Policy Talk:Canon

• Archive 1 (July 2008-February 2009)

Total rewrite

After working on this for a very long time, here is my total rewrite of the Policy. It is the result of the discussions we had on this talk page (and others) and, of course, in no small part of my personal vision on how this issue should be adressed. I honestly do think that while the wording was changed significantly, the meaning is essentially the same and that I have adequately managed to cast our agreements into words. I have also elected to be bold and just implemented the change without re-starting the discussion (sorry Revanche and Scaletail), but I felt I should let the result speak for itself. If it turns out that there is no consensus to support my work, feel free to revert it. The missing templates can (and will) be created and added to the articles in question in a week's time or so, provided that the policy is accepted. Feel free to discuss. Frabby 13:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, Frabby, that's fantastic. I think it encapsulates all our prior discussions. It's been worth the wait :-). My only nitpick is that I think stating that 'BTW does not seek to define canon' is a bit confusing. I know what you mean, but I think it would be helpful if it is explicitly stated that we are adhering to CGL's own, internal canon policy. While we are not determining canon, it is also not left totally up to the judgment of the reader. --Scaletail 00:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

But it is, Scaletail. We are differentiating between fanon and official products. Whether an article (or a portion of it) is canon is left up solely to the reader.

Some past things (rules, characters, arcs, etc.) are considered apocryphal, others are now absorbed and the definition gets even further muddled by gold stars on the CBT forums. By backing away from ever attempting to 'answer' what is canon, we keep the harsh feelings muted/sated. Canon as defined by TPTB, is addressed in the article Canon, rather than BTW's Policy:Canon. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree, Frabby: well done. I think its simpler, cleaner and easier to understand. I'm still not thrilled with the various colors used for the tags, but understand better now the intent and the irritant factor is low for me. I made a few minor copy-edit changes that don't change the character of the policy. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Moved the old discussion to the bottom of this Talk Page

...because that discussion is essentially obsolete with the new page. Not sure if it could/should be moved into an archive page, and I don't know how to do that anyways. Frabby 10:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Archived this for you. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Default to "Canon" or "official"?

Revanche marked his last edit to the page as a minor one, and mostly he cleaned up the wording. However, there is one bit that is not as minor as it might appear at first: In the second part of the policy, he changed the text from "BTW articles are considered to discuss canonical issues by default" to read "BTW articles are considered to discuss official issues by default". While I can see where he's coming from, especially considering that the policy is not to decide on what is what, he has actually put his finger on the weak spot of the entire policy: Namely that it should not strictly use any tags in the first place; applying the tags does some sorting already, even though it follows the official guidelines. See, if the articles would cover "official" sources by default then the "Apocrypha" tag would be superfluous, as all apocryphal material is always official. Only fan-made stuff is not. It is really the (clearly) canonical stuff that needs to additional tag. Therefore, for lack of a better wording I suggest reverting "official" to "canonical". Please discuss. Frabby 10:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

You've hit on my problems withe the tags, right there. I feel that -due to the nature of the universe being told from many different in-character perspectives- almost everything is apocryphal and where one thing is stated to be true from one perspective (say Capellan), another perspective may indicate its lack of truth (say FedSuns). The genecaste is a good example of this. Even TPTB claim whatever you want in your game works, they just provide the backbone from which to work. To me, official is anything that is or has been licensed, even though it may no longer be valid. For example, some of the BattleDroid 'Mechs no longer exist or in the manner in which they were produced. They are official, but -due to their current nature- would enjoy one of the 'Apocrypha' tags.

I saw the inclusion of any tags other than fanon as possibly allowing for further digression as to what is canon or not (indeed, we've already had one 'contributor' claim his fanon is just as valid here as any of the official stuff and therefore not needing a fanon tag). Instead, I prefer to leave it un-judged, other than 'official' or 'fanon'. Those lines are quite clear for the vast majority of us.

I compromised when it came to the tags, because...why fight something like this? But calling something canon is going to confuse our mission statement in regards to that, and I say that because I am confused as to what is canon when we try and determine it. That's why I changed it from 'canon' to 'official' because I truly thought this is what you meant and that 'canon' had slipped in. Otherwise, the title of that section ("Unofficial material must be segregated from official material") seems to argue differently than what is stated in the paragraph itself. If its not clear to me...--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

We could go by different way stating this. Old Canon? Obsolete Canon? BattleDroids 'mechs for instance are being introduced into canon material by way of Age of War era material. Battledroids themselves came out before BT Universe was finalized. Personally, since Battledroids was earliest game, hasn't been reflected in canon materials until recently. Like the unseens of old, they too are not seen. Thus these re-imaging now introduced. If you trying classify this I'd say go with pre-Battletech if its relating directly with Battledroids material. As for other things, such a Genecaste, listing them as Canon Rumor arguable best way to go. Its canon, but its not solided information.Its too bad we can't having rating on how reliable information is printed now. Example of the Jihad Secrets: The Blake Documents: All 50 Divisions of the Word of Blake are listed. With gleems on what their doing from perspective of intelligence report. Which means is not rock solid, but darn close. Maybe we should have rating system 0-9 on reliability of source material on somethings? -- Wrangler 01:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

No, with all respect due to you, but no. We, the Editors of BTW, should never be the ones to determine what is canon and what is not. Everyone has an opinion, and you'd have such a scale being railed against on each and every place it was used to rate an article. That very idea would cause people to say, "BattleTechWiki says that Event Alpha or Weapon Tech Beta is Canon Level High. They don't know what they're talking about." We don't want to be a source of opinionated articles, but ones that are well-researched and fact-based. Verifiability is on the verge of being a policy and neutrality is one of our Five Pillars. Using an opinion-based rating system would detract from the verifiability we strive for and the neutrality we demand. Sorry, but I cannot back such a method. (Too strong? )

As for utilizing differing degrees of canoncity...simplicity is the key. Anytime we have to explain to each of ourselves (major contributors) what we think is canon and by what age or degree, we're removing the simplicity of the policy for the average or less-active editors.

I think, Wrangler, the very concept we're discussing here may be forking, as an example of what Frabby is bringing up for discussion. He and I are simply debating the use of the words 'official' and 'canon' in the Canon policy, rather than the need to expand the policy as a whole. (Take a look at the archived discussion to see how detailed and lost we got in the initial discussion, before it was cemented it in my February policy and then simplified with Frabby's November one.)--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you both misunderstood me, in different ways. :)

Wrangler, you fell into the trap that I tried to adress within the Canon article. Some canon only exists in the form of Canon Rumors. But even these are canon, being rumors witin the universe. Credibility is never an issue. Instead, the question is whether or not a given real-world product can be said to officially contribute its content to the shared BT universe. Technically, there is only canon and non-canon, but the apocryphal articles stand out as special because they are neither clearly canon nor non-canon. As for BattleDroids stuff such as the Ostroc mk II, I'd consider it apocryphal (and I have been meaning to write its article for some time).

Revanche, what I tried to say within the policy was that an article needs no tag (i.e. default) if there is nothing to suggest that its subject is anything but canon. Conversely, the tags are needed (exception to the rule) where that is not the case - apocrypha and non-canon/fanon. I think it needs to be pointed out in the respective articles that these have issues with canonicity, which I adressed through the tags. So in this sense, the tags don't actually decide something, but point out where there might be an issue (which is not applicable to most sources and subjects). Phew. Words fail me, I hope I brought my point across and perhaps somebody else can find the right words to put into the policy. Frabby 20:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Ouch, hope i recover from that mental trap. So are you guys going come up with tags to point out...hmmm articles that may that are canon, but may not be straight truth? -- Wrangler 20:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Wrangler, check out where the policy addresses the "Canonicity" section of articles to answer this question of your's. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Frabby, I have no problem with the tags, and have included a new one of my own (to solve a problem where fan stories and articles were being lumped into the wrong categories when the fanon tag was used). To be honest, I'm not 100% onboard with the need of the tags, since the inclusion of the "Canonicity" section could address this, but I'm not heartbroken about it, either.

So, with that cleared up, can you take another stab at the original question you posed, about the use of 'canon' vice 'official' in the policy paragraph? Thanks. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Pics from video games

I know that the video games aren't considered canon, but what about using them as a source of pictures for the articles? Obviously, this would only apply to pictures that don't contradict anything (including the existing picture, if any), but it seems like some detailed, full-color shots might help some of the articles. --Artanis 19:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you give examples of where/in which articles you would want to insert pictures from computer games? Frabby 20:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Mostly the ones where the existing pics are really not that great right now, especially the front-on wireframe-ish ones like the Uller and Thor. Also, pretty much anything in the MechCommander intro video would be worth at least considering. --Artanis 20:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's any problem with this, so long as the game the image is taken from is linked in the pictures description in the article. This tells readers that the image is from a video game, so it shouldn't be too confusing as far as canon versus non-canon is concerned. --Scaletail 22:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Fanon tag color

A new point of discussion: the fanon tags, to me, give off the appearance of a warning by using the color red, rather than the vibe of a notice or announcement. I've had to re-add the tag to the Suomi Warders stories. Though Seth didn't indicate why he took them off, in the act of creating a fanon warning tag for his user page, I reflected that we reserve the color red for the higher levels of warning for a reason. The use of the color on fanon tags may give off the feeling we're warning the reader (and the author) that there is something wrong with 'this page.'
I'd like to suggest we utilize a different color. Maybe white or Sarna gold? --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Meta-sources

Dmon and myself (and now, Doneve) are presently in a discussion with an IP who -quoting the Canon policy's fanon content section- complains about Doneve's use of Objective Raids: 3067 as a source. I jumped in with support for Dmon's argument regarding the facts being true, but only had the 2nd of the Notes in OR:3067's article to support BTW 'policy' regarding using non-official sources.

I propose adding the following statement to the Canon policy's Articles about non-canonical products section, under the banner (with a 'see also' comment in the Fanon content section):

“

BattleTechWiki acknowledges the existence of some sources of information that are not official but, like BTW, do the necessary research and compiling to present official and canon facts regarding the BattleTech universe. These sources are known as 'meta-sources'. Only a select few have been reviewed and determined by consensus to be accepted as sources for BTW articles. They may not be used as references within the articles, because they are not official; instead, the original, official sources are required to be cited. These currently accepted meta-sources are: Objective Raids: 3067, the IS Atlas and Classic BattleTech's cartographer Øystein Tvedten's Star League Defense Forces Mapping Agency (as well as the other released maps of his found in the article about him). As stated in the tag, details regarding the accepted use as a meta-source can be found on each of the relevant pages.

”

Comments requested. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we should accept meta-sources as sources, because it would make BTW a "only" meta-meta source so to speak, and dilute/devaluate the BTW content. Do as wikis do: Research your content and quote correct sources. Meta-sources can be useful to check if you overlooked something, but they are just as biased and prone to errors as BTW and using them as a source would only aggravate that problem. And what's the gain? There is nothing a meta-source author found that we cannot find as well, and quote for reference. In fact, well-researched articles with references is the great strength of the wiki approach. Frabby 16:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with you that original sources are preferred over meta-sources. I really don't have a good, solid argument to support the use of meta-sources, other than they have already consolidated the official material into a format easily digestable and incorporateble. We need to have a policy that addresses peoples concerns (such as noted here) when someone does use a meta-source: my answer is 1) it is not encouraged, but not dis-allowed, 2) it may not be cited as a reference itself, and 3) it needs to be accepted by the BTW community as a trustworthy meta-source.

Otherwise, if we do not allow the use of meta-sources, and we suspect they are being used, what is our policy? Do we delete and admonish? Do we push the Editor to imemdiately follow up with official sources or face deletion? In fact, I see insertion of facts that originate from a trustworthy meta-source to be even more valuable than facts that are otherwise uncited. The end goal: yes, every fact is cited is preferred. But, barring that, a meta-source at least is a step in the right direction. Similar example: if I see a fact in Article A, here on BTW, that is uncited that I don't have any doubts about, I feel free to use that fact to build Article B (also uncited). As BTW is a meta-source, it is a similar analogy.

I'm not looking to create a separate policy regarding meta-sources, but for the reason detailed above, I think we should have a supporting position for certain meta-sources, since if the facts are true, they should not be deleted. Otherwise, the logic extends equally to all uncited facts on the project. I think in a black-n-white perspective, your position is much stronger, but there are shades to be considered if we out-right state meta-sources are not acceptable. (My head is a bit muddy; am I being clear?) --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

If I understand you right, you're suggesting a preferential treatment of certain meta-sources. I am opposed to this idea, because the choice which meta-sources to treat preferentially is in itself a totally subjective process. All meta-sources should be treated as equally suspect no matter how trustworthy with one notable exception - BTW itself.

If meta-sources are being used, I suggest treating this just as if no references were given. If doubtful information is given, insert a <reference needed> tag. Meta-sources cannot serve as reference, so the author would need to dig up whatever primary source the meta-source took its info from.

What I am concerned about in this context is that editors might be tempted to sloppy research if they can hide behind a meta-source. Frabby 01:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, Revanche. OR:3067 is not a compilation of information culled from other sources in the same way that BTW is supposed to be. There are certain assumptions that are made, especially with regard to the production of components. My specific example: Because of my work here, I had done the legwork to find out that the Sagittare's weapons were produced under license on the same world, a factoid that was dropped in HB:HD. Unaware of this (or perhaps having done it before that book was produced), MadCap listed the production for those weapons at their original site. I informed him and he changed it.

I greatly respect what he and the community have done with that project. In many ways, it mirrors what we do here. Nonetheless, OR:3067 is not a canon or licensed source and should not be granted any status other than "fan-made". If it exists in OR:3067, it should exist in a canon source. Knowing that should help an editor narrow done the original source of the information, not replace it. --Scaletail 01:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Understood. Its clear that the majority don't feel meta-sources should be authorized by BTW. I won't try to pigeonhole a compromise. However, I do ask for your policy suggestions on what the answer should be when a) its clear someone is only using a meta-source, and/or b) when someone challenges the inclusion of material that clearly comes from a meta-source. They are two different things. I'm just opposed to deleting anything added by another Editor which I feel is probably right, but is uncited and most likely originating from a meta-source. Likewise, how will/would you answer 65.190.30.41's concerns? (Frabby, you addressed his mis-assumptions, but not his concerns about the use of the information from a meta-source.) Appreciate the guidance. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I 100% agree with Frabby that citing a fan-made "book", even one as well-done as MadCap's, should be akin to not citing a source. Like any other unsourced information that seems accurate, it should be tagged as needing a citation. --Scaletail 03:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Wake up, a little less congested, lot more rested, clearer mind. {{citation needed}} is what it needs. I guess I got hung up on wanting to retain statements I knew to be true, and wanted to resist any urge for people to revert wholesale additions to BTW because from a semi-trusted source. But, if the complaining person doesn't like a particular statement, they can tag it as needing a citation and then delete it after a certain amount of time has past. It is not my responsibility to ensure it gets deleted (or protected) if someone else tags it, which I think was a chore I felt myself being painted into.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

One question which should be raised in this discussion. As all canon BattleTech sources cite authors and contributors, why not consider meta-sources written by the same authors. For instance, Chris Wheeler is cited in several books as a fact checker (at the very least). If Catalyst Games trusts BattleTech Universe canon with him, he should be a reliable source, no? Should we not consider IS Atlas, his website, as being very reliable?

I should think citation of such meta-sources would be akin to our current policy towards electronic posts on official websites (Classic BattleTech, Catalyst Games, etc.) and author/contributor posts on message boards, both of which I have seen cited in the past.

If you agree, I would propose that all meta-sources written directly by authors and fact checkers for BattleTech be considered as legitimate source material.--S.gage 06:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. Only that is Canon which was published as Canon in a canonical source. People like Chris "Chinless" Wheeler, "Oystein" Tvedten and Mike "Cray" Miller (and many others) are very productive in their off-time. The catch is that in their off-time, they're not in any official capacity and anything they privately produce that isn't sanctioned or solicited by Herb is just Fanon. This, I feel, is a very important point that cannot be stressed enough: Only sources (as in publications) are canonical; writers (as persons) are not.

Meta-sources are totally unofficial. As long as they're merely faithfully reproducing canonical information, they are not original source and therefore not required as a reference in the first place; conversely, where meta-sources are the only source, they are non-canonical. For example, the IS Atlas cannot provide the canonical XY-coordinates for most periphery systems simply because those coordinates were never published in canon. Yet the IS Atlas provides coordinates. Don't make the mistake to assume they're canonical.

Finally, no, meta-sources are not reliable. In most cases (Sarna BTW, OR:3067, IS Atlas, etc.) these sources were produced by dedicated fans. But that doesn't rule out errors, like the dead-wrong plancements of many systems on Sarna.net (take Götterdämmerung as an example). An oversight or misspelling in a canonical source can become canon, such as the misspelled name of New Hati. But an error in a meta-source remains just plainly wrong.

In my opinion, dedicated work on this wiki (like on any meta-source) means you go and find the original canonical quote/reference for whatever data is in question. Don't hide behind a meta-source of unverified veracity. Check the (right) sources and use these as a reference. Frabby 13:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Those are all great points, Frabby. I couldn't agree more. I would like to point out that things authors post on the message board are cited because they are clarifications or errata. If there are places where this is not the case, bring it up in a discussion. The CBT website is published by CGL, so it can be considered a canon source, except where they state otherwise.--Scaletail 14:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)