I wouldn't call it 'ambiguous', I'd just call it "authority unknown". Best to err on the side of caution, then imply something more than it might be. In my opinion.

As for your anecdote, LOL.

Edit: one of my previous posts above is missing part of a setence, it should read;

But that seems more to do with the fact that the authors of the original independent articles, were hired to write for Lucasfilm's licensed companies, and incorporated some of their previous work.

Reminds me of the "indirect canon" that Tech Comm and Star Destroyer.net try to claim for the "Endor Holocaust"

That reminds me. A few years back, I had a guy go crazy with ad hominem attacks on me, then taking words out of context to create an entire section of his website devoted to ripping me a new one (in rather illogical and immature fashion), all because I "dared" to claim that if you're a fan (like me or Saxton of the Tech Commentaries), and you come up with something that's logical, it still isn't canonical until/unless LFL deems that information to somehow be so.

You'd think I'd called the website guy's mother a skank, then posted her phone number on Craig's List.

Hmm, it looks like that same admin that banned me, started reverting all of Mauser's edits, changing the Star Trek articles back to "ambiguously canon", and locked the articles to Admin edits only. I guess they really don't care about accuracy there, and creating their own type of fanon, they describe as "ambigous".

If that's how they are I guess I don't really mind that I was banned, I probably wouldn't be editing there again. I don't have much interest in places that claim anytype of "canonicity" for things despite evidence to the contrary... Reminds me of the "indirect canon" that Tech Comm and Star Destroyer.net try to claim for the "Endor Holocaust".http://www.wired.com/entertainment/hollywood/magazine/16-09/f f_starwarscanon?currentPage=6

Malachi108, do you mind if I ask you where you got the idea for your s/n?

Oh good, I might still be banned but it at least seems Wookipedia is now correctly listing the star trek stuff as non-canon. I can only hope that someone figures out I wasn't trying to vandalize, troll or spam in any way, but only improve the quality of the site.

Anyone know where the Wook got it's info on Altis?

At least I think that's what should be done. Sigh, if only I could discuss the issue with them. Oh well. Thanks again, Nathan, your answers have been elightening.

Ah well, I think for my part I'm going to suggest that the template in wookiepedia changes the tag to read something like,

"The authority of this information is undetermined. The subject of the article originates in a source that has not been deemed to be definitively canon. "

I think it makes it more neutral, avoids implying that it is or isn't canon. Avoids suggesting that it is something truly "quasi-canonical.

Worf, klingons, more ex. of misleading "story" details.

On a related note, what about serious rpg articles in early Polyhedron or other independent magazines like Shadis, that had star wars or indiana jones articles, which stated they were allowed to print by Lucasfilm's and WEG kind permission.

For example in Shadis 35/36 there was an rpg solo game called, Indiana Jones and the Wrath of Hecate. How official are those sources? Are they "ambigiously canon" as Wookipedia and Indiana Jones wiki claim?

As a rule they seem to be bit more credible (because of the permission from Lucasfilm and WEG, and seem to be serious stories), and in a few cases, some of the details made it into the future works. Maybe because the authors moved onto work for Lucasfilm? or someone liked the material and referenced it?

Whomever is arguing against the point over there seems to be unaware of the distinction between the following:

Licensed and S/T/C/G-Canon
Licensed and N-Canon
Unlicensed Fanon
Unlicensed Fair Use Creations

I believe Valiento understands all four of these, but for the sake of argument for those who don't:

Anything created under LFL approval is a licensed, legal production. The Dark Horse Comics these days, Marvel Comics years ago, Del Rey novels, and, yes, even the Decipher CCG are all examples of licensed works. Lucasfilm had legal control and said, "Hey, go ahead and create something with our blessing and sell that stuff!"

Within that licensed "stuff," you get G, C, T, S, or N canonical materials. The factoids from the Decipher CCG are, I believe, C-Canon, alongside most items in the modern EU. (They may be S-Canon, but Leland would certainly know better than I would on that distinction.)

When someone creates an unlicensed work, without Lucasfilm's permission, then they what are creating falls under either "fair" use or violates copyright and trademark laws. If it is within the boundaries of "fair use" (news articles, editorials, scholarly works, parodies, etc.), then they are legally fine, barring certain restrictions.

If they are creating something that is fictional within the universe, basically using LFL materials for their own creations, then that is violating copyright, and, technically, is illegal. It just so happens that LFL rarely prosecutes creators of "fanon" for copyright infringement because they recognize that a robust fan community helps perpetuate the love of their franchise, and thus they profit from it in a roundabout way.

The InQuest article in question is not a licensed work. The cards are, but the article about the cards is not. In fact, the article is basically "paid fans" of the game, members of the InQuest staff, writing about strategies, nifty little ideas for crossovers, and the like, for love of the game (and the Trek CCG). The idea of a crossover with SW/ST is basically a "fanon" concept, and would be such if the writers of the article had created a story from it, rather than discussing gameplay strategies and tweaks to merge the two games.

Since it is not licensed in any form, the article cannot be any form of Canon, not even N-Canon, hence no G, C, T, S, or N designation. On the other hand, it is not a work of unlicensed fiction (fan fiction, so to speak), since it is not a fiction tale, so it is not "fanon," either. It was also published legally, which lends credence to the article's "wild ideas" not being fanon, technically.

It is, by virtue of being a non-fiction, our-world article about two card games, discussing them in a trade magazine, which just happens to include ideas of theoretically story hooks that could justify their suggested game mechanics, a news article that falls under "fair use" exceptions to copyright and trademark laws.

To argue that it should be included in Wookieepedia as even an "ambiguously canon" source would be questionable.

If I were writing for, say, Time Magazine, and I wrote a review of TPM, claiming it was a poor film, and then I spent part of the article talking about how the film could have integrated more EU, or perhaps how the film could have been better integrated with the rest of the Prequel Trilogy so as to not feel like an oddball film, then I would be writing a very similar, fair use article to what InQuest did with the "Mirror, Mirror" article.

Now, would Wookieepedia, or anyone with any sense, consider that Time Magazine article to be "ambiguous" in not being even remotely canonical?

As it stands, I hope that the Wookieepedia folks figure out a way to either include it without misrepresenting it as some kind of "odd ball, quasi-canonical" item, or that they remove it and keep the integrity of their system. As it stands, if it were left in there without any kind of explanation, allowing those entries to mislead people into believing that they may in some form be canonical, then my respect for Wookieepedia's own policies for verification will have dropped considerably, which would be unfortunate.