Talk:Stealth

Deletion of non-canon sections

Snail deleted the non-canon section without discussing it first. "I don't like it" is not a valid reason to delete stuff.

Legitimate action or not, I don't think it's the case of deleting someone else's work without discussing the action. I'll re-add the non-canon section should this comment have no replies in the near future. --- Mobius

• "Please note that all contributions to FreeSpace Wiki may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here." - Snail 17:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, we have non-canon info embedded into the Lucifer's article. I suggest using that template to differentiate canon from non-canon. - TopAce 18:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Hmmm... IMHO it seems like one fairly good solution might be to make non-canon subpages. Like Stealth (non-canon)... And then making sure these new pages are linked to and from the 'parent' page. - Wanderer 18:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
      • I also consider it as an acceptable solution. though I would prefer to have canon and non-canon info in one article, clearly, explicitly, and disambiguously distinguished from each other. Some non-canon topics may not be lengthy enough to justify a new article. - TopAce 18:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
        • I don't think new pages are necessary, because non-canon sections in canon page work fine. TopAce already mentioned the Lucifer's article. We have the Non-canon template to prevent confusions, right? Anyway, new page or not, deleting someone else's addition with a mere "I object to putting non-canon stuff onto full canon pages" sound weird to me. Create a Talk Page before making radical changes, it's a matter of common sense and respect. --- Mobius
          • We may even use the NotAllCanon template. --- Mobius
            • When you submitted "your work" to this Wiki you agreed to the fact that it can be modified. - Snail 20:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
              • Don't misunderstand the terms on purpose. You can't take them to the letter and you also need to have some common sense. Deleting someone else's work only because of your personal objection is not nice. If a change is radical, create a thread on HLP or create a Talk Page here. In any case do not delete a great many lines unless those lines violate policies and/or terms of conduct. Would you mind if I delete the biography you posted in your user page because it looks like a blog the FreeSpace Wiki doesn't need? I guess you would mind, in that case. --- Mobius
                • You are not allowed to edit other user's user pages. That is a violation of the code of conduct, funnily enough. So, yes, I would mind if you deleted my biography. There's a big difference in removing a small piece of redundant and useless information and deleting someone else's user page in spite. - Snail 11:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
                  • Well, you edited my user page a while ago. Do you remember it? Simply stop complaining about my reply, yours was a bad move that evidenced a lack of respect towards another FS Wiki contributor. --- Mobius

How to deal with non-canon material

I'm not here assigning any guidelines - yet - but rather just discussing various options we have for dealing with non-canon material. The following list of the options is not exclusive and if you have good ideas please insert them here.

Option 1: Remove it altogether...

This one goes pretty much against what i think FS wiki should represent and should be avoided if possible. Assuming the non-canon content is related to FreeSpace and is written in fairly good language

Pro Would certainly keep non-canon content out of canon pages

Con Would be against at least my idea of FS wiki

Option 2: Stick it to alternate (non-canon) page...

This option would offer storing the non-canonical comments on a separate article possibly with each non-canon universe having its own piece of it. But given that there is rather limited amount of non-canon content this option would create several very short pages

Pro Would allow templates to be used to clearly mark non-canon pages

Pro Would clearly indicate non-canon content pages

Con Lots of short pages

Con If not properly linked might cause some of the content getting 'lost'

Option 3: Use modified non-canon template...

We can define another template and use it like Template:Note and Template:Warning or the veteran comments template. This would allow non-canonical comments to be clearly color coded.

Pro Would clearly mark the non-canon sections of the pages

Con Not every one enjoys color coded pages

Con Would still leave the non-canon content on the same page

Con If not properly organized might even look worse than before

Give opinions, votes, discuss... - Wanderer 13:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• The reason I removed the non-canon info on this page was because it was redundant. A list of non-canon stealth ships? Hardly a very important resource. There are only two types of ship in this instance. Those which use stealth and those which do not. A list of non-canon ships which use stealth isn't necessary. Also note I removed the list of canon ships. The issue isn't non-canon info, it's which info is important and which is unneeded. Feel free to add back the non-canon info if you wish. - Snail 15:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  • At this point I'm tempted to ask you if you know what the purpose of a Wiki should be like. Aren't we supposed to provide info? There are both canon and non-canon stealth spacecraft which have to be mentioned somewhere. What's the point in removing info that may be useful? --- Mobius
    • Very well add back the info. I have no objections. - Snail 20:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Note that I have started a social experiment. There is now a large chunk of non-canon information on the Parliamentary Vasudan Empire page. It is clearly marked. Do people find this acceptable? - Snail 20:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)