Ultima Codex talk:Canon policy

Which platform are canonical?

I made a post about this in the community forum, but this seems as good a place to bring it up. Currently, this article discourages inclusion of the NES Ultimas, but there are other platforms. Usually the inconsistencies among the other platforms are trivial, but I think some decision should be made in regards to this issue, especially because maybe the problem isn't as trivial as I think. AngusM 03:34, September 14, 2009 (UTC)

Well...

First off, that can only go for Ultima I-V. From Ultima VI onwards, the IBM-PC was the original source. The computer versions of the first five games are the same in content, differing in the technology. However, they generally were able to fix errors in PC-port, since it was released a little later than the Apple original. (Meaning spelling errors like the misspelled Hythloth in Ultima IV)

As for console ports. Sorry, but these port are altered in significant ways that make it unreasonable to include them into canon. Only the computer versions (including the PC) count.--Tribun 11:43, September 14, 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why a canon has to be decided. I would think that an wiki or encyclopedia like this would aim at including all the objective info related to the subject that it can. "Canon" is actually not objective, but a subjective approach based on some selected facts.

So I don't really see, and I fact I consider it wrong, to avoid or ignore content from the wiki just because by some rules it is not considered canon. What I DO think the "canon" could be used for, is to decide the "main" parts of the article, and to add the rest of the information as a separate section. For example, if there was an article on the plot of Ultima IV, and it is decided that the NES version is not the most canonical one, that doesn't mean it should be ignored, just explained in a separate section, something like "plot changes in other versions".

So, more than deciding what's canon, we're deciding what information to use in the main part of an article (which ok, we may call canon). I just want to note that we shouldn't exclude any information regarding changes on other ports. Am I going the right way here?Sega381 01:24, September 17, 2009 (UTC)

I think thats probably the best way to go about it, really. Either select the version that is most complete (or the least objectionable) and use it to create the article. For the most part, this is going to be the computer versions. Then add sections for changes in other versions, if they contain relevant plot point differences. For very special changes, consider a secondary article, like the C64-Port of Ultima VI article.

I don't think anyone wants to NOT include information about a port. Rather, I think the definition of "canon" makes it a touchy subject for some. If you want to include info on the Wiki, do so! - Browncoat Jayson 13:47, September 17, 2009 (UTC)

Transcripts should be listed elsewhere

I always have a devil of a time looking for that section. This means a lot of editors aren't even likely to be aware of it (I think it took me an awful long time to discover it). I think it should be on Help:Contents. It seems to be short of Codex-specific material anyway. AngusM 21:43, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

UW: Ascendant?

What about Underworld Ascendant? All I know about it is what I wrote there. It was licensed by EA, right? It seems it should be there, but has anyone reading this played it? The Ultra-Mind (talk) 19:12, 19 February 2020 (UTC)