Is see the undo's of the 'Alternate Universe' in the history and the reason being non-canon. If its on the dossier shouldn't it be considered canon? I contend that it is.

Putting it under the 'Prime Universe' heading as a sub-point defeats the purpose of putting it up at all. Besides, the format that I was following was already being used on the timeline section of this site. --Guiseppi72 16:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I did revert back and would like a reason for the change. If policy of dictates that dossiers are not canon I'll gladly submit to that. Until then i would like to discuss this with who reverted it back. --Guiseppi72 17:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Our content policy states what we accept as valid resources for in-universe data. Note that promotional material is only acceptable for use in background sections of articles. The movie website dossiers are such promotional material, and cannot be used as in-universe information. -- Michael Warren | Talk 17:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Michael! My next question is about format. Would it be beyond the scope of this page to divide it up under the two headings (prime and alternate) and put non-canon dossier info under the 'alternate reality' heading? --Guiseppi72 17:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Just because the film itself is in an alternate reality still does not mean the promotional materials are canon. :D – 17:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
It would probably not be of use, since the alternate reality heading would have no in-universe content, only the background note as it currently exists on the article. The arrangement as stands is the best way to present the information. -- Michael Warren | Talk 17:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, understood! It just seems confusing from my perspective to have a note that is 'out of universe' on an in-universe section. I would at least add the sub-headings (prime and alternate) and designate the dossier note as promotional material, etc.. I hope that makes sense.--Guiseppi72 20:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)