I had an idea, what if we created some sort of scale, like 1-5 or 1-10 or something that would specify how canonical (?) an article is considered. Just something to help people identify how scholars view the character/thing. --Hyarion 10:49 2006 (EST)
- I don't think one can make a "scale of canonicity". The question of 'canon' or 'non-canon' is far too cmplicated and individualistic I think. One could make a list like 'published', 'postumously published', 'early idea, later discarded', 'late writing', and the like, I guess, with the reader him/herself deciding on canonicity. --Earendilyon 15:24, 5 March 2006 (EST)
- You're probably right. But I think even works like The Lord of the Rings aren't perfect. For example in the latest edition Aiglos was changed to Aeglos. In my opinion Aeglos would be considered more canon even though it was altered after J.R.R. Tolkien's death. I guess as long as we specify what makes the character/item/etc canon or non-canon then that would be sufficient. --Hyarion 15:32, 5 March 2006 (EST)
- We could add Notes on Canonicity at the end of certain articles, if we think that's necessary, with arguments pro and con its (non)canonicity. --Earendilyon 15:47, 5 March 2006 (EST)
- Hey there Rog, glad to have you aboard. Canon is a very difficult issue in the world of Arda, and even more difficult when trying to create 'factual' entries. While some encyclopedias (EoA for instance) prefer to leave out items which are strictly not canon, at TG we'd prefer to include the content while stating the reader be aware that the content is not considered factual by some people. This allows the visitor to make up their own mind as to what should be considered canon, our goal is to be as neutral as possible. Since we are still just a rather small tight group the views on Orodreth and Glorfindels may change in the future and are by no means set in stone. Hope to see you around more often --Hyarion 23:10, 15 August 2006 (EDT)
Recently, on several other talk pages or forum pages, the idea of a canon scale has been brought up again. I've composed a working scale for the time being. I can upload graphics for it, but I wanted input first.
- 5 – This is the highest mark on the canon scale, indicating no objections and absolute assurance of accuracy. Only The Lord of the Rings is placed here.
- 4 – This rating means that it is generally considered Canon, and is taken as such by most. Articles in this category are not contradicted in a later writing. Subjects rating “4” will be written as fact in the articles, and any objections written on the main page for that article. This includes The Hobbit, as well as later writings such as The Shibboleth of Fëanor and others found in The Peoples of Middle-earth.
- 3 – This rating simply means canon except where contradicted elsewhere. It is a neutral. The Silmarillion as a whole falls into this category. Individual parts of the Silmarillion that are not contradicted elsewhere are 4s; those contradicted later are 2s.
- 2 – This rating means generally not accepted as canon. On subjects as a whole (such as The Fall of Gondolin), it means that the details should not be accepted as solid fact, even where not contradicted elsewhere. This mostly is composed of Tolkien’s earlier writings. Found in this category would be such articles as Orcobal.
- 1 – This rating means noncanon; thoroughly contradicted elsewhere. This rating will be often composed of articles taken from subjects as a whole rated 2 or 3. Articles such as this would be Iolo Boffin or Tevildo.
- 0 – This rating refers to characters or things from extra-Tolkien sources, such as film adaptations or RPG games.
Tell me what you think. --Narfil Palùrfalas 16:51, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
- I like it. Where do you think we should put this level on the article and what do you think the category name should be? --Hyarion 17:08, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
- Do we need to have categories for the various canon levels? If so, I'd say Category:Canon-5 or so. For where the graphics bar would go. . . I've been thinking about that. I think the best place would be upper left. The "Contents" thing might get in the way in larger articles, though. I'm going to upload the graphics and experiment with them. We can delete them later if we want. --Narfil Palùrfalas 17:23, 21 June 2007 (EDT)