Forum:I suck. I can't find a good S-canon tag

Forums > Senate Hall > I suck. I can't find a good S-canon tag

Seeing as Marvel Star Wars is S-canon, and thus almost no better than N-canon in terms of factual reliability, I feel it would be wise to add a tag to topics which exclusively comes from Marvel SW. As it stands, it is far too easy for readers to mistake them for the real thing among the multitude of C-canon articles. I'd like to start doing this here and there, but I can't find a tag for it.

Help? DarthMRN 12:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• There is no tag, and that is intentional. We don't separate S and C canon, just as we don't separate C and G canon. S Canon isn't "non canon" or "no better than N-canon", it is a valid canon source and needs to be treated as such. Please don't go and retroactively change a deliberate editorial decision that was made as far back as the beginning of this wiki. If you do, I will take it upon myself to revert all your changes. If you persist after warnings, I will ban you. Thanks. QuentinGeorge 13:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• If people want to know what sources something comes from, that's what the "ref" tags are for. We don't need messy and complicated sections dividing up our articles by source. We're not the OS, and I wish people would stop labouring under the belief that we are. QuentinGeorge 13:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • And a good day to you too. I'm afraid I'm gonna need some clarification on that then, cause last I checked, logic dictates that when something is to be disregarded or taken into account by the larger EU at the individual EU creator's own discretion, that quite clearly means it is non-canon until proven otherwise. And what does the OS got to do with it? DarthMRN 13:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    • S-canon = N-canon? That's news to me, Mr. Spock. -- Ozzel 17:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
      • For factual purposes, at least. Now, I can't claim to be infallible, but as far as the info from the Canon article and Lelands statements in the Holocron thread goes, that is the only interpretation I can think of. If anyone can think of another, one that supports what QG says, I'm all ears. DarthMRN 20:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
        • How's about "canon until proven otherwise"? -- Ozzel 20:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
          • That is an interpretation, but it would be nice to hear how you arrived at it. DarthMRN 20:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
            • The fact that Leland Chee, who came up with it in the first place, says that "S" stands for "secondary" continuity and that it applies to "some older published materials and things that may or may not fit just right" and that "non-continuity 'N'" is rarely used "except in the case of a blatant contradiction or for things that have been cut." Now, how did you arrive at yours? -- Ozzel 21:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
              • In it's unsourced state, I will not use our own Canon article as evidence. Instead (p. 59 of the Holocron thread [1]):

"Is the holiday special, or at least most of it, considered C-canon? If so, which specific parts aren't? Aside from things already referenced in later sources, I'd consider it S-Canon. EU creators can take or leave those parts however they see fit."

"What is the current canon ranking of the Marvel comics? S-canon, with stuff that has been referenced as C-canon."

Quote 1 proves that S-canon elements that aren't referenced by a separate C-canon work aren't C-canon. Quote 2 proves that Marvel SW is S-canon. My conculsion: Marvel SW and S-canon in general don't share the factual value of C-canon. Now the burden lies on you to prove why it should be treated as factual, and how these 'facts' should relate to C-canon ones. Chee didn't say S-canon is factually comparable to N-canon, but he also didn't say S-canon should share any of the qualities of C-canon on its own. DarthMRN 21:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)