Narutopedia talk:Canon policy

Yey

I assume this still has some work to be done or is it basically completed? Otherwise, it seems like this could probably end most of those pointless discussions over canonicity and it looks good. (Happy now with this post, Seelentau?) --Sajuuk 00:22, July 3, 2016 (UTC)

Can we include databooks and this point,

• When certain things in databook contradict the manga, they should be written in trivia section

I know all discussions regarding databooks are finished and are dealt this way, this is just to let everybody know how we handle things here.--Mecha Naruto (talk) 05:52, July 3, 2016 (UTC)

I agree that something like that should be mentioned. We don't know if we'll be getting more databooks in the future. --Sajuuk 12:48, July 3, 2016 (UTC)

Could easily be the case, we have one hand sign left and only ~80 or so parts of the Konoha 100 Leafs thingy. Also, the last 10 chapters of the original manga weren't covered. • Seelentau 愛 ^議 13:21, July 3, 2016 (UTC)

Movies

Lovely to see how much the canon policy has solved thus far. There's a current dispute about movies (excluding The Last and Boruto). Are they non-canon? A-canon? C-canon? Their own canon? I would guess C-canon, but it doesn't seem to be solving much in terms of which edits are valid and such... ★WindStar7125 16:55, August 18, 2016 (UTC)

They're obviously A-canon, as they're essentially made by Studio Pierrot and are on the same level as content that is unique to the anime. The exception to this is "The Last", which is made clear to be a continuation of K-canon.

I don't know why people feel like bringing up canon/non-canon when they start their pointless edit wars with well-intentioned users, that has zero relevance to how this wiki records things, but it clearly hasn't gotten through to everyone yet. --Sajuuk 16:58, August 18, 2016 (UTC)

If in the policy article The Road to Ninja movie is noted to be C-canon (despite Kishi's involvement in creating it), thus all the other movies can be considered as C-canon, but not higher. Ravenlot 27 (talk) 17:30, August 18, 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. Also Sajuuk, this wasn't a pointless edit war and as I told you multiple times before, canonicity is relevant because in cases of contradicting information, we have to have a way of deciding which information weighs more. Otherwise, all information from all sources would be equally correct and the articles would be a shitfest of contradicting information (eg Kaguya's backstory). But well, since this comes from me, I'm pretty sure you'll deny it anyways. • Seelentau 愛 ^議 17:44, August 18, 2016 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to classify the movies as "A-canon" because in my experience with other anime such as Dragon Ball or One Piece, it's not a smart idea to try and position the movies anywhere. Movies are their own independent stories that take characters from the main storyline in the manga/anime. The anime is not completely non-canon because it still adapts the manga, whereas the movies do not. Then again, I don't mind making trivia points about the position of movies, since it's merely trivia where we don't necessarily state things as facts.

Also, involvement hardly dictates canon. The movies being made by Studio Pierrot doesn't mean they're all A-canon, because by that logic Road to Ninja should be K-canon simply because of Kishimoto's heavy involvement in that. ★WindStar7125 17:46, August 18, 2016 (UTC)

@Seelentau: No, canonicity is not relevant. Dantman has made it clear many times that it does not matter what level of canonicity something has, we record everything and annotate those things that only exist in specific media. The canon policy was made to stop the constant discreditation and removal of information from this wiki, just because it came from some source the user didn't personally like. Case in point: this, this and this.

@WindStar7125: I never said "involvement" mattered, but you said it yourself: they're independent stories. All the films include the Studio Pierrot logo in them, the logo is not there just for the hell of it, they must have had plenty of involvement. Road to Ninja was a movie-unique story that just happened to include some involvement from Kishi, but it wasn't fully written by him, or it would indeed be K-canon if he fully wrote it. However, the films were clearly created to fit into specific times of the anime (and later the manga), based on the characters that are present and the things that the characters say in the movie. --Sajuuk 18:05, August 18, 2016 (UTC)

Of course we record everything, but if the manga said Rock Lee can't use Ninjutsu and a movie shows him using Rasengan, we wouldn't say that he can use Ninjutsu, simply because manga > movies. • Seelentau 愛 ^議 18:13, August 18, 2016 (UTC)

The new Boruto manga isn't fully written by Kishi at all, and it's still considered to be on the highest tier of canon. The movies being produced by Studio Pierrot don't automatically make them "A-canon". Hence why involvement (as in, who wrote or produced or "made" it) is almost irrelevant in dictating canon. And if the films were "clearly created to fit specific times of the anime" despite there being no statements whatsoever confirming that, then I can equally say the anime fillers were "clearly created to fit specific times of the manga". For instance, Kaguya's backstory. It was clearly created to give backstory on what happened before the main series, yet contradicts a ton of information from the manga and databooks, and cannot be considered to fit in the manga's depiction of events. Thus, why a movie such as Road to Ninja has been classified as "C-canon" in the first place. I'm merely asking that all other movies follow suit. ★WindStar7125 18:14, August 18, 2016 (UTC)

@Seelentau: Yes, we would record it by saying "In the movie, Rock Lee was shown using a Rasengan. It is unknown how he was able to perform this technique, as he is not able to utilise the chakra network to perform ninjutsu." as a trivia point. If a character was shown doing something in one media that is contradictory to another media, then we note it as a trivia point and use the specific media tags in the infobox to show that the character used that technique in that specific media. That is how it has always been on this wiki, long before you became a sysop here.

@WindStar7125: Have you actually watched any of the movies? If you had, you would see that there are scenes in just about every movie that gives the viewer a clear indication of the movie's position to the anime. Also, the anime is a direct adaptation of the manga, it can do whatever it wants and heck it could have just created it's completely independent story and just borrowed elements of the manga, such as storylines or character names. --Sajuuk 18:20, August 18, 2016 (UTC)

And that's the point. If we wouldn't follow canonicity, that puts the manga above the movie, Rock Lee would be able and would not be able to use Ninjutsu at the same time. The article would literally state "Rock Lee can and also can not use ninjutsu". But going by canonicity, it would state "Rock Lee can not use ninjutsu, but in movie X, he uses Rasengan". See the difference? Also, you don't need to remind me how it was before I became sysop, I've been around only two months less than you. ? Seelentau ? ^? 18:24, August 18, 2016 (UTC)

It gives a clear position of the arc(s) the movie is supposed to fit in, but we can't say for sure "This movie happened between this and that episode", especially when there's a little or completely no timeskip in the anime for these events to happen. As already said, the particular movie just borrows the characters' concepts from the particular point in the storyline, but it doesn't automatically make it fit into this point. Okay, after reading the articles of some other movies, I realised that I was a bit too strict to the trivia points, but I still find it highly unreasonable to make notes about the particular movie being placed between two particular episode as if it was a fact, when there's completely no evidence proving it. Ravenlot 27 (talk) 18:33, August 18, 2016 (UTC)

There's a reason why we have tags such as "anime-only", "movie-only", "novel-only", "game-only", etc. If we classify all movies as "A-canon", that implies the movies and the anime are one and the same, and the ramifications would be the removal of the "movie-only" tag. And again, if you can use the logic the the movies are a continuation of the anime (despite again, no statements whatsoever supporting your argument as Ravenlot also points out), then I can easily say that the anime is so to the manga, despite there being no statements supporting that. Again, being made by the same creator doesn't mean they are all connected in one storyline. If we don't use that logic with Kishi, why should we flip the script and do that with the anime and movies?

The anime adapts the manga, yet isn't a considered a continuation of it thick and thin, and the movies don't adapt anything, and are their own stories, yet should be a continuation of the anime which bridges the gap between completely canon and non-canon? There's a reason why we don't mix together anime and manga stuff, for the same reason we don't mix together movie and anime stuff, anime and novel stuff, etc etc. with the tags we use. "That is how it has always been on this wiki" as you said. Most of us agree on the movies, novels etc being C-canon under the anime, since they are not the same. ★WindStar7125 18:32, August 18, 2016 (UTC)

And there's like nothing wrong with putting a trivia point into the pages saying "the events of the movie appear to position it around episode XYZ in the anime."?

And yes, there is evidence for these statements, they are not random claims being made by clueless idiots who haven't watched the movies (I've watched them all, barring Last/Boruto). Watch the movies and you'll see quite clearly that they put in scenes to have them positioned at specific points of the anime. Nobody is suggesting that the movie events ever happened, but the fact they include scenes for positioning purposes absolutely cannot be ignored, as they are always a key plot-point of the movies. --Sajuuk 18:39, August 18, 2016 (UTC)

To my knowledge, any possible position for the movies is noted in their own trivia, no? At least for Blood Prison... - Seelentau ^Talk 18:41, August 18, 2016 (UTC)

@WindStar7125: And there's like nothing wrong with putting a trivia point into the pages saying "the events of the movie appear to position it around episode XYZ in the anime."?

And yes, there is evidence for these statements, they are not random claims being made by clueless idiots who haven't watched the movies (I've watched them all, barring Last/Boruto). Watch the movies and you'll see quite clearly that they put in scenes to have them positioned at specific points of the anime. Nobody is suggesting that the movie events ever happened, but the fact they include scenes for positioning purposes absolutely cannot be ignored, as they are always a key plot-point of the movies.

Also, that's nonsense. If we were to classify the movies as "A-canon", it is not going to result in the removal of movie only tags. Don't make scare-suggestions to try and validate your point. If you want your opinion to have any weight, then you bring evidence to the table: scaring users with suggestions of negative consequences is not the way to get a discussion. In fact, scaring users with incorrect statements is just going to look like bias to get a specific decision that favours only yourself.

Also, don't speak on behalf of others by giving your own personal opinion as though everyone else agrees. Even Ravenlot thinks that it's too harsh to not mention them as trivia points. I agree not to specify exact episodes, but there is absolutely nothing wrong whatsoever with having a trivia point that gives a general idea as to where a movie is placed, because it's blatantly obvious to anyone who watched the movies that the movie makers wanted the films to be positioned in particular parts of the anime through specific scenes. If you haven't watched the movies, then that's why you aren't aware of these specific scenes.

@Seelentau: According to a couple of users, we shouldn't even be doing that. Which is just going too far for no reason. See my last paragraph to WindStar7125. --Sajuuk 18:39, August 18, 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm okay with a trivia point in the movie articles, but not in the episode articles. That's too much. After all, the movies aren't part of the anime. - Seelentau ^Talk 18:48, August 18, 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I've watched them, to answer your question. And I've also watched the anime, and I see that some events are made to be positioned in specific points of the manga. So what? I asked for statements, not what you perceive as "evidence" by your own definition.

And calling me or others "clueless idiots" isn't going to help nor reinforce any of your arguments. I'm not interested in getting into a childish insulting-fest with you. The fact of the matter is, we've kept the movies and the anime separate for a reason. And I do remember saying I didn't have a problem trying to note continuity in the trivia section, what I have a problem with is classifying the movies as "A-canon". Then what would be the point of the "movie only" tags we use if we say the movies are the same as the anime? We're not going to all of a sudden circumvent that because you say so.

If, in a hypothetical case, Studio Pierrot decided to milk its cash cow even further and create an anime adaption of the Boruto manga, then we'd have a Boruto anime and a Boruto movie that would contradict each other. Once again, there is a reason why we keep that separate with the tags we use. ★WindStar7125 18:50, August 18, 2016 (UTC)

I'm not saying I suggest to ignore it. The best way is to say "This movie is supposed to happen in/after/between this arc(s)/event(s)", since that kind of note doesn't state it as a fact and at the same time doesn't give the clear placing in the storyline (between the particular episodes for example), which isn't clear per se - most of the movies weren't created to completely fit into the anime events. We already have the notes like this in the movies' articles (for example, there). But there's no reason to go beyond the movies themselves, i.e. bringing these notes into episodes' articles. Ravenlot 27 (talk) 18:55, August 18, 2016 (UTC)

Also, don't speak on behalf of others by giving your own personal opinion as though everyone else agrees. Even Ravenlot thinks that it's too harsh to not mention them as trivia points. I agree not to specify exact episodes, but there is absolutely nothing wrong whatsoever with having a trivia point that gives a general idea as to where a movie is placed, because it's blatantly obvious to anyone who watched the movies that the movie makers wanted the films to be positioned in particular parts of the anime through specific scenes. If you haven't watched the movies, then that's why you aren't aware of these specific scenes.

To respond to this, 1) I have no problem with trivia points 2) Ravenlot and Tau (unless I read him wrong) also agrees with me that movies are to be "C-canon". That is what I meant by "most of us" in this discussion and this discussion alone. I'm not speaking on behalf of the wiki. ★WindStar7125 18:59, August 18, 2016 (UTC)

So, did we come to some kind of agreement? As far as I see, the results of the discussion are following: movies should be considered C-canon, their presumable placing in the series can be noted in their acticles' trivia section, but not as if they officially are the part of them (again, except for The Last and Boruto) and without bringing it into episodes' articles (correct my mistakes if I'm wrong in something). Also, I wanted to add that in the canon policy article the rank of the movies should be stated more clearly, because as for now their status can be only guessed through the note about the Road to Ninja movie. Ravenlot 27 (talk) 10:25, August 19, 2016 (UTC)

The final decision should come from TheUltimate3, he wrote the policy. Also WindStar7125, please stop taking my words out of context, I didn't call you or anyone else "clueless idiots", I said that because your comments were making that implication. --Sajuuk 10:32, August 19, 2016 (UTC)

Deepest apologieses. Vacation lead to family visit. Busy summer indeed. So now...what are ya'll doing to my Canon Policy?

/Proceeds to Read a bit.

As of the writing of the Policy, all movies save from Boruto and The Last where filed under C-Canon. Fair warning, I'm at work and this is a long discussion so I will be editting this in pieces. But in short, all films but those two specifically, as of the writing of the Canon Policy is C-Canon.--TheUltimate3 ^(talk) 12:05, August 19, 2016 (UTC)

Now for those that need a refresher course in what Continuity Canon is, it's basically the canon tier of everything that was made by official sources, but NOT Kishimoto/Kodachi or Anime canon. This means things like Magazine Interviews, Most of the Films, Terms and Factoids from Video Games (see Special Case: Video Games for more information), and the like.

Using Naruto Shippūden the Movie as an example, this film falls under C-canon. Because it is C-canon, the events of the story don't go into the main biography of the character, and instead goes into the Movie sections on their pages. That said, there is absolutely nothing with having these things placed in trivia sections.--TheUltimate3 ^(talk) 12:20, August 19, 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, TheUltimateThree. Also Sajuuk, doesn't matter what my comments imply, don't ever assume just because I don't agree with you it means I have no idea what I'm talking about. How are you supposed to know what I've watched and not watched, hm? Because you were basically treating me as if I didn't watch the movies and knew nothing simply because I disagreed with you, which in all honesty, isn't really fair, because I'm sure you'd give me hell if I treated you that way, but whatever. ★WindStar7125 16:14, August 19, 2016 (UTC)

So... what about presumable placing of the movies between the episodes? Since most the movies are not the part of the anime, we can only give a hypothetical placing in trivia section, but rather between the arcs (as we already did in some movies' articles), right? But if the movies don't belong to the anime, it's actually wrong to put such notes in the episodes' articles as well, even as a trivia point, isn't it? Ravenlot 27 (talk) 16:19, August 19, 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Perhaps not in the episodes' articles, but the movies' articles. Again, it's trivia, we don't necessarily have to state things as facts. ★WindStar7125 16:24, August 19, 2016 (UTC)

Super late to the discussion, but I think that this simply wording the statements not as facts should suffice. As long as the movie isn't stated to have happened in the anime continuity (because at least for some movies, like Blood Prison, there's no possible accurate placement), I don't think there's any issue. Just word it like "movie X is chronologically set around episode Y for Z reason". Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 19:35, August 20, 2016 (UTC)

Glad to see we agree on that, Omni. ★WindStar7125 20:38, August 20, 2016 (UTC)

Infoboxes

When did it become the norm not to list things that only happened in the movie in infoboxes? I know we don't list techniques that a character uses in the movies (because the infoboxes are coded like that), but I'm pretty sure we've always listed other movie only things (like when a character was leader of a team, or chakra natures that a character used uniquely in a movie). So I'm curious as to when that changed, because some users seem to believe that it's the case. --Sajuuk 20:25, August 23, 2016 (UTC)

Since a long time ago. The reason infoboxes are coded to not show movie and game jutsu is precisely that. I don't know how the recently cristallized canon policy would deal with this or change it, but this practice of not listing movie and game stuff has been the standard for almost as long as I have edited in this wiki. Like it was mentioned in a related edit summary, this is the reason stuff like Kakashi using Ice Release isn't in infoboxes. Basically, if a character has appeared in manga or anime, stuff from movies does not show for them. This is why the movie canon option was created, so that stuff from The Last and Boruto would show up. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 20:31, August 23, 2016 (UTC)

So we have things like ~~Anime only, ~~Movie only and ~~Game only for basically no reason whatsoever, then? Why did the person who made the infoboxes include such "tags" if there was no intention by anyone to use them for their intended purpose? For tagging information that came only from a specific source?

Because I certainly don't agree whatsoever with just discounting information based on where it came from. We create pages for movie only jutsu because we know they're not going to appear on the infobox, but just ignoring the fact that a character was leading a team or used a specific nature, is plainly dumb. The tags exist for a reason, so why aren't we using them?

EDIT: For example, Kakashi used Ice Release techniques only in a movie, yet there is absolutely no mention of this anywhere on his page, other than the infobox which lists him using it as a movie-only technique. If that wasn't listed there, then pretty much no user would know that he was able to use such things in the movie. The tags are there for a reason, so maybe the wiki should consider using them like they were intended. --Sajuuk 20:34, August 23, 2016 (UTC)

The reason those tags exist is so the infoboxes can properly filter users. For example, Suigetsu used a number of canon Water Release jutsu in games only, like Water Dragon Bullet and Water Fang Bullet, if I'm not mistaken. As such, he is tagged as game only in those canon jutsu so the jutsu don't show up in his infobox. The proper discussion about this is certainly in an archive somewhere, but I have no idea where. If a jutsu is game only, they those tags for users are unnecessary, since the infobox filters first by the jutsu's media. Right now, the changes to show movie stuff in Lee, Neji, and Kakashi's infobox are against common practice, and basically just done for the heck of it. The reason stuff like that isn't mentioned in the article is because is non-canon, which again, I point out I don't know how the recently written canon policy affects. For the Kakashi example, I'd say don't list, since Ice Release as defined by canon is an advanced nature transformation that can't be copied, yet in the first movie it was not and Kakashi copied it. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 20:44, August 23, 2016 (UTC)

You say "don't list it", but then give a reason why it should be listed with a tag saying it was a movie-only use.

The canon policy was designed for the purposes of ending the silly arguments and fights over information that people kept labelling as "non-canon" and which some users were using as an excuse to delete it from the wiki. In fact, Dantman got a bit annoyed with a user who deleted large tracts of text from a page because said user had labelled it as non-canon, so by that user's logic, did not need to be mentioned anywhere on the wiki.

The policy, in other words, is there for the purpose of not having such labels applied to content and consider everything canon, because no official canon exists (ie Kishi never came out and said "the manga is the official series"): if he had, then this discussion would not be happening, since we'd already be separating everything by canon/non-canon in any such case.

By the current policy, the information "should" be listed. Given that the infobox filters things out, there's no real reason "not" to list it. As far as I understand it, movies are "Continuity Canon" and information from them is only ignored when some other source says it's false. So while I semi-agree on the ice release point, I definitely don't agree on the team leader point.

As for your reverts asking the user to get the community behind it: I don't know how much you read the wiki, but consensus discussions go nowhere, no changes happen and most people don't even care to post in discussions about changing things (if that ever happens, it usually just becomes a mud-slinging contest and devolves from discussing the change to just attacking other users for having an opinion). So asking the user to get the community behind it is utterly pointless, because a number of consensus discussions have happened recently with literally nothing changing whatsoever, because nobody wants to commit to changing a thing. There's not enough editors to care for things like that any more (people are just content to do nothing) and if people give legitimate suggestions, they're treated like idiots or insulted for trying to propose a suggestion to improve the wiki. --Sajuuk 20:48, August 23, 2016 (UTC)

And again, because the policy is so new, and canonicity is such a common point of contention, I'd like to get the community on the same page about stuff like this before changes are made. Getting the community to agree on it now means it's much less likely to flip flop in the future. Case in point, using UK spelling. There are always people who will participate in discussions, the ones who do care. If people don't participate in changing stuff, then they don't get to complain when they don't like where it goes. Of course great changes are not going to happen every time there is a discussion. Not every change is something of great magnitude. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 20:59, August 23, 2016 (UTC)

I agree. But I really doubt a consensus will be built, because the vast majority of consensus discussions tend to go like this: thread made -> highlighted -> some posts -> a few days pass -> the thread dies out -> people stop caring -> nothing changes

So unless you can guarantee that people won't just ignore the thread or discussion topic (which tends to be the case most of the time) after a few days, you'd just be better off changing it and not bother trying to build a consensus. --Sajuuk 21:02, August 23, 2016 (UTC)

No one can ever guarantee significant participation. This is why one always has to be on the lookout for when they happen. Just changing it without at least trying to get community support means the first person to oppose it can easily and legitimately argue there was no due process. For this issue, I don't think listing stuff from pre-Last movies works. Stuff in infobox is a summary of stuff listed in the article. Those movies are essentially terrible to place somewhere in the narrative, when not outright impossible, so having information about them when their narrative is absent from the articles seems incongruous to me. For better or worse, at least the timeline placement of anime-only content is possible. Sure, it also has inconsistencies, but on the whole, it's still largely an adaptation of the manga, so it'll never be much worse than the manga. If the movies were something that could clearly fit a specific frame in the timeline (for example, Bonds clearly happens before the Tenchi Bridge mission, but that mission happens immediately after the Kazekage Rescue arc) and did not contradict the source material, I'd see a point in listing pre-Last movie information, but on the whole, movies tend not to do that. Listing pre-Last movie info in articles would necessitate listing other things that are practically impossible to list right. The worst offender, and to me best example of why pre-Last movie info should not be listed is Blood Prison. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 17:05, August 24, 2016 (UTC)

Novels

Now we're starting to get users randomly removing referenced information from articles that they are deeming to be non-canon. Can we please do more to make this canon policy more clear, not just on novels, but on all aspects? As it stands, it seems like some users are taking this as a policy to just delete information that they are personally determining to be "non-canon", even the information that has a reference tag next to it, and it's getting ridiculous now. Most of our time is going to end up being spent restoring referencing data that random users are removing under their own "canonicity" rules. --Sajuuk 15:13, August 28, 2016 (UTC)

Boo-hoo. A user with edits like this does not abide by the rules. What a shocker... /s What is this, paranoya?--BerserkerPhantom (talk) 20:03, August 28, 2016 (UTC)

If you are just going to be sarcastic and contribute nothing whatsoever to the topic of discussion, then don't bother posting: this is a serious discussion topic related to wiki policy. Also, 'grats for linking an edit by a user that was made a year ago, before this policy even existed.

There are numerous users on the wiki who have begun the habit of deleting information from pages based on the user's own personal definition of canon/non-canon and it's important that we get clarity on the policy so that this stops happening. --Sajuuk 20:06, August 28, 2016 (UTC)

2 edits is hardly an issue to fuss about, compared to much frequent issues like removing UK english. All that needs to be done at this stage is revert and inform users why. --Sarutobii2 (talk) 20:29, August 28, 2016 (UTC)

It isn't "two edits", there are instances of this happening recently before today, I just linked that one edit because it was the most recent. I can't be bothered to trawl through many "low edit count" users trying to find other instances, because they happened at least 2 weeks ago, but this is not an isolated incident and I suspect that it will happen again in the near future. --Sajuuk 20:48, August 28, 2016 (UTC)

Typos

There's quite a number of typo's on the page:

• This is a wiki: why is "wikia" used throughout the page? Especially so, given Wikia/Fandom don't use that term any more, they use the more generic term "community".
• Under the "Why have a policy?" heading, flair is mis-spelt. In this context, it is "flare".
• Under "Tiers of Canon", "thus a "retcons"." is just bad English: it should be written as "thus are considered to be "retcons".
• Under the "Use in Articles" heading, "Changes made between two different databooks, the most recent databook takes precedence." doesn't make any sense. It should probably be written as "In any instance where two different databooks say something different and contradict each other, the most recent databook takes precedence, with a trivia note referring to the older version.".

I would make these changes myself but the page is pointlessly protected (yes, I'll say it's pointless, because now even basic typographic errors aren't being corrected without asking). --Sajuuk 18:54, January 30, 2017 (UTC)

• I have used "wikia" since the moment I was shuffled here. I'll probably still use "wikia" after this because it's how I differentiate Wikipedia from everything else.
• Okay.
• Okay.
• Cool.

And it may be pointless to you but it keeps people, such as yourself, from editing it whenever one fancies. I'll get to fixing up the typos you pointed out.--TheUltimate3 ^(talk) 20:04, January 30, 2017 (UTC)

Fixed.--TheUltimate3 ^(talk) 20:07, January 30, 2017 (UTC)

Most canon

I've been wondering... With the two latest movies The Last and Boruto being canon, which account of them is the most canon? For example The Last novel explains some things in more detail and expands on vague things from the movie, so everything from it should be considered canon, for as long as it doesn't contradict the movie, right? For Boruto, there's the movie, novel and manga. One could argue the movie is the most canon, since it came first and Kishimoto was more involved. But Kodachi wrote both the novel and manga and one could argue they are more canon since they are retcons...

Isn't there someone relevant on Twitter etc. Whom we could ask to clarify?--Elve _[Mod] ^{Talk Page|Contribs} 14:50, July 19, 2017 (UTC)

Who cares? Is it an adaption? Yes? Then it's not canon. • Seelentau 愛 ^議 15:37, July 19, 2017 (UTC)

Anything Kodachi does now retcons Kishimoto's work in canon at this point. So yeah, if the Boruto manga or books contradict something from the the movie, those take precedence and thus a retcon. And because I don't plan to go into a back and forth, Kishimoto's overall role in the canon is done. Until the day comes and it's decided that he is back, it is done and Kodachi has the reigns of the series going forward.--TheUltimate3 ^(talk) 15:51, July 19, 2017 (UTC)

EDIT: I even made sure to specify that under the K-Canon section to avoid this confusion lol.--TheUltimate3 ^(talk) 15:53, July 19, 2017 (UTC)

Well. people seem to have conflicting opinions regarding this, so perhaps instead of opinions some facts should be acquired if possible.--Elve _[Mod] ^{Talk Page|Contribs} 16:26, July 19, 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that there's no set definition of canon. There's a shitload of people (especially on reddit) that say "everything Kishimoto is involved in is canon", but others (well, mostly me) say that only non-adaptions are canon. It can go back and forth forever, so as a means to end this, TU3 created the policy. Besides, as a knowledge base, we note everything anyway, doesn't matter from where. Canonicity isn't even important for the wiki. For example, even though the novels aren't canon, we still note that Gaara has Magnet Release. • Seelentau 愛 ^議 16:39, July 19, 2017 (UTC)

Mangas-Omakes

I have a question, main story of the Masashi Kishimoto of Naruto (series) what are the of List of Naruto Manga-Omake which part of the K-Canon or not part of the K-Canon? --BabyKratosxZeus (talk) 23:51, November 3, 2019 (UTC)

misleading

I don't feel this policy page gives an accurate impression of how the wiki handles information. The page leads one to believe that information has tiers, so that stuff that happens in tier 1 supersedes stuff in tier 2. Individuals may believe that, but the wiki doesn't care; the wiki documents information regardless of where it places in the perceived hierarchy. The only consideration the wiki ever makes is how to label information (ie. "In the anime...") or where information is placed (ie. movie information is placed under a dedicated subheading).

The page's stated purpose is given as, "to bring a permanent end to [canon] discussions". But the wiki has no authority over what people choose to believe in discussions, nor should it care. And it's not even succeeding in its purpose: Thread:283146 veered into canon discussion for some reason, and users are pointing to this policy page as justifying their own positions. This is not what the policy page should be used for.

For these reasons, I think this policy page should be substantially altered, so that it instead explains how the wiki presents any given media - or even specific works if movie A is treated differently from movie B - and why it does so. At the very least, the page should stress more that the wiki itself is unconcerned with what is and is not "canon". ~SnapperTo 21:27, April 19, 2020 (UTC)

Here is an example of my proposed revision. As is my custom, I've made it needlessly confusing by over-explaining stuff. ~SnapperTo 08:13, April 20, 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the revision. Good work FlatZone (talk) 15:50, April 20, 2020 (UTC)

Bump. ~SnapperTo 18:54, April 26, 2020 (UTC)

Might not mean much coming from me, but agreed. I’d say go for it. ★WindStar7125 16:19, April 28, 2020 (UTC)

Bump again. The policy page can only be edited by sysops, so even if this isn't going to get any more responses, a sysop would still need to volunteer to make any change(s). ~SnapperTo 04:31, May 6, 2020 (UTC)

Considering that TU3 is the one who created this policy, I would suggest getting his opinion on this proposal by messaging him directly. ★WindStar7125 09:20, May 10, 2020 (UTC)

The problem is, that you may say that we do not and should not differentiate between canonicities of different media, but such bias is present all over the articles, so...--Elve _[Mod] ^{Talk Page|Contribs} 10:06, May 10, 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps a canon policy that doesn't tier information would motivate a correction of those articles? (I'd actually be interested to see some examples of articles with biases about canon.) ~SnapperTo 07:15, May 11, 2020 (UTC)

You thought you'd never see me again, didn't you? Well too bad! I'm alive.

Now that that's out of the way, here's a personal favorite of mine with bias about canon; Sage Art: Super Tailed Beast Rasenshuriken.

Now the main reason for the tier list was to book slam any potential arguments about the "canon hierarchy" at a glance. In the User Page Snapper2 has, the hierarchy still exists but is just hidden in the next instead of being in your face. It still treats the manga as the original source and thus still considered "more true" are to be included without scrutiny, then treat everything else as adaptations to be judged accordingly. Thus removing the tier lists might make it look nice and will certainly get the whole "The wiki shouldn't decide what's canon" monkey off our back, it doesn't actually change anything, except (pessimist TheUltimate3 here) maybe reopen the can of worms of people fighting over which source is more accurate again before being forced to read a very dry policy page That's not a swipe at you Snapper2, policy pages are just boring to read through, I find the version I wrote to be an hilarious slog to get through and I wrote it.

Assuming the intention is to not actually anything but just hide the tier lists, then removing the overt messaging of them would be suffice and we'll just deal with the potential fallout as they come. But if the actual intent is to not care what is or isn't canon, we may want to look into the Attack on Titan wiki approach or hilariously enough Star War (it all comes back to Star Wars) approach of tags to swap articles between media.--TheUltimate3 ^(talk) 10:25, May 12, 2020 (UTC)

The issue with a tier list is that it makes it seem like there's an absolute solution to how information should be documented. And that isn't the case. Some topics are depicted identically between medias, some topics are added on to in different medias without anything being contradicted, and some topics are irreconcilably different in how each media depicts them. You may fear disputes occurring with how information should be presented, but I think that's potentially necessary since there isn't a one-size-fits-all answer to the wiki's articles, something I try to stress in my draft.

As you say, the draft gives a lot of weight to the manga, but it attempts to justify that as more than "manga > everything else": "What is 'true' in the manga will almost always be 'true' in all other forms of media as well. [. . . Therefore] information from the manga is almost always beyond reproach and can be included in articles without special scrutiny." Later sections do give preference to the manga on the grounds that it's what's being adapted from, but that preference only extends as far as which of two or more pieces of information to mention first; short of entirely separating information by media, as the AoT wiki does, there will always need to be something that is first in a given sentence/paragraph/section/article. Making the manga first is an organizational stance, not a statement of primacy.

I don't have any particular response to the Super Tailed Beast Rasenshuriken example. As far as I know, the utilized substances are never stated in any media, so it ultimately comes down to what does it look like. I suppose my solution would be to make that fact more apparent: "The Rasenshuriken for Shukaku has a similar appearance to the Sage Art: Magnet Release Rasengan, which uses magnetized sand. [. . .] The Rasenshuriken for Saiken resembles some bubbly gas. In the manga, the closest parallel is the corrosive gas used for Wisdom Wolf Decay. In the anime, it appears more analogous to the Soap Bubble Ninjutsu used by Saiken's jinchūriki."

~SnapperTo 17:16, May 12, 2020 (UTC)

Not even gonna lie, i brought up Tailed Beast Rasenshuriken for a point I had written previously then scrapped and somehow forgot to remove the beginning. Anyway what I was getting at was regardless of how fancy we word it, it will always come down to "manga takes precedent over x". Like I said, all we'd really be doing is making it less overt without a "stance" and we'll just wait for the potential fallout as they come. There may be no fallout at all, we may end up with the 18th Canon Wars. I just know the only "solution" would be the total separation between manga and it's adaptations.--TheUltimate3 ^(talk) 20:21, May 12, 2020 (UTC)

Even if the two versions arrive at the same point, I'd still say it's better not do be plain about it. The policy page should only exist for and be usable by the wiki. If it asserts that there's a "K-canon" or that "A-canon" is more authoritative than "N-canon", then the policy can be weaponized outside of the wiki in a way that the wiki should avoid affiliation with. If these sentiments are obfuscated and/or additional hoops need to be jumped through before getting there, then I think that narrows the policy's usefulness to the wiki itself, as nature intended. ~SnapperTo 03:29, May 13, 2020 (UTC)

Honestly I could care less if our policy is weaponized outside the wiki. Let them fight and die for all I care lol. The policy is used to keep things functioning at the wiki only, if people want to take it beyond that that's their hill to die on.--TheUltimate3 ^(talk) 13:17, May 13, 2020 (UTC)

So beyond a question of necessity, there doesn't seem to be any objection to the proposed revision... ~SnapperTo 05:16, May 18, 2020 (UTC)

Bump. ~SnapperTo 23:54, May 30, 2020 (UTC)

Bamp. ~SnapperTo 05:21, June 16, 2020 (UTC)

Error corrections

I've noticed a few spelling errors, so I thought I'd just make a note here.

main

"resolutions of all contradictions is to be handled" The plural subject means it should be "are", not is. "resolutions of all contradictions are to be handled"

Why Have a "Canon Policy"?

"In doing so, many things such as term explanations, plot points, and the like have appeared" Grammatical/Punctual error. I think it should be "In doing so, many things, such as term explanations, plot points, and the like, have appeared" "caused over the years where situations where conflicts" This should be "were" instead of "where".

Tiers of Canon

K-canon

"magazine articles, movies, ect also count as canon." It should be "etc". (etcetera) "Example of this would be the" Missing article. "An example of this would be the" "which is a original film" This should be "an". "When the matter of changes done, the most recent" This should either be "When the matter of changes is done, the most recent" or, it should be "In the matter of changes done, the most recent" "changes applied in this series takes precedence" The plural subject means this should be "take". ("Changes take precedence", not "changes takes precedence") "the film, thus are considered" This should be "the film, and thus are considered".

A-canon

"The second tier of canon. As the name suggest, is the anime canon." This should probably be "The second tier of canon, as the name suggests, is the anime canon." or "The second tier of canon. As the name suggests, this is the anime canon." In either case, the word "suggest" should be "suggests" in this case.

Official Timeline

"Blank Period -> Boruto (series), with the the films and novels" Duplicate word. "all materials from the Naruto franchise is then" The plural subject means it should be are, not is. "on a case by case basis" It was written as "case-by-case" earlier in the article.

Status of the Boruto Manga & Anime

"that the anime for the Boruto anime and manga will run concurrent with each other," redundant use of the word "anime". Might be better to rephrase as "that the anime for Boruto and the manga will run concurrent with each other," or as "that the anime and manga for Boruto will run concurrent with each other,"

I have probably missed a few, as I only caught them after I had read over half the article, and then went back to check for more.

GHosTxShadoux (talk) 23:59, May 12, 2020 (UTC)

Ninja Escapades

Is this thing canon per Kishimoto's involvement?Elve _[Mod] ^{Talk Page|Contribs} 06:02, 5 July 2021 (UTC)