Tolkien Gateway

Forum:Canonicity

(Difference between revisions)
(term to cover all level 2?)
m (Prefer something simpler)
Line 32: Line 32:
  
 
:::Just going by word sense, ‘outdated’ might cover or be covered by ‘deprecated’. But I think in a sensible distinction of levels as Narsil Palùrfalas’ describes ‘outdated’ fits better in level 2.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)
 
:::Just going by word sense, ‘outdated’ might cover or be covered by ‘deprecated’. But I think in a sensible distinction of levels as Narsil Palùrfalas’ describes ‘outdated’ fits better in level 2.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)
 +
 +
::::I have to say I tihnk any five-, six- or seven-numbered system is going to cause more trouble than it's worth. The definitions will have to be flexible enough to work, but rigid enough to properly categorise and I don't think we'd ever reach that. Furthermore, if a reader can't understand the system without reading an in-depth explanation, does it really add value?
 +
 +
::::I also think you underestimate how much people will disagree simply due to the different ways people judge canon (for instance some people say "''Whatever's more recent is ''de facto'' canon, trumping earlier writings.''" whilst others go down a more "''Consistency with published works.''" route, etc. etc.). I notice, for instance, ''[[The Fall of Gondolin]]'' is labelled "2 - Non-canon", something which, if the true belief of the editors here, would mean all derived articles ([[Twelve Houses of the Gondolindrim|Twelve Houses]], e.g.) would need to be similarly labelled - I personally would put it in "3 - disputable" under Mithrennaith's system.
 +
 +
::::The is why I prefer a "Canon", "Non-canon" and "Canoncity Unknown/Disputed" system because it is a) easy to understand, b) easy to implement and c) avoids all the inevitable discussion. At the end of the day, the various shades of grey in the middle are just the result of an/a-group-of individual(s) making a value judgement. Should we be making such value judgements? --{{User:Mith/sig}} 13:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:23, 16 September 2010

Tolkien Gateway > Council > Canonicity


I know that this issue has been debated and discussed before (mainly here and here), but it seems that it never really came to a conclusion - or at least what was decided wasn't wholly enforced. At the moment we have a few different ways by which we highlight articles to show that they're not canon: some are simple 'This is not considered canon', on other pages it's the canon scale. I personally liked the Canon scale discussion and the idea to put a scale on each article. I'd like to see a better set of images to use for the canon scale, and with the

Error: must specify an image in the first line