Tungstenchan: Text replacement - "BattleTechWiki" to "BattleIntelligence"

2025-05-01T02:41:29Z

Text replacement - "BattleTechWiki" to "BattleIntelligence"

imported>Csdavis715 at 12:28, 12 November 2023

2023-11-12T12:28:55Z

Show changes

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:41, 30 April 2025
Line 18:		Line 18:
	:I compromised when it came to the tags, because...why fight something like this? But calling something canon is going to confuse our mission statement in regards to that, and I say that because I am confused as to what is canon when we try and determine it. That's why I changed it from 'canon' to 'official' because I truly thought this is what you meant and that 'canon' had slipped in. Otherwise, the title of that section ("Unofficial material must be segregated from official material") seems to argue differently than what is stated in the paragraph itself. If its not clear to me...--[[User:Revanche\|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche\|talk]]\|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche\|contribs]])</sup> 17:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)		:I compromised when it came to the tags, because...why fight something like this? But calling something canon is going to confuse our mission statement in regards to that, and I say that because I am confused as to what is canon when we try and determine it. That's why I changed it from 'canon' to 'official' because I truly thought this is what you meant and that 'canon' had slipped in. Otherwise, the title of that section ("Unofficial material must be segregated from official material") seems to argue differently than what is stated in the paragraph itself. If its not clear to me...--[[User:Revanche\|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche\|talk]]\|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche\|contribs]])</sup> 17:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
	::We could go by different way stating this. Old Canon? Obsolete Canon? BattleDroids 'mechs for instance are being introduced into canon material by way of Age of War era material. Battledroids themselves came out before BT Universe was finalized. Personally, since Battledroids was earliest game, hasn't been reflected in canon materials until recently. Like the unseens of old, they too are not seen. Thus these re-imaging now introduced. If you trying classify this I'd say go with pre-Battletech if its relating directly with Battledroids material. As for other things, such a Genecaste, listing them as [[Canon Rumor]] arguable best way to go. Its canon, but its not solided information.Its too bad we can't having rating on how reliable information is printed now. Example of the Jihad Secrets: The Blake Documents: All 50 Divisions of the Word of Blake are listed. With gleems on what their doing from perspective of intelligence report. Which means is not rock solid, but darn close. Maybe we should have rating system 0-9 on reliability of source material on somethings? -- [[User:Wrangler\|Wrangler]] 01:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)		::We could go by different way stating this. Old Canon? Obsolete Canon? BattleDroids 'mechs for instance are being introduced into canon material by way of Age of War era material. Battledroids themselves came out before BT Universe was finalized. Personally, since Battledroids was earliest game, hasn't been reflected in canon materials until recently. Like the unseens of old, they too are not seen. Thus these re-imaging now introduced. If you trying classify this I'd say go with pre-Battletech if its relating directly with Battledroids material. As for other things, such a Genecaste, listing them as [[Canon Rumor]] arguable best way to go. Its canon, but its not solided information.Its too bad we can't having rating on how reliable information is printed now. Example of the Jihad Secrets: The Blake Documents: All 50 Divisions of the Word of Blake are listed. With gleems on what their doing from perspective of intelligence report. Which means is not rock solid, but darn close. Maybe we should have rating system 0-9 on reliability of source material on somethings? -- [[User:Wrangler\|Wrangler]] 01:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
	:::No, with all respect due to you, but no. We, the Editors of BTW, should never be the ones to determine what is canon and what is not. Everyone has an opinion, and you'd have such a scale being railed against on each and every place it was used to rate an article. That very idea would cause people to say, "~~BattleTechWiki~~ says that Event Alpha or Weapon Tech Beta is Canon Level High. They don't know what they're talking about." We don't want to be a source of opinionated articles, but ones that are well-researched and fact-based. [[Policy:Verifiability\|Verifiability]] is on the verge of being a policy and neutrality is one of our [[~~BattleTechWiki~~:Five pillars\| Five Pillars]]. Using an opinion-based rating system would detract from the verifiability we strive for and the neutrality we demand. Sorry, but I cannot back such a method. (Too strong? {{Emoticon\| ;) }})		:::No, with all respect due to you, but no. We, the Editors of BTW, should never be the ones to determine what is canon and what is not. Everyone has an opinion, and you'd have such a scale being railed against on each and every place it was used to rate an article. That very idea would cause people to say, "BattleIntelligence says that Event Alpha or Weapon Tech Beta is Canon Level High. They don't know what they're talking about." We don't want to be a source of opinionated articles, but ones that are well-researched and fact-based. [[Policy:Verifiability\|Verifiability]] is on the verge of being a policy and neutrality is one of our [[BattleIntelligence:Five pillars\| Five Pillars]]. Using an opinion-based rating system would detract from the verifiability we strive for and the neutrality we demand. Sorry, but I cannot back such a method. (Too strong? {{Emoticon\| ;) }})
	:::As for utilizing differing degrees of canoncity...simplicity is the key. Anytime we have to explain to each of ourselves (major contributors) what we think is canon and by what age or degree, we're removing the simplicity of the policy for the average or less-active editors.		:::As for utilizing differing degrees of canoncity...simplicity is the key. Anytime we have to explain to each of ourselves (major contributors) what we think is canon and by what age or degree, we're removing the simplicity of the policy for the average or less-active editors.
	:::I think, Wrangler, the very concept we're discussing here may be forking, as an example of what Frabby is bringing up for discussion. He and I are simply debating the use of the words 'official' and 'canon' in the Canon policy, rather than the need to expand the policy as a whole. (Take a look at the archived discussion to see how detailed and lost we got in the initial discussion, before it was cemented it in my February policy and then simplified with Frabby's November one.)--[[User:Revanche\|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche\|talk]]\|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche\|contribs]])</sup> 01:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)		:::I think, Wrangler, the very concept we're discussing here may be forking, as an example of what Frabby is bringing up for discussion. He and I are simply debating the use of the words 'official' and 'canon' in the Canon policy, rather than the need to expand the policy as a whole. (Take a look at the archived discussion to see how detailed and lost we got in the initial discussion, before it was cemented it in my February policy and then simplified with Frabby's November one.)--[[User:Revanche\|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche\|talk]]\|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche\|contribs]])</sup> 01:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Line 55:		Line 55:
	I propose adding the following statement to the Canon policy's Articles about non-canonical products section, under the banner (with a 'see also' comment in the Fanon content section):		I propose adding the following statement to the Canon policy's Articles about non-canonical products section, under the banner (with a 'see also' comment in the Fanon content section):

	{{Quote\|~~BattleTechWiki~~ acknowledges the existence of some sources of information that are not official but, like BTW, do the necessary research and compiling to present official and canon facts regarding the BattleTech universe. These sources are known as 'meta-sources'. Only a select few have been reviewed and determined by consensus to be accepted as sources for BTW articles. They may not be used as references within the articles, because they are not official; instead, the original, official sources are required to be cited. These currently accepted meta-sources are: ''[[Objective Raids: 3067]]'', the [http://isatlas.teamspam.net/ IS Atlas] and Classic BattleTech's cartographer [[Øystein Tvedten]]'s [http://home.ifi.uio.no/~oysteint/ISMP.html Star League Defense Forces Mapping Agency] (as well as the other released maps of his found in the article about him).		{{Quote\|BattleIntelligence acknowledges the existence of some sources of information that are not official but, like BTW, do the necessary research and compiling to present official and canon facts regarding the BattleTech universe. These sources are known as 'meta-sources'. Only a select few have been reviewed and determined by consensus to be accepted as sources for BTW articles. They may not be used as references within the articles, because they are not official; instead, the original, official sources are required to be cited. These currently accepted meta-sources are: ''[[Objective Raids: 3067]]'', the [http://isatlas.teamspam.net/ IS Atlas] and Classic BattleTech's cartographer [[Øystein Tvedten]]'s [http://home.ifi.uio.no/~oysteint/ISMP.html Star League Defense Forces Mapping Agency] (as well as the other released maps of his found in the article about him).

	As stated in the tag, details regarding the accepted use as a meta-source can be found on each of the relevant pages.}}		As stated in the tag, details regarding the accepted use as a meta-source can be found on each of the relevant pages.}}
Line 219:		Line 219:
	::Good comments, Neufeld. At this point, we're just having a discussion and I feel it lacks enough involvement. Should we pursue a policy about article 'character'? --[[User:Revanche\|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche\|talk]]\|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche\|contribs]])</sup> 18:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)		::Good comments, Neufeld. At this point, we're just having a discussion and I feel it lacks enough involvement. Should we pursue a policy about article 'character'? --[[User:Revanche\|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche\|talk]]\|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche\|contribs]])</sup> 18:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
	::: My personal position is this : Anything short of blatant copyright infringement is fair game. I believe that more is, in fact, good. In answer to Rev's questions above, I say the articles in question can include all those things. However, as I usually do, I will follow the concensus. [[User:ClanWolverine101\|ClanWolverine101]] 22:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)		::: My personal position is this : Anything short of blatant copyright infringement is fair game. I believe that more is, in fact, good. In answer to Rev's questions above, I say the articles in question can include all those things. However, as I usually do, I will follow the concensus. [[User:ClanWolverine101\|ClanWolverine101]] 22:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::: Rev, you are probably thinking of CJ's comments at [[~~BattleTechWiki_talk~~:Project_BattleMechs#Change_format.3F]]. I have made the argument many times in various places as well. That said, I will argue until I'm blue in the fingers for keeping BV because it's one of the things here that I actually find ''useful''. When I'm running a game based on BV, I can make sure that every player has an official document that lists BV for every unit allowed, or I can just tell them "go to Sarna".		:::: Rev, you are probably thinking of CJ's comments at [[BattleIntelligence_talk:Project_BattleMechs#Change_format.3F]]. I have made the argument many times in various places as well. That said, I will argue until I'm blue in the fingers for keeping BV because it's one of the things here that I actually find ''useful''. When I'm running a game based on BV, I can make sure that every player has an official document that lists BV for every unit allowed, or I can just tell them "go to Sarna".
	:::: I think OOC information is where InfoBoxes excel precisely because they are separate from the body of the text. I'm pretty happy with the balance we have now, and would argue that any policy created should enshrine the status quo. --[[User:Scaletail\|Scaletail]] 00:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)		:::: I think OOC information is where InfoBoxes excel precisely because they are separate from the body of the text. I'm pretty happy with the balance we have now, and would argue that any policy created should enshrine the status quo. --[[User:Scaletail\|Scaletail]] 00:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
	===Style Box===		===Style Box===
Line 327:		Line 327:
	* [[:File:CGLKickstarterCanon.png\|"Kickstarter Characters and Canon"]]		* [[:File:CGLKickstarterCanon.png\|"Kickstarter Characters and Canon"]]
	While this does not dictate Sarna policy in any regard, this can be used as a response to questions or statements regarding how unpublished backgrounds of paid-canonical characters are considered by CGL.--[[User:Revanche\|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche\|talk]]\|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche\|contribs]])</sup> 18:34, 5 July 2021 (EDT)		While this does not dictate Sarna policy in any regard, this can be used as a response to questions or statements regarding how unpublished backgrounds of paid-canonical characters are considered by CGL.--[[User:Revanche\|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche\|talk]]\|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche\|contribs]])</sup> 18:34, 5 July 2021 (EDT)
	:It reaffirms both CGL's stance on Canon and Sarna's policy. That said, I was under the impression that Sarna's policy is indeed informed by CGL in the sense that they decide over canon and we attempt to implement that for Sarna - the Sarna ~~BattleTechWiki~~ cannot have a definition of Canon that is different from the definition used by TPTB. [[User:Frabby\|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby\|talk]]) 03:51, 6 July 2021 (EDT)		:It reaffirms both CGL's stance on Canon and Sarna's policy. That said, I was under the impression that Sarna's policy is indeed informed by CGL in the sense that they decide over canon and we attempt to implement that for Sarna - the Sarna BattleIntelligence cannot have a definition of Canon that is different from the definition used by TPTB. [[User:Frabby\|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby\|talk]]) 03:51, 6 July 2021 (EDT)
	::I would then contact the user that was entering his details and explaining him the answer from CGL, and what it implies (a Fanon tag I would say as apocryphal does not seem ok).--[[User:Pserratv\|Pserratv]] ([[User talk:Pserratv\|talk]]) 05:35, 6 July 2021 (EDT)		::I would then contact the user that was entering his details and explaining him the answer from CGL, and what it implies (a Fanon tag I would say as apocryphal does not seem ok).--[[User:Pserratv\|Pserratv]] ([[User talk:Pserratv\|talk]]) 05:35, 6 July 2021 (EDT)
	:::I think the difference between Sarna and CGL canon lies solely with the word, "published". CGL does inform canon, but they do not dictate Sarna policy. CGL has information about canon that is not available to us that they act upon. Our information is based on what can be publicly verified{{m}}what is published. If there is a question, someone asks on the official forum and we consider written answers as published. In my opinion, for us, acting upon what cannot be publicly verified is speculation{{m}}fanon. The recent work mapping unpublished systems technically blurs that line, but only with CGL's promise that the information will be published (and steps were taken to provide verification). An email to a private individual that cannot be publicly verified should not meet our policy requirements. In the KS Character case, due diligence should be, and was, done to get "published" verification.--[[User:Cache\|Cache]] ([[User talk:Cache\|talk]]) 07:39, 6 July 2021 (EDT)		:::I think the difference between Sarna and CGL canon lies solely with the word, "published". CGL does inform canon, but they do not dictate Sarna policy. CGL has information about canon that is not available to us that they act upon. Our information is based on what can be publicly verified{{m}}what is published. If there is a question, someone asks on the official forum and we consider written answers as published. In my opinion, for us, acting upon what cannot be publicly verified is speculation{{m}}fanon. The recent work mapping unpublished systems technically blurs that line, but only with CGL's promise that the information will be published (and steps were taken to provide verification). An email to a private individual that cannot be publicly verified should not meet our policy requirements. In the KS Character case, due diligence should be, and was, done to get "published" verification.--[[User:Cache\|Cache]] ([[User talk:Cache\|talk]]) 07:39, 6 July 2021 (EDT)

Policy Talk:Canon - Revision history

Tungstenchan: Text replacement - "BattleTechWiki" to "BattleIntelligence"

imported>Csdavis715 at 12:28, 12 November 2023