Forum:Canonicity

Revision as of 13:23, 16 September 2010 (edit) Mith (Talk | contribs) m (Prefer something simpler) ← Older edit		Revision as of 09:20, 17 September 2010 (edit) (undo) Mithrennaith (Talk | contribs) (problem yes, improvement no.) Newer edit →
Line 38:		Line 38:
	::::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)		::::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)
		+
		+	:::::I do see your problem, and I’m not saying it won’t be a problem. But, at the risk of repeating myself, I don’t think the ‘Canonicity Unknown/Disputed’ label is going to be helpful or useful in any way, it’s just going to be a big lump of things that have very little in common. Maybe we should just merge the ‘disputable/contradictable’ and the ‘displaced/discountable’ labels into one level, or perhaps we should have 3 – ‘neutral’ and 2 – ‘disputed/discountable’.
		+	:::::That ‘the reader’ — a number of readers, at least — will need explanation is not really an argument on a wiki. We have to explain about canon, its difficulties and its grayscale nature in matters Tolkienian anyway. We have to indicate to readers that articles, or rather facts, have different canonicity. The icon’s could and should be links to the explanation. — [[User:Mithrennaith|Mithrennaith]] 09:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Revision as of 09:20, 17 September 2010

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