Forums:Tolkien Gateway canon policy: Difference between revisions
From Tolkien Gateway
KingAragorn (talk | contribs) (Created page with "<div style="background: #eee; border: 1px solid #aaa; padding: 5px">'''Tolkien Gateway > Forums > {{PAGENAME}}'''</div> Category:Council...") |
No edit summary |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| 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. | |||
#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. | |||
#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) | |||
::So we get a grey area about a grey area: when does it not qualify for a section? --{{User:Ederchil/sig}} 14:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::Well, a possibility is to have a sort of generic "Canonicity" section for, e.g., all concepts only found in ''The Adventures of Tom Bombadil'' or in ''The Book of Lost Tales''. I'm just thinking that the status of a concept will be obvious to the reader when they see the wording in the intro sentence ("legendary", "only mentioned in passing", etc) together with reference showing the source.--[[User:Morgan|Morgan]] 16:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:20, 2 April 2012
Tolkien Gateway > Forums > Tolkien Gateway canon policy
At the 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.
- 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.
- 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)
- Well, a possibility is to have a sort of generic "Canonicity" section for, e.g., all concepts only found in The Adventures of Tom Bombadil or in The Book of Lost Tales. I'm just thinking that the status of a concept will be obvious to the reader when they see the wording in the intro sentence ("legendary", "only mentioned in passing", etc) together with reference showing the source.--Morgan 16:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
