Forum:TC:Sith Peanut Butter

Sith Peanut Butter (talk - history - links - logs)

This article is about a joke made by a TOR developer in the interview. Here's the quote: Template:Quoteurl

That "peanut butter" part should not be treated as a canonical statement, because it was used as a comical effect to exaggerate the effect of Revan and Malak calling everything "Sith". I understand that this article was created to achieve similar comical effect, however we should not allow it to stay, because to a casual reader it will look silly, out of place and diminish the overall quality of the wiki. Not to mention that it wasn't intended to be canonical in the first place. Mauser^Comlink 11:57, December 12, 2009 (UTC)

Delete

1. Mauser^Comlink 11:57, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
2. Chack Jadson ^(Talk) 13:51, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
3. Ugh. Green Tentacle ^(Talk) 14:27, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
4. Jonjedigrandmaster ^{(Jedi Beacon)} 14:31, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
5. —B-Boba Fett! ^{Make the check out to "Boba Fett"} 14:36, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
6. Not everything out of the mouth of a game developer is canon. Grand Moff Tranner ^(Comlink) 14:49, December 12, 2009 (UTC)

   It was a great joke, possibly quoted under the Sith Empire (Jedi Civil War) article to put across the same point? Darthkenobi0 20:45, December 12, 2009 (UTC) (Vote stricken per policy, --Xd1358 ^Talk 20:53, December 12, 2009 (UTC))

7. --Xd1358 ^Talk 20:53, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
8. I might consider a keep vote if, and only if, it gets slapped with a {{ambig}} tag. - JMAS ^{Hey, it's me!} 21:40, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
9. Going by the logic of those who have voted to keep this, we might as well duplicate our every article and add the term "Sith" to it, just because the guy said "Sith everything." QuiGonJinn ^(Talk) 21:55, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
10. Per Tranner. jSarek 23:15, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
11. Back in the good old days, I'd have deleted this outright. Bureaucracy accomplishes little more than ensuring we are all at odds with one another at some point over something before all is said and done. Graestan^(Talk) 23:16, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
12. Author jokes are not canon. Common sense can tell us how this is different from a developer providing actual info that will appear in a canon source. - Lord Hydronium 05:37, December 13, 2009 (UTC)
13. CSD. There's nothing even remotely canonical about it. Havac 05:46, December 13, 2009 (UTC)
14. —Silly Dan _(talk) 06:37, December 13, 2009 (UTC)
15. Grunny ^(Talk) 06:37, December 13, 2009 (UTC)

Keep

1. SinisterSamurai 14:45, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
2. -- I need a name (Complain here) 20:38, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
3. Info from developers is official enough to justify a page, even if we have to tag it so people don't take it too seriously. -- Darth Culator ^(Talk) 20:48, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
4. IFYLOFD ^{(You will pay the price for your lack of vision!)} 20:54, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
5. If this damages the wiki then we have a pretty damn weak wiki. Darth Trayus ^{(Trayus Academy)} 21:10, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
6. "Conan Antonio" was also a joke. Pranay Sobusk ~ Talk 21:31, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
   • And as can be seen from the talk page, that was an intensely contested topic, even though the joke was from Lucas himself, and was only resolved when the Death Star dramatis personnae came out. jSarek 23:20, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
7. Sith Peanut Butter is silly, but makes about as much sense as making Revan into the Sith Emperor's stooge in the plot. So I'd give it the same level of relevance. Both are equally stupid to canon, so if we have to live with a Revan retcon, then we have to live with this as well. Jediphile 02:55, December 13, 2009 (UTC)
   • Except this is different. First off, it's not a retcon, as Revan's turn to the dark side was never detailed before (and, honestly, your opinion on the matter really has no effect on this TC thread). Secondly, Revan actually existed in canon, whereas Sith peanut butter is merely a joke made up by a game developer to make a point. Grand Moff Tranner ^(Comlink) 03:02, December 13, 2009 (UTC)
8. Per Culator--Darth Oblivion 06:48, December 13, 2009 (UTC)

Epic meh

1. Both sides' viewpoints are pretty weak IMO. On one side, it is nothing but a joke, but such articles have been kept before. On the other hand, anyone familiar with the site will understand why we have it, but it might damage the wiki from the perspective of someone who's not familiar with Wookieepedia ("I thought this was supposed to be a serious site. WTF?"). In the end, I just don't see a compelling reason to vote either way. —Master Jonathan^{(Jedi Council Chambers)} 21:43, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
   • No, instead you make a point of sneering at your fellows. Congratulations. Graestan^(Talk) 23:18, December 12, 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Energizer Bunny, Max (bunny), Cult of the Power Droids, Wookieepedia:Ruined FOREVER. I'm afraid I don't see how Sith Peanut Butter drags down the quality of the wiki. Perhaps all it needs is an Ambig-Canon tag to be brought up to "standards." Seemingly Innocuous statements and writer slip-ups lead to the creation of new articles all the time. SinisterSamurai 14:46, December 12, 2009 (UTC)

• Thing appearing in licensed SW product, canon thing, canon thing, page made for fun and not located in the main namespace. None of those mean that if a developer farts during an interview, it becomes canon. - Lord Hydronium 05:40, December 13, 2009 (UTC)