FANDOM


Relevancy

Given how relevant the canonicity of information is to how the wiki displays it, I suggest that you somehow incorporate how said information is displayed, for example through sentences that begin with In the anime, points in the trivia section and so on. • Seelentau 愛 13:11, May 24, 2016 (UTC)

This isn't finished but this will be noted at some point.--TheUltimate3 Akimichi Symbol (talk) 13:44, May 24, 2016 (UTC)
As long as we don't do sh!t like splitting up articles due to contradictions between various media and from unofficial fan interpretations of what is "canon", I think this should be fine. But yes, I do agree with Seelentau that differences between media must be clearly pointed out, not mixed together, else that causes confusion. Pointing out such differences could be as blatant as what the Star Wars Wiki does here (not really advocating it, just a suggestion), or subtle with things like trivia points and introductory phrases like "In the anime/novel/etc" (which I think works very fine already). WindStar7125 Divine Mangekyō Sharingan VolteMetalic 20:24, May 24, 2016 (UTC)
Not the plan. I have absolutely no desire to split articles down the middle. Because that is stupid. And yes, pointing out differences in media should be pointed out. I'm not 100% sure what you mean about "mixing" though.--TheUltimate3 Akimichi Symbol (talk) 20:29, May 24, 2016 (UTC)
Not the plan. I have absolutely no desire to split articles down the middle. Because that is stupid.
Glad to see we agree.
And yes, pointing out differences in media should be pointed out. I'm not 100% sure what you mean about "mixing" though.
By "mixing", I meant situations like this. Basically, we just have to make sure that things added from sources other than the author (such as backgrounds for characters that come from the anime, novels, etc) are pointed out very clearly within the articles and this new canon policy you are creating. We wouldn't want readers coming here mixing up what happened exclusively in the anime with what happened in the manga and such. WindStar7125 Divine Mangekyō Sharingan VolteMetalic 20:38, May 24, 2016 (UTC)
As far as I understood it, this policy was only being made to reiterate the whole "In the anime/movie/novel" that we've been doing for years and is simply to get people to stop using the word "canon" / "non-canon" in discussions. Because really, the amount of canon arguments is out of control and is fuelling very abusive attitudes towards members who don't follow the so-called "canon" rules of those who keep banging on about it. --Sajuuk 20:48, May 24, 2016 (UTC)
We can't stop users from using words such as "canon" and "non-canon" in discussions no matter what we do. But yes, the arguments are rather annoying, I concur with that. WindStar7125 Divine Mangekyō Sharingan VolteMetalic 20:51, May 24, 2016 (UTC)
Of course we can't, but it's quite obvious that a lot of these discussions are fuelled solely by people obsessing with canonicity and disparaging anything that is, to these people, "not canon". This is even in spite of Dantman saying that it doesn't matter as we place tags next to things that are only found in specific media's, but that apparently doesn't stop users harassing others over it. ;) --Sajuuk 21:04, May 24, 2016 (UTC)

@Omnibender: ah yes, that is in fact things this template means to avoid. Also this is to do more than reiterate the "in the blah" but also to set up a system thst does not ignore things for the sake of it. Hence the use of diffefent canon tiers.--TheUltimate3 Akimichi Symbol (talk) 23:57, May 24, 2016 (UTC)

Omnibender? :D Lol. WindStar7125 Divine Mangekyō Sharingan VolteMetalic 01:13, May 25, 2016 (UTC)
Personally, I have only seen users being harassed for discussing canonicity, there have been no complains made to me for harassment for having different opinions about canonicity. And since this policy is for the articles, it won't stop users from sharing their opinions on different canonical information in the forums and I think that's perfectly fine. • Seelentau 愛 04:46, May 25, 2016 (UTC)
If I may: Telling people what to think is never a good idea, and to have a policy on it, stating that "if your opinion is wrong, you'll be penalized", is even worse...--BerserkerPhantom (talk) 04:52, May 25, 2016 (UTC)
You're misunderstanding. This isn't about users' opinions, it's about the articles and how different information is displayed. You're of course allowed and encouraged to have your own opinion. • Seelentau 愛 08:26, May 25, 2016 (UTC)
@WindStar7125, my bad. Was typing on Cell Phone.
Overall, I'm not interested in stopping people from having spirited opinions. Just trying to stop them from having spirited opinions that muck up articles. People can piss on each other all they want in the forums, but on the actual pages, nope. Not having that and this is supposed to stop that. There is still more work to be done here, need to develop a good example of what should be done and what not. I have an idea of what I want to do but I'm now sitting at my desk at work so I'll probably be picking at it throughout the day. Spoiler Alert: The example page I'm going to use is Chōmei.--TheUltimate3 Akimichi Symbol (talk) 10:50, May 25, 2016 (UTC)

After some soul searching, I realized that a different article would be far better to but this through the stress test it's going to need. So tomorrow I'm gonna prepare a dummy Ten-Tails article. Should be fun.--TheUltimate3 Akimichi Symbol (talk) 01:16, May 31, 2016 (UTC)

Permission

Ultimate, this looks like a really solid way to address canon. We've been facing a similar issue over on Dragon Universe Wiki and I fear our canon policy is a bit too vague in some places; I never thought to model our canon policy off of the Star Wars model that was used for the old EU (now Legends). When you're finished with this, do you mind if I take some inspiration from how you've set this up to revamp our policy over there? Ten Tailed Fox (Talk) 17:29, May 27, 2016 (UTC)

Go for it. So long as it can work. This one is still a long way off though.--TheUltimate3 Akimichi Symbol (talk) 17:34, May 27, 2016 (UTC)

Priority

I'm aware you are quite busy in general, but I do think this needs to be implemented soon. An editor recently vandalised the wiki by removing large amounts of content from a page based on his personal opinion of "canon", and things like this need to stop. However, getting editors to stop this behaviour is obviously difficult, so hopefully this canon policy can be completed and implemented soon. :) --Sajuuk 10:26, June 7, 2016 (UTC)

See the forum post I recently made. I've hit a wall I can't scale solo, so I will actually need other people's thoughts.--TheUltimate3 Akimichi Symbol (talk) 10:50, June 7, 2016 (UTC)
If it were on me, I would get rid of 'manga only, novel only, anime only, movie only, game only' etc. and simply sort things as 'canon, canon unless proven otherwise, non-canon'--Elve [Mod] Talk Page|Contribs 11:13, June 7, 2016 (UTC)
I'd love to do that to save time, there are 2 main reasons why those remain; A) I think it's fine to point out which media what information comes from. 2) It does make it somewhat easier to find specific information if I know that this particular bit of info came from a novel. That being said, I'd personally love of such distinctions were removed from the infoboxes, but that is a discussion outside the scope of this policy.--TheUltimate3 Akimichi Symbol (talk) 11:19, June 7, 2016 (UTC)
Getting rid of (medium)-only statements would only make things more confusing, no thanks Elv. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 14:13, June 7, 2016 (UTC)
^ What Omni said. Not to mention it would just mess up Semantic MediaWiki concepts. --Sajuuk 14:26, June 7, 2016 (UTC)

Update?

Is this still getting worked on? --Sajuuk 17:35, June 26, 2016 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.