[aldo_14]

I'm not sure why the node inconsistency page would be considered non-canon.  Albeit it seems to be absent justnow, anyways.

EDIT; hell, I lost my reply to WCM... um, this is a bit truncated, then;

Oh, please - don't make such a ludicirous strawman. The SCP is a factual documentation of the SCP features; we're talking about canonical articles referring to the Freespace universe and setting, not technical or descriptive documents. Even in the issue of campaigns, the wiki pages just act as descriptors of the campaign setting and storyline, making it very clear (by context) that and storyline or evidenciary information is to be considered as within the campaign setting. Not that I've seen any of that in the (few) wiki entries there are.

I'm curious - what do you peeps regard the wiki for? I always regarded it as a source of reliable information of the story and setting, and for information upon the game as a piece of software - not as a place for posting speculative fiction. I thought the HLP forums were for the latter; and my fear is that by allowing the likes of the SM (which isn't AFAIK even connected to any campaign, it's just an abstract statement the same as eg. Singhs stories about Bosch), means we give carte blanche to post any old rubbish so long as it has a big old tag at the top.

Well, I asked if there were any inaccuracies in the page, and all I heard was BD repeatedly griping that we needed a notation that the SM is trash for it to be accurate (Which I've skimmed over as a blatantly subjective opinion), and someone mentioned that 'controversial' was too light a word.

And the reason the article is up right now is because it didn't seem like people were understanding what I was getting at, and was painting adding the Manifesto in the wiki as tantamount to telling everyone that it was canon. I figured that the easiest way to clear it up was to make what I thought the Manifesto article should be, and I did. I didn't do it to test anything - I was sick of arguing a point when it had become clear that the other side was misinterpreting what I was saying and making blatant assumptions about my opinions, whether intentionally or unintentionally.

I suppose when it comes down to it, I see the FS Wiki as a source for factual information on topics relevant to the Freespace community. Obviously we've never taken a vote besides this one - but it seems like that when the wiki was established, that was the general idea, as most of the talk was about the SCP. We've also got stuff like the FS lingo in there, which makes sense to me. Overall, I suppose I see the FS wiki much the same as I do the wikipedia - it's someplace to look something up if I don't understand what it means. Obviously it should be geared towards newbies, since most of the vets will know of the stuff already. Since both forum searches are down for an indefinite period of time, IMHO this is just more motivation to add topics to the wiki.

Well, I don't think the SM is factual or useful, that was my issue.  Firstly that it mixes assumption & evidence in such a way that aforementioned new peeps could get mixed up which is which, or worse still draw the conclusion the SM is providing the most or only logical explanation (which it does say at several points, proposing the only 'likely' alternatives and selecting one of them); obviously the SM is bound to be self-supporting, but it means it's not a neutral discussion document in the sort of NPOV style I thought the wiki was suppossed to be presented in.

Secondly that it doesn't have a context of value because it's just idle speculation; it's not like the background to some campaign where it has a role in understanding that campaigns story, etc.  Obviously this would be different if it was being used as the basis of a campaign (in which case I'd have no objections to it being mentioned on that campaigns page), but AFAIK it's not.  That also IMO leads to a lack of sense as to what the contextual value of the SM is; regardless of length and coherence, it is ultimately speculation (as any isolated theory would be), and I don't think it has an overwhelming value in that sense to merit conclusion (nor would any other similar spec.fic).  Again, I think this could affect peoples reading of it in a negative way.

Finally, I think it's unfair to show one but not all; it's making a judgement of which is the most relevant or 'valuable' for inclusion, and I'm not sure there's any way to have grounds for that.

[karajorma]

Ye gods. I leave the thread alone for a day and it's suddenly plagued by people constructing a giant strawman in order to win.

Of course the SCP stuff doesn't have to go. I can't believe anyone was foolish enough to believe that was the intention of any rational member of the community let alone someone who spends so much time working hard on educating people on how to use the SCP's new features.

Aldo's got it right.

I'm not sure why the node inconsistency page would be considered non-canon.  Albeit it seems to be absent justnow, anyways.

It wouldn't be. The inconsistancies page exist solely to document the difference between FS1 canon and FS2 canon. I don't know why it would be claimed to be non-canon either.

[WMCoolmon]

Of course the SCP stuff doesn't have to go. I can't believe anyone was foolish enough to believe that was the intention of any rational member of the community let alone someone who spends so much time working hard on educating people on how to use the SCP's new features.

Aldo's got it right.

Then what exactly is the poll on? "Non-canon material" (in the context of the FS universe) refers to anything that isn't part of the original games. The SCP does not fall under that category.

I think it's foolish to throw away so much of the potential and past work from the Wiki, or not include topics that are familiar to vertan forumgoers, but completely alien to newbies and thus more likely to be misinterpreted without some kind of good reference. (ie "The Shivan Manifesto is canon!" ) But, here we are discussing that possibility, because apparently we don't agree on what's foolish or not.

Edit: From what I've read, we've got people assuming that "Non-canon material" somehow doesn't include campaign descriptions, but does include "speculative fiction". Then we've got people thinking that "Non-canon material" includes campaign stuff and so-called "speculative fiction" (Or at least me, because if the poll were on the first I'd expect it to be on "Speculative fiction" (Whatever that means)).

[aldo_14]

Of course the SCP stuff doesn't have to go. I can't believe anyone was foolish enough to believe that was the intention of any rational member of the community let alone someone who spends so much time working hard on educating people on how to use the SCP's new features.

Aldo's got it right.

Then what exactly is the poll on? "Non-canon material" (in the context of the FS universe) refers to anything that isn't part of the original games. The SCP does not fall under that category.

I think it's foolish to throw away so much of the potential and past work from the Wiki, or not include topics that are familiar to vertan forumgoers, but completely alien to newbies and thus more likely to be misinterpreted without some kind of good reference. (ie "The Shivan Manifesto is canon!" ) But, here we are discussing that possibility, because apparently we don't agree on what's foolish or not.

I said before; canonical material refers to the known storyline of the Freespace games, and factual information upon the Freespace universe in general (i.e. as expressed in the games, the FS ref bible, and probably Volition employee comments).  I have never, ever, heard canon be used to refer to the technical or material aspects of Freespace as a piece of software; it strikes me as a bit similar to, say, including the type of film used as part of the Babylon 5 canon. 

To steal from wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_(fiction));

In the context of fiction, the canon of a fictional universe comprises those novels, stories, films, etc. that are considered to be genuine (or "official"), and those events, characters, settings, etc. that are considered to have inarguable existence within the fictional universe. Usually items that are considered canon come from the original source of the fictional universe while non-canon material comes from adaptations or unofficial items. Generally, Expanded Universes are not considered canon, though there are exceptions which are considered near-canon. By analogy with the idea of a canon of Scripture, things which are not canon are considered "apocryphal". See Biblical canon.

Fan-fiction is never considered canon. Sometimes, however, events or characterizations portrayed in fan-fiction can become so influential that they are respected in fiction written by many different authors, and may be mistaken for canonical facts by fans. This is referred to as "fanon". The use of fan-fiction to fill gaps or continuity errors in canon is derisively called "fanwanking," or "fanwank". (The terms fanon and fanwank can apply to officially licensed works as well.)

There is no unanimous opinion on whether having a definitive canon in a fictional setting is useful, desirable or even possible. Canonicity of fiction is a distinctly modern idea, since earlier ages, before the current ideas of intellectual property came about, did not distinguish between "official" and "unofficial" sources of stories.

A great deal of the interest and controversy over canonicity comes from the Star Wars franchise, because of the unique-for-its-time goal of derivative works such as Star Wars books to be completely in continuity with each other and with the Star Wars movies.

[BlackDove]

User campaign descriptions can go with actual user campaign downloads, which will be the purpose of the user made campaign page.

Thoughts on the universe need to be kept off in any form though.

[WMCoolmon]

Then pointing out the SCP stuff isn't canon isn't a big strawman.

Kara:
My point is - you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't run a poll on whether canon stuff should be in the wiki, use it as reason to remove articles from the wiki, and then disregard those results and add in whatever the hell you want regardless of if it's canon. Well, you can, but it kind of makes the results of the poll worthless. If you wanted to solve the Manifesto debate, you should've started a poll on the Manifesto or defined the poll better.

As it is, assuming it comes out to a "Yes", I'm not sure if the poll will change anything. Maybe the Manifesto page will stay in the wiki as-is without further complaint, and the rest of the stuff will remain in. But if we get a "No"  then the results of the poll are virtually meaningless. As aldo just pointed out, "canon" doesn't actually include the technical aspects of something. To abide by the results of the poll, we'd have to wipe out every modding guide, everything on the SCP, everything on user campaigns, etc etc ad nauseum. I don't think anybody is willing to do that. I'm certainly not going to. On the plus side, we would know that the Manifesto won't be included.

If you think this is foolish, so be it. For a decision this major I plan on holding people to their vote, and I don't think that's unreasonable. If they break their word and allow non-canon material in the wiki, thus disregarding the poll, I will feel free to do the same.

[karajorma]

Then what exactly is the poll on? "Non-canon material" (in the context of the FS universe) refers to anything that isn't part of the original games. The SCP does not fall under that category.

I didn't bother defining it because we'd just had a 4 page discussion on the matter and I thought it would be fairly obvious what was the topic of the poll.

Basically we're asking whether this page should go. We can decide how to handle the user-made campaigns in a bit. I doubt anyone has any problem with the page.

I think it's foolish to throw away so much of the potential and past work from the Wiki, or not include topics that are familiar to vertan forumgoers, but completely alien to newbies and thus more likely to be misinterpreted without some kind of good reference. (ie "The Shivan Manifesto is canon!" ) But, here we are discussing that possibility, because apparently we don't agree on what's foolish or not.

What I refered to as foolish is if anyone on this thread really thought I was suggesting throwing out the SCP pages. Come on WMC did you really think that was what I was suggesting? After writing the FAQ and answering thousands of questions on the forums do you honestly think that sounds like something I'd suggest?

WMC's last post

Planning to burn a policeman in that strawman you're building?

[aldo_14]

Then pointing out the SCP stuff isn't canon isn't a big strawman.

Kara:
My point is - you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't run a poll on whether canon stuff should be in the wiki, use it as reason to remove articles from the wiki, and then disregard those results and add in whatever the hell you want regardless of if it's canon. Well, you can, but it kind of makes the results of the poll worthless. If you wanted to solve the Manifesto debate, you should've started a poll on the Manifesto or defined the poll better.

As it is, assuming it comes out to a "Yes", I'm not sure if the poll will change anything. Maybe the Manifesto page will stay in the wiki as-is without further complaint, and the rest of the stuff will remain in. But if we get a "No" then the results of the poll are virtually meaningless. As aldo just pointed out, "canon" doesn't actually include the technical aspects of something. To abide by the results of the poll, we'd have to wipe out every modding guide, everything on the SCP, everything on user campaigns, etc etc ad nauseum. I don't think anybody is willing to do that. I'm certainly not going to. On the plus side, we would know that the Manifesto won't be included.

If you think this is foolish, so be it. For a decision this major I plan on holding people to their vote, and I don't think that's unreasonable. If they break their word and allow non-canon material in the wiki, thus disregarding the poll, I will feel free to do the same.

So you'd cut off your nose to spite your face?  Take a petty deletion fit which any normal minded individual would know to be deliberately excessive and intended to provoke?  For ****s sake WMC, I thought you were one of the most mature and reasoned people here, and now you come up with this stuff?

[starfox]

Well, maybe yes, but only if is clearly marked as non-canon.

[karajorma]

WMC you knew damn well what was under debate in this poll. You're the person who agreed that I should post a poll asking whether the Shivan  Manifesto should be in the wiki. Simply because I decided to not pick on the SM itself and simply say "non-canon interpretations of the game" you've used that to pervert my intentions into a ridiculous strawman which you knew damn well was not what this thread was about.

To be frank I'm hugely disappointed. Especially by that last post.

[Sandwich]

Bottom line is that anything can go in the Wiki, as long as it's clearly defined as canon/non-canon or what-have-you. *abuses admin powers and lockes thread after having the last word*

Nahh, just kidding. But I do think that non-canon is ok, as long as it's made clear where it's ok to have it, and how it should be displayed.

[BlackDove]

That doesn't prevent retardation from spreading across the pages though, which is what the downside is here as far as I'm concerned.

It has no place there, marked or unmarked, even if it's the most brilliant piece of fiction ever written.

[Goober5000]

I don't see why everybody's painting WMC's argument as a strawman.  I honestly don't think it is.  If you exclude non-canon information from the Wiki then you're excluding stuff like the SCP too; if you make an exception just for the SCP then you're not being consistent.

The wiki's current unwritten policy appears to be including all factually-based reference material in the wiki, whether it's canon or not.  I'm in favor of keeping that as it is.  If canon and non-canon are clearly distinguished, then I see no problem with them coexisting.

[WMCoolmon]

WMC you knew damn well what was under debate in this poll. You're the person who agreed that I should post a poll asking whether the Shivan  Manifesto should be in the wiki. Simply because I decided to not pick on the SM itself and simply say "non-canon interpretations of the game" you've used that to pervert my intentions into a ridiculous strawman which you knew damn well was not what this thread was about.

To be frank I'm hugely disappointed. Especially by that last post.

The poll asks the question - "Should non-canon material be allowed in the wiki?" I don't care what you meant to ask, I care what you actually asked because that's what most people here responded to. Kalfireth actually asked for clarification on what you meant by "material" and you didn't bother to clarify. Sandwich and StratComm seemed to assume that user-made campaigns were under consideration and you didn't bother to correct them, either. Whatever you meant to ask, it was obviously lost on people because you didn't make it clear in the poll. That is why I'm inclined to disregard the poll.

Edit: I'm going to respond to aldo, as well.

I vote "Yes" in the poll, so long as there's clear delineation between canon and non-canon. I'm even willing to put up with criticism as long as it's factual, relevant, and puts the article in context rather than just seems to be there to tear it down. If we are putting campaigns and such into the wiki solely to destroy or discredit them, then we have lost sight of the point of a wiki.

So, no, I don't think that pointing out that what the poll is asking is really the fate of most of the articles in the wiki, including many of the ones that are referenced frequently, is cutting off my nose to spite my face since it's pretty obvious I'm on the complete other side of it. I've already pointed out that I think that the choice of poll question was unclear and poor, so I don't feel like I'm building up a strawman or being inconsistent.

[karajorma]

Of course you're building a strawman. You knew damn well what was under discussion. If there is confusion its because you deliberately caused it by claimng that I was pushing for something you knew damn well wasn't what I was on about instead of arguing the matter at hand.

As I said before I made the mistake of assuming that people would simply understand the question was a mere extention of the earlier "Should the Shivan Manifesto be removed?" rather than deliberately twisting what I meant. I really did expect better.


Oh and while I'm at it. I didn't ignore Kalfireth's post. He pretty much defined "material".

[Sandwich]

That is why I'm inclined to disregard the poll.

...and a very conclusive poll it is, too!

[Black Wolf]

Let's have a concrete example that isn't the Shivan Manifesto.

Consider this article on the Aesir. You can check the history - it's been there for some time (well before this argument started), and nobody has had a problem with it. It conforms to the canon policy on the main page (which has been there with no arguments for a very long time). Should it be deleted if this poll comes down with a no vote?

[aldo_14]

Let's have a concrete example that isn't the Shivan Manifesto.

Consider this article on the Aesir. You can check the history - it's been there for some time (well before this argument started), and nobody has had a problem with it. It conforms to the canon policy on the main page (which has been there with no arguments for a very long time). Should it be deleted if this poll comes down with a no vote?

No IMO, because it has contextual value for the Twisted Infinities campaign.  I think it's fair to include material that is canonical for a campaign or mod, but not for the actual FS1/FS2 universe.  I did say earlier I didn't object to the reference of the SM if it was being used as the basis for a campaign/mod (again, correct me if I'm wrong as AFAIK it isn't being used as such), just it's inclusion within its current spec.fic state.

[karajorma]

Let's have a concrete example that isn't the Shivan Manifesto.

Consider this article on the Aesir. You can check the history - it's been there for some time (well before this argument started), and nobody has had a problem with it. It conforms to the canon policy on the main page (which has been there with no arguments for a very long time). Should it be deleted if this poll comes down with a no vote?

A good example. The Aesir page itself is fine. What needs sorting is the way it's linked to. This page clearly shows that the Aesir are non-canon but doesn't show that they are completely an invention of the TI team. The same goes for the Nightmares and Starborn.

Things like this should go into the wiki as sub-categories of their own respective campaigns rather than us having to spam every single page with "THIS IS NON-CANON" to seperate the canon from the non-canon. The user campaigns themselves should have a warning as should any sub-pages but what should be avoided is having to have that sort of thing on every single page in the wiki.

What those of us who voted no object to is this. Because by having a big list of non-canon links it looks like we're trying to set up an expanded universe. That page simply shouldn't be there. Someone who believes that the Lupus Nebula is the one in FS2 can take it on as sub-category of their campaign's page and everyone else who believes it is can link to it. What I don't want to see is a big extension to the FS canon with comments like

Barring the discovery of a better candidate, this is the best choice for the FS2 nebula.

That sort of thing definately makes the page look like an attempt to set up exactly the kind of extended universe that the people who voted no object to.



For those who still can't see the difference between the Aesir article (once the linking is changed) and the Shivan Manifesto I'll explain. The Aesir article as a sub-category doesn't need to have an alternate point of view. There's no need to say "yes, but..." The TI team have decided that is the way the Aesir are in their universe. Nothing more needs to be said.
 The Shivan Manifesto on the other hand has no universe to attach it to. It's an attempt to explain the Shivans in every universe including 's own. As such it does need to have its flaws pointed out. And this is something that should be done on the forums not on the wiki. As you can see from the furious discussion here if it simply went onto the wiki with no discussion it would result in an edit war.

Anyway for the those remaining who still haven't understood what is meant by non-canon in the context of this discussion it basically means any attempt to set up a non-canon extention to 's universe without

a) Making it canon to one or more campaigns
b) Keeping it confined to sub-categories of that campaign or campaigns.

I was under the impression that no one who was following the discussion on the other thread would have misunderstood what was under discussion.

The poll asks the question - "Should non-canon material be allowed in the wiki?" I don't care what you meant to ask, I care what you actually asked because that's what most people here responded to.

If you really think that half of the people on this thread think that all the SCP information should be removed from the wiki and responded to that then I'm going to have to drastically revise my opinion of you. The fact is that pretty much everyone who voted no understood exactly what was being discussed. Hell even if they didn't they've voted for something far stricter than what was proposed so only the yes votes are at issue.

My problem with your response is that I posted an informal poll to get sampling the opinion on the matter. The entire point of this thread was to discuss and solve the problem of how to treat non-canon material like the Shivan Manifesto. Instead of responding to the thread in that way you've come out with this ridiculous argument that removing the non-canon page from the wiki somehow means that the SCP has to go. Instead of trying to talk through a problem like I would have expected from a senior member of the community you've acted like a lawyer trying to dismiss the entire case on a technicality (Which you continued to do even after I posted a link to the page that is a best example of the problem at hand and clarified that no one had suggested removing the SCP).
 Instead of then discussing the matter at hand you've continued to attack the fact that I used the wrong word in the poll. I'm disgusted and disappointed with your entire attitude on this thread. I had expected it to be treated as an attempt to solve a problem which affects the wiki not as a ridiculous attempt to score points off of me.

[aldo_14]

The Aesir article needs a back link to the non-canon species section, I think.