Board Thread:Administrative/@comment-4651179-20140403020704/@comment-122657-20140611155550

Spencerz wrote: Are we looking to do the above with the two templates discussed in this post? That option is what I was voting for when I said templates.

I'm sorry, I don't really like those templates, and here's why.

First of all, the word 'canon' is always confusing to new people and often triggers extremely heated arguments between fans. I believe the main reason for using the multiverse numbering system is to combat that word and the reactions of the fans.

Secondly, templates that point a big red finger to some content more often say, "Don't trust the stuff you read here," more than, "Technically, this isn't 100% true." A few years ago, we worked pretty hard to take 'failure tags' out of articles across the site. I understand that these aren't exactly that, but they give a similar feel.

And finally, I can't think of a specific situation where we'd still need those while instating the policy listed above. Could you give an example where it would be necessary to point out what bits of an article are non-canon while under the proposed policy. It's altogether possible that there's some very good reasons to do both and I can't think of them.