Template talk:NotCanon

As I see it, this template postulates wrong factual information. The computer games were produced under an official license, and there is even the occasional nod to original computer game content in the novels; conversely I know of no official source denouncing their canonicity per se. While I do agree that computer games contain minor inconsistencies and inaccuracies, there is nothing to suggest their overall storyline and content should not be straight canon. What we really need is canonicity policy first. Frabby 02:38, 11 May 2008 (CDT)

Read this forum thread. This has nothing to do with BTW needing a canon policy and everything to do with Catalyst Game Labs having one. --Scaletail 08:52, 11 May 2008 (CDT)

Having read the entire thread, I find that computer games in fact *are* considered canon, at least the cornerstones of their storylines that cannot be altered by players. Mendrugo actually produced Gideon Braver taking the Chalice of Herne as an example in reply #38 to that thread, also citing Jason Youngblood's exploits, the renaming of Carver V to Liberty, and other instances. The earlier notion that "compter games are non-canon" was corrected in this way, saying that these things happened, only not in exactly the way a given player may have experienced them over the course of playing the game. Frabby 10:11, 11 May 2008 (CDT)

Answer from Mr. Canon himself

Seems like Scaletail was on the right track after all, although perhaps not spot on. Following my questions on the issue of canonicity, Mendrugo stressed that he was not an official spokesperson regarding canonicity questions. Herbert A. Beas II, who is the acting CBT line developer and ultimately the person who gets to decide about Canon, wrote (edited for better formatting/readability) [1]:

---

Computer games and the material printed only in Germany (with the exception of the FOunding of the Clans novels by Randall Bills) are not considered canonical.

We have a rather simple matter of determining canon in-house: Whatever we establish for research material for the authors is canon.

Currently, that list includes:

All sourcebooks and novels produced for BattleTech by FASA and Roc in the United States

All sourcebooks and novels produced for Classic BattleTech by FanPro and Roc in the United States

All sourcebooks and novels (including electronic publications, such as BattleCorps) produced by InMediaRes (and its subsidiary, BattleCorps) in the United States

All material produced by WizKids for the MechWarrior: Dark Age/MechWarrior: Age of Destruction game lines

GENERAL INCLUSIVE NOTE: There are a few select instances where a story or article appearing even in these sources may be considered non-canon, but generally this is because the material was in error (such as date mishaps like original TRO3025's claim that the Zeus emerged from Defiance before the Mackie was even built OR Defiance even existed as such), or it was specifically published as a gag (such as Loren Coleman's infamous "Chapter 6" on BattleCorps)

The list does not include:

Magazines, even "official" ones such as BattleTechnology, 'Mech, and others

The MechWarrior, MechCommander, and MechAssault video and computer games, as well as the various BattleTech games produced for Nintendo and Sega game systems

The BattleTech cartoon series

The BattleTech comic book series

GENERAL NON-INCLUSIVE NOTE: Despite their non-canonical status, we have not gone into total denial about these sources either, but have simply opted to pick and choose what elements there are "canon" and what are not.

For example, the BattleTech cartoon series' events may not be canon, but the characters they contained were, and the series itself has been referenced as an in-universe "propaganda vid" for the children of the FedCom growing up in the wake of the Clan invasion.

- Herb

---

Based on this information, I concur that a Canonicity Warning template may be called for. However, I suggest to alter the text to read something along these lines:

"Ambigous Canon! Although the source of this information is a licensed BattleTech product, it is not considered to provide official canon; however, official policy is not to totally deny such information either. As such, the topic at hand may yet be determined to be canonical or non-canonical by further publications."

It gets really messy when parts of a non-canonical source were canonized though. So yes, the 1st Somerset Strikers exist canonically and did... something. But it remains unclear what of their alledged exploits is canon, and what is not. Similarly, Jason Youngblood was canoniced by mentioning him among a group of Kell Hound officers in one of the novels - but does that mentioning of the name make his whole backstory canonical? Questionable at best. I shall try to get a yet more definite answer out of Herb, but don't count on anything on this front... Frabby 14:33, 13 May 2008 (CDT)

---

Upon pestering HABEAS2 (Herbert A. Beas II) a bit more, and about Mendrugo's stance in particular, he agreed that "It looks like Mendrugo essentially has the long and short of it right, yes." when he (Mendrugo) wrote:

As long as a piece of fluff from an official source (FASA, FanPro, Catalyst, Infocom*, Activision*, Microprose*, Microsoft*) isn't directly contradicted, and makes sense, you can assume it to be part of the shared universe.

(*Fluff from these sources is 'canon' in the sense that the story that takes place in the game happened in canon in the same general broad strokes - Gideon recovered the Chalice from the Matabushi-backed Dark Wing; Jason found the Star League cache and rescued his father, then fought with the Hounds on Luthien; mercenaries helped Carver V become Liberty, FedCom forces on Port Arthur disrupted Smoke Jaguar operations as part of Operation Bird Dog, etc. - but the details are likely to be significantly different than the ones you experienced during your gameplay).

To me that means the computer games explicitly are canon as long as they are not contradicted by other canon sources. Other items, especially German-only material and BattleTechnology etc., remain ambigous canon. But canon nonetheless, until explicitly countered. Frabby 15:53, 13 May 2008 (CDT)