minor aside: I worry that placing the new Canon/Legends graphics in the Eras template makes it look a bit messy and/or overcrowded. I feel the proposed system looks much better in the examples where there's no eras present (such as the Kanan Jarrus article). I wonder if it might not be time to get rid of the old Eras in the template (do we even know if they are going to be used by future publications?), and instead show only these new canonicity graphics. I realize that is a discussion for another time; merely stating the point. --Imperialles 00:26, May 3, 2014 (UTC) As an aside... Cade, could you please import the Wookieepedia Oasis CSS sheets to your wiki so that we can view how exactly the things will look in Oasis as well? We have to remember that 99% of our readers don't use Monobook. 1358 (Talk)  11:30, May 3, 2014 (UTC) When I'm reading a Canon article, will all links in that article link ONLY to other Canon pages? (in other words, no Canon article will have a link that leads to a Legends article)-- Richterbelmont10  ( come in R2! ) 19:09, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the graphics in the eras template look great, even in my tiny laptop resolution. They're not overcrowding in the instance that several eras are listed, such as with Luke. There's a lot of white space up there, and the gold Legends banner, especially, does probably the most visually dynamic job, more so than the tabs even, of clearly designating a Legends article from a Canon article. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 00:45, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * To clarify, my issue was not regarding these new graphics&mdash;which are indeed both visually distinct and serve their purpose well&mdash;but rather with the era icons. Merely an aside, and something that can possibly be discussed in the future if Disney decides to drop the eras from future publications. It's completely fine for now. --Imperialles 00:55, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure they can be dropped from the Legends articles at this point. Unless we want to discard of everything that organized the EU content, the Publication Eras should remain. If Disney wants to keep using this method or not, that is now irrelevant to the ones used in Legends material. Winterz (talk) 01:02, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * It may be appropriate to re-design the eras icons to better stylistically match the Legends banner (or to match both banners, should we get Canon eras). jSarek (talk) 20:49, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * That sounds like an excellent idea. --Imperialles 20:53, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * Turns out that there's some Wikia bug that's not loading the CSS for Oasis on my testbed, so there's nothing we can do for that. However, here's an example of how the tabs look in Oasis. Cade  StupidRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit.svg  Calrayn  16:42, May 3, 2014 (UTC)

Side note: Do we want to categorize source articles by their canon status, as things become more complex? In that I mean source articles with the Legends tab or icon will link to Category:Legends sources, and vice versa, or something similar. --  Riffsyphon  1024 15:12, May 5, 2014 (UTC)

Vote 2: Banners
Vote 2: Users from Jedipedia have created a set of banners that will be used in the tab template; these were originally designed for use in the Eras template to display "Legends" or "Canon" depending on the page. I propose we implement these in the Eras template. The images are shown below, and are also visible on the test pages from the first vote.



The Eras template will be tweaked so that Legends will display by default on all pages, though including "canon" as one of the parameters will display Canon instead. The template will also not display either banner on real-world articles (other than video games, novels, etc) or non-mainspace articles.

Support

 * 1) Cade  StupidRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit.svg  Calrayn  00:06, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 2)  Clone Commander Lee  Talk 00:08, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 3)  IFYLOFD  ( Enter the Floydome ) 00:09, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 4)  JangFett  (Talk) 00:13, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Legends > Canon. Winterz (talk) 00:21, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) "Canon" is the objective naming option. The nomenclature used by Lucasfilm and Del Rey is "official canon" and "true canon" to refer to the "new canon." Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 00:45, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Absolutely. Corellian Premier Jedi symbol.svg Force will be with you always 01:29, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 8) Long live EU Legends!&mdash; Cal Jedi Infinite Empire.svg (Personal Comm Channel) 02:16, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 9) Menkooroo (talk) 02:30, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 10) Per Culator below. tis the "New Canon" Supreme Emperor (talk) 03:00, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 11) JorrelWiki-shrinkable.pngFraajic 03:05, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 12)  Exiled Jedi  Oldrepublic crest.svg (Greetings)  03:48, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 13) They look awesome. And I like the fact that the Legends banner is the more striking one.--Dionne Jinn (Something to say?) 04:28, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 14) Adamwankenobi (talk) 05:31, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 15) MasterFred Commerce Guild.svg(Whatever) 08:24, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 16) Ayrehead02 (talk) 09:29, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 17) Alexrd (talk) 10:49, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 18) 1358  (Talk)  11:30, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 19) 501st  dogma ( talk ) 12:34, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 20)  QuiGonJinn  Senate seal.svg(Talk) 14:54, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 *  CC7567  (talk) 14:59, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) -- SFH (talk) 16:08, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Green Tentacle (Talk) 16:46, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Lord Dreist (talk) 17:00, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Coruscantfan (Talk) 18:13, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Canon is canon. Ours is not to question why, ours is but to accurately document or die. jSarek (talk) 20:49, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Trip391 (talk) 05:57, May 4, 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) undefined
 * 8) --The-Boy.png 15:59, May 4, 2014 (UTC)
 * 9) &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 17:25, May 4, 2014 (UTC)
 * 10) Manoof (talk) 01:33, May 5, 2014 (UTC)
 * 11) Jinzler (talk) 12:20, May 5, 2014 (UTC)
 * 12) Nothing to say, just supporting.MadMarekAlliance Starbird.svgYouCanCallMeJames 13:03, May 5, 2014 (UTC)
 * 13) Do what must be done. --  Riffsyphon  1024 15:14, May 5, 2014 (UTC)
 * 14) Do it. --Clonehunter(Report your W.M.D.) 19:07, May 5, 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) I've thought about it over and over (yeah, I think about crap like that), and I want it called "Saga". "Canon" my exquisitely shaped behind. --R5-X41238-G8-R3-3124-D2 (talk) 16:37, May 5, 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I cannot in good conscience support this as long as the non-Legends tab is simply labeled "canon." Legends is the true canon. "Canon" is the New Coke of canon, and thus should be labeled New Canon. -- Darth Culator  (Talk) 00:14, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * With the recent announcement that the film novelizations are part of this new canon, this idea of "one unified canon" is already starting to fall apart. The old tier system is creeping back in. Adamwankenobi (talk)
 * What is important, I think, is that it is made clear this is a decision made by Disney after it purchased Lucasfilm. "Canon (Disney)" would be the most accurate solution, but I can see how it wouldn't make for a good "banner". Keep in mind that we should not be sidetracked by fickle corporate decisions in documenting this extraordinarily rich fictional universe; think more about posterity and less about today's corporate decisions, which change at the speed of capital stock. --R5-X41238-G8-R3-3124-D2 (talk) 02:54, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * What about "Legends" and "Saga"? --R5-X41238-G8-R3-3124-D2 (talk) 14:25, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * Our terms should always mirror official usage where ever possible. --Imperialles 14:27, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * My first impression was that "Canon" was boring. But I don't like "New Canon" since it won't be "new" for very long. I also thought that "Saga" sounded better, but Imperialles makes a good point about that. "Canon" is official. "Saga" is not.-- Richterbelmont10  ( come in R2! ) 15:25, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * Could we use a more "Star Wars" font for the tabs?-- Richterbelmont10  ( come in R2! ) 15:27, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * I think this is a minor appearance issue that can be fixed later. The banner font can be tweaked at a later time; this is just for approving the banners as a whole. 1358  (Talk)  15:34, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * Seriously, do we even know what "official usage" is supposed to be? "Maybe-perhaps-could be-read between the damn lines geez-canon/saga/something" is more like what's official right now. --R5-X41238-G8-R3-3124-D2 (talk) 19:13, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, the official usage (thus far) has been "true canon," or simply "canon" (source). --Imperialles 19:19, May 3, 2014 (UTC)

Vote 3: Default page
With the tab system, one of the continuities will be relegated to a subpage. This vote is to determine which continuity will occupy the primary name (i.e. Yoda) and which will occupy a subpage (i.e. Yoda/Legends or Yoda/Canon).

Either way, the following will be added to the Manual of Style's section on naming articles: (note that the stuff in italics will be decided by this vote)
 * 'If a topic exists within both the Legends continuity and the official Star Wars canon, the "Legends/Canon" material should be covered by an article at the topic's title, while the "Canon/Legends" material should be covered at a subpage entitled "Canon/Legends''".

Please take into account the following factors:
 * Choosing "Canon" as the default page will necessitate the moving of the majority of the TCW and film pages.
 * These Canon pages won't all be created right away; we can't move the pages and then wait for people to fill in the canon pages. Better to create the canon pages as subpages.
 * The sheer amount of content on our Legends pages will be far superior to the small Canon pages, at least for a while after this process.
 * At a later date, when the site's coverage of canon subjects is to an extent where they can be showcased, we can reverse the decision and move Legends material to subpages.

Legends as default

 * 1) Cade  StupidRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit.svg  Calrayn  00:06, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 2)  Clone Commander Lee  Talk 00:08, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 3)  IFYLOFD  ( Enter the Floydome ) 00:09, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) --  Darth Culator  (Talk) 00:14, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Winterz (talk) 00:25, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 00:45, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Sure. Corellian Premier Jedi symbol.svg Force will be with you always 01:29, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 8) Support with emphasis on that last bullet point. As much as I despise the new canon system, I think there will come a time when we will need to accept it as the proper "true" canon.&mdash; Cal Jedi Infinite Empire.svg (Personal Comm Channel) 02:16, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 9) "Please take into account the following factor: Choosing 'Canon' as the default page would suck. So hard." --R5-X41238-G8-R3-3124-D2 (talk) 02:28, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 10) This is the most logical choice. Supreme Emperor (talk) 03:00, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 11) But only until we actually start getting information on "New Canon" stuff. Once that starts happening, I'm all for a rebrand. It's too bad we can't make it a user-preference thing. JorrelWiki-shrinkable.pngFraajic 03:05, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 12) Per Cal.-- Exiled Jedi  Oldrepublic crest.svg (Greetings)  03:48, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 13) Only until there is enough canon material to make a decent article.--Dionne Jinn (Something to say?) 04:30, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 14) Adamwankenobi (talk) 05:29, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 15) In response to Menkooroo: So, basically, for the next five years you want all our articles to default to pages that have no content, not because we're too lazy to add it, but because that content simply doesn't exist because there hasn't been enough information released to write long detailed articles on? I'm not seeing how that's constructive or professional at all. MasterFred Commerce Guild.svg(Whatever) 08:25, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 16) *Well, no. The claim that the pages will have "no content" isn't an accurate one at all. Seven films and six seasons of a TV show are already in the bag for the new canon, and new material is coming out as early as September. Where's this "five years" figure coming from? I believe that the professional thing to do is to keep canon information as default rather than non-canon info, as AlexRD says below. IMO, the length of the articles is immaterial. Menkooroo (talk) 13:05, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 17) As per many above where this is temporary. Ayrehead02 (talk) 09:34, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 18) For now. It will take a long time until the Canon versions have gained some actual content, but until then, I think it's the best approach to feature the Legends versions. 1358  (Talk)  11:30, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 19) How about forever? :D I'll support putting new-canon first tab-wise when we actually have some new-canon info..... 501st  dogma ( talk ) 12:28, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 20) I wholeheartedly support any rule that officially justifies hiding the new canon as far back as possible. We might tolerate the new canon, but that doesn't mean we have to put it on a shiny pedestal. Too bad it's only a temporary measure. QuiGonJinn  Senate seal.svg(Talk) 14:54, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 *  CC7567  (talk) 14:59, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 1)  Richterbelmont10  ( come in R2! ) 15:34, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) We don't really have much of a choice. "New canon" is just too small at this point. Once we start getting more "new canon" information, we should shift our default to the that. However bitter that pill will be. -- SFH (talk) 16:08, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Lord Dreist (talk) 17:00, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Coruscantfan (Talk) 18:17, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Trip391 (talk) 05:57, May 4, 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Only with the understanding that this is temporary, and the community will bust ass work hard to get the canon pages presentable in time for making canon the default page by the time Episode VII is released, because by then the general public is going to be most interested by far in the canon pages, and that's what we should be showing them. undefined
 * 7) Per Master Jonathan. Perhaps a date could be set to revisit this in a year or so? &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 17:19, May 4, 2014 (UTC)
 * 8)  JangFett  (Talk) 03:24, May 5, 2014 (UTC)
 * 9) Jinzler (talk) 12:20, May 5, 2014 (UTC)

New Canon as default

 * 1) This is our responsibility as the largest and most professional SW wiki. Starwars.com links to us, SW authors come to us to double-check canon information all the time, and thousands of people browse our content. We as a community may prefer Legends content, but our wiki is for everyone, not just for us. IMO, it's better to do this now than to put it off to an unspecified later date. Given some of the comments I saw in the IRC channel, I don't have a lot of faith that that later date will ever come. Menkooroo (talk) 02:30, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) *I was told that there will be an option to set your own default tab as a personal preference. Couldn't these SW authors (and others) just do that if they wanted to?-- Richterbelmont10  ( come in R2! ) 15:37, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Per Menkooroo. Lucasfilm made the decision. To keep non-canon information (because that's what it is) as default seems to go against the very purpose of Wookieepedia, and is a misleading and selfish attitude towards many readers. Besides, it's only delaying the inevitable. Alexrd (talk) 10:58, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Our first, best destiny is to document for our readers the canon of the Star Wars universe. Even in a world where suddenly we find ourselves with a wealth of non-canon info and a dearth of strictly canon info, our mandate hasn't changed. jSarek (talk) 20:49, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) --The-Boy.png 15:59, May 4, 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Doing it sooner rather than later holds three purposes: 1. To give us, as a community, a kick in the rear to get started on the new canon pages. Leaving it hidden as above will only facilitate the procrastination of page creations. I know I'm not keen to be involved in a Boba Fett article where he dies on tatooine. Having it front and center is a constant "fix me" reminder. 2. Saves us going through and changing it all over again in the future. Isn't moving A -> B better than moving A -> B then switching A and B at a later date? 3. As Menk said, and as several others insist on the other votes, our job is to document, not make decisions on what is or is not or might be. At the least, some of us think the situation is an annoyance. Many of us obsolutely despise what is happening. But despite our opinion, what is canon may not be what we want it to be, and we owe it to the community in general, especially those who don't contribute, to place what is canon at the convenience of that community. Manoof (talk) 01:47, May 5, 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) I prefer Legends material as much as anyone else, but I think Canon needs to be the default. While we transition and wait for more Canon material, I think a template at the top of all Canon articles that have Legends sources should encourage visiting the Legends tabs. Something like "Due to the new Canon guidelines laid out by the Lucasfilm Story Group, this article is undergoing renovation. For additional reading, see the Legends tab." Tainb&#39;ocu&#39;chulainn (talk) 13:52, May 5, 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, we would hate to see our Legends content shoved to the back because that is what Wookieepedia has been about. It looks bad right now because of the giant offset that exists between canon and Legends. However, given the release of new films and novels, we should use this as an opportunity to be ahead of the game when new material comes out. With A New Dawn, we can see what will be referenced and re-canonized. That number of re-canonized articles will grow, albeit it may be small compared to the remainder of articles on our 110,000 article wiki that cover EU material. When the sequels release, people will come to Wookieepedia to read about those articles, which should be showcased. Now If we lived in a perfect world, everything would be accessible in one space, but that would err the flow of our articles per this new system. We have no control over that if we wish to remain cohesive. We can use the tabs. To have the tabs gives the reader a choice of reference. Yes, I said reader. I know there are many people that would rather want the baseline information and not the 20 pages of details on Palpatine's life as expounded in Legends sources, and for the most part the "Canon" tab would be what they needed. For our purposes and that of authors and artists, we can go to the Legends tab whenever for the nitty gritty, but for browsers, non-logged in users, and general reference, the first thing they see should be what is established in the films. This is our true audience, at a number far greater than any of us editors or niche users. I know this is in stark contrast with my usual hyperinclusionism stance, though we aren't really losing anything; it's just being reshuffled. --  Riffsyphon  1024 15:31, May 5, 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Odds are, new comers will be looking for what is currently canon as the new material begins to be published. As such, Canon should be the default page, more on the behalf of anyone getting into Star Wars, and who would like to see the "New Official Canon" foremost, as it would be more relevant than anything old. Legends is great, and I hate the fact it's Non-Canon, but this I think this is the best way to move forward with the wiki, for whatever that's worth. Mentioned somewhere above: Registered users should be able to choose their default tabs, but guests should probably be forwarded to look at Canon material, as that is most likely what they have come for. --Clonehunter(Report your W.M.D.) 04:02, May 6, 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) The comments above have convinced me that this is the correct way to go right now. To do otherwise, even in the short term, would go against who we have been for the past nine years. Putting Canon in the forefront now gives us a kick in the rear to get the canon versions up to snuff ASAP, a task that, with them hidden on subpages, would likely fall by the wayside otherwise due to sheer laziness. It is the more professional way to handle this, and it is also our responsibility as the most respected source for Star Wars information on the Internet. undefined

Discussion

 * No way that could be made to be a user option somehow is there? Like set in an options page whether you want Legends or Canon pages to load by default, then have Legends load by default for non-logged in users. Probably impossible with MediaWiki, but I really don't know. -- Xell Khaar (talk) 02:54, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, no. We originally looked at a Javascript version of this that would do just that, but that ultimately wasn't working out, so we went with this version. Cade  StupidRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit.svg  Calrayn  16:44, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * What about a case-by-case basis? Seems to me that Mara Jade Skywalker should default to Legends, while Luke Skywalker should default to Canon.  I guess the way I see it, if a topic has anything in the Canon article, it would default to Canon (which is how I may be voting if this option is not considered viable), but if there "nothing" (or basically nil) for a topic under the Canon heading, then that topic should default to the Legends tab.  It won't be the cleanest option, technically, and there may be some subjectiveness to it, but it should give the readers what they are expecting in most cases. -  Esjs (Talk) 16:36, May 5, 2014 (UTC)

Vote 4: Movie subjects
The following will be added to the Notability policy.


 * Subjects that both appeared within new canon material and received names and backstories within material that falls under the Legends brand shall not receive new canon articles until they receive names in material that is considered canon. Thus, the majority of subjects within the six original films that received names and backstories from Legends sources such as the Databank, reference guides, or trading card games will not be given articles for their new canon versions, so as to avoid a proliferation of unidentified subject articles. Once a subject's name is established in a new canon source, whether that be new material or old material that has been designated as canon, it can receive an article detailing its existence in the canon continuity.

Basically, this is done as a practical measure&mdash;the vast majority of subjects within the movies no longer have confirmed canon names, and they would otherwise receive an "Unidentified" article. For example, virtually none of the characters within Chalmunn's Cantina or any of the officers on the Death Star will be permitted to have canon articles until they have been named in a canon source. If we receive word that the Visual Guides, for example, are considered canon, than those characters named within the Visual Guides can receive articles.

Support

 * 1) Cade  StupidRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit.svg  Calrayn  00:06, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 2)  Clone Commander Lee  Talk 00:08, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 3)  IFYLOFD  ( Enter the Floydome ) 00:09, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 4)  JangFett  (Talk) 00:13, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) --  Darth Culator  (Talk) 00:14, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) I like this idea. I like it very much. Alright, I LUV IT. Winterz (talk) 00:36, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 00:45, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 8)  Corellian Premier Jedi symbol.svg Force will be with you always 01:29, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 9) &mdash; Cal Jedi Infinite Empire.svg (Personal Comm Channel) 02:16, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 10) Ach. I was really looking forward to renames like "Unidentified Imperial officer (Death Star elevator) [3]". Oh well.... --R5-X41238-G8-R3-3124-D2 (talk) 02:24, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 11) Sure. Menkooroo (talk) 02:30, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 12) Unidentified stormtrooper 27 (Third column, second from the left) Supreme Emperor (talk) 03:00, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 13) This is good. This is really good. <font color=#153E7E>JorrelWiki-shrinkable.png<font color=#153E7E>Fraajic 03:05, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 14)  Exiled Jedi  Oldrepublic crest.svg (Greetings)  03:48, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 15) Adamwankenobi (talk) 05:31, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 16) Hopefully they'll have the sense to at least keep all the names. Ayrehead02 (talk) 09:36, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 17) 1358  <sup style="color:#336600;">(Talk)  11:30, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 18) 501st  dogma ( talk ) 12:36, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 19) Nice forward-thinking there. Definitely a needed rule. QuiGonJinn  Senate seal.svg(Talk) 14:54, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 *  CC7567  (talk) 14:59, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) If the "new canon" contradicts the EU sources, then we'll move it. Otherwise, we're going to have a lot of nameless articles of all kinds (characters, races, weapons, planets, etc). -- SFH (talk) 16:08, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Green Tentacle (Talk) 16:47, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Lord Dreist (talk) 17:00, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Coruscantfan (Talk) 18:18, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Trip391 (talk) 05:57, May 4, 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) In response to jSarek, the vast majority of the characters affected by this aren't even notable enough for an article without their Legends background. undefined
 * 7) *That depends on how we choose to define notability ... which we have so far refused to do for most topics. jSarek (talk) 08:35, May 4, 2014 (UTC)
 * 8) --The-Boy.png 15:59, May 4, 2014 (UTC)
 * 9) DoneManoof (talk) 02:01, May 5, 2014 (UTC)
 * 10) Keep the names. This is how we identify otherwise unnamed individuals and how people can find the content (and the droids) they are looking for. The only way this wouldn't work is if the new films or novels directly contradicted those EU names with their own, but then we would just simply move the article to the new name. --  Riffsyphon  1024 15:37, May 5, 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Just leave articles like these at their existing titles, and use a template similar to Conjecture on the Canon tab to indicate that, while the subject is canon, its name derives from Legends material. jSarek (talk) 20:49, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Also, where does this leave the rare character who's (perhaps marginally) notable, still canonical, but unnamed? Granted, I can only think of Mr. Unidentified head-bumping stormtrooper here, but... &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 17:23, May 4, 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
Will there be some way to note the fact that they appear in both, but only have a name in Legends continuity?--Dionne Jinn (Something to say?) 04:34, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * Behind the scenes section? Winterz (talk) 14:46, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, if you look at my Moraband subpage above, that's basically how we'll treat this. It's how we treat similar situations already - like the Wookiee Dewlannamapia, or better yet the Galaxies snafu that is Chertyl Ruluwoor. Cade  StupidRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit.svg  Calrayn  16:46, May 3, 2014 (UTC)

Vote 5: FA/GA/CA requirements
I just thought of another issue that this split presents: what happens to status articles? Specifically, will the Canon and Legends versions of a topic be considered one article that must be nominated together, or would each version be able to be nominated and earn/maintain status separately? There are a few issues to consider here, namely:


 * How would word count requirements apply to combined nominations? It's quite possible that a Legends page could qualify for FA on word count, but the canon version would only qualify for GA. We would in the future have to determine which versions dictates the word count.
 * What about the large number of movie subjects that already have status? If combined nominations are required, then those that already have status will need massive amounts of work that is not likely to get done on many, leaving mountains of work for the Inq and AC to handle as they strip those articles of status.
 * If combined nominations are required, then a lot more work will be needed to produce an FA, which will lead to a reduction in the number of nominations and therefore a reduction in new FAs. On the other hand, if separate nominations are allowed, then we actually have a reasonable chance to get major characters like Luke and Leia to status now by just nominating the canon versions, and that would look good for the whole site to have such major characters featured on the Main Page.

I am limiting the scope of this vote to purely the question, "Do Canon and Legends versions of a topic have to be nominated for, obtain, and retain status as a combined unit, and will they be treated as separate units that can undergo the nomination process and earn and retain status separately and independently?" Further issues beyond that are dependent on the outcome of this vote, and would therefore be discussed in a separate CT in the future. undefined

Independent unit (each version can be nominated for status separately and independently)

 * 1) The bullet points above pretty much express my concerns with combined nominations. Indeed, combined noms would probably be the point at which I stop maintaining Wedge, since it was never my article to begin with and I'm not willing to put that much work into it when I've already grown weary of maintaining it as is. undefined

Discussion

 * I think we're jumping the gun in having this vote already, and I'd like to request that the Inq have a chance to discuss this first before we rashly just throw this to the whims of a CT. Some Inqs and I have already had preliminary discussions about this, and it's something we're definitely going to bring up at the next Inqmoot, which should be scheduled imminently. But I think it would be better to let us talk about it first. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 04:40, May 6, 2014 (UTC)