Talk:Canon - Revision history

Fyzixfighter: Reverted edits by 95.133.61.38 (Talk) to last revision by Fyzixfighter

2011-05-16T23:23:08Z

Reverted edits by 95.133.61.38 (Talk) to last revision by Fyzixfighter

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:23, 16 May 2011
Line 16:		Line 16:

	: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). --[[User:Fyzixfighter\|Fyzixfighter]] 05:38, 31 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). --[[User:Fyzixfighter\|Fyzixfighter]] 05:38, 31 July 2007 (CEST)

	~~== Zeer leerzaam ==~~

	~~Lees het hele blog, pretty good~~

95.133.61.38: /* Zeer leerzaam */ new section

2011-05-16T22:08:27Z

Zeer leerzaam: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:08, 16 May 2011
Line 16:		Line 16:

	: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). --[[User:Fyzixfighter\|Fyzixfighter]] 05:38, 31 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). --[[User:Fyzixfighter\|Fyzixfighter]] 05:38, 31 July 2007 (CEST)

			== Zeer leerzaam ==

			Lees het hele blog, pretty good

Fyzixfighter: Reverted edit of 82.114.160.35, changed back to last version by Fyzixfighter

2007-11-17T15:33:44Z

Reverted edit of 82.114.160.35, changed back to last version by Fyzixfighter

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:33, 17 November 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~trcnab~~
	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.		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.

Line 16:		Line 15:
	It has come to my (and 24.117.122.78'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 [http://uqm.stack.nl/wiki/Fwiffo Fwiffo]. See also [http://uqm.stack.nl/wiki/Talk:Fwiffo Talk:Fwiffo]. [[User:Valaggar\|Valaggar]] 10:31, 7 July 2007 (CEST)		It has come to my (and 24.117.122.78'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 [http://uqm.stack.nl/wiki/Fwiffo Fwiffo]. See also [http://uqm.stack.nl/wiki/Talk:Fwiffo Talk:Fwiffo]. [[User:Valaggar\|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 a		: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). --[[User:Fyzixfighter\|Fyzixfighter]] 05:38, 31 July 2007 (CEST)
	~~1000~~
	nd 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). --[[User:Fyzixfighter\|Fyzixfighter]] 05:38, 31 July 2007 (CEST)

82.114.160.35 at 12:47, 17 November 2007

2007-11-17T12:47:51Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:47, 17 November 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
			trcnab
	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.		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.

Line 15:		Line 16:
	It has come to my (and 24.117.122.78'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 [http://uqm.stack.nl/wiki/Fwiffo Fwiffo]. See also [http://uqm.stack.nl/wiki/Talk:Fwiffo Talk:Fwiffo]. [[User:Valaggar\|Valaggar]] 10:31, 7 July 2007 (CEST)		It has come to my (and 24.117.122.78'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 [http://uqm.stack.nl/wiki/Fwiffo Fwiffo]. See also [http://uqm.stack.nl/wiki/Talk:Fwiffo Talk:Fwiffo]. [[User:Valaggar\|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). --[[User:Fyzixfighter\|Fyzixfighter]] 05:38, 31 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 a
			1000
			nd 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). --[[User:Fyzixfighter\|Fyzixfighter]] 05:38, 31 July 2007 (CEST)

Fyzixfighter: Reverted edit of 203.69.39.250, changed back to last version by Fyzixfighter

2007-09-20T01:06:07Z

Reverted edit of 203.69.39.250, changed back to last version by Fyzixfighter

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:06, 20 September 2007
Line 15:		Line 15:
	It has come to my (and 24.117.122.78'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 [http://uqm.stack.nl/wiki/Fwiffo Fwiffo]. See also [http://uqm.stack.nl/wiki/Talk:Fwiffo Talk:Fwiffo]. [[User:Valaggar\|Valaggar]] 10:31, 7 July 2007 (CEST)		It has come to my (and 24.117.122.78'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 [http://uqm.stack.nl/wiki/Fwiffo Fwiffo]. See also [http://uqm.stack.nl/wiki/Talk:Fwiffo Talk:Fwiffo]. [[User:Valaggar\|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 a		: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). --[[User:Fyzixfighter\|Fyzixfighter]] 05:38, 31 July 2007 (CEST)
	~~1000~~
	nd 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). --[[User:Fyzixfighter\|Fyzixfighter]] 05:38, 31 July 2007 (CEST)

203.69.39.250 at 00:22, 20 September 2007

2007-09-20T00:22:18Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:22, 20 September 2007
Line 15:		Line 15:
	It has come to my (and 24.117.122.78'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 [http://uqm.stack.nl/wiki/Fwiffo Fwiffo]. See also [http://uqm.stack.nl/wiki/Talk:Fwiffo Talk:Fwiffo]. [[User:Valaggar\|Valaggar]] 10:31, 7 July 2007 (CEST)		It has come to my (and 24.117.122.78'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 [http://uqm.stack.nl/wiki/Fwiffo Fwiffo]. See also [http://uqm.stack.nl/wiki/Talk:Fwiffo Talk:Fwiffo]. [[User:Valaggar\|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). --[[User:Fyzixfighter\|Fyzixfighter]] 05:38, 31 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 a
			1000
			nd 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). --[[User:Fyzixfighter\|Fyzixfighter]] 05:38, 31 July 2007 (CEST)

Fyzixfighter: /* IRC chat "revelations" */ reply

2007-07-31T03:38:45Z

IRC chat "revelations": reply

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:38, 31 July 2007
Line 14:		Line 14:

	It has come to my (and 24.117.122.78'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 [http://uqm.stack.nl/wiki/Fwiffo Fwiffo]. See also [http://uqm.stack.nl/wiki/Talk:Fwiffo Talk:Fwiffo]. [[User:Valaggar\|Valaggar]] 10:31, 7 July 2007 (CEST)		It has come to my (and 24.117.122.78'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 [http://uqm.stack.nl/wiki/Fwiffo Fwiffo]. See also [http://uqm.stack.nl/wiki/Talk:Fwiffo Talk:Fwiffo]. [[User:Valaggar\|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). --[[User:Fyzixfighter\|Fyzixfighter]] 05:38, 31 July 2007 (CEST)

Valaggar: IRC chat "revelations"

2007-07-07T08:31:08Z

IRC chat "revelations"

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:31, 7 July 2007
Line 10:		Line 10:

	: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. --[[User:Fyzixfighter\|Fyzixfighter]] 19:46, 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. --[[User:Fyzixfighter\|Fyzixfighter]] 19:46, 12 May 2007 (CEST)

			== IRC chat "revelations" ==

			It has come to my (and 24.117.122.78'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 [http://uqm.stack.nl/wiki/Fwiffo Fwiffo]. See also [http://uqm.stack.nl/wiki/Talk:Fwiffo Talk:Fwiffo]. [[User:Valaggar\|Valaggar]] 10:31, 7 July 2007 (CEST)

Fyzixfighter: /* Paper starmap -- manual -- game priorities */ my thoughts

2007-05-12T17:46:55Z

Paper starmap -- manual -- game priorities: my thoughts

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:46, 12 May 2007
Line 8:		Line 8:

	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]]. [[User:Valaggar\|Valaggar]] 18:54, 12 May 2007 (CEST)		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]]. [[User:Valaggar\|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. --[[User:Fyzixfighter\|Fyzixfighter]] 19:46, 12 May 2007 (CEST)

Valaggar: Paper starmap -- manual -- game priorities

2007-05-12T16:54:11Z

Paper starmap -- manual -- game priorities

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:54, 12 May 2007
Line 4:		Line 4:

	: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, [[User:Svdb\|SvdB]], if you think it shouldn't be considered as canon. Cheers. --[[User:Fyzixfighter\|Fyzixfighter]] 01:40, 17 June 2006 (CEST)		: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, [[User:Svdb\|SvdB]], if you think it shouldn't be considered as canon. Cheers. --[[User:Fyzixfighter\|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]]. [[User:Valaggar\|Valaggar]] 18:54, 12 May 2007 (CEST)