Staff Only: Canonicity Based on Approval

[KingTempest]

Introduction​

Happy New Year ladies gents and everyone else. This is a wiki-wide and very serious issue. If you aren't staff, get approval.
I have a gripe with our canonicity standards. Or rather, not really our standards, but how we enforce them based on certain statements of canonicity.
Specifically this one word.
"Approval".

Explanation of Canon​

According to... well... us,

Canon is a term used to designate works that are generally accepted as the genuine work that apply to the fictional verse. With few possible exceptions only canon material is featured in the character pages, with non-canon material to be ignored.

Nowadays, we've entered an era with media where a lot of things are just replicas of the old. We have no good original art, everything is just replicas of others.
Percy Jackson remake. Lion King remake. Manga adaptations into anime. Comics into tv shows or movies. So many different things.
But with this in mind, we fall into an issue of things like ownership and similar issues. People adapt material made by other authors into new media, but they ask for permission.

With this in mind, their goals are meant for the new media to fully be intended to adapt the best possible material of the source material. Which is the entire point of an adaptation, for it to adapt the work the best way possible.
Our issue is now that we have fallen into the realm of a level of lackluster evaluation where we have started to treat things like adaptation as "extended canon". Companies are given creative liberties to expand previously created work and because they ask the original creator, apparently it's now "canon to the work".

It's fine when it comes to using things like timeframes for calculations of feats shown in both mediums, it's not fine for things like extra media created scenes.

This isn't good enough. Asking the owner for permission isn't the same thing as adding to the work.

Examples of Well Shown Canon​

Kingdom Hearts is a series of games built on the premise of previously made companies of series like Disney, Pixar, Disney Pixar (shut up), and prior Square Enix games, to utilize their characters and worlds. They require permission from those series to utilize them, but it obviously isn't canon to all of them.
Meanwhile, recently @Bobsican showcased the canon of Kingdom Hearts to Toy Story. And the reasoning wasn't just permission. It was based off of strong proof like this.

The biggest challenge Pixar faced when collaborating on the world was the simple question: Where did this game fit in the Toy Story timeline? "Why didn't any Toy Story characters mention Sora in the movies" (sic) Katz asks. As one can imagine, the Pixar team is meticulous about continuity.

Notice how serious information was required to stick it into canon. It needed to have good reason for it to actually fit and it needed to explain the reasons for why canon things happen. It isn't speaking in a general sense, but it's speaking in a sense of "this actually happened, so what is the in lore explanation for why these things haven't shown up?" and it fit itself inside of it based on that.

Bleach is a manga with an anime adaptation. But in this anime adaptation, the author, Tite Kubo, is not just approved nor involved, but he notes the fact that it was the fulfillment of his original work. He is the one who adds the new scenes. He isn't giving other corporations permission to create, he is the creator continuing his creation through another medium.

Many other examples of authors themselves taking over productions to finish their original work as well. If I kept going I wouldn't stop.

Examples of Well Shown Non-Canon​

Akira Toriyama was (Rest in Peace) immensely involved with the Dragon Ball anime, with even databooks made for it. It is not limited here, as he even works with the games. However, it was not his original work, nor did he ever give the greenlight for it to be considered his. On top of that, the adapted media add so many extra scenes and alter the canon up to where although it has heavy involvement, it is not canon.

Eiichiro Oda is the creator of the One Piece series. With this in mind, he has written scripts for several movies, created databooks for them as well, and has even created villains for movies, games, and even the anime. However, he has stated that it is not his wish for anything of movies to be canon to the manga.

D: Finally, Shiki the Golden Lion has appeared in the main story. Does this mean that the movie "Strong World" has officially been incorporated into the main story timeline? P.N. H. Yutaro

O: Well, it's possible to incorporate most movies into the story, even if it is a bit forced, but then it would make watching the movie obligatory, so I don't really connect it to the original work. However, in the case of Strong World, I came up with the story, and I used Shiki, who originally existed in the setting of the main story, in the movie. However, if it wasn't for the movie, Shiki wouldn't have eaten the Fuwa Fuwa no Mi. I had a rule in my mind to not include characters who could fly or float freely in the sky, so I sealed the Fuwa Fuwa no Mi away (because it's a pirate manga). But because it's for a movie, I used it. That character has returned to the original story. It's true that a strange re-import has occurred.

On top of that, he even confirms that he approves what abilities are good to be created in the anime or not.

D: Odacchi! I have a question. Do you come up with the Devil Fruit Powers that are original to the Anime show? Let me know.

O: Basically, all that happens is that the anime's scriptwriters come up with powers that they want to use in the story, and I say "Yeah, that sounds good," or "No, sorry, I want to use that one in the future." That's all.

But although his permission is required, it does not mean canonicity is automatic.

Primary Point​

Canon is not determined merely by author involvement or creative approval. It is established through explicit confirmation and direct continuity with the original work. A faithful adaptation or the creator’s participation alone does not make new material canonical—only statements or actions that formally integrate the new content into the established narrative do so.

Examples of Statements that Indicate True Canon​

• “The anime includes scenes that I added specifically to expand upon the original story—this moment is one of those additions.”
• “The anime aligns far more closely with my original vision; I’ve personally overseen production to ensure it reflects what I intended.”
• “This element was something I couldn’t include in the original work, so this version fulfills that intention at last.”
• “This should be regarded as the official continuation of the story—the definitive, canonical version.”
• “This project completes the narrative as I originally conceived it.”
• “These new scenes represent parts of the story that existed in my notes but never appeared in the released version until now.”
• “Think of this adaptation not as a remake, but as the intended final form of the original work.”

Examples of Statements that Do Not Indicate True Canon​

• “The creator granted permission for production.”
• “The creator approved the scene or said it looked good.”
• “The creator liked how the characters were portrayed.”
• “The company coordinated with the author out of respect.”
• “The adaptation was made with the creator’s blessing.”
• “It stays true to the spirit of the original story.”

Because the entire point of an adaptation is for it to mimic the original story. That does not make creative liberties canon now.

Add Onto the Canon Page​

Regarding author approval
Author approval alone does not confer canonical status. Material adaptations, spin-offs, or derivative works is considered canon only upon explicit confirmation from the creator or rights holders that it integrates into the primary continuity—such as statements verifying that specific events, scenes, or elements occur within the original timeline. Mere involvement, supervision, general praise, or descriptions of a work as a "faithful adaptation" do not suffice to establish new content as part of the official canon.

EDIT​

Author approval alone does not confer canonical status upon adaptations. Such material is considered part of the primary continuity only when the creator or rights holders explicitly confirm its integration into the original timeline—for instance, through statements verifying that specific events, scenes, or elements genuinely occur within it. Mere involvement, minor supervision, general praise, or characterizations of the work as a "faithful adaptation" remain insufficient to establish new content as official canon; all determinations continue to be made on a case-by-case basis, with these criteria serving as guidelines rather than an exhaustive standard.

EDIT 2​

Author approval alone does not confer canonical status upon adaptations. Such material is considered part of the primary continuity only when the creator or rights holders explicitly confirm its integration into, or priority over, the original timeline—for instance, through statements verifying that specific events, scenes, or elements genuinely occur within it (e.g., "These scenes originate from material in my notes that was omitted from the initial release but belongs in the core story."). Mere involvement, minor supervision, general praise, or characterizations of the work as a "faithful adaptation" remain insufficient to establish new content as official canon; all determinations continue to be made on a case-by-case basis, with these criteria serving as guidelines rather than an exhaustive standard.

Agree: Da3ggman, Mr. Bambu (In favor of the clarification), Vietthai96, Agnaa, Dalesean027, DarkDragonMedeus, Reiner04, Planck69, Antvasima, Damage3245
Disagree:
Neutral: Nierre (Leaning Towards Agreeing)
Idkman: Godernet (Outdated POV but still relevant)

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Do you have a specific rephrasing of the rule in mind to reflect this?

 

[Da3ggman]

Wholeheartedly agree with the premise of the thread; way too many verses get away with making their stuff Primary Canon for what basically amounts to the author saying “Yeah it’s pretty cool ig”.

 

[KingTempest]

Do you have a specific rephrasing of the rule in mind to reflect this?

Regarding author approval
Author approval alone does not confer canonical status. Material from adaptations, spin-offs, or derivative works is considered canon only upon explicit confirmation from the creator or rights holders that it integrates into the primary continuity—such as statements verifying that specific events, scenes, or elements occur within the original timeline. Mere involvement, supervision, general praise, or descriptions of a work as a "faithful adaptation" do not suffice to establish new content as part of the official canon.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I approve of the idea in spirit, but dislike the close-ended phrasing. You state the conditions necessary to be considered canon, but then list conditions that don't match that. But the latter list isn't all-inclusive, there may be other conditions, and by the current phrasing, it seems feasible to me that someone might try to argue their way around it.

Overall, I am unfamiliar with canonicity situations where we extend traditional canon status to an adaptation; generally, we'd count something like an adaptation as a different canon, in my experience. However, if this has been argued as canon in the past, then I'm in favor of clarifying the rule in this regard.

 

[KingTempest]

I approve of the idea in spirit, but dislike the close-ended phrasing. You state the conditions necessary to be considered canon, but then list conditions that don't match that. But the latter list isn't all-inclusive, there may be other conditions, and by the current phrasing, it seems feasible to me that someone might try to argue their way around it.

Overall, I am unfamiliar with canonicity situations where we extend traditional canon status to an adaptation; generally, we'd count something like an adaptation as a different canon, in my experience. However, if this has been argued as canon in the past, then I'm in favor of clarifying the rule in this regard.

There can be other conditions, it's not all encompassing and at the end of the day it's probably going to work on a case by case basis, but this is just the framework for a needed conversation.

There's been an influx of extended canon to things like mangas recently so this was something that is genuinely needed.

 

[Vietthai96]

Hmm, this looks oke to me, though about rule, it is very hard to phrase it in a strict manner, and we still need to evaluate CRTs anyway though case-by-case basis

 

[KingTempest]

Author approval alone does not confer canonical status upon adaptations, spin-offs, or derivative works. Such material is considered part of the primary continuity only when the creator or rights holders explicitly confirm its integration into the original timeline—for instance, through statements verifying that specific events, scenes, or elements genuinely occur within it. Mere involvement, supervision, general praise, or characterizations of the work as a "faithful adaptation" remain insufficient to establish new content as official canon; all determinations continue to be made on a case-by-case basis, with these criteria serving as guidelines rather than an exhaustive standard.

 

[Agnaa]

I think the current suggestion overcorrects so hard that it revokes things that are canon.

Primary Point​

Canon is not determined merely by author involvement or creative approval. It is established through explicit confirmation and direct continuity with the original work. A faithful adaptation or the creator’s participation alone does not make new material canonical—only statements or actions that formally integrate the new content into the established narrative do so.

Statements that Indicate True Canon​

• “The anime includes scenes that I added specifically to expand upon the original story—this moment is one of those additions.”
• “The anime aligns far more closely with my original vision; I’ve personally overseen production to ensure it reflects what I intended.”
• “This element was something I couldn’t include in the original work, so this version fulfills that intention at last.”
• “This should be regarded as the official continuation of the story—the definitive, canonical version.”
• “This project completes the narrative as I originally conceived it.”
• “These new scenes represent parts of the story that existed in my notes but never appeared in the released version until now.”
• “Think of this adaptation not as a remake, but as the intended final form of the original work.”

Statements that Do Not Indicate True Canon​

• “The creator granted permission for production.”
• “The creator approved the scene or said it looked good.”
• “The creator liked how the characters were portrayed.”
• “The company coordinated with the author out of respect.”
• “The adaptation was made with the creator’s blessing.”
• “It stays true to the spirit of the original story.”

Because the entire point of an adaptation is for it to mimic the original story. That does not make creative liberties canon now.

Add Onto the Canon Page​

Saying that author involvement isn't enough, and that there needs to be explicit confirmation/continuity, would mean that we wouldn't be able to treat additional material written by the exact same author as canon unless it makes strong enough continuity nods.

 

[KingTempest]

I think the current suggestion overcorrects so hard that it revokes things that are canon.

Saying that author involvement isn't enough, and that there needs to be explicit confirmation/continuity, would mean that we wouldn't be able to treat additional material written by the exact same author as canon unless it makes strong enough continuity nods.

It's different when the author is running it and the author is just asked to fill in

If Toriyama draws a databook for Dragon Ball Z we don't need to ask him if it's canon
If they ask Toriyama to draw a villain for a new episode it doesn't mean that the villain is canon

Canon in definition is made by the same person. But involvement ≠ ownership.

 

[Agnaa]

If you include that, if the author has a primary creative role (lead writer, director, etc.) then it is canon, unless there are indications that it isn't canon (such as author statements or significant & vitally important contradictions), then my view will simply be neutral.

I'm not familiar enough with the sorts of media that these revisions would affect.

 

[Vietthai96]

I think yeah, as long as the creators are the primary creative person of the work, i think it is sufficient to be canon unless something indicated otherwise. Require explicit confirmation such as "This A anime is canon to my manga" is kinda extreme

 

[Dalesean027]

I personally have no issue with this as we've had an influx of series slip through the cracks and get anime-canon status approved for basically this same kind of quotes used

Statements that Do Not Indicate True Canon​

• “The creator granted permission for production.”
• “The creator approved the scene or said it looked good.”
• “The creator liked how the characters were portrayed.”
• “The company coordinated with the author out of respect.”
• “The adaptation was made with the creator’s blessing.”
• “It stays true to the spirit of the original story

I don't think its extreme by any means to require some stricter standard to encompass works

 

[Nierre]

I'm neutral leaning towards agreeing

however I will admit that in hindsight that I've definitely accepted canonicity threads that definitely shouldn't have been

 

[KingTempest]

I'm neutral leaning towards agreeing

however I will admit that in hindsight that I've definitely accepted canonicity threads that definitely shouldn't have

Standards weren't strong, don't worry. I've done the same

 

[Godernet]

Statements that Do Not Indicate True Canon​

• “The creator granted permission for production.”
• “The creator approved the scene or said it looked good.” ~ (I think this specific quote could work for if an anime original scene can be calculated if anything else)
• “The creator liked how the characters were portrayed.”
• “The company coordinated with the author out of respect.”
• “The adaptation was made with the creator’s blessing.”
• “It stays true to the spirit of the original story.”

Because the entire point of an adaptation is for it to mimic the original story. That does not make creative liberties canon now.

I can agree that these shouldn't be used as the sole argument for True Canonicity, but I'm not sure I would agree with completely handwaving statements like these as indicators of true canonicity (specifically the ones I highlighted)

Although being a bit more holistic in how we evaluate the criteria surrounding a secondary media's canonicity definitely wouldn't hurt (consistency with the main story, characters, mechanics of the world's powers and setting, power level, etc. not to mention how it's advertised by the publisher or company that handles the IP on behalf of the owner, and of course, statements that imply direct involvement from the main author), rather than immediately accepting anything that implies the main authority figure gave it a glance or nitpicking every author statement for a very specific frame of wording and completely shut out any series where the author isn't quite as verbal about canonicity

Author approval alone does not confer canonical status. Material from adaptations, spin-offs, or derivative works is considered canon only upon explicit confirmation from the creator or rights holders that it integrates into the primary continuity—such as statements verifying that specific events, scenes, or elements occur within the original timeline. Mere involvement, supervision, general praise, or descriptions of a work as a "faithful adaptation" do not suffice to establish new content as part of the official canon.

Yeah, I don't really agree with this one (at least the part I highlighted)

Supervision is as close as you'll get, barring a word-for-word canonicity confirmation that an authority figure was pretty heavily involved.

Unsure on "faithful adaptation" because from an author's lens that's pm them saying "this is my work given a near 1 to 1 adaptation into a different form of media," which is pretty straightforward to me.

 

[KingTempest]

I can agree that these shouldn't be used as the sole argument for True Canonicity, but I'm not sure I would agree with completely handwaving statements like these as indicators of true canonicity (specifically the ones I highlighted)

Although being a bit more holistic in how we evaluate the criteria surrounding a secondary media's canonicity definitely wouldn't hurt (consistency with the main story, characters, mechanics of the world's powers and setting, power level, etc. not to mention how it's advertised by the publisher or company that handles the IP on behalf of the owner, and of course, statements that imply direct involvement from the main author), rather than immediately accepting anything that implies the main authority figure gave it a glance or nitpicking every author statement for a very specific frame of wording and completely shut out any series where the author isn't quite as verbal about canonicity

Fair enough

Yeah, I don't really agree with this one (at least the part I highlighted)

Supervision is as close as you'll get, barring a word-for-word canonicity confirmation that an authority figure was pretty heavily involved.

Scrap supervision and leave the rest, how does that work?

Edit: Although I agree supervision usually means canonicity, I'm not a fan of all types of supervision meaning so. Like some people watching to say "don't **** up my work" isn't really the same as "I'm the head of this and I'm making sure it's as accurate as possible"

 

[Agnaa]

Oh, I actually do have another question; how do you expect us to treat properties that don't really have an "original creator" for the story? I'm thinking specifically of the card game Magic the Gathering. The story, in early years, came from short blurbs on promotional material, and flavour text for cards, both of which were written by a wide variety of largely uncredited employees.

In this case, would we treat the owning corporation itself as the "creator", and by default assume that everything released by them for that game is canon?

 

[KingTempest]

Oh, I actually do have another question; how do you expect us to treat properties that don't really have an "original creator" for the story? I'm thinking specifically of the card game Magic the Gathering. The story, in early years, came from short blurbs on promotional material, and flavour text for cards, both of which were written by a wide variety of largely uncredited employees.

In this case, would we treat the owning corporation itself as the "creator", and by default assume that everything released by them for that game is canon?

Depends on the source of the canon of their work. How do they find things canon in the first place? If they have no original creator then I guess whatever goes as long as it's from a credible entity

 

[Random-Helper323]

This does seem very tight and restrictive, to be honest. Film and game sequels often have different directors and writers and even different studios. In fact many sequels lack any official statement of canonicity because their status as a sequel leaves canonicity assumed. This rule of needing explicit confirmation seems a bit too all-encompassing at a glance.

 

[KingTempest]

actually wait a minute

Oh, I actually do have another question; how do you expect us to treat properties that don't really have an "original creator" for the story? I'm thinking specifically of the card game Magic the Gathering. The story, in early years, came from short blurbs on promotional material, and flavour text for cards, both of which were written by a wide variety of largely uncredited employees.

In this case, would we treat the owning corporation itself as the "creator", and by default assume that everything released by them for that game is canon?

This does seem very tight and restrictive, to be honest. Film and game sequels often have different directors and writers and even different studios. In fact many sequels lack any official statement of canonicity because their status as a sequel leaves canonicity assumed. This rule of needing explicit confirmation seems a bit too all-encompassing at a glance.

this thread is primarily focused towards adaptations, not towards just figuring out canon for everything. so things like these aren't involved

 

[Dark-Carioca]

I agree with some of this, but I'm not sure I fully do so.

In most cases, perhaps... I would say there are likely tons of exceptions to this (like how in some comedy shows continuity and canon is very flimsy or how the F13 franchise, film-wise and beyond, is just a bunch of sequels doing whatever they want with little to no approval of the original creators [just the company] and most of the comics and novels just happen to fit into the timeline well enough)

If it's just adaptations though, then sure, I'd agree.

 

[KingTempest]

If it's just adaptations though, then sure, I'd agree.

primarily for this

 

[Dalesean027]

If it's just adaptations though, then sure, I'd agree

Thats all this covers yes. Just the canon of adaptations

 

[Agnaa]

actually wait a minute

this thread is primarily focused towards adaptations, not towards just figuring out canon for everything. so things like these aren't involved

Eh, I guess? Depends on how strongly you talk of adaptations. MtG features both lore books and flavour text that expand on the same narrative in different ways, written by different people.

Also, your suggested addition included "spin-offs" and "derivative works".

Also, I'm kinda surprised that loose adaptation stuff would've been accepted. For those it really should only be usable for clarifications on existing scenes, unless there's extremely strong evidence for them having priority. I would support making far stricter standards for those.

 

[Random-Helper323]

this thread is primarily focused towards adaptations, not towards just figuring out canon for everything. so things like these aren't involved

But they are. The proposed rule change refers loosely to spin-offs and derivative works as well, which in many cases is a sequel or prequel. There's nothing in there that stops sequels and prequels from being held under these rules.

 

[Godernet]

Scrap supervision and leave the rest, how does that work?

I edited my comment slightly with a comment on "faithful adaptation", but yeah, approval, praise, and an unknown amount of involvement shouldn't be enough for true canonicity without extra proof.

Edit: Although I agree supervision usually means canonicity, I'm not a fan of all types of supervision meaning so. Like some people watching to say "don't **** up my work" isn't really the same as "I'm the head of this and I'm making sure it's as accurate as possible"

I get where you're coming from. But at least IMO, nitpicking at the level of confirmed supervision an authoritative figure is giving a project leads to some very semantical talks about subject matter we can't really verify without talking to the author 1 to 1.

At that point its probably better to just judge the extended canon based on things like consistency with the source material to know how involved the author was.

 

[KingTempest]

Eh, I guess? Depends on how strongly you talk of adaptations. MtG features both lore books and flavour text that expand on the same narrative in different ways, written by different people.

Well as long as theycount under the same entity and they're credible. If they're questioning the canon of the series in the first place then idky it would even be part of the conversation. But alas, case by case, since idk how those work

Also, your suggested addition included "spin-offs" and "derivative works".

i guess i can remove that, the intention was intended to be focused on adaptions primarily.

Also, I'm kinda surprised that loose adaptation stuff would've been accepted. For those it really should only be usable for clarifications on existing scenes, unless there's extremely strong evidence for them having priority. I would support making far stricter standards for those.

Agreed

But they are. The proposed rule change refers loosely to spin-offs and derivative works as well, which in many cases is a sequel or prequel. There's nothing in there that stops sequels and prequels from being held under these rules.

see above-ish, removing those 2

I edited my comment slightly with a comment on "faithful adaptation", but yeah, approval, praise, and an unknown amount of involvement shouldn't be enough for true canonicity without extra proof.

I get where you're coming from. But at least IMO, nitpicking at the level of confirmed supervision an authoritative figure is giving a project leads to some very semantical talks about subject matter we can't really verify without talking to the author 1 to 1.

At that point its probably better to just judge the extended canon based on things like consistency with the source material to know how involved the author was.

yeah this is fine

 

[Agnaa]

At this point I mostly agree, I just want the wording to better reflect the bullet points you listed.

Author approval alone does not confer canonical status upon adaptations. Such material is considered part of the primary continuity only when the creator or rights holders explicitly confirm its integration into the original timeline—for instance, through statements verifying that specific events, scenes, or elements genuinely occur within it. Mere involvement, minor supervision, general praise, or characterizations of the work as a "faithful adaptation" remain insufficient to establish new content as official canon; all determinations continue to be made on a case-by-case basis, with these criteria serving as guidelines rather than an exhaustive standard.

I'd want this to instead say "its integration into or priority over the original timeline". And maybe add an example reflecting the bullet point “These new scenes represent parts of the story that existed in my notes but never appeared in the released version until now.”

 

[KingTempest]

Author approval alone does not confer canonical status upon adaptations. Such material is considered part of the primary continuity only when the creator or rights holders explicitly confirm its integration into, or priority over, the original timeline—for instance, through statements verifying that specific events, scenes, or elements genuinely occur within it (e.g., "These scenes originate from material in my notes that was omitted from the initial release but belongs in the core story."). Mere involvement, minor supervision, general praise, or characterizations of the work as a "faithful adaptation" remain insufficient to establish new content as official canon; all determinations continue to be made on a case-by-case basis, with these criteria serving as guidelines rather than an exhaustive standard.

 

[Agnaa]

Yeah looks good to me!

 

[KingTempest]

Thank you!

 

[Dalesean027]

This rewording works with me as well

 

[Vietthai96]

The new updated version looks good

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I will acknowledge our canon page seems kind of dated. While there were some simple but effective statements that worked well between 2017 to 2023 or so, and we have been using simple statements to have "One size fits all" interpretations. We have always had case by case policies, and standards assumptions usually end with "Unless otherwise stated." For example, the rule of thumb regardless of medium (Comic verses, Manga verses, video game verses, ect) has always been the main work is the primary canon where as guidebooks, advertisement trailers, fliers, instruction manuals, encyclopedias, and official websites are secondary canon at best. Exceptions can be if the author regrets certain decisions and remakes retcon it; which is in turn shown in sequels that follow the primary canon. But I do feel some of Bambu's points.

I also think it's worth noting a common issue. At the moment, the Canon page seems mostly focus on practices for comic verses and manga verses, but there is a common mentality that just because video games aren't mention, people (Including quite a few new school staff members) are in the mentality that the rules doesn't seem to apply to those verses the same way as other mediums. In addition to the mediums or adaptations, or extended promotional materials for the main work, our canon page doesn't seem to tackle language/localization policies enough. For many years, it's always been common sense that the native language of the work is the primary canon compared to localized overseas translations. American versions are primary canon for American Comics, Japanese versions are primary canon for Japanese Manga, and the list goes on. And when primary canon vs secondary canon is brought up, it doesn't necessarily mean secondary canon can't be used at all period. As said, case by case. If secondary adds flavor or in depth context to primary canon, it is used. If it contradicts primary canon outright, it should not be used. When it comes to localization, there is a complicated dilemma on video game verses; difference between Publisher vs Developer or the IP rights owner.

Our policy on video games shouldn't be double standard compared to other mediums; video games both owned by a Japanese company and developed in Japan should have Japanese primary canon. Likewise, a game both developed by an American company, or anywhere else; Canada, UK, France, Singapore, ect. And also owned by a company in the same country or region would have the native language be primary canon version. While all translated localizations are secondary canon at best. Of course same as our policy on guidebooks, it wouldn't mean using English localizations for references or comparisons to the original Japanese version are always unusable. It just means it's preferable to look at Japanese raws, and use them for comparisons and contrast purposes. Usually, little to no contradictions are pretty fair, but if localizations end up being opposites of native text, may want to question the localization. I know this could cause complications if a game was developed by an overseas company that speaks a different language, but it's associated with a franchise owned by a bigger company (Whether it be NA or Europe developing a Japanese franchise or Europe/Asia developing an American owned IP). But I think what matters most is what the original native language of the original script of the writing. As in, which ever place a video game was originally developed is the primary canon version; same policy as any other medium basically.

I know some of those concerns are a different topic about the canon page, but relevant to the canon page none of the less. And the OP is about talking about, "Author involvement or approval doesn't mean primary canon." Which I could say my concerns are also relevant to that. Some have tried making English localizations to video games developed in Japan as canon just because, "Director approved or supervised localizations" doesn't make those localizations primary canon. But I'll get the important thing out of the way.

Author approval alone does not confer canonical status upon adaptations. Such material is considered part of the primary continuity only when the creator or rights holders explicitly confirm its integration into, or priority over, the original timeline—for instance, through statements verifying that specific events, scenes, or elements genuinely occur within it (e.g., "These scenes originate from material in my notes that was omitted from the initial release but belongs in the core story.""). Mere involvement, minor supervision, general praise, or characterizations of the work as a "faithful adaptation" remain insufficient to establish new content as official canon; all determinations continue to be made on a case-by-case basis, with these criteria serving as guidelines rather than an exhaustive standard.

This text looks good to me as well. So I will give that a thumbs up.

 

[Reiner04]

Updated version looks good.

 

[Planck69]

Yeah, the reworded version looks good to me.

 

[Antvasima]

I also agree with the latest version of this rule text.

 

[Damage3245]

The proposal looks good to me.

 

[FinePoint]

I have no complaints with this clarification. I sort of assumed this was a given, since we've ignored the author in the past in cases where there's blatant contradiction.