Foreven: The referee's preserve
This is one of the canon vs fandom issues. The official canon statement about Foreven sector and all the contents is it is a Referee's preserve, and there is no canon for the sector. There have been several fan efforts to produce data for the sector (e.g. Foreven PDF or BARD library). And this data is what exists in the Wiki. So do we want to leave this data, do a better job of marking it as non-canon, ATU, or simply remove it. Tjoneslo (talk) 10:01, 23 November 2019 (EST)
I feel that the Wiki should accommodate all contributors to the Referees Preserves equally instead of who wrote up the entry first. I have new Urnian Subsector data for a campaign and would like it found just as easily as other non-canon contributors to Foreven Sector, published or private.The Pakkrat (talk) 10:50, 23 November 2019 (EST)
- I don't disagree. The reason I started with the suggestion for using the "Campaign:" namespace for your Urnian sector was because that seemed to be a good fit for what you wanted to add. The question then becomes how to resolve conflicts in the materials. For example, do you have different names for the worlds, or different UWPs? There is a Template:Conflict we can add to specific articles if things are different.
- On the other hand is to empty the articles. Say no one gets anything there. Because it is a Preserve. Tjoneslo (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2019 (EST)
- You know what. There is no policy about handling this currently. Go ahead and put your really cool ideas into the main articles. If there are conflicts or overlaps we'll figure them out on a case-by-case basis. When/If we finalize a canon/non-canon/ATU/fan contributions policy we can update the articles. Have a good time. I look forward to seeing your stuff, it's always interesting. Tjoneslo (talk) 18:06, 23 November 2019 (EST)
List: Foreven Sector Versions (non-canon)