Mistipedia talk:Levels of Canon
This is an initial draft. I'll be finishing up the various templates soon. What do people think of these categories? Did I miss anything? Anything that could be better defined? - Gonzoron 22:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- Looks great, but I'm a little confused on Potential-Canon. It sounds like it should fit with either Canon or Questionably Canon. --Nerit 01:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- I guess what I was trying to say is that Potential-Canon is stuff that might have been canon if the creators ever got to publish it. So it's not canon, because it was never officially published. (For example, VRGttMists would have probably gone through more revisions before publication, and Rucht said that the Salazar contradiction would have been resolved. So the .pdf that was released is not what would have been the final canon form.) I suppose it could be Questionably Canon, but I think it's a "little more canon" than that... since it reflects the intent of the creators. For example, the details of S's bracer have been revealed by Mangrum and Naylor on our forums, and the fact that she would have found her own corpse on Blaustein. If they had written Gaz VI, no doubt that would've become canon. But they didn't get to. That seems different to me than MCS placing Berez (mentioned in I, Strahd) on the Barovia map in a random location, or the TSR trading cards saying Tavelia was an illusionist while she's an Expert in Gaz II. Does that make any sense? -- Gonzoron 04:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes! I suppose it's a proper distinction. Are the images not yet uploaded or is there a problem with the templates? --Nerit 05:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- The Former... I'll get around to finding/making some good images soon, unless someone beats me to it. Also, I don't like the way I did the small template. looks nice in isolation, but it doesn't play nice with text around it. (The intent was that the large ones would be like banners that interrupt text, the small ones would just be an icon embedded in text, but the table format doesn't seem to like that. So I'll probably be changing them to just images eventually. -- Gonzoron 13:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes! I suppose it's a proper distinction. Are the images not yet uploaded or is there a problem with the templates? --Nerit 05:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- I guess what I was trying to say is that Potential-Canon is stuff that might have been canon if the creators ever got to publish it. So it's not canon, because it was never officially published. (For example, VRGttMists would have probably gone through more revisions before publication, and Rucht said that the Salazar contradiction would have been resolved. So the .pdf that was released is not what would have been the final canon form.) I suppose it could be Questionably Canon, but I think it's a "little more canon" than that... since it reflects the intent of the creators. For example, the details of S's bracer have been revealed by Mangrum and Naylor on our forums, and the fact that she would have found her own corpse on Blaustein. If they had written Gaz VI, no doubt that would've become canon. But they didn't get to. That seems different to me than MCS placing Berez (mentioned in I, Strahd) on the Barovia map in a random location, or the TSR trading cards saying Tavelia was an illusionist while she's an Expert in Gaz II. Does that make any sense? -- Gonzoron 04:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Uhhhh...Template:netbook-canon is categorizing pages as netbooks instead of sections utilizing netbook canon info. --Nerit 05:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- oops. fixed. --Gonzoron 14:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
So, are magazines canon?DeepShadow 04:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- good question. I would say that Dungeon and Dragon are, but no others. I know that the new online versions are explicitly considered official, but I'm not sure if there was any official word on the paper version. I suppose we could add another category if needed, but there's already so many and it is probably confusing, or we could put it in "Questionalbly", but personally, I say canon. Anyone know of any particularly egregious stuff in the D&D magazines that really aught not to be canon? IIRC, a lot of the Dungeon Valachan adventures got incorporated into Gaz IV, no? Keep in mind, we're not the final arbiters of whether something is canon or not, we're just trying to document things. A new RL book could come out at any time and validate or invalidate anything from anywhere. So really these categories just best guesses anyway. --Gonzoron 14:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Organization of Canon Level Labels - From an aesthetic and organizational standpoint, I'd prefer the canon level label to be place at the very bottom of each page, so the graphics don't block out the actual content of the page. I recommend placing the canon level notices just above the category banner. Canon level notices should be listed in the following order from top to bottom: Canon > Potentially-Canon > Netbook-Canon > Questionably-Canon > Declared Non-Canon > Homebrew Non-Canon (including speculation/extrapolation). What are y'all's thoughts? --ChrisNichols 20:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
