Bureaucrats, content-moderator, emailconfirmed, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Administrators, threadmoderator
85,404
edits
→Do we cover RPGs or not?
OttselSpy25 (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 175: | Line 175: | ||
:Yes, indeed. This is a very good approach to the subject. I think so anyways. [[User:OttselSpy25|OS25]] ([[User Talk:OttselSpy25|talk to me, baby.]]) 22:24, March 29, 2012 (UTC) | :Yes, indeed. This is a very good approach to the subject. I think so anyways. [[User:OttselSpy25|OS25]] ([[User Talk:OttselSpy25|talk to me, baby.]]) 22:24, March 29, 2012 (UTC) | ||
::''Star Wars'' is a very different franchise to ''Doctor Who'' on this very point. '''What works at Wookieepedia does not work here'''. They have the advantage of a copyright holder that takes the time to establish what canon actually means. Thus Wookieepedia's canon policy is essentially what [[starwars:Leland Chee|Leland Chee]] tells them it is. ''Doctor Who'' has no one doing anything like the job of Leland Chee. It's not a priority of the BBC to sort out the question of canonicity in any way. | |||
::Thus we can't just copy their canon policy because it doesn't make sense for us. For example: | |||
::*They consider that action figures themselves are canon, and that the packaging on an action figure is a completely valid source. '''We're never going to do that.''' | |||
::*They consider that non-narrative statements from George Lucas are binding upon the narrative. Thus, if Lucas says ''x'' about Yoda in the ''Empire'' commentary, that can be used within the in-universe article about Yoda. '''We absolutely don't play that way.''' If Russell T Davies says something about a character in a commentary, then we can only include that as a behind-the-scenes note. | |||
::*They specifically allow in West End/Wizards of the Coast roleplaying books. '''We've specifically said that the equivalent FASA books are not valid sources for over five years now. | |||
::*They specifically think that conjecture published by Lucas Licensing is good; we've been fighting a battle against all conjecture for years. Steven Moffat's musings about the potential future of Amy Pond are likely to be misleading. His job, quite different to George Lucas, is to sell ''Doctor Who'', which involves '''lying'''. Lucas doesn't care about selling to the same acute degree; if he never made any new content, Lucas' bank account would still be secure. Which Moffat, despite his success, can't really say. | |||
::And I could go on and on. Suffice it to say that they are simply different franchises. What works in one doesn't necessarily apply to another. | |||
::Beyond which, we aren't really saying what is canon and what is not. Every person is free to decide what they believe is canon or not ''for their own personal use''. We are merely trying to define the '''functional scope of this wiki'''. If you want to believe that the scenario you played out last night on ''Worlds in Time'' is canonical, that's your prerogative. But that's not what we're talking about. Put simply, our ''canon policy'' is not the same thing as ''canon''. | |||
::We're defining what sources can be used to write in-universe articles on this wiki. That's all. Because of the vast differences in the way that the two franchises are managed by their respective copyright holders, Wookieepedia's stance doesn't help us a whole lot. | |||
::'''Moreover, you're totally misrepresenting what's actually happening at WP.''' They don't actually have an article on "a spacer" or "a Jedi Knight". Their article on [[starwars:spacer|spacer]] is talking about the generic term, not its applicability in a particular game. If you look at WP, they don't try to cover the character the player plays in their MMOs, like ''Star Wars Galaxies''. They're a very broad church over there, but even '''they''' don't attempt articles on player-named, player-created characters, as are the norm in MMOs. What they ''do'' have is articles on LucasArts-named characters that the player plays. That's fine. We've got much less of a problem with games like ''City of the Daleks'' where you're playing the Doctor or Amy, and there's a more-or-less set story you're trying to get through. An open-ended MMO, RPG or Decide Your Destiny experience requires greater discussion. How do we know which is supposed to be the course of events that is "correct" and which is "failed"? How do we know whom the events happened to if they happened to millions of different players around the world, all playing unique characters? This is what makes this whole question so difficult. And unfortunately the ''Star Wars'' example doesn't really help us as much as it might appear at first glance. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}} <span style="{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}">23:31: Thu 29 Mar 2012 </span> | |||