User:EEMIV/Canon
 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
Wikipedia covers several fictional universes and media franchises. Within these fictions, some people, places, things, and events are "canon", i.e. "accepted as part of the story".[1] Likewise, some elements are "non-canon", and are not part of or do not represent the "truth" of the fictional universe.
Although a subject's canon status may be worth including in its coverage at Wikipedia, canon status should be neither a criterion for inclusion nor a rationale for exclusion. Wikipedia is interested in verifiability, not truth, focusing on the real-world aspects of fictional worlds.
Why canon matters
[edit]The idea of canon is itself notable. Independent third parties have significantly covered some content producers’ decisions about canon, e.g. Disney’s April 2014 announcement of changes to the Star Wars canon.[2] Previous to that April announcement, Lucasfilm had a “keeper of the Holocron” who maintained a reference database that ascribed varying “degrees” of canon-ness to various aspects of Star Wars films, books, games, etc.[3] Reviews of the 2009 ‘’Star Trek’’ film sometimes included details of how the producers integrated the new film into the existing Star Trek canon; a Washington Post reporter called the Star Trek canon "sacred".[4]
The underlying question of “What is ‘true’? What ‘really’ happened?” is of interest to fans and producers alike.
Why canon doesn't matter
[edit]Even carefully managed media franchises have disparate or changing notions of canon. Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry said he considered ‘’Star Trek V’’ apocryphal. Dozens of Star Wars books and other media — previously the canon for the “expanded universe” before and after the theatrical films — were re-classified as “Legacy Canon” and not necessarily the “truth” in Star Wars.[5]
These changes in “truthiness” only reinforce why canon status is weak footing for focus or inclusion at Wikipedia.
Substitues for canon
[edit]Within managed fictional universes, canon elements may be more likely to recur or play a prominent role in developing a story. As such, they are more likely to be important enough to include in articles’ Plot and Synopsis sections. It is not uncommon for significant elements of fiction to meet garner sufficient third-party coverage to be spun out into their own article.
Broader and/or recurring use in turn broadens opportunity for significant third-party coverage; such that a stand-alone
References
[edit]- ^ "Canon (fiction)". Wikipedia. Wikimedia. 15 July 14. Retrieved 22 July 14.
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|accessdate=and|date=(help) - ^ "Disney and Del Rey Announce New "Unified Canon" for Upcoming Star Wars Expanded Universe Novels". Tor. 25 Apr 14. Retrieved 22 Jul 14.
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|accessdate=and|date=(help) - ^ "Meet Leland Chee, the Star Wars Franchise Continuity Cop". Wired Magazine. Condé Nast. 18 Aug 08. Retrieved 22 Jul 14.
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|accessdate=and|date=(help) - ^ O'Sullivan, Michael (15 May 13). "'Star Trek Into Darkness': J.J. Abrams delivers a blend of new and old". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2014 Jul 22.
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|accessdate=and|date=(help) - ^ "The Legendary Star Wars Expanded Universe Turns a New Page". Disney. 25 Apr 14. Retrieved 22 Jul 14.
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|accessdate=and|date=(help)