So would a potential WP:NP addendum look like this:

"Use "Star Wars" in article titles except where the article is about a book (including reference books, novels, and making-of books) that isn't a novelization of another work (for example: Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones (novel) rather than Episode II: Attack of the Clones) or where the work officially doesn't have "Star Wars" in the title (for example: Dark Empire rather than Star Wars: Dark Empire).

Would adding this after the CT be ok, since the general consensus seems to be that there's already this system in place?

It's not arbitrary; it's how Star Wars works themselves do it. In the CT thread I posted examples from the NEGAS which show that Lucasfilm itself doesn't stick to one method or the other.

Well, some sources do anyway. For example, according to the cover, the book seems to be called Star Wars: Tatooine Ghost. But if that's the way Essential Guides source it, that's fine, if still a bit arbitrary on Lucasfilm's part. So the article on Dark Empire should have SW since it's a comic then, right?

mason_1701:

lol I decided to re-read the discussion on the consensus track, and am heavily reminded of Stephen Colbert's take on "wikiality", wherein what facts are commonly believed become true.

The sad fact is, this is pretty much how all knowledge has worked throughout time. History books aren't filled with "the truth," but with what a consensus of historians believe to be the truth; the same goes for science books and scientists, or sermons and the clergy. The difference between them and Wikis has only been in matters of degree, in terms of size and inclusiveness of the group whose beliefs "count," and the speed with which changes move in the system.

I submitted another CT, this one asking for some kind of official policy regarding when to put "Star Wars" in the title of an article and when to omit it. The current feeling seems to be leaning towards keeping it as it is, i.e., arbitrarily putting it in the title of comics, films, TV, and video games but not novels and other books for some reason. I'm honestly not sure if there's some kind of logic behind this, or users really are just opposed to change or having to move articles.

Oh. My bad.

What was the typo though?

*I'm hoping that'll be part of the next edition, but we're looking at probably summer before that happens. *

A second edition, eh? Will there be added content besides minor fixes?

If so, and you work with Daniel Wallace and Jason Fry again, could you see what you can do about Praesitlyn and Rendili being in the third year in the Clone Wars section? By email Jason said that it was a result of using the original dates, not some Licensing decree, so it's presumably not cemented as part of the new timeline just yet.

Hmm I'll have to check yours Nathan, but Eddies is still way too detailed then I'm thinking.

I'm thinking like what's in the covers on the books but with the GrS nest to the BBY/ABY for those who are trying to make the switch but are hopelessly confused. ie Me

In cases where such a date exists, I actually have that on the SWT-G, but I'm going to have to redo most of it to deal with the 10-month vs. 12-month reconciliation that took place recently. I'm hoping that'll be part of the next edition, but we're looking at probably summer before that happens.

Since Mason is here and addressed me directly a moment ago:

No apologies necessary. I recognize that I'm sort of a VIP that straddles the line between officiality and fandom. Even in cases where I've found LFL or others referring (or even deferring) to my timeline work, most of that work is a fan-generated resource. Anything I say has to be considered in light of whether I'm speaking in an "official, in the know" voice or my "best fandom reckoning" voice.

In that regard, I would hope that my word can be taken when speaking with regard to official policy and decisions when I'm aware of them (e.g. the stance on Tatooine Ghost and conception; the stance on Traviss vs. previous dates for ROTS, etc.), yet have my word be taken solely as a fan using his own reasoning when dealing with things outside of the realm of my participation and contact with LFL, especially someone like Leland.

It's an awkward position, to say the least, and it would likely make the most sense to err on the side of caution and just ask me where I'm coming from if I say something and it's not obviously based on LFL information or based on personal conjecture.

Sitting on that fence is tricky at times, and I tend to push myself toward the fandom side, but when answering with regard to official policies and such can help educate others, I share that information, unless it is something I'm required to keep to myself.

In any event, with regard to Mason's last post:

*And, worst case scenario, LFL makes a solid effort to get some kind of official word in the next Essential Guide or WOTC Guide *

This is actually what we were attempting to do with the Atlas. When we realized that not everyone out in fandom would understand the way the digital GrS dates mesh with the BBY/ABY dating system, we thought it might end up confusing people that early dates in a year were being noted in Month 3 and dates like ones halfway into a year (6.5 ABY, for example) were in Month 9 instead of Month 6.

That's when I suggested to Jason that we needed to have a key somewhere that reminded people of the dating systems, or at least of the date of ANH as it relates to being the "zero moment" for one dating system, while having a calendar date on the other. Jason informed me then that he and Dan were planning to have maps for the events of each of the films, and we came up with the idea (and had it approved) of putting a starting date on each of the film maps.

THAT was supposed to be the official reminder to fans about how these calendars work. That was the intended purpose in putting dates on the film maps in the first place (including the erroneous one caused by a typo on my part that was never vetted on the other end again).

So, if you're looking for an official, canonical, in-print confirmation of the way the dating systems work together, we already have one, not just in practice, but in purpose.

That, however, was not canonical enough either, apparently, or perhaps not enough people investigated the Atlas and simply fell into discussion without taking the time to become knowledgeable about the subject at hand.

In any event, Mason, worry not. I appreciate you coming by and commenting on your participation in the CT thread.

The easiest thing to do now I think is to wait a few months and open a new Consensus Track. Link extensively back to this forum, and try to get it done again.

It would almost certainly be immediately shouted down or closed without any new info. Notice how many people said they wouldn't be willing to change without direct confirmation.

At worst, at least we can start amending the year-pages (which there are a lot of, to be sure).

No, the CT didn't pass. Your edits would be reverted.

Though I can see how all the talk of time spans may be confusing. I prefer to think of it as always rounding to the lowest number where it still makes sense

Right, that's how it works when you use it as year names.