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)

"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." That does not exactly sound "ambiguous" to me. What he said seems to confirm the earlier argument that the events portrayed in anything other than published, English-language books (or BattleCorps) by FASA, FanPro, or CGL is not canon unless it receives publication in one of those sources. I will grant that videogames are ambiguous in that TPTB will not un-canonize a plot that roughly fits into their universe for no reason. That is *not* the same thing as being canon. I mean, the whole point of the original MechWarrior videogame for the Super Nintendo was to kill Jaime Wolf. That obviously did not happen, nor did the Ragnarok BattleMech from it ever reach canon status. That said, my goal with the template is to alert readers who may not know any better that the plots of some things are not accepted by the broader community as "canon." I could accept a compromise, certainly, but think about it. If the plot of a videogame needs to be in a publication to be considered canon, then is the videogame really canon?

P.S. The lack of canonicity for German-only books was somewhat surprising to me, but then I didn't know a lot about how they got published. --18:10, 13 May 2008 (CDT)

My suggestion would be to create two sets of templates: One saying "The following is ambigous canon (refer to talk page)" / "Ambigous canon ends here" and a similar set with "Disputed canon".

Ambigous canon would be fluff from the sources that Mendrugo named with an asterisk, namely computer games which "[can be assumed] to be part of the shared universe [as long as it] isn't directly contradicted, and makes sense". Herb explicitly agreed to that statement, so his position about the non-canonicity of computer games while not totally denying them either is fleshed out in a workable way. The articles about computer games and perhaps certain key characters, as well as the 1st Somerset Strikers, should be tagged in this way.

This leaves original foreign-language (non-english) publications, BattleTechnology, etc. in a weaker position that computer games, something I suggest be denoted Disputed canon and be treated in a similar fashion. I feel the note about the possibility to be declared either (full) canon or non-canon should definitely be included in this tag. Examples to be tagged as Disputed canon would be the Ronin! scenario pack (working on that one, not created yet) and items directly from it like the Kiudo. Unless the latter was also put into Brush Wars, which I cannot check as I do not own a copy of Brush Wars yet. Frabby 01:46, 14 May 2008 (CDT)

I agree with you idea for two templates. One should be for articles on non-canon sources (such as videogames, magazines, and German-language books) and should state that the source in question is not canon, though the information within is reputable in broad strokes, though the details may be different or non-existent. The second would be for an article based on these source (such as characters from games) that would state the information therein is from a licensed, non-canon source.
I would also call attention to the fact that Mendrugo's statement puts the word "canon" in quotation marks, which would seem to indicate that they are not actually canon, but still reputable sources. --Scaletail 18:14, 14 May 2008 (CDT)

Retry

Alright, this lack of consensus seems to be holding other projects up, so let's down to it. We need to determine first what is and is not canon, then how we treat non-canon information here.

The above threads at CBT.com are fairly clear about what sources are considered non-canon by CGL: anything that was not published by FASA, Wizkids, FanPro, or CGL; anything not published in English; and magazines. This means that video games, the cartoon series, BattleTechnology, MechForce UK, and German-language originals put out by FanPro - among others - are not canon. If canon sources are in contradiction, the later publication trumps the previous one, unless specified otherwise by one of TPTB.

None of this is in question. The question is what to do with non-canon sources and the material they describe that is not directly contradicted by canon sources. In many instances, the writers tacitly give their collective consent to these sources when they deal with them as obliquely as possible (for instance, FedCom Civil War dealt with the battles that the player took part in in MechWarrior 4 only briefly), but that does not mean they are canon. This is the gray area that this future policy needs to have hammered out.

After much pondering, I stick by my earlier proposal, which I reproduce now for the sake of completeness. "[We should have] two templates. One should be for articles on non-canon sources (such as videogames, magazines, and German-language books) and should state that the source in question is not canon, though the information within is reputable in broad strokes, though the details may be different or non-existent. The second would be for an article based on these source[s] (such as characters from games) that would state the information therein is from a licensed, non-canon source."

I would like to point out that such assertions do not, in any way, lessen or cheapen the information or any persons who have written articles based on this information. If anything, it calls attention to the material. I know that part of Revanche's dream was to have everything BattleTech here, so that this could be a resource even for CBT writers. With that in mind, calling attention to non-canon information makes it easier for them to spot items that need canonization, and may even result in the canonization of such information. While we're a long way off from that, I don't see why we can't start planning and thinking big. --Scaletail 20:12, 7 July 2008 (CDT)

You essentially have my full agreement to what you wrote. I, too, would like this wiki to include as much data as possible and, "thinking big" as you put it, have some hopes that this could turn into a resource to be used by TPTB for fact-checking etc.

The one thing that I have issues with is the naming of what you call the "Gray Area", because I feel the designation "Non-Canon" is incorrect and besides the point (even if TPTB used the term themselves). The whole problem is that we have primary canon and then the "Gray Area", a second layer of official publications that is not included in fact-checking by TPTB yet generally treated as good-until-contradicted; it has explicitly not been fully rejected. That is not Non-canon; it is far more "official" than fan art, for example. If it was pure non-canon then it would not have a place on this wiki. As it stands, players treat the hard facts from comics and computer games as genuine canon, and that is how I feel it should be.

My suggestion wold be to name this "Optional Canon", alternatively "secondary" or "ambigous" canon. And yes, we need a tag for it. Although separating the "confirmed" canonical elements from unconfirmed "optional" canon in articles such as Crescent Hawks will be a nightmare. It is doable and should be done if this wiki is to take itself serious. Frabby 07:11, 8 July 2008 (CDT)