Difference between revisions of "Category talk:Talk:Canon"

Latest revision as of 13:04, 1 January 2018

This article has been nominated for deletion.

Reason: None given.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-I have no opinion about Seeker products, and I agree that Judges Guild and Paranoia Press material should be considered non-canon. But FASA and Gamelords material has been used as basis for explicitly canonical material a lot, and it seems a pity to ignore that much excellent and canon-compatible material.
-I suggest accepting it as canon (with, perhaps, a caveat explaining its slightly fuzzy status).
+{{delete}}
-[[User:Rancke|Rancke]] 12:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
-: I will mark it as ''deuterocanonical'' or second canon, along with the DGP material. This would put all the "approved for Traveller" material not explicitly de-canonized. So we now have four categories of material: Canon (material produced by GDW), deuterocanonical (material produced by offical licencees), de-canonized (material produced by one-time licencees, but status has been revoked), and non-canon (matierial produced by people with no official licence). Articles from the former two sources are marked as "canon", and the latter two sources are marked as "non-canon".
-: Question: Do you have an opinon on how we should mark articles which originated as canon, but have been expanded by non-canon sources?
-:[[User:Tjoneslo|Tjoneslo]] 13:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
-::Split them into two parts, firt listing all canonical information and then the rest. Mark them as both  canon and non-canon.
-::I have another question: Non-canon material is all very well, especially since posting it to the wiki means that the author has given permission for it to be used as background material by writers of canon (it does mean that, right?), but what happens when there are competing versions? I ran straight into the problem today when I saw that Thomas had posted the Whanga landgrab material. As you know, I've written an adventure set on Whanga for JTAS Online, and the two versions are not compatible, to put it mildly. Is it First Come First Served? And if it is, what happens if (as I have a vague hope for) someday ''A Visit to Whanga'' gets into print? What happens if someone thinks the posted non-canonical material is silly and decides to do it over? Especially if some think it's silly and some disagree? What if someone spots an undeniable mistake in the posted material (case in point: The Whanga article says that it was granted to the Duke of Regina in 1099 by the Archduke of Deneb. There was no archduke of Deneb in 1099, dukes don't get entire worlds as fiefs (that's archdukes), and any fief granted to the Duke of Regina by the Emperor would have been granted 500 years ago).
-::Also, I know that JTAS Online articles are specifically not canon, by Loren's own word. Nevertheless, I can't help feeling that they must be somehow 'better' than material that hasn't been selected by a Traveller editor for publication. But I realize that I'm biased.
-::[[User:Rancke|Rancke]] 13:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
-:::That is the question. Is a LandGrab article more canon than a JTAS Online article. I don't see that either is inherently better than the other. However in the end it doesn't really matter which is more cannon, as both are non-canon, they should appear under the non-canon heading. We have some other examples of conflicting articles. In this case list both articles with a note at the top that there are two divergent items. The first one there at the top... Problems with articles (cannon or not) should be listed on the talk page, perhaps with a reference on the main page that there are cannonical inconsistancies.
-[[User:Dcorrin|Dcorrin]] 17:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Difference between revisions of "Category talk:Talk:Canon"

Latest revision as of 13:04, 1 January 2018

Navigation menu

Search