Tolkien Gateway

Forum:Tolkien Gateway canon policy

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)
So we get a grey area about a grey area: when does it not qualify for a section? --Ederchil (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 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.--Morgan 16:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)