Forum:Canonicity
(Difference between revisions)
Mithrennaith (Talk | contribs) (term to cover all level 2?) |
|||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
::I think this is the best solution, though I'd like to see some option for "outdated"; "doubtful" and "contradicted" doesn't always cover it. -- {{User:Ederchil/sig}} 09:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC) | ::I think this is the best solution, though I'd like to see some option for "outdated"; "doubtful" and "contradicted" doesn't always cover it. -- {{User:Ederchil/sig}} 09:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :::Just going by word sense, ‘outdated’ might cover or be covered by ‘deprecated’. But I think in a sensible distinction of levels as Narsil Palùrfalas’ describes ‘outdated’ fits better in level 2. However, not all level 2 stuff will fall under that title, there is also e.g. stuff in Sil that turns out not to be tenable because of things later revealed or discussed in HoMe. I’m reluctant to create two canonicity levels out of this, there doesn’t seem to be enough difference in degree here and I think 5 levels (+ 0=adaptations) is quite enough. Maybe one of the terms ‘displaced’, ‘sidelined’, ‘out-of-focus’, ‘non-coherent’, ‘discordant’ or ‘discountable’ might cover everything likely to fall in level 2. — [[User:Mithrennaith|Mithrennaith]] 02:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 02:25, 16 September 2010
Tolkien Gateway > Council > Canonicity
Error: must specify an image in the first line
