Tolkien Gateway

Forum:Tolkien Gateway canon policy

(Difference between revisions)
(Created page with "<div style="background: #eee; border: 1px solid #aaa; padding: 5px">'''Tolkien Gateway > Forums > {{PAGENAME}}'''</div> Category:Council...")
 
Line 4: Line 4:
  
 
At the [[Tolkien Gateway:Meetings/1 April 2012|1 April 2012 meeting]] we agreed on a number of points:
 
At the [[Tolkien Gateway:Meetings/1 April 2012|1 April 2012 meeting]] we agreed on a number of points:
*It is not our place to decide what is canon and what is not.
+
#It is not our place to decide what is canon and what is not.
*Whilst certain concepts are certainly 'canon' (i.e. [[Gandalf]]), many fall into a grey area.
+
#Whilst certain concepts are certainly 'canon' (i.e. [[Gandalf]]), many fall into a grey area.
*For those concepts that fall into this grey area, we should have a "Canonicity" section to explain the situation.
+
#For those concepts that fall into this grey area, we should have a "Canonicity" section to explain the situation.
*We should scrap the "Non Canon" and "Disputed Canon" templates whilst leaving [[Template:Adaptation]] (which is well and truly non-canon).
+
#We should scrap the "Non Canon" and "Disputed Canon" templates whilst leaving [[Template:Adaptation]] (which is well and truly non-canon).
  
 
We decided not to decide anything (apart from that) with so few in attendance. So what does everyone think?--{{User:KingAragorn/sig}} 19:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 
We decided not to decide anything (apart from that) with so few in attendance. So what does everyone think?--{{User:KingAragorn/sig}} 19:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 +
 +
:Concerning nr. 3, my suggestion is that most short articles (e.g., [[Gorcrows]]) would not require such a section, as the intro sentence will give enough information concerning its status.--[[User:Morgan|Morgan]] 23:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:00, 1 April 2012

Tolkien Gateway > Forums > Tolkien Gateway canon policy


At the 1 April 2012 meeting we agreed on a number of points:

  1. It is not our place to decide what is canon and what is not.
  2. Whilst certain concepts are certainly 'canon' (i.e. Gandalf), many fall into a grey area.
  3. For those concepts that fall into this grey area, we should have a "Canonicity" section to explain the situation.
  4. We should scrap the "Non Canon" and "Disputed Canon" templates whilst leaving Template:Adaptation (which is well and truly non-canon).

We decided not to decide anything (apart from that) with so few in attendance. So what does everyone think?-- KingAragorn  talk  contribs  edits  email  19:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Concerning nr. 3, my suggestion is that most short articles (e.g., Gorcrows) would not require such a section, as the intro sentence will give enough information concerning its status.--Morgan 23:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)