text:
Talk:Canon (fiction)

Page history
This page was unreferenced for a long time, and in March 2010 it was turned into a stub by. The version prior to stubification can be seen here. I plan to work on recreating the article with references to reliable sources, as time permits; any other contributors who wish to join in the rebuilding are, of course, welcome. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 14:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Citation Needed tag in intro
Just wanted to explain myself here, rather than just in the edit summary. I believe that the article itself is misleading, in that the term canon cannot be appropriately used to categorize how "official" works of fiction are. The definitions I've found from reputable sources give various definitions for canon, and the closest I've found to the one presented in this article is that canon can describe an author's canon, meaning the collection of literature written by a particular author. The part of this article discussing "levels" of canon appears to be a somewhat accepted misuse of the term at best, and total nonsense at worst. I suggest that the intro be changed to reflect the moderate acceptance of the word, noting it's literal misuse. However, I realize that I may have overlooked some resource, so a reference to a dictionary defining canon as having various levels within works of fiction would also be acceptable. --Darktower 1  2  3 4  5  10:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Yes, it would be great to spend some time and find more sources to add to the article. It's a relatively recent term you probably won't yet find in dictionaries, obviously, but scholarly papers dealing with (e.g.) fan fiction invariably define the term (or, these days, assume it's well known). I think the references in the articles on Fan fiction and List of fan fiction terms should help. (Yeah, those articles could also do with more sources, but it's better to read them and try to find sources instead of tagging them. :p) The terms are in wide usage, although of course primarily when discussing something in relation to fan fiction or other sorts of derivative works. Searching Google Scholar for some likely terms throws up, among others:
 * Fan Fiction, Fandom, and Fanfare: What's All the Fuss, p.3: "The first term a fan fiction neophyte should learn is “canon,” which refers to the original work from which the fan fiction author borrows. There’s the Star Trek canon, which includes all episodes and movies, or the Harry Potter canon, which includes all of the books published by J.K. Rowling. […] However, a niche genre of fan fiction takes the opposite approach by presenting the characters in an environment diametrically opposite to that of canon. This story is termed the “Alternate Universe,” shortened within the fandom as “AU.”…" (it also quotes another definition of canon as "professional source material, or the official facts as stated by the original book, movie, or show episode").
 * The book Adolescents and online fan fiction seems to just use the term "canon" without bothering to define it (though it briefly defines fanon and shipper midsentence)
 * The edited book A New Literacies Sampler has definitions including "canon (the original media on which the fan fictions are based)" (p.126), "canon (the real works from which they are borrowing)" (p.137), etc.
 * The book Using the force: creativity, community, and Star Wars fans is the most helpful wrt levels of canon: discussed on pp. 52–53, 70–74, and especially the chapter "Canon" starting on p. 101.
 * It would be great to expand (or at least source) the article with references from these. Shreevatsa (talk) 16:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * PS: I knew nothing of the history of this article, and just discovered that it had a pretty informative previous version that was effectively deleted by replacing it with a stub, because it did not cite sources and was "disgraceful". It is appalling that some Wikipedia editors think that adherence to the Wikipedia rules of footnote-counting is more important that being a good article itself, and would rather remove information than attempt to find sources. Oh well. Hope I can continue to assume good faith here, Shreevatsa (talk) 16:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

That pdf seems to be from a law journal, which sounds like a good source to me. Maybe if you can find a nice defining quote and use that to rewrite the intro, including the journal as a reference, it would make more sense. Including something about it's usage not being widespread enough, or not being recent enough, to merit entries in dictionaries also seems required to fully express the meaning of the term. Thanks for actually helping with this, rather than just ignoring the discussion page and leaving the article poorly written. --Darktower 1  2  3 4  5  22:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

 * The definition is already in virtually all dictionaries. You don't need a specific reference for soemthing that's common knowledge. Why dispute this and demand a reference unless you think it's wrong? And if you do think it's wrong, again, just read any dictionary. DreamGuy (talk) 01:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

If you'll read my first comment here, you'll see that I have looked canon up in several dictionaries, and none matches the view given in this article. Webster was the first place I looked, but its definition applies only to one group, and says nothing of "levels of canon." I agree that the term is used by some groups of fans, but that does not make it correct. The article should either reflect that the use is technically wrong (as many accepted terms are, such as "begging the question"), or a very specific reference from a dictionary about levels of canon should be provided. --Darktower 1  2  3 4  5  01:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

 * You have some strange notions of "wrong". Jargon and technical terms aren't wrong. No general-purpose dictionary defines what a Pronormal subgroup is, but it's absurd to say that the term is "incorrect". You're supposed to add to things you doubt; not to ones for which already several references have been found. I've wasted enough time on this; why don't you do something constructive for a change and add a few references to the article? Shreevatsa (talk) 04:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

 * I wonder how much time either of you could've saved by not continuing this conversation and adding a reference. エムエックスさん  話  05:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

There are no sources which say anything about levels of canon, which cite anything other than the term's recent popular usage. Putting such a reference is like saying, "this term means this because everyone says it does," which is incorrect. These secondary uses are misleading, which is why they get a smaller section in articles about the officially defined usage, not articles saying they are correct. Such is the case in the "begging the question" article.

Rather than restating my point which everyone so far has apparently ignored, or asking for anyone to find a source which isn't simply pointing to popular usage, I'll just do the work myself and fix this article. Hopefully no one will be upset by me being the first to do anything constructive to the article on this issue. --Darktower 1  2  3 4  5  05:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Intro Rewrite
I rewrote the intro, keeping the old description, and adding the info about its popular usage. Thanks to Shreevatsa for the help with the reference. --Darktower 1  2  3 4  5  06:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Canon in Doctor Who
So, apparently Doctor Who doesn't have a canon, yet the only "source" from that is the blog of someone who has written extensively for the spin-off media such as novels. Is that really a WP:RS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.133.0.68 (talk) 14:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

No comments? Very well. I shall remove the line as it's one guy's blog(and full of factual errors as well). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.133.0.68 (talk) 12:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Could use some more specific examples of different canon policies
I know that Marvel, DC, Star Wars and Star Trek all have official canon policies, and I'm pretty sure they're all well-documented online. Star Trek seems like the best simple example of a canon with a forked timeline / continuity reboot (also, Gene Roddenberry is on record as considering Star Trek V and VI partially "apocryphal", making Star Trek a good example of a situation in which the franchise creator and franchise owner disagree about what is and isn't canon). Marvel's multiverse would be a good example of a franchise with a main timeline and numerous separate, canonical timelines taking place in separate, canonical alternate universes. DC's "imaginary stories" seem like they'd be a good example of official but deliberately non-canon works. Star Wars seems like the best example of a shared universe with a single timeline and multiple tiers of canonicity. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 09:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Possible Misuse of Links to This Article and the Term Non-Canon
There are a number of articles of certain TV serial programs (such as Aqua Teen Hunger Force, etc.) that state one of their categories as "Non-canon Fiction" and link this text to this article. The problem is that the term "non-canon" is too general and imprecise, and may even be getting misused. The term "non-canon" seems more applicable to fan-fiction or "official" episodes that do not follow one or more thoroughly previously established plot points of an original franchise. What I think is intended here is the phase "reboot fiction" or "reset fiction" and perhaps a link to the Reboot (fiction) or the Reset button technique article may be much more appropriate. --Champaign (talk) 22:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Possible section describing terminology and related phrases
Would it be correct to include a section based on related terminology and and phrases, such as "Canons sink ships" and "Canon fodder"?

Semi-canonicity
Would it be appropriate to talk about how the subject of how canon is used throughout multimedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThunderBrine (talk • contribs) 23:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

 * Whatever is discussed in the article needs to cite reliable sources that actually say those things/make those observations. - BilCat (talk) 23:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Examples for fanon?
Could someone give examples for fanon?

I'd try out for myself but I don't see if these are exact fits (or even canon). Surprisingly, they all have to do with the "who ends up with whom" question...
 * 1) Had it not been for Arwen, his love for her etc., Aragorn would have definitely ended up with Éowyn.
 * 2) Harry's romance with Cho did not end on Valentine's Day, but went on - or resumed after his interview came out - for some more weeks.
 * 3) The Angelina that George Weasley is canonically married to is his former Quidditch teammate Angelina née Johnson.--2001:A61:260C:C01:3880:897F:82C6:AABB (talk) 14:29, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

 * I would, of course, need to document any claims, but there are elements of the backstory of Disney's Haunted Mansion attraction (the dark rides, not the movie) that began as fan theories but were later incorporated into the official story. For instance, there is a "tombstone" in the "cemetery" outside the mansion that carries the name "Master Gracey." As with many of the stones this is a tribute to one of the Imagineers who created the Mansion - in this case Yale Gracey, who developed many of the special effects. "Master" was used in the sense of a boy too young to be called "Mister," rather than "Master of the House." And the "aging portrait" in the foyer was not meant to portray a particular character... it was just a great visual gag. But fan theories applied the title "Master Gracey" to the face in the portrait, and made that individual the master of the house. None of this was in the original script but has since been adopted as official.PurpleChez (talk) 19:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

 * At least one "K/S" fanfic has apparently spawned its own subcanon; that is, works by other fans sometimes explicitly say "This is in the continuity of [that story]." Is that fanon or something else? —Tamfang (talk) 17:56, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed, the universe of fanfiction is fanon and not canon. 2A02:1810:4F0B:500:7791:C6EF:E1E4:5282 (talk) 18:19, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * (replying to myself) No. The author of an "unauthorized" story is still an author; its subcanon is not defined by its readers, like PurpleChez's example(s), but may be adopted by them (in the same way they adopt the "parent" canon) when they write other stories. – See also TvTropes. —Tamfang (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

"Non-canonical" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Non-canonical. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 26 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. SWinxy (talk) 01:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Canon is "defined" by the fanbase
Firstly, let's look at how the word canon (fiction) is defined by different sources.

Wikitonary: "A group of literary works that are generally accepted as representing a field." and "The works of a writer that have been accepted as authentic."

Fanlore: "Canon (in the context of fandom) is a source, or sources, considered authoritative by the fannish community."

Meriam: "the authentic works of a writer" and "a sanctioned or accepted group or body of related works"

Cambridge: "the writings or other works that are generally agreed to be good, important, and worth studying" and "all the writings or other works known to be by a particular person"

Wikipedia's own Canon disambiguation page: "Canon (fiction), the conceptual material accepted as "official" in a fictional universe by its fan base"

Important to note: canon is accepted, considered; not defined. None of the definitions claim that canon is defined by the author or the rights holder.

Secondly, it's reasonable to claim that fan base has a say in what is or what is not canon. The author and the rights holders have no means to enforce what is and what is not canon and intellectual property laws are not intended to provide such means. The author and the rights holders can have different opinions on what works are canon and what aren't therefore one of them must be prioritized over the other, laws don't handle that so what does? To conclude I've made my edit precisely to avoid confusion on the matter, I believe the subject should be elaborated further and I might do it in the future.

--Smitterdin (talk) 17:00, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

 * "Secondly, it's reasonable to claim that fan base has a say in what is or what is not canon." Possibly, but fanbases are rarely uniform and monolithic in nature. There are often contrasting opinions on the merits of every single work depicting recurring characters. But to say so, we would need sources actually making the case for us. Dimadick (talk) 17:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

 * Absolutely, altho I'd say fanbase is never uniform in nature. Canon can be compared to opinion, people have different opinions about different works of fictions. Arguments about quality (whether something is good or bad) are the same as arguments about canonicity. I would further argue that canonicity is tied to quality as there are people who believe non canon work is bad and should be skipped. "we would need sources actually making the case for us" some people do refer to rights holders and authors and it's good when they are respected because that means they're doing a good job, but at the end of the day, when it comes to canon, the source needs to be respected. Smitterdin (talk) 18:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Addition: a good example of how a community can be divided on canon can be seen here. This is fallout wiki canon page dated 2009. Smitterdin (talk) 18:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

 * I can see some people trying to remove the "by its fan base" from the definition. I added a source next to it and will keep an eye on this article too in the next weeks. Hope it helps! AlanTheScientist (talk) 15:30, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm the one trying to remove this. Canon as never been défined by the fans. I can't choose what chapter of Harry Potter or what Star Wars movie is Canon or not. Plus, this article was modified months ago 5 minutes after I used it during an argument on the Bethesda discord to prove that Canon is in fact NOT defined by the fans... And to finish. This doesn't even make sense in the text. The fanbase can't "officially" choose what't canon or not, and the next sentence explain that what's made by the fans is fanfiction. I mean, common... K100Nukem (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

And I will add that you didn't change the article in other languages. And they all tell that Canon is defined by the author and not the fanbase. K100Nukem (talk) 15:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

 * Thank you for finally reaching out. Canon is not really defined, hence why I put it in quotes. Canon is accepted or considered, as I already mentioned, it's like a review, it's very subjective. I've even pointed out an instance where fans explicitly refused to accept something as canon. Regarding other languages, I mainly speak english and I don't trust my abilities to edit the wikipedia in other languages and I don't believe they should be used as a source. Smitterdin (talk) 15:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

 * That's not what canon is. If a fan refuse to accept something is Canon, then it's his headcanon. And this is already explained in the article. I continue to think this edit doesn't make sense and should be removed. Plus the source added by Alanthescientist doesn't add anything to prove this point. K100Nukem (talk) 15:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

 * The source in question actually provides a good explanation to what canon is. "Canon: The source material. In fiction-based fandoms, "canon" is simply the source narrative you're referring to when you talk about that thing you like. Some people have different ideas of what "canon" is — for example, many Harry Potter fans don't consider anything but the published books to be canon, while other fans include the extra information author J.K. Rowling has provided about the wizarding world on her Pottermore website and on Twitter." Smitterdin (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

"Other times, the word can mean "to be acknowledged by the creator(s)". That's the primarily meaning of Canon. K100Nukem (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

 * Thanks for engaging in the Talk page K100Nukem! I understand you have a different point of view. To clarify, Wikipedia does not decide of the definition but we base ourselves on external reliable sources and try to accurately reflect this. Translations and past versions might not be accurate either so let's rather stick to reliable sources. I still checked the French definition which does not go against what is said here (it says it's the materials "considered as facts"). From the various sources on the topic gathered here it seems like a canon is defined by the fanbase. It's not "officially" chosen as you pointed but it's the generally accepted by a fanbase. While you and me can't individually which chapter of Harry Potter is canon the fanbase overall seems to take the original books as canon (e.g. if there's a difference between the movie and the book the fans will most likely stick to the book version). But because it's fiction anyone could still consider something different (unlike the law for example, which is not "generally accepted" but applies to all in the same country). Let us know your thoughts on this. Would it make everyone happy if we maybe added "generally accepted" instead of just "accepted" in the definition? Please also feel free to share external sources supporting a different definition, but we can't make changes on personal point of views only. AlanTheScientist (talk) 16:03, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah that just mean son fans have headcanon. That's ot K100Nukem (talk) 16:03, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

That's the thing. You are all confusing Canon and headcanon. An author or an IP holder choose what's canon or not. If the fanbase doesn't agree, well, they can create their headcanon. But the fanbase do not choose what's Canon or not. If you write a book, no one except you can say what's Canon or not in it. K100Nukem (talk) 16:11, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This is moving towards a debate of perspectives, which again is not how Wikipedia works. Please add supporting sources to your arguments. AlanTheScientist (talk) 16:13, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

The definition of Canon in the dictionary is "the works of an author that have been accepted as authentic." If the author or the ip holder tell you "this is not Canon", then it's not canon. It's that simple. It's not a matter of perspective. K100Nukem (talk) 16:26, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

No sources or evidence has been presented here which justify the claim that fans have any say on what is or isn't canon.

Using the argument that some fans reject canon is NOT a valid point to justify that fans have that authority in the first place. That's a circular reasoning, "why do fans have the authority to define canon?" "Because they reject canon" "why are fans allowed to reject canon?" "Because they have the authority". See? That's just pure and simple circular reasoning.

I'll highlight the fallacy with another, simple example: some people reject that the earth is an oblate sphere, does that mean that the earth is flat? Heavens, no!

Thus, some people rejecting things they dislike does NOT equal those people being correct. The opinion of some people does not change facts.

Thus, in this case, some people rejecting the canonicity of some pieces of fiction does NOT mean that random people can suddenly claim what is or isn't canon. The source Smitterdin is attempting to use as a justification doesn't even justify his claims! For ease of use of others I'll copy the relevant text here:

Canon: The source material. In fiction-based fandoms, "canon" is simply the source narrative you're referring to when you talk about that thing you like. Some people have different ideas of what "canon" is — for example, many Harry Potter fans don't consider anything but the published books to be canon, while other fans include the extra information author J.K. Rowling has provided about the wizarding world on her Pottermore website and on Twitter.

Smitterdin's source defines canon as the SOURCE MATERIAL and does NOT say that fans have the authority to accept or reject or insert anything as canon. It merely states that some people do do this, but that doesn't confirm they have the authority to do so, and as shown above they, indeed, do NOT have that authority, even as evidenced by the definition of Smitterdin's own source.

Therefore, without any justification or support for the claim that fans can define canon in some ways, the claim must not be made on wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1810:4F0B:500:7791:C6EF:E1E4:5282 (talk) 01:31, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

 * Sources and reasoning are provided above . Canon in any given fictional universe is not strictly defined and everybody has a say in what it is. People can argue and disagree about canon the same way they can argue and disagree about quality, writing, performance, etc. "I say that the earth is round and you say that it's flat!" is a poor argument. Smitterdin (talk) 04:56, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Your claim is your opinion, not a fact. You have no sources to support your claim, and the one you linked even contradicts you, as explained above. As such, there is no place for this claim. This is wikipedia, not your personal blog. What you have been doing for 1.5 years is vandalizing this page. Stop vandalizing wikipedia. 2A02:1810:4F0B:500:7791:C6EF:E1E4:5282 (talk) 05:22, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You ignoring the sources I posted doesn't make them any less real. I posted 5, not 1. If you believe I'm vandalizing this page: take it to administrators. Smitterdin (talk) 05:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Not a single one mentions that the word "fan base" or states that the "fan base" is the one doing the accepting or authenticating. And the link you used on the page itself outright contradicts you. I quote: "Canon: The source material.", no mention of the fan base needing to authorize the source material for it to be canon!
 * And yes, I do believe you are vandalizing by posting unsupported claims for 1.5 years and removing anyone who corrects it. I requested that this page gets protected against vandalism, as you already saw since you commented on my request. 2A02:1810:4F0B:500:7791:C6EF:E1E4:5282 (talk) 06:07, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * One of my sources: "Canon (in the context of fandom) is a source, or sources, considered authoritative by the fannish community." Smitterdin (talk) 06:10, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, I should have said "reputable sources", I didn't even take the "Fanlore" entry as a serious example.
 * On top of that, it's not an accepted source by wikipedia because Fanlore is a self described wiki ("Because Fanlore is a wiki []") and wikis are "user-generated content" and thus are rejected on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#User-generated_content. Vox, however, is on the list of accepted sources and the Vox definition contradicts your claim, Vox says: "Canon: The source material." the side not of there existing people who have different opinions is NOT part of the definition, as explained with the flat earth example I gave earlier. 2A02:1810:4F0B:500:7791:C6EF:E1E4:5282 (talk) 06:24, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Fanlore is a reputable source and it's not in the article so your complaint is invalid. Vox says: "Canon: The source material. In fiction-based fandoms, "canon" is simply the source narrative you're referring to when you talk about that thing you like. Some people have different ideas of what "canon" is — for example, many Harry Potter fans don't consider anything but the published books to be canon, while other fans include the extra information author J.K. Rowling has provided about the wizarding world on her Pottermore website and on Twitter.". So there are different versions of canon accepted by different groups of people. You ought to read past the first sentence. Smitterdin (talk) 06:33, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia decides which sources are deemed acceptable, not you. And Wikipedia lists wikis (such as fanlore) as unreliable and unsuited as a source. If you disagree, contact wikipedia and not me, I was not the one who decided that.
 * Thank you for proving my point by quoting the Vox article (as I had already done above, but whatever). "Some people have different ideas of what "canon" is" is a side note, like "some people deny the earth is an oblate sphere", it is NOT part of the definition. Note that the Vox article does NOT say "Canon: The source material when accepted by the fan base" or something similar, as your edits on this page claims. 2A02:1810:4F0B:500:7791:C6EF:E1E4:5282 (talk) 06:44, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Fanlore is a respectable and reliable source of information commonly used in the community. If you don't like it, then that's just you dismissing evidence because you disagree with it. And as I said, it's not on the page so you have nothing to remove hence why your complaint is invalid. The vox article says what the vox article says and you are just selectively throwing out sentences you don't like. Smitterdin (talk) 07:08, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I already linked you the rule used by wikipedia to outlaw wikis.
 * For your convenience, here it is again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#User-generated_content
 * I quote from that link: "User-generated content: Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is generally unacceptable. Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal and group blogs (excluding newspaper and magazine blogs), content farms, Internet forums, social media sites, fansites, video and image hosting services, most wikis and other collaboratively created websites."
 * Fanlore is a self-described wiki, it says so on its own page.
 * Since wikis are "generally unacceptable", and fanlore is nowhere listed as an exception, fanlore is not an acceptable source.
 * Of the sources you listed, fanlore, wikitonary and wikipedia itself are unacceptable sources.
 * The other 2 sources you mentioned, Merriam-Webster and Vox, are acceptable sources but do NOT support your claim in the slightest, they even contradict you. In fact, I added the Merriam-Webster link as a source and you removed it, accusing me of tampering and vandalism. Oh, the irony! 2A02:1810:4F0B:500:7791:C6EF:E1E4:5282 (talk) 07:18, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with 2A02:1810:4F0B:500:7791:C6EF:E1E4:5282. Veverve (talk) 15:52, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

just in case it is not clear enough to you: Fanlore, Wikipedia and Wiktionary are open wikis (WP:SPS) and therefore not reliable sources. They never will be by their very nature; it is not debatable. See also Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Reliable sources you yourself gave (Cambridge, Merriam-Webster) make no mention fans being an authority. Also, you broke WP:3RR by a huge margin today, so please revert your last revert. Veverve (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

 * 1) Fanlore is not used anywhere in the article, and if it is, feel free to delete it
 * 2) The source in the article is vox and it supports the claim
 * 3) You both have failed to address most of the points I originally brought up, the anonymous editor at first didn't even acknowledge that I provided more than one source
 * 4) The issue of edit warring was already ratified here: Requests_for_page_protection/Archive/2023/02 Smitterdin (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The issue of your edit warring was not resolved by Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Archive/2023/02 it was merely concluded that protecting the page was not benefiting the page given that the talk page was still active, but the talk page is just you playing a yes-no game about the validity of your sources on the talk page and your refusal to accept the reputable sources 2A02:1810:4F0B:500:7791:C6EF:E1E4:5282 (talk) 16:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Let's try to expose the bones of this dispute by looking at some examples. The list of Middle-earth or Hogwarts books is well defined and I doubt that anyone is disputing that. The "fun" comes when you get a game like Hogwarts Legacy: is it "canonical"? Of course it is not one of the books but is it well-seated in the Hogwarts universe. There is a big argument ranging among fans right now about that very question. So is "the canon" limited to the author's own original publications (excluding late additions?) – in which case "by its fans" is invalid but if it broadened to include (a) "filmisations" of the books [very freely, in the case of 007] (b) computer games ditto (c) material set in the "universe" created by the original author, what is or is not canonical becomes a fans consensus. Does that help any? [It doesn't remove the requirement to cite RSs.] --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:54, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Part 2
Instead of OR, let us look at RSs: So, in only one of those definitions is there a mention of needing to be accepted by fans. Veverve (talk) 17:17, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Cambridge:
 * "all the writings or other works known to be by a particular person"
 * "a book, TV show, film, etc. that its fans (= people who like it very much) use to base their own stories, activities, etc. on"
 * Merriam-Webster:
 * "b: the authentic works of a writer"
 * "c: a sanctioned or accepted group or body of related works"
 * Collins:
 * "8. a list of the works of an author that are accepted as authentic"
 * "b. the works ascribed to an author that are accepted as genuine"
 * "c. the complete works, as of an author"
 * Vox:
 * "Canon: The source material. In fiction-based fandoms, 'canon' is simply the source narrative you're referring to when you talk about that thing you like."
 * The Britannica Dictionary:
 * "the group of books, poems, plays, etc., that a particular author is known to have written"
 * Macmillan Dictionary:
 * "all the writing, music etc that is generally accepted as the work of one writer, musician etc"
 * "So, in only one of those definitions is there a mention of needing to be accepted by fans"
 * Which one?
 * Cambridge only mentions fans in the context of fans creating fanfics.
 * Vox mentions fans in the context of clarifying what the source material of a fandom is, but not that it's the fans who decide what the source material is.
 * None of the others even mentions fans in any way.
 * Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you're saying 2A02:1810:4F0B:500:7791:C6EF:E1E4:5282 (talk) 17:24, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The Cambridge one. And even then I admit it is quite far-fetched. Veverve (talk) 17:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm at a disadvantage because my knowledge about anything Hogwarts related is absolutely zero. However, this disadvantage doesn't matter. What fans do or do not do is irrelevant in this discussion. The real question is whether their debate has the authority to decide anything. As for the contents of this wikipedia page, any claims must be supported by accepted sources. The claim that fans decide the canon has no support. Therefore the claim must not be added. Vox makes no mention of canon needing to be accepted, and Merriam-Webster doesn't even mention fans, let alone define canon as to be accepted by fans. 2A02:1810:4F0B:500:7791:C6EF:E1E4:5282 (talk) 17:18, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

 * I would remark in passing that if canon is defined by the fans then the word "officially" does not belong in that sentence; perhaps substitute "unquestionably" or "definitively". —Tamfang (talk) 17:58, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

 * I wonder if the Biblical canon is the root of this disagreement. In that case, the true original authorship is lost, so what qualifies as "canon" is decided by biblical scholars, one step up in academic respectability from fans. But if the canon (as opposed to "canonical") is defined exclusively as the works of a particular author (as the RSs found by VeVerve seem to agree), then we have no justification for the "as decided by fans" qualification. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * what qualifies as "canon" is decided by biblical scholars: this is not how it works. Different denominations have different institutions to decide their biblical canon, none of which rely on academic consensus (e.g. the Magisterium, Common consent, Ecumenical councils; see also Luther's canon).
 * Most of the sources I gave have a specific section of the definition of "canon" concerning its specific meaning related to Scriptures (e.g., Merriam-Webster: "a: an authoritative list of books accepted as Holy Scripture"). Veverve (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * What I was trying to tease out is the big difference between a Biblical canon and a modern fiction writer's canon. The list of members of a biblical canon is determined by belief; the publication record of a modern author is an objective reality. The lists of Hogwarts books by J K Rowling, Middle-earth books by J R R Tolkein, James Bond books by Ian Fleming etc etc are well defined and indisputable. The Biblical canon is a matter of opinion and consensus, the canons of these modern authors is not. The sources that VeVerve identified affirm that perspective. The opinion of fans is irrelevant. We have no basis in logic or RS to say otherwise. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

"Apocrypha (fiction)" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address a potential problem with the redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Apocrypha_(fiction)&redirect=no Apocrypha (fiction)] and it has been listed for discussion. Readers of this page are welcome to participate at until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 07:52, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Lede sentence and definition
I changed the lede sentence of the article from "a canon is material accepted as being authentically produced by an author or an ascribed author" to "canon is the set of texts or works that are considered to authoritatively define a given fictional universe and its narrative continuity, the source material around which fandom is based", citing the Vox article mentioned above and the OED definition of canon. @Veverve reverted the edit, saying "this has been discussed at the talk page... and this is not what the Vox article says." However: AJD (talk) 00:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) The Vox article definitely does say that canon is the source material around which a fandom is based. (The exact quote is "In fiction-based fandoms, 'canon' is simply the source narrative you're referring to when you talk about that thing you like.")
 * 2) The talk page discussion above doesn't seem to conflict with my edit; that discussion seems to be about whether what is or is not canon is decided by fandom, and the definition I wrote says nothing one way or another about that.
 * 3) The definition "material accepted as being authentically produced by an author or an ascribed author" is simply not the sense of the word canon that this article is about. The entire body text of the article, in addition to the hatnote, presupposes a definition along the lines of "the set of words that define a fictional universe". The examples in the second section of the article include Star Trek canon, Star Wars canon, Doctor Who canon, The Simpsons canon—none of these are the sets of material accepted as being authentically produced by a specific author. The Star Wars canon is not the same as the set of works produced by George Lucas or Lucasfilm, etc. The illustration of an Oz book not by L. Frank Baum that is regarded as "canon" is in direct contradiction to the definition of canon as "material... authentically produced by an author". That is simply a different definition of "canon" than the one this article is actually about.

 * " 'canon' is simply the source narrative you're referring to when you talk about that thing you like". This is what the Vox article says, and nothing more that can be used as a definition. Your definition is WP:OR, stop trying to impose it. We are back at WP:QUO and we can discuss. Either find a source that supports the definition you add, or do not add it. Veverve (talk) 00:18, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The source that supports the definition I added, which is cited in my edit, is the Oxford English Dictionary. The exact definition in the OED is: "The body of works taking place in a particular fictional world that are widely considered to be official or authoritative; esp. those created by the original author or developer of the world (frequently with the and qualifying word specifying the body of works). Also: the characters, events, plot lines, etc., that occur in such a body of works, or the established narrative continuity within them (frequently without the and in fixed phrases such as in canon, to canon, etc.)." The definition I provide, "the set of texts or works that are considered to authoritatively define a given fictional universe and its narrative continuity", is a condensation and paraphrase of that, not OR, and the source was properly cited in my edit. AJD (talk) 00:26, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * And also, the definition currently in the article is still simply not the topic of the article. It's as if the article Turkey began with "The turkey is a large bird in the genus Meleagris, native to North America" before going on to discuss the history, demographics, and culture of the country in Anatolia. AJD (talk) 00:31, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your interpretation of this source.
 * "considered to be official or authoritative; esp. those created by the original author or developer of the world": the definition here is not different from the one currently used ("material accepted as being authentically produced by an author or an ascribed author"). Veverve (talk) 00:36, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You're mistaken; the OED definition I quoted is substantially different from the definition currently in the article. The "esp." in the OED definition stands for "especially". That means that it's not an essential part of the definition, it's merely the most prototypical or central case. Meanwhile, you're ignoring the core clause of the OED's definition, "the body of works taking place in a particular fictional world", which is fundamentally what this Wikipedia article is about, but nowhere to be found in the current lede sentence.
 * The definition currently in the article is a sense of the word "canon". It's found in the OED as well (in the form "those writings of a secular author accepted as authentic"). It's just not the sense that is the subject of this article. Again, the entire text of the article is incompatible that definition of canon. AJD (talk) 00:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * What takes place "in a particular fictional world" is defined by the author or the ascribed author, prototypical[ly] as you admit.
 * I have searched at the time of the previous discussion, and I found no definition that supports yours in RSs. I may have missed some sources, but I have done my research anyway. Have you found any other reliable source that could support your definition? If such a definition exists in RSs, then at least some those RSs could easily be found and a Vox article would not be your sole source. Veverve (talk) 01:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * What takes place in a particular fictional world is prototypically defined by the author, yes, but that doesn't make these definitions the same (or even similar). Here's a simple example: according to the article's current definition, The Tempest and The Merry Wives of Windsor are both part of the same canon: the Shakespearean canon, since they are both among the set of works accepted as authentically written by Shakespeare. But they are not part of the same canon in the sense that the article is about: they do not take place in the same fictional world; the characters in The Merry Wives of Windsor would not regard the events of The Tempest as being true events. The article is about canon in the latter sense. The Oz book illustrated in the article is an example of the converse: The Royal Book of Oz is considered part of the same canon as The Magical Land of Oz in the sense that this article is about, since they are regarded as authoritatively taking place in the same fictional universe, but they are not both attributed to the same author.
 * Vox is not my sole source. The OED is the principal source for the definition I added to the article. That is a RS that is easily found. What is your objection to it as a RS?
 * In any event, you have not yet addressed one of the primary issues: the definition in the article as it exists now is not consistent with what the article is about. Even if no RSs existed supporting the definition I want to use, the definition that's currently there should be removed on the grounds of not being directly relevant to the article. AJD (talk) 02:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I can agree on 1) changing the the definition and replacing it with the definition verbatim quoted from the OED: "body of works taking place in a particular fictional world that are widely considered to be official or authoritative; esp. those created by the original author or developer of the world", and 2) not using Vox as a source for this definition. Veverve (talk) 02:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't using the verbatim OED definition be WP:COPYVIO, when it can be easily paraphrased? AJD (talk) 02:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not consider such a short sentence to be a copyvio, see Non-free content. As long as there is an inline reference at the end, there is no problem. Veverve (talk) 03:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that a verbatim quotation would be better than a paraphrase, and I still don't understand what your objection to a paraphrase is, but I'm willing to agree to it as a compromise. AJD (talk) 05:18, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * At least one person other than AJD sees a big difference between those two definitions, even though they may coincide more often than not. —Tamfang (talk) 05:49, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Surely the article can admit to two definitions? (a) the list of works confidently attributed to a single author (applies to pre-modern authors mainly) and (b) works set in a particular "universe", irrespective of author. In both cases, non-canonical works are those that subject experts reject. (Compare catalogue raisonné.) 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * How much is there to say about sense (a) other than the one-line definition? I can see this article saying something like "this sense of canon is distinct from the sense referring to 'the set of works attributed to a given author'," but further discussion of that sense, if any is necessary, belongs in an article like author or authenticity in art. But the reason Wikipedia has disambiguation is so that we don't have to put disparate topics in the same article just because they have the same name. AJD (talk) 14:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Canon (fiction)


text:
Olympia Academy

The Olympia Academy (German: Akademie Olympia) was a group of friends in Bern, Switzerland, who met – usually at Albert Einstein's apartment – to discuss philosophy and physics.

Overview
The group was founded in 1902 by Einstein, Conrad Habicht, and Maurice Solovine, and played a significant role in Einstein's intellectual development. Before his "miracle year" (1905), when Einstein was a patent clerk in Bern, the group of friends met to debate books in the fields of physics and philosophy.

The group's origin lay in Einstein's need to offer private lessons in mathematics and physics in order to make a living (in 1901, before he took up his post at the patent office in Bern). Solovine, a Romanian philosophy student, answered Einstein's newspaper advertisement. In fact neither the tutorials nor any payment materialised; instead, the two began to meet regularly to discuss their shared interest in physics and philosophy. They were soon joined by the mathematician Habicht, who was Einstein's neighbour at Schaffhausen; in 1902 they named themselves the Akademie Olympia, and though a friend would occasionally join them in one of their meetings, the Academy remained essentially just the trio of Einstein, Habicht, and Solovine until the latter two left Bern in 1904 and 1905 respectively.

The first book that Einstein suggested for reading was Karl Pearson's The Grammar of Science. The three discussed their own work and also books such as Ernst Mach’s Analyse der Empfindungen (Analysis of Sensations), Henri Poincaré's La Science et l'Hypothèse (Science and Hypothesis), John Stuart Mill’s A System of Logic, David Hume’s Treatise of Human Nature, and Baruch Spinoza’s Ethics, and sometimes literary works such as Miguel de Cervantes' Don Quixote.

Despite the brief existence of the Academy, it had a lasting effect on the three friends; they remained in touch throughout their lives, and Einstein was to say that it had had an effect on his later scientific career.

Core members

 * Albert Einstein (1879–1955), core member, host and chairman. Graduate of the ETH Zurich
 * Maurice Solovine (1875–1958), core member, philosophy student
 * Conrad Habicht (1876–1958), core member, mathematician

Others

 * Paul Habicht (1884–1948), brother of Conrad Habicht.
 * Michele Besso (1873–1955), mechanical engineer
 * Marcel Grossmann (1878–1936), mathematician, Einstein's friend and classmate
 * Lucien Chavan (1868–1942), electrical engineer
 * Mileva Marić (1875–1948), Einstein's first wife (married January 6, 1903) and fellow student at ETH Zurich. Solovine reported that she observed the discussions without participating.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Olympia Academy


text:
AMG LASSO

AMG LASSO is a media recognition service launched by the All Media Guide in 2004. The LASSO service automatically recognizes CDs, DVDs, and digital audio files in formats such as MP3, WMA, and others. The service uses CD table of contents (ToC), DVD ToC, and acoustic fingerprint based recognition to recognize media. LASSO is available in versions for PCs and embedded devices.

LASSO competes with user submitted services like freedb, Gracenote, MusicBrainz, and Discogs.

title: AMG LASSO


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominic O'Brien

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 07:13, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dominic O'Brien
Guiness record holder (for a time) for memorizing cards. I don't see how he's any more notable than any other Guiness record holders that have been deleted, especially since the article states his title may be in dispute. --InShaneee 15:36, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete. Wikipedia is not Guinness. --FOo 17:49, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * You can't drink the wiki, for one thing. Delete. humblefool® 22:18, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy with an article about record holders over the years, but we don't need bios for every single one of them. That, together with his disputed status leads me to a Delete. Mgm|(talk) 21:38, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete --jag123 14:11, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Although the current article is obviously a mess, and a single (not widely known) record does not warrant an article on a person, a quick Google search yields 6,870 results.  He's written seven books (along the lines of How to Develop a Perfect Memory), and it is undisputed that he has held several prominent (in some circles) memory-related records, and apparently continues to hold some, although not the one currently cited in the article.  He makes money "coaching" businesspeople and others who wish to improve their memory.   He's appeared on Oprah and other TV shows; it is fair to say that he is one of the top memory celebrities in the world.  This could one day become an interesting article.  --LostLeviathan 02:51, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.