Talk:Canon (fiction)

Page history

This page was unreferenced for a long time, and in March 2010 it was turned into a stub by Groupthink (talk · contribs). The version prior to stubification can be seen here. I plan to work on recreating the article with references to reliable sources, as time permits; any other contributors who wish to join in the rebuilding are, of course, welcome. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 14:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Citation Needed tag in intro

Just wanted to explain myself here, rather than just in the edit summary. I believe that the article itself is misleading, in that the term canon cannot be appropriately used to categorize how "official" works of fiction are. The definitions I've found from reputable sources give various definitions for canon, and the closest I've found to the one presented in this article is that canon can describe an author's canon, meaning the collection of literature written by a particular author. The part of this article discussing "levels" of canon appears to be a somewhat accepted misuse of the term at best, and total nonsense at worst. I suggest that the intro be changed to reflect the moderate acceptance of the word, noting it's literal misuse. However, I realize that I may have overlooked some resource, so a reference to a dictionary defining canon as having various levels within works of fiction would also be acceptable. --Darktower 12345 10:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it would be great to spend some time and find more sources to add to the article. It's a relatively recent term you probably won't yet find in dictionaries, obviously, but scholarly papers dealing with (e.g.) fan fiction invariably define the term (or, these days, assume it's well known). I think the references in the articles on Fan fiction and List of fan fiction terms should help. (Yeah, those articles could also do with more sources, but it's better to read them and try to find sources instead of tagging them. :p) The terms are in wide usage, although of course primarily when discussing something in relation to fan fiction or other sorts of derivative works. Searching Google Scholar for some likely terms throws up, among others:

• Fan Fiction, Fandom, and Fanfare: What's All the Fuss, p.3: "The first term a fan fiction neophyte should learn is “canon,” which refers to the original work from which the fan fiction author borrows. There’s the Star Trek canon, which includes all episodes and movies, or the Harry Potter canon, which includes all of the books published by J.K. Rowling. […] However, a niche genre of fan fiction takes the opposite approach by presenting the characters in an environment diametrically opposite to that of canon. This story is termed the “Alternate Universe,” shortened within the fandom as “AU.”…" (it also quotes another definition of canon as "professional source material, or the official facts as stated by the original book, movie, or show episode").
• The book Adolescents and online fan fiction seems to just use the term "canon" without bothering to define it (though it briefly defines fanon and shipper midsentence)
• The edited book A New Literacies Sampler has definitions including "canon (the original media on which the fan fictions are based)" (p.126), "canon (the real works from which they are borrowing)" (p.137), etc.
• The book Using the force: creativity, community, and Star Wars fans is the most helpful wrt levels of canon: discussed on pp. 52–53, 70–74, and especially the chapter "Canon" starting on p. 101.

It would be great to expand (or at least source) the article with references from these. Shreevatsa (talk) 16:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

PS: I knew nothing of the history of this article, and just discovered that it had a pretty informative previous version that was effectively deleted by replacing it with a stub, because it did not cite sources and was "disgraceful". It is appalling that some Wikipedia editors think that adherence to the Wikipedia rules of footnote-counting is more important that being a good article itself, and would rather remove information than attempt to find sources. Oh well. Hope I can continue to assume good faith here, Shreevatsa (talk) 16:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

That pdf seems to be from a law journal, which sounds like a good source to me. Maybe if you can find a nice defining quote and use that to rewrite the intro, including the journal as a reference, it would make more sense. Including something about it's usage not being widespread enough, or not being recent enough, to merit entries in dictionaries also seems required to fully express the meaning of the term. Thanks for actually helping with this, rather than just ignoring the discussion page and leaving the article poorly written. --Darktower 12345 22:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The definition is already in virtually all dictionaries. You don't need a specific reference for soemthing that's common knowledge. Why dispute this and demand a reference unless you think it's wrong? And if you do think it's wrong, again, just read any dictionary. DreamGuy (talk) 01:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

If you'll read my first comment here, you'll see that I have looked canon up in several dictionaries, and none matches the view given in this article. Webster was the first place I looked, but its definition applies only to one group, and says nothing of "levels of canon." I agree that the term is used by some groups of fans, but that does not make it correct. The article should either reflect that the use is technically wrong (as many accepted terms are, such as "begging the question"), or a very specific reference from a dictionary about levels of canon should be provided. --Darktower 12345 01:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You have some strange notions of "wrong". Jargon and technical terms aren't wrong. No general-purpose dictionary defines what a Pronormal subgroup is, but it's absurd to say that the term is "incorrect". You're supposed to add to things you doubt; not to ones for which already several references have been found. I've wasted enough time on this; why don't you do something constructive for a change and add a few references to the article? Shreevatsa (talk) 04:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I wonder how much time either of you could've saved by not continuing this conversation and adding a reference. エムエックスさん 話 05:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

There are no sources which say anything about levels of canon, which cite anything other than the term's recent popular usage. Putting such a reference is like saying, "this term means this because everyone says it does," which is incorrect. These secondary uses are misleading, which is why they get a smaller section in articles about the officially defined usage, not articles saying they are correct. Such is the case in the "begging the question" article.

Rather than restating my point which everyone so far has apparently ignored, or asking for anyone to find a source which isn't simply pointing to popular usage, I'll just do the work myself and fix this article. Hopefully no one will be upset by me being the first to do anything constructive to the article on this issue. --Darktower 12345 05:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Intro Rewrite

I rewrote the intro, keeping the old description, and adding the info about its popular usage. Thanks to Shreevatsa for the help with the reference. --Darktower 12345 06:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Canon in Doctor Who

So, apparently Doctor Who doesn't have a canon, yet the only "source" from that is the blog of someone who has written extensively for the spin-off media such as novels. Is that really a WP:RS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.133.0.68 (talk) 14:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

No comments? Very well. I shall remove the line as it's one guy's blog(and full of factual errors as well). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.133.0.68 (talk) 12:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Could use some more specific examples of different canon policies

I know that Marvel, DC, Star Wars and Star Trek all have official canon policies, and I'm pretty sure they're all well-documented online. Star Trek seems like the best simple example of a canon with a forked timeline / continuity reboot (also, Gene Roddenberry is on record as considering Star Trek V and VI partially "apocryphal", making Star Trek a good example of a situation in which the franchise creator and franchise owner disagree about what is and isn't canon). Marvel's multiverse would be a good example of a franchise with a main timeline and numerous separate, canonical timelines taking place in separate, canonical alternate universes. DC's "imaginary stories" seem like they'd be a good example of official but deliberately non-canon works. Star Wars seems like the best example of a shared universe with a single timeline and multiple tiers of canonicity. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 09:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Possible Misuse of Links to This Article and the Term Non-Canon

There are a number of articles of certain TV serial programs (such as Aqua Teen Hunger Force, etc.) that state one of their categories as "Non-canon Fiction" and link this text to this article. The problem is that the term "non-canon" is too general and imprecise, and may even be getting misused. The term "non-canon" seems more applicable to fan-fiction or "official" episodes that do not follow one or more thoroughly previously established plot points of an original franchise. What I think is intended here is the phase "reboot fiction" or "reset fiction" and perhaps a link to the Reboot (fiction) or the Reset button technique article may be much more appropriate. --Champaign (talk) 22:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Possible section describing terminology and related phrases

Would it be correct to include a section based on related terminology and and phrases, such as "Canons sink ships" and "Canon fodder"?

Semi-canonicity

Would it be appropriate to talk about how the subject of how canon is used throughout multimedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThunderBrine (talk • contribs) 23:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Whatever is discussed in the article needs to cite reliable sources that actually say those things/make those observations. - BilCat (talk) 23:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Examples for fanon?

Could someone give examples for fanon?

I'd try out for myself but I don't see if these are exact fits (or even canon). Surprisingly, they all have to do with the "who ends up with whom" question...

1. Had it not been for Arwen, his love for her etc., Aragorn would have definitely ended up with Éowyn.
2. Harry's romance with Cho did not end on Valentine's Day, but went on - or resumed after his interview came out - for some more weeks.
3. The Angelina that George Weasley is canonically married to is his former Quidditch teammate Angelina née Johnson.--2001:A61:260C:C01:3880:897F:82C6:AABB (talk) 14:29, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I would, of course, need to document any claims, but there are elements of the backstory of Disney's Haunted Mansion attraction (the dark rides, not the movie) that began as fan theories but were later incorporated into the official story. For instance, there is a "tombstone" in the "cemetery" outside the mansion that carries the name "Master Gracey." As with many of the stones this is a tribute to one of the Imagineers who created the Mansion - in this case Yale Gracey, who developed many of the special effects. "Master" was used in the sense of a boy too young to be called "Mister," rather than "Master of the House." And the "aging portrait" in the foyer was not meant to portray a particular character... it was just a great visual gag. But fan theories applied the title "Master Gracey" to the face in the portrait, and made that individual the master of the house. None of this was in the original script but has since been adopted as official.PurpleChez (talk) 19:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

"Non-canonical" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Non-canonical. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 26#Non-canonical until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. SWinxy (talk) 01:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Canon is "defined" by the fanbase

Firstly, let's look at how the word canon (fiction) is defined by different sources.

Wikitonary: "A group of literary works that are generally accepted as representing a field." and "The works of a writer that have been accepted as authentic."

Fanlore: "Canon (in the context of fandom) is a source, or sources, considered authoritative by the fannish community."

Meriam: "the authentic works of a writer" and "a sanctioned or accepted group or body of related works"

Cambridge: "the writings or other works that are generally agreed to be good, important, and worth studying" and "all the writings or other works known to be by a particular person"

Wikipedia's own Canon disambiguation page: "Canon (fiction), the conceptual material accepted as "official" in a fictional universe by its fan base"

Important to note: canon is accepted, considered; not defined. None of the definitions claim that canon is defined by the author or the rights holder.

Secondly, it's reasonable to claim that fan base has a say in what is or what is not canon. The author and the rights holders have no means to enforce what is and what is not canon and intellectual property laws are not intended to provide such means. The author and the rights holders can have different opinions on what works are canon and what aren't therefore one of them must be prioritized over the other, laws don't handle that so what does? To conclude I've made my edit precisely to avoid confusion on the matter, I believe the subject should be elaborated further and I might do it in the future.

--Smitterdin (talk) 17:00, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

"Secondly, it's reasonable to claim that fan base has a say in what is or what is not canon." Possibly, but fanbases are rarely uniform and monolithic in nature. There are often contrasting opinions on the merits of every single work depicting recurring characters. But to say so, we would need sources actually making the case for us. Dimadick (talk) 17:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely, altho I'd say fanbase is never uniform in nature. Canon can be compared to opinion, people have different opinions about different works of fictions. Arguments about quality (whether something is good or bad) are the same as arguments about canonicity. I would further argue that canonicity is tied to quality as there are people who believe non canon work is bad and should be skipped. "we would need sources actually making the case for us" some people do refer to rights holders and authors and it's good when they are respected because that means they're doing a good job, but at the end of the day, when it comes to canon, the source needs to be respected. Smitterdin (talk) 18:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Addition: a good example of how a community can be divided on canon can be seen here. This is fallout wiki canon page dated 2009. Smitterdin (talk) 18:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I can see some people trying to remove the "by its fan base" from the definition. I added a source next to it and will keep an eye on this article too in the next weeks. Hope it helps! AlanTheScientist (talk) 15:30, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm the one trying to remove this. Canon as never been défined by the fans. I can't choose what chapter of Harry Potter or what Star Wars movie is Canon or not. Plus, this article was modified months ago 5 minutes after I used it during an argument on the Bethesda discord to prove that Canon is in fact NOT defined by the fans... And to finish. This doesn't even make sense in the text. The fanbase can't "officially" choose what't canon or not, and the next sentence explain that what's made by the fans is fanfiction. I mean, common... K100Nukem (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

And I will add that you didn't change the article in other languages. And they all tell that Canon is defined by the author and not the fanbase. K100Nukem (talk) 15:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for finally reaching out. Canon is not really defined, hence why I put it in quotes. Canon is accepted or considered, as I already mentioned, it's like a review, it's very subjective. I've even pointed out an instance where fans explicitly refused to accept something as canon. Regarding other languages, I mainly speak english and I don't trust my abilities to edit the wikipedia in other languages and I don't believe they should be used as a source. Smitterdin (talk) 15:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

That's not what canon is. If a fan refuse to accept something is Canon, then it's his headcanon. And this is already explained in the article. I continue to think this edit doesn't make sense and should be removed. Plus the source added by Alanthescientist doesn't add anything to prove this point. K100Nukem (talk) 15:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

The source in question actually provides a good explanation to what canon is. "Canon: The source material. In fiction-based fandoms, "canon" is simply the source narrative you're referring to when you talk about that thing you like. Some people have different ideas of what "canon" is — for example, many Harry Potter fans don't consider anything but the published books to be canon, while other fans include the extra information author J.K. Rowling has provided about the wizarding world on her Pottermore website and on Twitter." Smitterdin (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

"Other times, the word can mean "to be acknowledged by the creator(s)". That's the primarily meaning of Canon. K100Nukem (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for engaging in the Talk page K100Nukem! I understand you have a different point of view. To clarify, Wikipedia does not decide of the definition but we base ourselves on external reliable sources and try to accurately reflect this. Translations and past versions might not be accurate either so let's rather stick to reliable sources. I still checked the French definition which does not go against what is said here (it says it's the materials "considered as facts"). From the various sources on the topic gathered here it seems like a canon is defined by the fanbase. It's not "officially" chosen as you pointed but it's the generally accepted by a fanbase. While you and me can't individually which chapter of Harry Potter is canon the fanbase overall seems to take the original books as canon (e.g. if there's a difference between the movie and the book the fans will most likely stick to the book version). But because it's fiction anyone could still consider something different (unlike the law for example, which is not "generally accepted" but applies to all in the same country). Let us know your thoughts on this. Would it make everyone happy if we maybe added "generally accepted" instead of just "accepted" in the definition? Please also feel free to share external sources supporting a different definition, but we can't make changes on personal point of views only. AlanTheScientist (talk) 16:03, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah that just mean son fans have headcanon. That's ot K100Nukem (talk) 16:03, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

That's the thing. You are all confusing Canon and headcanon. An author or an IP holder choose what's canon or not. If the fanbase doesn't agree, well, they can create their headcanon. But the fanbase do not choose what's Canon or not. If you write a book, no one except you can say what's Canon or not in it. K100Nukem (talk) 16:11, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

This is moving towards a debate of perspectives, which again is not how Wikipedia works. Please add supporting sources to your arguments. AlanTheScientist (talk) 16:13, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

The definition of Canon in the dictionary is "the works of an author that have been accepted as authentic." If the author or the ip holder tell you "this is not Canon", then it's not canon. It's that simple. It's not a matter of perspective. K100Nukem (talk) 16:26, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

No sources or evidence has been presented here which justify the claim that fans have any say on what is or isn't canon.
Using the argument that some fans reject canon is NOT a valid point to justify that fans have that authority in the first place. That's a circular reasoning, "why do fans have the authority to define canon?" "Because they reject canon" "why are fans allowed to reject canon?" "Because they have the authority". See? That's just pure and simple circular reasoning.
I'll highlight the fallacy with another, simple example: some people reject that the earth is an oblate sphere, does that mean that the earth is flat? Heavens, no!
Thus, some people rejecting things they dislike does NOT equal those people being correct. The opinion of some people does not change facts.
Thus, in this case, some people rejecting the canonicity of some pieces of fiction does NOT mean that random people can suddenly claim what is or isn't canon.
The source Smitterdin is attempting to use as a justification doesn't even justify his claims! For ease of use of others I'll copy the relevant text here:
Canon: The source material. In fiction-based fandoms, "canon" is simply the source narrative you're referring to when you talk about that thing you like. Some people have different ideas of what "canon" is — for example, many Harry Potter fans don't consider anything but the published books to be canon, while other fans include the extra information author J.K. Rowling has provided about the wizarding world on her Pottermore website and on Twitter.
Smitterdin's source defines canon as the SOURCE MATERIAL and does NOT say that fans have the authority to accept or reject or insert anything as canon. It merely states that some people do do this, but that doesn't confirm they have the authority to do so, and as shown above they, indeed, do NOT have that authority, even as evidenced by the definition of Smitterdin's own source.
Therefore, without any justification or support for the claim that fans can define canon in some ways, the claim must not be made on wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1810:4F0B:500:7791:C6EF:E1E4:5282 (talk) 01:31, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Sources and reasoning are provided above. Canon in any given fictional universe is not strictly defined and everybody has a say in what it is. People can argue and disagree about canon the same way they can argue and disagree about quality, writing, performance, etc. "I say that the earth is round and you say that it's flat!" is a poor argument. Smitterdin (talk) 04:56, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Your claim is your opinion, not a fact. You have no sources to support your claim, and the one you linked even contradicts you, as explained above. As such, there is no place for this claim. This is wikipedia, not your personal blog. What you have been doing for 1.5 years is vandalizing this page. Stop vandalizing wikipedia. 2A02:1810:4F0B:500:7791:C6EF:E1E4:5282 (talk) 05:22, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

You ignoring the sources I posted doesn't make them any less real. I posted 5, not 1. If you believe I'm vandalizing this page: take it to administrators. Smitterdin (talk) 05:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Not a single one mentions that the word "fan base" or states that the "fan base" is the one doing the accepting or authenticating. And the link you used on the page itself outright contradicts you. I quote: "Canon: The source material.", no mention of the fan base needing to authorize the source material for it to be canon!

And yes, I do believe you are vandalizing by posting unsupported claims for 1.5 years and removing anyone who corrects it. I requested that this page gets protected against vandalism, as you already saw since you commented on my request. 2A02:1810:4F0B:500:7791:C6EF:E1E4:5282 (talk) 06:07, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

One of my sources: "Canon (in the context of fandom) is a source, or sources, considered authoritative by the fannish community." Smitterdin (talk) 06:10, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Excuse me, I should have said "reputable sources", I didn't even take the "Fanlore" entry as a serious example.

On top of that, it's not an accepted source by wikipedia because Fanlore is a self described wiki ("Because Fanlore is a wiki []") and wikis are "user-generated content" and thus are rejected on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#User-generated_content. Vox, however, is on the list of accepted sources and the Vox definition contradicts your claim, Vox says: "Canon: The source material." the side not of there existing people who have different opinions is NOT part of the definition, as explained with the flat earth example I gave earlier. 2A02:1810:4F0B:500:7791:C6EF:E1E4:5282 (talk) 06:24, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Fanlore is a reputable source and it's not in the article so your complaint is invalid. Vox says: "Canon: The source material. In fiction-based fandoms, "canon" is simply the source narrative you're referring to when you talk about that thing you like. Some people have different ideas of what "canon" is — for example, many Harry Potter fans don't consider anything but the published books to be canon, while other fans include the extra information author J.K. Rowling has provided about the wizarding world on her Pottermore website and on Twitter.". So there are different versions of canon accepted by different groups of people. You ought to read past the first sentence. Smitterdin (talk) 06:33, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia decides which sources are deemed acceptable, not you. And Wikipedia lists wikis (such as fanlore) as unreliable and unsuited as a source. If you disagree, contact wikipedia and not me, I was not the one who decided that.

Thank you for proving my point by quoting the Vox article (as I had already done above, but whatever). "Some people have different ideas of what "canon" is" is a side note, like "some people deny the earth is an oblate sphere", it is NOT part of the definition. Note that the Vox article does NOT say "Canon: The source material when accepted by the fan base" or something similar, as your edits on this page claims. 2A02:1810:4F0B:500:7791:C6EF:E1E4:5282 (talk) 06:44, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Fanlore is a respectable and reliable source of information commonly used in the community. If you don't like it, then that's just you dismissing evidence because you disagree with it. And as I said, it's not on the page so you have nothing to remove hence why your complaint is invalid. The vox article says what the vox article says and you are just selectively throwing out sentences you don't like. Smitterdin (talk) 07:08, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I already linked you the rule used by wikipedia to outlaw wikis.

For your convenience, here it is again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#User-generated_content

I quote from that link: "User-generated content: Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is generally unacceptable. Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal and group blogs (excluding newspaper and magazine blogs), content farms, Internet forums, social media sites, fansites, video and image hosting services, most wikis and other collaboratively created websites."

Fanlore is a self-described wiki, it says so on its own page.

Since wikis are "generally unacceptable", and fanlore is nowhere listed as an exception, fanlore is not an acceptable source.

Of the sources you listed, fanlore, wikitonary and wikipedia itself are unacceptable sources.

The other 2 sources you mentioned, Merriam-Webster and Vox, are acceptable sources but do NOT support your claim in the slightest, they even contradict you. In fact, I added the Merriam-Webster link as a source and you removed it, accusing me of tampering and vandalism. Oh, the irony! 2A02:1810:4F0B:500:7791:C6EF:E1E4:5282 (talk) 07:18, 10 February 2023 (UTC)