“Canon-adjacent” definition and its standards.

[ImmortalDread]

Introduction​

---

In the past, there have been numerous debates regarding the treatment of "canon-adjacent" content. Some argue that such content is entirely non-canonical, challenging the very definition of the term. On the other hand, some members incorporate it into their personal headcanon, while others see it as partially canonical or supplementary. This discussion thread aims to facilitate conversation and establish standards and guidelines for the usage of this term.

Note: This draft provides a general framework for evaluating canon-adjacent works, but it is essential to adapt and refine these guidelines based on the specific fictional universe or community in question.

Examples​

---

The new section will have an impact on certain examples.

• The Witcher (games and books)
• Kingdom Hearts and Big Hero 6
• RWBY (Ice Queendom)
• EarthBound (Manga and Game)
• Young Justice and
  • Green Lantern: The Animated Series (GLTAS)
  • Catwoman: Hunted
  • DC Showcase: Green Arrow

Draft​

---

This is the draft depicting its appearance and maintaining consistency with other sections of the page.

Canon-adjacent refers to content or works that are closely related to the official canon of a particular fictional universe, but may not be considered part of the primary or official canon itself. It refers to material that exists in the same fictional universe, follows similar rules or principles, and is consistent with the established canon, but is not directly integrated into the main storyline or recognized as official by the creators or rights holders.

Canon-adjacent works often expand upon the existing canon, explore side stories, or focus on secondary characters or events. They may be created by different authors or artists, licensed by the original creators, or authorized by the rights holders. These works are typically intended to complement or enhance the main canon, providing additional context, backstory, or alternative perspectives.

When considering a work as "canon-adjacent", certain factors need to be taken into account:

• If the creators or rights holders of the original canon endorse or participate in the creation of the adjacent work, it is likely to be considered canon-adjacent. Depending on the level of oversight or activity the original creator or rights holders have in the creation of the given work, it may be considered fully canon as opposed to canon-adjacent.
• It should strive to maintain consistency with the existing canon. It should respect the core elements of the original while exploring new storylines or perspectives.

It is crucial to evaluate each case individually and consider these factors when discussing and interpreting canon-adjacent works within a community.

References​

---

For newcomers to the site, it is advisable to review these initial standards in order to grasp the context of the staff thread.

• Canon
• Crossover
• Inconsistency
• Outliers

Discussion​

---

Having presented the definition of the term, the question arises as to whether we should categorize these works as completely non-canon. Some authors choose to label them as such due to significant deviations from the established canon or lack of endorsement from the original creators. However, there are instances where canon-adjacent material is still regarded as part of the canon by fans or even acknowledged as such by the creators. The challenge lies in delineating the distinction between a mutual singular canon and a crossover canon that encompasses both sides.

It is important to note that failing to meet these criteria would result in only the content featured in the “expanding” work being usable, without referencing the “source” in any way.
For those unfamiliar with the term seeking a brief summary, "canon-adjacent" can be understood as "half-canon.”

 

[WeeklyBattles]

This would also apply to Steven Universe, as the comics and games are considered Canon-Adjacent/Level 2 Canon but the writers for SU have gone on record that their definition is 'canon until it contradicts the show'

 

[DontTalkDT]

Isn't this covered by the existing rules already linked in the references?
Like, canonicity is explained on the canon page, where also is explained when we allow alternate canon and stuff. If these reach any canon status, then they would basically just be alternate canons, no?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Someone said "Canon Adjacent" in an interview, and lots of users were confused what that entirely means. Some suggest it means one-sided canon while others suggest meaning secondary or tertiary canon. And there are some that just say it's another term for fanfiction/head-canon.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Someone said "Canon Adjacent" in an interview, and lots of users were confused what that entirely means. Some suggest it means one-sided canon while others suggest meaning secondary or tertiary canon. And there are some that just say it's another term for fanfiction/head-canon.

That seems like a verse internal issue more than a side rule issue. That obviously has to be evaluated in context of the interview and verse.
We can't just define a meaning of the term and then say the interview must mean that.
I.e. sounds more like something for a CRT?

 

[ImmortalDread]

Isn't this covered by the existing rules already linked in the references?
Like, canonicity is explained on the canon page, where also is explained when we allow alternate canon and stuff. If these reach any canon status, then they would basically just be alternate canons, no?

We never set guidelines for those types of canons, so no. Measurements factors for those type of verses should be found. Also, I don't think they are “alternate canons” if we look at the original universal definition of it.

We can't just define a meaning of the term and then say the interview must mean that.
I.e. sounds more like something for a CRT?

1. We did not define the term, the term has its definition. I (or we) simply added to it for the sake of clarity.
2. This is CRT :3

Someone said "Canon Adjacent" in an interview, and lots of users were confused what that entirely means. Some suggest it means one-sided canon while others suggest meaning secondary or tertiary canon. And there are some that just say it's another term for fanfiction/head-canon.

No, I did not create this due RWBY interview. It has indeed two sides of perspective, hence I created measurement factors for what wiki seems most reasonable to accept those verses as “canon” to original.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

No, I did not create this due RWBY interview. It has indeed two sides of perspective, hence I created measurement factors for what wiki seems most reasonable to accept those verses as “canon” to original.

I wasn't suggesting it was made because of that, but I was referencing that being a note worthy example of that term being used and people all over the internet were confused by definition.

 

[Joycap]

I'd wager Three Hopes continuity falls in this camp?

 

[Executor_N0]

1. We did not define the term, the term has its definition. I (or we) simply added to it for the sake of clarity.

I'm not sure if the term really has its own definition any more than "We don't know for sure if we can say it's canon by the standards the fans want, so let's call a term that lacks a universally agreed definition and leave it for their interpretation". Other series literally have a confusing canon and made use of that word when they just decided to not care a lot about that like the DCAU. And this isn't just as much confusing as literally a lot of different series that have their own rules of canon, or even lack any proper idea of what their canon is.

As I usually say, the Canon page already leaves the overall canonicity of any franchise to be defined on its own, we just go with "what the original author did" or similar when there's literally nothing to go from the series' own development, but as soon as a series has their own ideas of canon, the Canon page just allows the series to do its own thing.

 

[ImmortalDread]

So let us be clear since none of here staff members answered it:

Do we count those series as canon or not.

 

[Executor_N0]

It'll depend on what the franchise itself defines as the meaning of that word. If it's meant to mean just something that is canon, but not a part of the original series, of course, it'll be canon. If it's meant to be something that has similar elements and even story beats, but branched out into its own thing at some point, it would be an alternate canon, but with a common origin point.

It really depends on the work. Using the example of DC animated projects, the DCAU recently often uses "Canon-adjacent" because they don't want to really care that much about calling something "canon" for the fans that care more about that than themselves,although they often will just call them canon and pull the adjecent word when fans continue to ask picking eventual inconsistencies or problems. YJ, however, made use of "Canon-adjecent" as something that has similar elements and plot points, but branched out or into in some point, so it's something that is very similar, but not quite the same.

So it really depends on the franchise itself. And that is basically the same with Canon in basically any work.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Alright.

 

[KLOL506]

So what's the consensus here? OP is permabanned and there seems to be disagreements against them.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

She only user requested to be permabanned. But I guess discuss without her?

 

[Bobsican]

Dread seemingly conceded on this being unecessary after all to begin with as this is more of a case by case thing in general, and other semantics are already covered in our Canon page, so I don't think there's anything left to do here.

 

[KLOL506]

Well shucks. Aite then, is everybody fine with closing this thread off in the meantime?

 

[Damage3245]

Well shucks. Aite then, is everybody fine with closing this thread off in the meantime?

I'll close it for now.

 

[Antvasima]

@ImmortalDread has returned to our forum now.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

So time to get back on topic?

 

[ImmortalDread]

Yap, I will be back with few questions + possibly adjustments.

 

[ImmortalDread]

I'm not sure if the term really has its own definition any more than "We don't know for sure if we can say it's canon by the standards the fans want, so let's call a term that lacks a universally agreed definition and leave it for their interpretation". Other series literally have a confusing canon and made use of that word when they just decided to not care a lot about that like the DCAU. And this isn't just as much confusing as literally a lot of different series that have their own rules of canon, or even lack any proper idea of what their canon is.

As I usually say, the Canon page already leaves the overall canonicity of any franchise to be defined on its own, we just go with "what the original author did" or similar when there's literally nothing to go from the series' own development, but as soon as a series has their own ideas of canon, the Canon page just allows the series to do its own thing.

It'll depend on what the franchise itself defines as the meaning of that word. If it's meant to mean just something that is canon, but not a part of the original series, of course, it'll be canon. If it's meant to be something that has similar elements and even story beats, but branched out into its own thing at some point, it would be an alternate canon, but with a common origin point.

It really depends on the work. Using the example of DC animated projects, the DCAU recently often uses "Canon-adjacent" because they don't want to really care that much about calling something "canon" for the fans that care more about that than themselves,although they often will just call them canon and pull the adjecent word when fans continue to ask picking eventual inconsistencies or problems. YJ, however, made use of "Canon-adjecent" as something that has similar elements and plot points, but branched out or into in some point, so it's something that is very similar, but not quite the same.

So it really depends on the franchise itself. And that is basically the same with Canon in basically any work.

While it is true that the term “Canon-adjacent" may not have a universally agreed-upon definition, it serves a useful purpose in acknowledging the complexities of canon within different franchises. The term is often used to describe works that exist within the same universe or share similar elements but may not be directly connected to the main storyline or considered part of the original series. It provides a way to address and categorize these works without making a definitive statement about their canonicity.

The argument that other series, such as the DCAU, have a confusing canon and still use the term "canon-adjacent" to avoid defining it does not invalidate the usefulness of the term. In fact, it highlights the need for such a term in situations where there are varying interpretations and understanding of canon.

The Canon page you mentioned may leave the overall canonicity of a franchise to be defined on its own, but that does not mean the term "Canon-adjacent" lacks value. It allows for a distinction between works that are directly tied to the original series and those that have their own ideas of canon or exist in a parallel continuity.

In conclusion, while the term "Canon-adjacent" may not have a universally agreed-upon definition, it serves a practical purpose in acknowledging the complexities of canon within different franchises. It allows for the categorization and discussion of works that are related to the original series but may not be directly connected or considered part of the main canon.

 

[Spinoirr]

So basically AU story's or story's that happened off screen but we are seeing it?

 

[Antvasima]

DontTalk seemed to consider this thread redundant due to that the issues it brings up are already covered by our existing rules in this area that I worked on developing long ago.

 

[Executor_N0]

Just giving a new name to something we already accept isn't going to change a lot, if people aren't accepting is because they have some bias that isn't really from the rulings themselves, after all canon bias is something that is all over the place and the way we structure and accept things as canon is already much open to many other groups.

You can make use of the term Canon-adjacent, I particularly work with some franchises that work with a Worldview/Setting over continuity but isn't something that needs to be named to be acknowledged by name, at least wasn't necessary until now. If you have a series that defines what it means by Canon-adjacent and its rules of canon, it's something that will need to be mentioned on the series' page and maybe a blog post about its canon/continuity.

All that I was saying is that since the rules are already open, we don't need to make pages to describe alternate rules of canon, those were always something that was present on the franchise's page (Like in the old days when SW had its own canonical hierarchy where everything was somehow canon). If needed maybe some examples could be put into examples of Alternative Canon that is on the Canon page.

Currently, we have series where the anime adaptation is being considered canon alongside the manga, series where game tie-ins are also accepted as canon, there are even series that are basically totally against the notion of story continuity and work more with accepting as many of the settings as possible to give a holistic view of everything. If those series are perfectly acceptable here and discussions can happen about those structures and are accepted even by Staff members, then, if all of them are valid, our canon rulings are already very open about possibilities of canon that range from "only the original material is canonical" to "everything is canonical, even if it makes no sense timeline-wise", it'll all depend on what is established by the series.

I'm perfectly fine with adding more examples to Alternative Canon on the Canon page if supporters for certain series think that not having them is making their work in the series harder.

 

[ImmortalDread]

I'm perfectly fine with adding more examples to Alternative Canon on the Canon page if supporters for certain series think that not having them is making their work in the series harder.

I simply want to add the draft since those franchise still exists by that definition. I agree it is case-by-case, it is also in the draft. Your counter-argument is "it has different contrary definition" but did not address which definition may fall under the term that is not listed in my draft.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Yeah, it's a case by case basis, but I think it's commonly seen as another way to say "Secondary Canon". I don't disagree that it may be a bit redundant, but adding it as a list of synonyms to some of the secondary canon policy sounds okay has Dread mentions.

 

[Antvasima]

Can somebody explain how this will change our already existing rules and conventions please?

 

[Deagonx]

Can somebody explain how this will change our already existing rules and conventions please?

It would essentially codify this specific term as meaning secondary canon, that's all. I think it's fine to add, it might be a bit unnecessary but better safe than sorry. The only reason it became a debacle in the RWBY thread was stubbornness from not wanting to lose a debate. Every other person who offered input saw it as very obvious that a creator referring to content as "canon-adjacent" means it isn't canon for the purpose of scaling. Canon events and stories wouldn't come with asterisks.

 

[DontTalkDT]

We did not define the term, the term has its definition. I (or we) simply added to it for the sake of clarity.

I don't think the term has a universal definition that everyone would use consistently. It's not exactly what you would find in a dictionary.

It would essentially codify this specific term as meaning secondary canon, that's all. I think it's fine to add, it might be a bit unnecessary but better safe than sorry.

Honestly, sounds harmful to me. It seems to invite to not contextually interpret such a term, when it absolutely should be.

 

[Deagonx]

Honestly, sounds harmful to me. It seems to invite to not contextually interpret such a term, when it absolutely should be.

I just struggle to see a circumstance, even hypothetically, where we could take a story that was called "canon-adjacent" and say "we can use these canon-adjacent feats for the canon versions."

 

[ImmortalDread]

I don't think the term has a universal definition that everyone would use consistently. It's not exactly what you would find in a dictionary.

I discovered only two interpretations, which I consistently included in the draft. Your statement that it is not universally applicable implies the existence of additional meanings. Kindly express those alternative interpretations or kindly refrain from discussing the topic altogether, with due respect. Recognizing the intricacies of canon across verses serves a valuable purpose.

 

[Executor_N0]

I just struggle to see a circumstance, even hypothetically, where we could take a story that was called "canon-adjacent" and say "we can use these canon-adjacent feats for the canon versions."

There are cases when it's used, like the DCAU. The way Canon is handled in certain series might be very unorthodox, as I said, there are even cases when things aren't handled by timeline or general consistency, but "it's all the same thing", even when it doesn't make sense.

Sonic for example is having a renaissance in regards to canon that really pushes aside general consistency of the past over "just move on from inconsistencies and accept them as part of this history".

 

[Deagonx]

There are cases when it's used, like the DCAU. The way Canon is handled in certain series might be very unorthodox, as I said, there are even cases when things aren't handled by timeline or general consistency, but "it's all the same thing", even when it doesn't make sense.

Sonic for example is having a renaissance in regards to canon that really pushes aside general consistency of the past over "just move on from inconsistencies and accept them as part of this history".

It'd be helpful if we could have a more concrete discussion. Which stories or content from these franchises was referred to as "canon-adjacent" and how/where/why were they accepted on the wiki as scalable feats/events?

 

[DontTalkDT]

I just struggle to see a circumstance, even hypothetically, where we could take a story that was called "canon-adjacent" and say "we can use these canon-adjacent feats for the canon versions."

For example, if events from it are later on referenced in the main canon medium. Then it suddenly becomes debatable.

Honestly, someone might use it to mean "running besides the main plot" or "alternate timeline" or something. We really can't make big assumptions on people having a consistent idea for what the term should be used for.

I discovered only two interpretations, which I consistently included in the draft. Your statement that it is not universally applicable implies the existence of additional meanings. Kindly express those alternative interpretations or kindly refrain from discussing the topic altogether, with due respect. Recognizing the intricacies of canon across verses serves a valuable purpose.

Just about any use is imaginable for a made-up term. And a certain theoretical meaning not having been used doesn't let us exclude it from future use.

 

[Deagonx]

For example, if events from it are later on referenced in the main canon medium. Then it suddenly becomes debatable.

I see. I think this policy wouldn't prevent an ad-hoc incorporation into the main canon as taking priority over the description. After all, descriptions like "canon-adjacent" are pretty much always author statements, and at the end of the day in-verse content will always take priority over author statements.

Honestly, someone might use it to mean "running besides the main plot" or "alternate timeline" or something. We really can't make big assumptions on people having a consistent idea for what the term should be used for.

Just about any use is imaginable for a made-up term. And a certain theoretical meaning not having been used doesn't let us exclude it from future use.

I understand your point, but personally, I think that the utility of clearly codifying terms in a way that encompasses their main meanings outweighs the risk of mislabeling hypothetical edge cases where an author uses the term in an idiosyncratic manner.

However, I think overall the issue is of relatively low significance, so if we don't enact this change or just end up agreeing to disagree, I think it's not going to be too serious either way.

 

[ImmortalDread]

This is like saying that since we made up the word "Transduality," we should not create a consistent definition for it that actually works across most of the franchises.

 

[DontTalkDT]

I see. I think this policy wouldn't prevent an ad-hoc incorporation into the main canon as taking priority over the description. After all, descriptions like "canon-adjacent" are pretty much always author statements, and at the end of the day in-verse content will always take priority over author statements.


I understand your point, but personally, I think that the utility of clearly codifying terms in a way that encompasses their main meanings outweighs the risk of mislabeling hypothetical edge cases where an author uses the term in an idiosyncratic manner.

However, I think overall the issue is of relatively low significance, so if we don't enact this change or just end up agreeing to disagree, I think it's not going to be too serious either way.

Is even a widespread enough use of the term to really talk about a main meaning? Like, are there even 10 cases of it being used by different authors and fictions from which we factually know that it means the same thing?

When I google that term, with a VPN on, I first find some RWBY stuff, then some Young Justice thing followed from threads on this side. (Using Tor Browser additionally gives me Star Wars and a blog post that defines it as "Canon-adjacent materials are those which some may consider canon, but they may contain serious continuity errors or be put out by a different or altered source." instead) Us being amongst the first things on a not vs-realted issue usually indicated that the english speaking world doesn't pay much attention to it.

This is like saying that since we made up the word "Transduality," we should not create a consistent definition for it that actually works across most of the franchises.

The difference is that we only define what transduality means in our forum. We definitely don't try to say that transduality, when used in a different fiction, means what is written on our transduality page. When used in a fiction, we would have to judge what the terms means entirely by what the fiction says about it.

That's the big difference. In my understanding, you are trying to define what a term should mean when someone outside of our community uses it. We can't really do that, as we can't police how people speak elsewhere. We can only define what a term should mean if we ourself use the term.

Now if you only want to define what canon adjacent is supposed to mean on this website, with all interpretations on whether it means the same when used by anyone not on this side uninfluenced, it would be another story.

 

[ImmortalDread]

The point is, I made an effort to align it with how most authors interpret it. Even with slight differences, it remains consistent. However, the problem arises when you suggest that it may be open to other potential definitions without specifying what those possibilities are, making the issue unsolvable.

No, I would like to include this addition because it is not harmful, and it could help others understand our perspective on this matter. Moreover, I have included it on a case-by-case basis as well.

 

[Executor_N0]

I understand your point, but personally, I think that the utility of clearly codifying terms in a way that encompasses their main meanings outweighs the risk of mislabeling hypothetical edge cases where an author uses the term in an idiosyncratic manner.

At least recently it has become common in certain series with events and products being labeled as "stand alone" or even "non-canon" in a "It's its own product that can be enjoyed on its own, but still part of the timeline".

In the Sonic series, for example, we had previously the example of Sonic Forces that was even put as "non-canon" in an old previous accepted blog because "it's called its own thing and not a sequel to any previous game". The same happened in the recently announced Superstars with the producer directly being quoted in an interview as "not being in the timeline of X game" and "its own thing", only to be clarified later as "its story is unrelated to the story of that other game, but it's all the same canon".

In a more drastic example Digimon Survive was quoted in an interview as literally "not being part of the canon", but both previous and later clarifications explained as "it's an unorthodox game that has a totally different feeling and setting to other games and might be an uncomfortable experience for those expecting more of the same" which its settings directly being used to explain previous stories and even claimed by the same producer as the "the answer to what the series itself is and the basis for the future".

I wouldn't just put "Canon-adjacent" as a problematic term, but "canon", "timeline", "universe" all can be often used to describe something much more nuanced than just "it's or not the same story/world".

And this is why although we have a baseline description of canon in the Canon page, it's still open to any franchise with any unorthodox definition of how its shared universe works. I personally think that just giving more example of those unorthodox cases could be enough to make the page more "all-encompassing" regarding those odd series.

 

[Executor_N0]

Basically any anime or cartoon verse where there are films that are never brought up in the series themselves but are confirmed to have happened by the writers

And that is not only something very common, but it's mostly industry standard as especially for long series that need to balance how much they want to still mention of the past for reasons like "not everyone one will understand" or "is it really necessary to spend time acknowledging that instead of doing something else with our limited time?".

Sometimes stuff lacks being mentioned just because it's industry standard to not mention tie-in stuff even if it's intended to share the same world.