Heyo. Based on what was discussed in Forum:SH:The Old Republic: Outlander story and affiliations I've decided to put this for vote.

To sum up, SWTOR has reached a point where the player story (aka Outlander) that started at expansion 4.0 Knights of the Fallen Empire and unified all 8 character stories into a single one, has now completely diverged storylines into faction affiliation-based ones (Empire story/Republic story). To us editors this has made it very hard to write any content articles because the outcomes of each story contradict the other. Since we don't know which is canon (nor will we ever know) we're forced to write articles in the Behind the scenes sections and honestly, that's just ugly (Darth Shaar and Darth Savik as examples).

Proposal A[]

As such, I've decided to work on a policy in which: starting with the Outlander's story in update 2.7 Forged Alliances (throughout the next three expansions and beyond), we assume as canon that the player character is of Republic affiliation, makes choices that support the Republic (because it survived?) and the Light side (because Republic is good!) as we've done a few times before.

But this isn't to say we will neglect all of the Empire's story. Parts of the Empire story that directly contradict the Republic one are considered alternative gameplay choices and written in the Bts section and elements that don't contradict the Republic story (like quest information) will still be considered as they happened in the canon version of the story (but Empire-side quests and outcomes will be considered unfinished in the "canon" version). Following the Republic/light side logic, the new saboteur options will also fall to the Bts section.

And according to all this: The Eternal Alliance joins the Republic at the end of the expansion 6.0 Onslaught's storyline.

A header template like {{Republic Header}} will be placed in the Commander's article.

Proposal B[]

This was my own initial proposal (Forum:SH:The Old Republic: Outlander story and affiliations). To sum-up, I'm suggesting we follow on the Empire characters/Darkside and Republic characters/Lightside logic was we had done before and instead of choosing one, we just record both within the body and their own labelled templates. Alternative gameplay choices are of coursed recorded on the Bts. I should point out that we are not assuming the Commander is two different entities. We just divide the article for reading/writing purposes. Kind of like we do with Legends/Canon.

This is how the process would work:

-The Commander (Republic) article would be written in a pro-Republic perspective, assuming all light side and support Republic choices in the story as canon and the rest as Bts gameplay alternatives.

-The Commander (Empire) article would be written in a pro-Empire perspective, assuming all dark side and support Empire choices in the story as canon and the rest as Bts gameplay alternatives.

-Content with story and outcome affected by light/dark and support Empire/support Republic choices will be divided into the previous game mechanics sections, which could be applied in the same article together.

-Top templates for both main articles explaining the division and linking to a consensus track topic (in case this proposal is approved).

Templates[]

Empire Commander story

Republic Commander story

Thanks. Winterz (talk) 21:33, November 1, 2019 (UTC)

• Updated with another proposal. Winterz (talk) 17:24, November 5, 2019 (UTC)

Support Proposal A[]

1. Winterz (talk) 21:33, November 1, 2019 (UTC)

   This won't do anything but good to the wiki. Vanilulew ^{standing by} 12:10, November 2, 2019 (UTC) (Vote struck, reason: Per policy: Fails to meet the productivity requirements -- Imperators II^(Talk) 12:17, November 2, 2019 (UTC))

2. Proposal A is essentially reverting back to our standard practice of assuming light side choices are correct from the exception made for TOR articles in vote, which seems like the obvious choice to me. It will result in article bodies containing a single non-contradictory version of events with everything else in the BTS. Proposal B would result in there being two separate conflicting accounts of an individual character's life presented in two different articles. I feel this is confusing for readers and would also be the only place on Wookieepedia where we allow directly contradictory information on a subject into the main body of an article, which is something I think we should avoid. Ayrehead02 (talk) 17:55, November 5, 2019 (UTC)
3. Initially, I was reluctant to assume the Commander was originally Republic, but after an IRC conversation with Ayre, it doesn't actually seem that big a leap. Huge thanks to Winterz for writing all this up! Fan26 (Talk) 22:20, November 5, 2019 (UTC)
4. Not fully familiar with TOR and its mechanics, but sticking to standard practice seems like the best option here. Zed42 (talk) 01:58, November 6, 2019 (UTC)
5. At this point, I don't even try to understand TOR anymore. I trust you people know what you're doing and support whatever that is, and Ayrehead's comments make sense. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 05:07, November 6, 2019 (UTC)
6. Imperators II^(Talk) 08:51, November 6, 2019 (UTC)
7. Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 13:16, November 6, 2019 (UTC)
8. Good proposition, I am all for it if we want SWTOR articles to be less messy. NanoLuuke^{Cloning facility} 15:00, November 6, 2019 (UTC)
9. Wow. Tommy Macaroni 15:40, November 6, 2019 (UTC)
10. Much better than Proposal B which, as Ayre said, will end up confusing the readers --DarthRuiz30 (talk) 20:33, November 6, 2019 (UTC)
11. Cwedin^(talk) 20:37, November 6, 2019 (UTC)
12. 1358 ^(Talk) 18:35, November 14, 2019 (UTC)

Support Proposal B[]

I feel this is what's best. Winterz (talk) 17:24, November 5, 2019 (UTC)

Oppose Proposals[]

Discussion[]

• Alternate methods to deal with the issue have been mentioned in the Senate Hall discussion but they are confusing and impractical. However you are free to mention any if you oppose this. Winterz (talk) 21:33, November 1, 2019 (UTC)
• Unfortunately, I think that all Imperial content including side quests and such needs to be placed in the BTS. This is because technically all of it is contradictory to what we are going to consider canon because it all takes place in a timeline where the Commander sided with the Empire and we can't really assume someone else did it. For characters in such side quests the body can include any information about them up to the point that they would interact with the Commander, after which any events involving the Imperial Commander should be in the BTS. Ayrehead02 (talk) 09:21, November 2, 2019 (UTC)
  • I see your point Ayrehead, but that was made so we don't neglect important parts of information. I'll provide an example: during the Battle of Corellia some events, formations and tactics (such as the bombing of surface cities) happen equally. In the Empire story we get to know it's Darth Krovos behind the masterplan and you can even advise not to bomb the surface cities and instead focus on industrial centers while in the Republic story the bombing the surface cities will happen regardless. My proposal would mean we still consider it as Darth Krovos' plan (and her motivations) despite them never being mentioned in the Republic storyline. As for side quests and minor bosses they do not affect the Republic storyline whatsoever and I did it to try to balance events in a way and in regards to 100% game completion. My purpose here was to neglect only an Empire-affiliated Commander and all his influence, not the whole Empire story content as it's evidenced that things happen in both stories but only referenced in the Empire story-view of things. Winterz (talk) 13:49, November 2, 2019 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't take issue with Darth Krovos leading the bombing being included as that is something that is independent of the Dark Side players actions. With any quest from the Dark side information prior to a character's influence can be included. For example, in a quest where a scout get stuck behind enemy lines during a battle and their commander asks the player to save them, you could create an article for the scout saying that they fought during that battle and became stranded behind enemy lines, and that their commander was aware of this and sought aid for them, but cannot include that someone actually spoke to the commander about it or that the scouts were rescued, as these were the actions of the player. Ayrehead02 (talk) 23:09, November 2, 2019 (UTC)
      • You're right. I've updated the proposal to reflect it. Winterz (talk) 05:16, November 3, 2019 (UTC)
• What is meant by "saboteur options will also fall to the Bts section.", if I may? If Imperial saboteurs are included in this, I would say that's not a good idea. I've watched some walkthroughs and it seems the general events of a Republic victory are the same for both a Republic loyalist or Imperial saboteur, naturally with quite a few specific differences. If I'm understanding the proposal correctly, it is assuming a Republic loyalist is the Alliance commander, meaning we'd assume the commander originally fought for the Republic, for the sake of writing articles, which is something I don't think Wookieepedia has the right to do. If my understanding is wrong though, please correct me. Fan26 (Talk) 16:03, November 2, 2019 (UTC)
  • A Republic loyalist Commander does not mean the player was originally Republic. Imperial characters can choose Republic and be loyal to them. The saboteur options were introduced in update 5.10 Ossus and serve to sabotage the faction you chose from within (starting at expansion 6.0). If you choose to sabotage the Empire then you will be supporting the Empire in 5.10. This proposal can neglect original faction alignments because that's exactly what the Outlander story does. Who your original character was (previous to 4.0) makes no major difference to its storyline. Whoever you were, you can choose light side or dark side options, and you can choose the Republic or Imperial side on several occasions (even before 5.10). Sabotage is a new addition and being reduced to Bts shouldn't be that significant as you're making it in my opinion. Winterz (talk) 16:30, November 2, 2019 (UTC)
    • By Republic loyalist, I mean Republic class characters who chose to side with the Republic. The Loyalist/Saboteur mechanic does not ignore previous faction alignments at all, really. Let's say the Commander is a Jedi Knight. If they choose to support the Republic, they're a Republic loyalist and they openly fight for the Republic. If they choose Empire, they're a Republic saboteur because while they still are publicly aligned with the Republic, the Commander is secretly working for the Empire and is (supposed to be, at least) sabotaging the Republic (though I understand players can still choose to let the Republic win). The same is true for Empire characters-the commander can choose to side with the Empire and be a loyalist, or side with the Republic, and be a saboteur and interfere with Imperial operations. A Republic loyalist and an Imperial saboteur (where the player chooses to sabotage the Empire) have storylines where the Republic wins, while Imperial loyalists and true Republic saboteurs have the Empire win. Now, I believe this proposal is saying that Wookieepedia will assume the Alliance Commander is sided with the Republic, fights for them from Ossuss through the end of Onslaught, and chooses all light side and/or loyalist options. But what I'm saying is the game only allows this to happen if the player is a Republic class, meaning we assume that the Commader was originally Republic, which I think is an assumption Wookieepedia does not have the right to make. If I wasn't clear, please let me know and I will try to explain my reasoning better. Fan26 (Talk) 17:30, November 2, 2019 (UTC)
      • I might be misunderstanding but what's causing your opposition is the belief that only Republic characters can choose to be Republic loyalists and therefore we'd be making a large and incorrect assumption. That's not what I'm proposing. As I've said above, saboteur/loyalist choices aren't necessarily associated with previous faction affiliations and all options are available to all characters. In fact, you can sabotage some things and then be loyal in others... there isn't a strict story attributed to saboteurs. Wookieepedia isn't assuming anything, it's a properly-labelled template to allow editors to write articles while warning readers that we've chosen this way in the article's body but the rest is pointed out in the Bts. It has been done many times before such as in the case when we assume all Empire characters are bound to dark side choices and Republic characters are bound to light side choices. It has precedence, and it has logic. SWTOR is a massive game with an intense choice-based storyline. If we weren't allowed some tolerance in these policies then whole of the game's content would be subjected to Behind the scenes sections. The bigger and largest assumption here is assuming the Commander is light-sided, but as I've said above, that's something done only for writing purposes. No choices or stories are neglected. "Saboteur" is merely an alternate option that becomes available.Winterz (talk) 19:14, November 2, 2019 (UTC)
        • Apologies it's taken so long to get back to this, was out of town for a few days. Anyway, having come back to this and looked over it again, I believe the confusion was my fault for not being all that clear with what I meant, sorry. When I said Republic loyalist, I was referring to Republic characters who choose to side the Alliance with the Republic, and Imperial saboteur meant Imperial players who choose the Republic (while the opposite is true for Republic saboteurs and Imperial loyalists). I've seen Saboteur/Loyalist being used to describe whether a character is loyal to their faction or not in Onslaught on many sites and in many walkthroguhs (again, haven't played Onslaught myself yet), so I assumed that it was just the game's phrasing and you knew what I meant (I'm guessing you thought I meant how loyal any character is to the Republic when I was saying Republic loyalist), which is my mistake. Sorry. My concern here was really that it seemed we would be assuming the Commander is a Republic player because we would be assuming the Republic storyline is "canon", but I think that was originally borne out of my misunderstanding (which is on me, sorry). I've re-read the proposal and am much clearer on what is being proposed. I would like it if you could clarify how you handle the two storylines though. Imperial players, regardless of faction choice, play through the Empire storyline, while Republic players play through the Republic storyline. As I now understand it, we're not assuming that the Commander is a Republic character who makes 100% loyalist choices, but just assuming that the Commander makes the choices that best support the Republic and/or that are light side, regardless of their faction storyline. For article writing purposes, we would just be assuming the Outlander is currently aligned with the Republic and that they are responsible for Republic successes (e.g. the Commander goes to Onderon and is responsible for the safe departure of the Republic fleet), and are more vague on the specifics on how it happened (e.g., we would say "the Empire allied with the Untamed", as an Imperial player [even a Republic-aligned one, as I understand it] goes there on the Empire's behalf, but the Republic storyline still has the Untamed invade Iziz, so it must happen regardless). Is that correct? If I was unclear on something, please tell me and I will try to explain what I meant. Fan26 (Talk) 17:40, November 5, 2019 (UTC)
        • Proposal B was added while I was writing this. To clarify, I'm talking about Proposal A. Fan26 (Talk) 17:43, November 5, 2019 (UTC)
• Forgive me if I sound stupid, I can't say I'm familiar with how The Old Republic game works, but I have a question about the very first paragraph of your proposal. What is the reasoning for assuming that the player chooses to support the Republic and the light side? When you choose the otherwise, does the story go in an obvious non-canon direction, like Starkiller killing Vader in The Force Unleashed, for example? Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 21:46, November 2, 2019 (UTC)
  • It's a perfectly reasonable question and logic. SWTOR is a choice-based game in which you start with any of eight character stories but at the fourth expansion all 8 characters were merged into one (the Outlander) with a single story and minor differences based in conversation choices. Recently, the story has diverged again and now you're forced to choose between a Republic storyline or an Empire one. It's hard to say if the story goes an obvious non-canon direction because although we know the Republic is standing a few centuries later, the Empire story doesn't outright make it so the Republic is destroyed. This CT stands to ease the writing of new articles because as it is right now, it's nigh-impossible to write articles since doing so requires us to assume a faction affiliation. What I propose is we make this "assumption" for the article's body and the other gets written into the Bts section as alternative gameplay choices. It is something we've done before through a consensus track. Winterz (talk) 22:29, November 2, 2019 (UTC)
  • Per our canon policy page past "the light-side outcomes of games typically trumped dark-side outcomes", which means that general practice for all video games has been to assume that players choose the light side option with any other options listed in BTS. An exception to this was made for The Old Republic per this vote by which Light side was assumed for the four Republic characters and Dark Side presumed for four Sith Empire characters. As there is now only a single character I would suggest that we revert to our standard practice of assuming that the light side options are chosen. Ayrehead02 (talk) 23:09, November 2, 2019 (UTC)
• Just for clarifiation, when you mention that the Eternal Alliance joins the Republic, you are referring to that it merged with the Republic and Odessen became a Senate member right? or are you referring that its still an independent organization that its sided with Republic?--DarthRuiz30 (talk) 07:46, November 6, 2019 (UTC)
  • We are assuming the Alliance would be as supportive to the Republic as it can be so it is integrated within it at the end of Onslaught's storyline, yeah. Winterz (talk) 15:46, November 6, 2019 (UTC)

New Proposal[]

• As the first proposal didn't seem to be as favoured as I thought, I'm putting my first idea also for vote. I feel it is that important for something to be achieved by policy. Let me know what you think. Winterz (talk) 17:24, November 5, 2019 (UTC)