Template talk:ApocryphalContentStart

Replace template with other form of highlighting apocryphal content?[edit]

Discussion copied over from User talk:Frabby#Pretty Baby & MWO Canon Roll Back to be continued here:

This touched upon a bigger point: Apocrypha tags. Back when the tags we currently use were introduced (I did most of that and also re-wrote the Policy:Canon, in co-operation with Revanche and Scaletail), there was a discussion about the apocryphal tags. My suggestion was to approach the issue much like Wookiepedia, the Star Wars wiki, does it: They don't mark the entire article, they just use two tags "Apocryphal information begins here" and "Apocryphal information ends here" within the article. That's a much cleaner and easier-to-understand approach, but I was voted down. The others feared the articles would look cluttered and unfinished with the tags used in mid-article in this way.
I still don't agree with this old reasoning and I still think the Apocryphal Content tags are not optimal, so I'm open to suggestions here. I might start another attempt at segregating apocryphal content by Begin/End tags. After all, we've had our Fanon Purge since then. Frabby (talk) 12:43, 22 February 2013 (PST)
Well, i won't want see the apocryphal listed items abolished from the site. They do deserve their place here. I think a new code/template needs to be setup to keep them from confusing would be readers. Too many times i've seen mentioned on the offical message boards that they were thinking that listed apocryphal line item was in fact as canon as the rest of the article. Personally i'd endorse a seperation section in a main article that mentions the apocryphal variant, but Sarna's rep is getting ruined by stuff that either not cited or clearly marked as being questionable. I think draconian method must come, where i think that there should be page dedicated list of apocryphal items put togther or be listed in its own article. I'm more lists such as: List of Apocryphal BattleMechs or List of Apocryphal BattleMech Variants. I know it going be pain in butt, but i can't see anyway to keep it seperated without people getting confused. A tag/flag which doesn't effect the article(which i don't think is coded) could be made be listed next to the apocryphal variant for instance. Highlight yellow or something so a read can tell there something up with it. Somewhat similar to how Rules Notes are listed for Equipment. -- Wrangler (talk) 12:54, 22 February 2013 (PST)
Here's how Wookiepedia does it: Sample article section Could this be the way forward? Frabby (talk) 12:59, 22 February 2013 (PST)
It could be. I rather have something that was more line-item sort thing. Flag for sentence verse anything below the Warning. Again, i'm semi-retired so i don't have much say about it! :) -- Wrangler (talk) 18:18, 22 February 2013 (PST)
BattleTech has done a much better job about keeping information canon than Star Wars has, so, in general, I feel like we have less need to call attention to it. I'm not quite sure why we need to tag a whole article if we put an apocryphal BattleMech variant into a discreet section. If "Pretty Baby" is under a section in the Awesome article titled "Apocryphal Variants" with a link to the Canon policy and a note about where the information came from, do we need to do more than that? --Scaletail (talk) 05:55, 24 February 2013 (PST)
I agree a great deal with the idea we should get away from branding a whole article apocryphal. We have units like the Crescent Hawks and the 1st Somerset Strikers, who've been confirmed as canon, but had their origins in non-canon material. ClanWolverine101 (talk) 07:13, 24 February 2013 (PST)
Articles that are entirely apocryphal (either as a source, like BattleTechnology, or because the article subject is entirely derived from apocryphal sources, like Grig Griez or Keine Chance!) should still be marked as apocryphal articles right at the top. It's only those articles that mix canon and apocryphal content that are a problem. And here we have a sliding scale of sorts: Some things were developed in an apocryphal source from a canonical one-liner somewhere so that their name and existence is canon but little else (like Menlo Drews); conversely, others are almost completely apocryphal, but got a nod from the developers in the form of a brief mentioning somewhere (e.g. Kiudo, Cameron's Legion); then there's the "middle ground" section where a substantial lot of info is straight canon but a lot of additional info is not, for various reasons (Crescent Hawks); and finally, there's articles on canonical subjects where only a small section or piece of information is apocryphal (either an important bit, like in the Shandra Noruff-Cameron article, or some minor aspect like in the Wendall Puritan article).
I think the approach to mark specific text parts as apocryphal (by marking the text, or using begin/end templates) works well on the latter two. I am a bit unsure how to approach subjects where essentially only the name and existence of the subject are canon, and any detail information is apocryphal. Frabby (talk) 05:17, 25 February 2013 (PST)
Gentlemen, I'm late to the conversation and I may have missed this suggestion (and maybe my opinion has changed since it was last heavily discussed), but can we do shading? Like we do for rules? It could have a section that even bypasses the whole 'apocryphal' tagging and instead represents...I dunno..."Other Media", if not "MechWarrior Online". I'd still use the 'apocryphal' tag for an article that was solely about an aspect of MWO, but for in-canon article sections, we could use shading to make that area stand out. For example, let's say the 1st Alarion Jaegers' article was about a 'Mech instead of a company. Where the [1st_Alarion_Jaegers|game notes] are presently, the parent section could read "Other Media" and the shaded box could be labeled "MechWarrior Online".--Revanche (talk|contribs) 14:50, 2 May 2013 (PDT)
I've tested my idea on Awesome. Another reason I like it is because it links to other BattleTech-related sites and allows us to link elsewhere within our own humble project. Whatcha think?--Revanche (talk|contribs) 15:18, 2 May 2013 (PDT)
Looks good to me, at least using the Steiner skin view. I'd like to see a disclaimer (small print or otherwise) in the box spelling out that in wiki terms we consider the 'Mechs apocryphal though, just to deflect any criticisms of us trying to pass the variants off as canonical even by implication. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 23:35, 2 May 2013 (PDT)
Rev - I really like what you did here. My concern is articles like Shandra Noruff-Cameron, which contain only a little Apocryphal material, yet seem stained by that banner at the top. I have the last three issues of the old 'Mech Magazine, and recently I've been looking at BattleTechnology as well. There seems to be a lot of material there that is viable, based on characters, units and events that are fully canon, and providing some detail. If I added that material to an existing article, then it SHOULD be noted that that material came from a source that was not fully canon. But that doesn't mean the whole article should be tainted. (That banner on the Shandra Noruff page is really bothering me...)
Frabby had an excellent suggestion, to take a look at what the Star Wars wiki, [1], is doing. SW has tons of material that is not strictly canon, and they have an effective and subtle way of noting that in the impacted articles. Here's a good example: [2].
What do you think? ClanWolverine101 (talk) 17:30, 13 May 2013 (PDT)
I see two flavors of 'apocryphal content':
  1. material (such as Battletechnology, older but official products made outdated by newer info) that is/was a part of canon at some point
  2. material definitely not a part of the canon, but official in some alternative way (ex: MechWarriorOnline).
The former -I feel- should be a part of the general article, maybe as suggested in the C-3PO article linked or just followed with a [apocryphal] tag (similar to the 'citation needed' tag), while the second should be broken out of the main article, so as to be segregated, protecting the primary material from confusion.
Am I right in thinking that the article tag of 'apocryphal' for a (generally) canon subject is not considered appropriate? Meaning, do we all agree that labeling a canon article that includes some 'apocryphal' material should not labeled as a whole 'apocryphal'?--Revanche (talk|contribs) 11:10, 19 May 2013 (PDT)
Rev - I believe we are on the same page, yes. For articles on unequivocally canon subjects, only the section in question should have an "apocryphal" tag, and that, more subdued then the current universal one we seem to be using. That's the ideal I'm proposing. Only subjects that ARE non-canon (like the "Legion" tank from MechCommander 2) should be designated with the current tag at the top. (As is now the case with poor Shandra Noruff.) Can we reach a consensus? ClanWolverine101 (talk) 12:56, 19 May 2013 (PDT)
I think you're mixing up two distinct things here. To recap: Articles about apocryphal or non-canonical sources should definitely keep a tag at the top; the same goes for articles drawing their content entirely from such sources. The tags used for this (Apocryphal and ApocryphalArticle) are distinct from the ApocryphalContent tag we're discussing here. It's only articles that mix canonical and apocryphal content where the tag at the top (the ApocryphalContent tag) is misleading, or "marring" the article as someone put it. That's the only one under review here.— The preceding unsigned comment was provided by Frabby (talkcontribs) 17:40, 19 May 2013.
Frabby - No, not at all. I totally agree that articles about Apocryphal products or that draw material exclusively from Apocryphal products should use the current tag. My example - Shandra Noruff - is an actual canon character. While I respect the right of another editor to use Apocryphal material in the article, in my mind, that should not make the whole article Apocryphal. I think we're in agreement on this? ClanWolverine101 (talk) 14:57, 29 May 2013 (PDT)

Issue One: Use of the Apocryphal Content tag[edit]

Issue Two: Dealing with apocryphal content within canon-subject articles[edit]

Okay, now that we're compartmentalizing this issue, I want to nail down the consensus for the next issue. Help me craft the summary of our options here before we start debating the individual merits. How can we designate material within a canon-subject article as apocryphal? Brainstorm and suggest ideas, even if you don't necessarily think they are the best (they might develop into better options thru discussion). The four I see are:

  • what I'm calling the game rules section method, where apocryphal content is segregated into a Other Media section and non-canon (but official) sources are clearly labeled in their own shaded box, followed by the apocryphal content.
Example: Awesome#Other_Media
  • what I think we may be calling the C-3PO method (though maybe Wookiepedia method may be preferred by some editors), where the apocryphal content is included within the data where most appropriate (chronologically if text, within the variants if a combat system, etc.), but marked by a shaded area both before the apocryphal content, identifying the contained material as apocryphal and its source, and then after the material, indicating the material following is canon.
Example: The death of C-3PO
Example using Frabby's templates:

Template:ApocryphalStartThis is where the non-canonical content goes, of course still with all appropriate references to valid official sources - only the sources referenced here would themselves be apocryphal, thus the information needs to be marked accordingly.Template:ApocryphalEnd

  • the tag method, where the material is contained within the canon text but, similar to [citation needed] or [when?] tags, it is followed by a tag somewhat like this: [apocryphal content]. Maybe it would be followed by a reference, indicating the source.
Example: "Shandra Noruff-Cameron was shot on New Year's Eve 2600 at the Camerons' winter residence in Canada, Terra. She died just before the clock hit midnight.[apocryphal content][6]"
  • the font color method: I've seen this in use on the Daystrom Institute Technical Library (DITL), a Star Trek fanon site. The creator of that site documents all known data from the traditional Trek universe with font colors. Yellow font represents canon material, green fonts represents backstage material (stuff that was intended or suggested but never aired), while white fonts were speculative suggestions from the creator to solve logical conundrums. My suggestion would be to have apocryphal content set apart with brown font, followed by an explanation in the Notes section or a reference note.
BTW Example: "Shandra Noruff-Cameron was shot on New Year's Eve 2600 at the Camerons' winter residence in Canada, Terra."[5] She died just before the clock hit midnight."[6]
DITL example: Species: Bajorans

Please state any other options we might have (below). I'd like to incorporate them with the four above concepts, as a menu. And let's keep the debate portion apart from the ideas, so we can clearly see what we're talking about.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 17:30, 26 May 2013 (PDT)

Other options[edit]

Debate the options[edit]

  • First - Rev - Thanks so much for doing this! Second - Of the presented options, I do prefer my C3-PO/Wookiepedia format. However, I also like your Awesome example. I could see a situation where we used different approaches for different kinds of apocryphal content. ClanWolverine101 (talk) 19:26, 26 May 2013 (PDT)
Okay, let's discuss the C3PO format: how and where do you envision it being used?--Revanche (talk|contribs) 16:10, 29 May 2013 (PDT)
Any standard, canon articles that include apocryphal content. The content would be within the box. I'd like to do it with the Noruff article, if someone could design the box for me. ClanWolverine101 (talk) 17:51, 29 May 2013 (PDT)
FWIW, I'm not a fan of the font color method. I'd refer the shaded content model or the C3PO method.--Mbear(talk) 03:40, 30 May 2013 (PDT)
CW, what do you want the box to look like?--Mbear(talk) 03:41, 30 May 2013 (PDT)
Mbear - a lot like the mini-banners in the "death" of C3-PO section from above. Although I would alter the text somewhat to acknowledge that, whether we like it or not, there is some ambiguity to what is canon, what is apoc, and what's been effectively ret-conned. How hard are those banners - they call them Template:Talesstart tags in Wookiepedia - to make? ClanWolverine101 (talk) 06:50, 30 May 2013 (PDT)
I dislike anything that messes with the text as a matter of principle (color-coding text or shading text or anything like that). Which is why I'm personally dead-set on tags. I've created Template:ApocryphalStart and Template:ApocryphalEnd for the "C3PO approach", and inserted them above as a demonstration. This should do the trick, no? Frabby (talk) 04:13, 31 May 2013 (PDT)
I like the tags, but I think they're A) very bright and b) a little big. If we remove the alert icon and toned down the color a bit I think I'd like them more. While I'm thinking of it, should the Aprocryphal background match the theme? Blue for Steiner, red for Kurita, etc.?--Mbear(talk) 04:27, 31 May 2013 (PDT)
Agree about the icon. But I'm a coding noob. All I did was copy the code from the Template:ApocryphalContent. I have no clue how to remove the alert icon without producing a "missing image" link. As for color, I deliberately used a bright "traffic light" scheme for the canonicity tags - red for non-canon, yellow for apocrypha. There is no green tag because, well, Sarna BTW defaults to fully canon. In any case, the tags are supposed to be informative warnings, hence I gave them "warning" colors. I wouldn't want to use "decorative" background on them to match the skins, that's somehow defeating the idea of coloring the tags in the first place. Frabby (talk) 04:40, 31 May 2013 (PDT)
I appreciate the example, Frabby. I do agree with Mbear that its a little much, and maybe we could find something more subtle. (Hence the C3-PO example.) Ideally, the banners would be very neutral (and universal), perhaps a light tan. That's just my own thought. BUT - If we've reached a consensus, I was wondering if we should bring in Nic. Thanks. ClanWolverine101 (talk) 09:44, 31 May 2013 (PDT)
I suggest yellow as an established "warning" color for the tags. I don't care much for the exact color composition, but I felt it should be something that really sticks out. And it should be the same for all Apocryphal tags. Btw, one thing I'd really like for the tag boxes but which is beyond my skills to create is that they should be across the entire line, not scaled to their text content. Oh, and CW - I don't think Nic needs to be included; I value his input but the tags aren't a sysop problem really, just an administrative issue. Frabby (talk) 13:18, 31 May 2013 (PDT)
Frabby - My reason for contacting Nic would be that he could customize tags if needed, something a little more subtle and informative as opposed to the "in your face" approach. Obviously, this involves wiki skills beyond myself or yourself. That's all.
Like Mbear, I dislike the yellow tags. Like I said, I prefer a more "subtle" approach, something that would be clear, but wouldn't taint the whole article. (Take a look at what Rev did on his Awesome article.) Otherwise, this whole conversation is moot. Make sense? ClanWolverine101 (talk) 14:10, 31 May 2013 (PDT)
I tend to prefer the tags myself. They should be "in your face" to avoid edit arguments where one person takes info from a source that's apocryphal and uses it as a source, then someone takes it down, then arrrrgh. Mattiator (talk) 17:44, 13 June 2013 (PDT)
I see your point, Mattiator - But in general practice, people should double-check their references before using the content. ClanWolverine101 (talk) 21:02, 13 June 2013 (PDT)
I'm in favour of the in-your-face tags as well, although for different reasons - if we were starting Sarna up from scratch, then I think the more discrete markers would be fine. Unfortunately, that's not what we're doing - Sarna is already well-established, and has an undeserved reputation for being rife with incorrect detail and fanon added with no editorial controls in place. I think that having the more visible markers for apocryphal content is a good way of starting to battle that perception of Sarna, although I'm fully aware that the most vocal critics won't notice and will continue to make the same criticisms ad nauseum. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 01:01, 14 June 2013 (PDT)

OK. I've re-read all the contributions here, and I think Frabby, ClanWolverine101, Mattiator, and BrokenMnemonic all make good points. So to summarize:

  • The idea of the FrabbyTags (C-3PO) is one that most editors support.
  • The demo color is very bright, but can be replaced by a distinctive color that isn't as bright.
  • The background color for the FrabbyTag should remain the same across all themes/skins.
  • The FrabbyTag should fill the entire width of the page.

With that in mind, I've created a couple new templates to fine tune Frabby's idea.

Apocryphal Content Starts

The information after this notice comes from apocryphal sources; the canonicity of such information is uncertain.
Please view the reference page for information regarding their canonicity.

This is Apocryphal Content that is set off from the rest of the article. This is Apocryphal Content that is set off from the rest of the article. This is Apocryphal Content that is set off from the rest of the article. This is Apocryphal Content that is set off from the rest of the article. This is Apocryphal Content that is set off from the rest of the article.

Apocryphal Content Ends

Are there any thoughts about this? (note that I can rename the templates if necessary.)--Mbear(talk) 08:20, 26 June 2013 (PDT)

  • Hmmm. I like it. As opposed to having a section for "Canonicity" on each individual page, I would suggest re-writing the template to read "The information after this notice comes from apocryphal sources; the canonicity of such information is uncertain. Please view the reference page for information regarding their canonicity.", while having the pages for the sources have sections regarding their canon status. For example, if I were using information from Stardate for a 'Mech, I would put in a reference to StarDrive magazine, which would in turn link to the article on Stardate, where a viewer would then see the section on canonicity. Mattiator (talk) 18:53, 26 June 2013 (PDT)
    • Design-wise, Mbear's proposal is by far the closest to my idea of ideal, and I agree with Mattiator's text proposal. Good stuff. ClanWolverine101 (talk) 10:08, 28 June 2013 (PDT)
      • Very nice, i agree with CW101 and Mattiator, good work.--Doneve (talk) 10:16, 28 June 2013 (PDT)
I like these templates. They look better than my samples, and the color is still yellow enough to bring the "warning" idea across. If this is adopted, though, then the other yellow tags (ApocryphalArticle etc.) need to have their color altered to match, imho.
Mattiator made a good point about the text. Brevity is imperative so we should try to cut the wordcount (I'll get to it eventually, but right now I'm in a rush), but I fully support the idea in general. Frabby (talk) 04:32, 29 June 2013 (PDT)
I like this approach; I think the colour is distinctive without being overwhelming, and isn't stark enough to seem like a danger warning while still indicating that something unusual is coming up.
I think that some of the articles are going to end up being disrupted a little - I'm thinking of articles like character bios, where some of the characters do things in German novels that are sort-of canonical and appear before death or other significant events. That can't really be helped, though - and I think this is a nice, clear way of flagging up information that shouldn't be accepted as pure canon but is still relevant. Nice job! BrokenMnemonic (talk) 09:27, 29 June 2013 (PDT)
  • I've updated the ApocryphalContentStart template with Mattiator's suggested text. Anything else?--Mbear(talk) 06:59, 1 July 2013 (PDT)
I consider myself as satisfied as I could be at this point. I think I'll always advocate for material that comes from apocryphal sources but isn't contradicted elsewhere. From what little I know of the German novels, a lot of them certainly are contradicted in the extreme. But that's no reason to reject everything else. Congratulations to Mbear.
My only other point would be if the apoc material consisted of only tiny pieces of information, like the date of an otherwise canon event. ClanWolverine101 (talk) 09:57, 16 July 2013 (PDT)

George Rodgers

Let's go[edit]

Okay, it looks like there is a consensus about the new tags and about using them to mark apocryphal content within otherwise canonical content. I started this little to-do list for myself, but seeing how I don't have enough time right now to see this through myself I though I'd put it here instead:

  • Change colors on all Apocryphal templates to match Mbear templates
  • Update Policy:Canon
  • Check all articles currently displaying Template:ApocryphalContent
    • Find out if the older template (at the top of the page) is still needed, like for articles where only the subject is canonical but (almost) all content is apocryphal (like Menko Drews)?
    • Rework articles to use begin/end templates instead of header template
    • If old header template isn't needed anymore, delete it

Frabby (talk) 03:25, 18 July 2013 (PDT)

I think we're leaving the Apocryphal warning as the current yellow rather than making it match the House-specific themes. Just want to clarify.
I have updated the ECM Suite page to use the new templates so we can see it in action.--Mbear(talk) 05:37, 18 July 2013 (PDT)
I meant the pale yellow of your Apocryphal Content Begins/Ends templates as shown in the samples above. And I already put them to use in the Vakarel article. :) Frabby (talk) 07:36, 18 July 2013 (PDT)
Ah. OK. --Mbear(talk) 13:09, 19 July 2013 (PDT)

Hy guys i like the templates, but how we added it to a full article like George Rodgers he has a completly apocryphal conent, thanks for any response.--Doneve (talk) 20:44, 24 July 2013 (PDT)

Doneve - For articles like that, I suggest we continue to follow the old system. ClanWolverine101 (talk) 00:10, 25 July 2013 (PDT)
Since I'm working on some of the old BattleTechnology articles, I'll add in my 2 C-bills' worth and suggest we go with the old system. Nuclear-Fridge (talk) 04:50, 14 May 2014 (PDT)
To clarify: The begin/end tags are only supposed to go into articles that mix fully canonical content with apocryphal information, and where the apocryphal information consequently has to be segregated.
Articles about entirely apocryphal subjects are to be tagged with the ApocryphalArticle tag. No change here.
(The idea was to make the situation clearer in cases where there is a mix of canonical and apocryphal information, as people felt an apocryphal tag at the header of a largely canonical article did not feel right.) Frabby (talk) 06:46, 14 May 2014 (PDT)