The Star Control 1 manual cannot be canon. It directly Star Control 2 by saying that the year of first contact was 2612 instead of 2115. It also states the date of the Androsynth rebellion to be 2535 instead of 2085. I have edited the page to say the manual isn't canon.
Why is Star Control 3 non-canon? Does it contradict Star Control 1 or 2?
- I understand your argument, but other than the those dates, everything else in the manual is considered canon. By the same argument we would have to throw out the SC2 manual since it disagrees with Commander Hayes' description of pre-First War history and also with the location of the Syreen homeworld and its name. Anyways, they creators were bound to make some errors and the full ideas of SC2 probably weren't completely fleshed out when they were creating SC1. We can allow for a little bit of retconning I think. As for Star Control 3, it was not made by Toys for Bob, who made SC1 and SC2, and it is the general consensus of most SC fans (afaik) that SC3 not be considered Star Control canon. The Star Control canon, as the articles says, is "everything which is generally considered to be part of the Star Control Universe, as intended by Toys For Bob," which imho cannot exclude the SC1 manual solely on the basis of some retconned dates. In the end though this is a site policy and most editors rely on the SC1 manual when editting articles - so I would say take it up with the site's head admin/creator, SvdB, if you think it shouldn't be considered as canon. Cheers. --Fyzixfighter 01:40, 17 June 2006 (CEST)
Paper starmap -- manual -- game priorities
I apologize for editing the page without the express consensus of anyone. I forgot that this is a policy page. Anyway, do you agree with the edits? This seems the most logical prioritizing, as it can be deduced by looking at the discrepancies. Valaggar 18:54, 12 May 2007 (CEST)
- Well done IMO. For the most part I agree. Although I think that we shouldn't state these as hard and fast rules. In some cases we include all differing accounts, like the Miwok/Far Voyager discrepancy, or use the notes and references section to clarify the discrepancy. Other times, certain sources are known to be less than truthful (like the neo-Dnyarri claiming that they discovered the Sa-Matra, not the Ur-Quan). The priorities are good, but a little bit of wisdom and critical thinking and a willingness to compromise should always be used as sometimes its the interpretation of the canon that causes the discrepancy <cough>Raynet</cough> :). But other than that, nice edit. --Fyzixfighter 19:46, 12 May 2007 (CEST)
IRC chat "revelations"
It has come to my (and 18.104.22.168's) attention that "IRC revelations" are not yet permanent; being subject to change, it would be better if we said that they "may become part of the accepted canon", just as we did for Fwiffo. See also Talk:Fwiffo. Valaggar 10:31, 7 July 2007 (CEST)
- I think you're misunderstanding slightly the arguments for treating that Fwiffo comment this way. This is a revelation by TFB specifically about a future game. Most of their other revelations are in reference to the already established games, such as the comments about the nature of the Mycon and the Orz, and so IMO are permanent and don't need to be treated this way. These also are about events that happened for the most part prior to UQM; Fwiffo's survival is at best concurrent with UQM and so has to be treated differently. When the true heir to SC2 is made by TFB, then we can re-evaluate that statement about Fwiffo (as well as who knows how many other current unknowns), but until then...let's not get ahead of ourselves (or ahead of TFB at least). --Fyzixfighter 05:38, 31 July 2007 (CEST)