Template talk:NonCanonValid
From Memory Alpha, the free Star Trek reference
"Valid resource" is the wrong term. If it came from a valid resource it would be canon. Instead you are looking for the term "Restricted Validity Resource". Nothing hurts to give an explanation (although it is not necessary), but let's get it right. If that is considered too precise for people's tastes, how about simply "This information is not canon, but comes from a permitted resource." Aholland 07:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- Evidently simplicity is all VedekDukat was looking for in the first place. A simple description on a simple template that can be simply placed on an article to simply describe why this type of "non-canon" is acceptable and yet not necessarily considered "apocrypha". Otherwise, describing something as coming from a "restricted validity resource" is fine, in terms of "precision", when explained on our policy pages, but articles are not policy pages, and most casual visitors to this website don't want their minds boggled the nuances of our policies. Frankly, they are going to read that and wonder what the devil that terminology is all about, considering it is 100% unique to this website. --Alan del Beccio 07:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- Er... okay, now I'm confused. Cid told me that an article can be considered non-canon but can still remain because it's from a valid source. If the articles which are in question here are neither canon nor valid... what are they? (It has already been established there is a difference between canon/non-canon and valid/invalid resources, btw.) --From Andoria with Love 07:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- Cid is correct; the difference lies in the source data used. Using the terms in the canon policy, everthing - canon and non-canon - has to be cited to a "resource". That resource can be a "valid resource" or a "Restricted Validity Resource"; they are simply different types of resources Memory Alpha allows articles to be based upon. The non-canon articles are generally (and I think exclusively) based on Restricted Validity Resources (RVR), else they would be canon. So . . . articles based on RVR are non-canon but permitted; articles based on valid resources are fully canon. As before, I have no problem with not saying RVR in the template note, but we should not confuse the issue by using a term like "valid source". "Resource" is fine, "permitted resource" is fine, but use of the word valid muddies the water. Aholland 16:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Canon?
Here we go again declaring something "not canon"... This template needs to be altered to remove this definition.
It isn't up to us to state that this was canon or not -- we have no reliable source for stating this is canon or not -- making this template completely uninformative. Recommend changing it to state (more truthfully) that this is from permitted resources, but didn't make it into dialogue or visual inspection in the episodes. -- Captain M.K.B. 14:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Memory-Alpha has, by necessity, defined what is and is not canon for purposes of Memory Alpha. It has been like that since at least 2004. Your issue is not with the template (an idea first proposed by Vedek Dukat as a standard way to note something in accordance with policy); your issue is with the policy. That is because the policy clearly draws a distinction between canon and non-canon and requires appropriate labels. Please discuss it there. Aholland 15:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
More than dicussing the canon policy, i recommend removing most of the language and reverting the policy back to one that is workable to the site. None of us are lawyers, we don't know how to defend our work when the policy is longer than we can read in one sitting -- especially when many of us like to edit on the run. And its really a shame that a site that welcomes free submissions should suddenly become so strict that a layman can't contribute anything without having to strenuously defend their work. -- Captain M.K.B. 15:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- I fail to believe that anyone who can understand and write about arcane tidbits of information on 10, 20, or 40 year old televison shows would find it hard to read one policy. :) The earlier version (prior to the most recent major change) would require the deletion of the USS Chekov article. Without discussion or appeal. Is that truly what you are proposing? Aholland 15:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
