GoArch talk:Apocrypha: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
m (Alahmnat moved page GoArch talk:Fanon namespace to GoArch talk:Apocrypha: Moving this project to a new official home now that a name has been chosen.) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
===Apocrypha=== | ===Apocrypha=== | ||
Also not a personal favorite, tbh. If anything, it swings too far to the other side of the scale from "fanon" in terms of indicating its reliability. I prefer to leave this for things that are demonstrably ''not'' canon, like the Riven Journals or the Dark Horse comics. --[[User:Alahmnat|Alahmnat]], Grand Master ([[User_talk:Alahmnat|talk]]) 22:08, 4 January 2017 (PST) | Also not a personal favorite, tbh. If anything, it swings too far to the other side of the scale from "fanon" in terms of indicating its reliability. I prefer to leave this for things that are demonstrably ''not'' canon, like the Riven Journals or the Dark Horse comics. --[[User:Alahmnat|Alahmnat]], Grand Master ([[User_talk:Alahmnat|talk]]) 22:08, 4 January 2017 (PST) | ||
===Apocrypha on Main=== | |||
No separate namespace (suggested by Eleri). “Fanon” material would be posted in the Main namespace, with an “Apocrypha” template included at the top to signify that it was non-canon (in which case “Apocrypha” would apply equally to officially-published content and fan material alike). All such content would also be placed in an Apocrypha category. Fan content, official non-canon content, and canon content would all appear in basic search results and page title auto-completes. | |||
--[[User:Alahmnat|Alahmnat]], Grand Master ([[User_talk:Alahmnat|talk]]) 12:56, 12 December 2017 (PST) | |||
Latest revision as of 07:01, 27 December 2017
Namespace suggestions[edit source]
Fanon[edit source]
It's an obvious one, but I've never really cared for the term, and it may still be too officious. Definitely willing to entertain alternatives. --Alahmnat, Grand Master (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2017 (PST)
Apocrypha[edit source]
Also not a personal favorite, tbh. If anything, it swings too far to the other side of the scale from "fanon" in terms of indicating its reliability. I prefer to leave this for things that are demonstrably not canon, like the Riven Journals or the Dark Horse comics. --Alahmnat, Grand Master (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2017 (PST)
Apocrypha on Main[edit source]
No separate namespace (suggested by Eleri). “Fanon” material would be posted in the Main namespace, with an “Apocrypha” template included at the top to signify that it was non-canon (in which case “Apocrypha” would apply equally to officially-published content and fan material alike). All such content would also be placed in an Apocrypha category. Fan content, official non-canon content, and canon content would all appear in basic search results and page title auto-completes. --Alahmnat, Grand Master (talk) 12:56, 12 December 2017 (PST)
