“Canon-adjacent” definition and its standards.

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

Lephyr, I understand where you're coming from, but it's past an accusation at this point. We have eyes. The quote contains nothing of the sort.

Nevertheless, tone it down. At the worst, a report to the RVR if necessary. Though I don't see as necessary at this point.

Also, Deagon is correct, Weekly. Unless a Bureaucrat gave you permission, even if you had it, you are allowed only one comment.

 

[Deagonx]

Retired staff are still allowed to comment on staff threads.

Honorably retired staff are. Not people who were fired for misconduct.

With that said, given that you never received permission to comment here and have just derailed the thread with the same debunked notions about the RWBY movie, I am going to remove your comments and replies to them.

 

[Deagonx]

Bumping this, as I do think it's an important issue.

I believe that for any iteration of "canon with an asterisk" given as a description, like secondary canon, canon adjacent, tertiary canon, "mostly canon" et cetera, our default assumption should be to exclude it unless we have a concrete reason to believe otherwise. I don't think we should be inflexible, but in the absence of something concrete we should err on the side of not including things that have a level of fuzziness regarding whether or not they fit into the storyline.

 

[Antvasima]

Can somebody summarise each side of the arguments here, as well as which members that think what, please?

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Can somebody summarise each side of the arguments here, as well as which members that think what, please?

@ImmortalDread @WeeklyBattles @DontTalkDT @DarkDragonMedeus @Executor_N0 @KLOL506 @Damage3245 @Deagonx

 

[ImmortalDread]

Actually, I do have one question since we are talking about canonicity standards:

Do we truly consider works supervised by an author as “canon” to the story's timeline? For instance, if a film is produced with the author merely supervising it, without officially stating it is part of the main timeline or being found in it.

This question is crucial because it barely falls into the realm of “alternative canon”. Instead, it is often regarded as "canon-adjacent," where certain elements from the main timeline are used to create a new and separate storyline.

As for the ping: @IdiosyncraticLawyer my summary is the OP.

 

[Executor_N0]

Depends on the material, because if one digs deep enough into those questions, then most stuff just wouldn't be canon.

But if there's enough information, it depends on the degree of the supervision and the intent of the work. If it's a supervision like "make sure it fits the original work" you can at least understand that what happens there makes sense in the world and settings of the original material, even if by any chance it doesn't exist in the same world/timeline.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I am unsure what else I need to say that hasn't already been said, but I believe Executor makes sense as usual.

 

[Antvasima]

Can somebody summarise each side of the arguments here, as well as which members that think what, please?

I still haven't received a proper summary here yet...

 

[Deagonx]

I still haven't received a proper summary here yet...

Sorry about that.

Essentially, I am arguing that the term "canon-adjacent" and any other version of "canon, but with an asterisk" should be treated as non-canon until sufficient context justifies the term being used to mean "fully canon and scalable information."

The opposing side contends that these terms do not have well-established or consistent meanings and thus it's not a good idea to treat them as though they do. I don't necessarily disagree with that, I just contend that any assessment other than "canon," including but not limited to "mostly canon" "canon-adjacent" et cetera disqualify scaling in the absence of concrete information that overrides the asterisk.

My point being, if they were just canon, we wouldn't need to call them canon-adjacent, and until it's exceptionally clear what makes them "adjacent" instead of simply "canon" we should not scale them.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for helping out.

I currently agree with your interpretarion then, but isn't the information in our Canon page good enough already?

 

[Deagonx]

Thank you for helping out.

I currently agree with your interpretarion then, but isn't the information in our Canon page good enough already?

It mostly refers to adaptations, I would like for it to specify that secondary works that are called some iteration of "canon-adjacent" should be assumed to not scale to the official canon until sufficient evidence comes forward showing that they can be scaled.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. I think that seems reasonable.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Okay. I think that seems reasonable.

How should we apply this?

 

[Nierre]

Sorry about that.

Essentially, I am arguing that the term "canon-adjacent" and any other version of "canon, but with an asterisk" should be treated as non-canon until sufficient context justifies the term being used to mean "fully canon and scalable information."

The opposing side contends that these terms do not have well-established or consistent meanings and thus it's not a good idea to treat them as though they do. I don't necessarily disagree with that, I just contend that any assessment other than "canon," including but not limited to "mostly canon" "canon-adjacent" et cetera disqualify scaling in the absence of concrete information that overrides the asterisk.

My point being, if they were just canon, we wouldn't need to call them canon-adjacent, and until it's exceptionally clear what makes them "adjacent" instead of simply "canon" we should not scale them.

I mostly agree, but I have a question.

If a "canon-adjacent" material (like a novel for example) were to thoroughly explain something in the mainline canon (manga), could we use that as supporting evidence?

For example, if we see that a character died in the manga, and came back 20 chapters later, with the explanation being "he resurrected", but then we find out from a novel, that he didn't actually die, but he was instead hospitalized and healed up from the injury, how would we go from there?
This is assuming it's wholly "canon-adjacent" and there's no statements or anything that concretely considers it as canon. (Like maybe, the magazine that the manga is written in, promotes the novel, however we have no proof that the actual author considers it as canon to the main story or whatnot)

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

I mostly agree, but I have a question.

If a "canon-adjacent" material (like a novel for example) were to thoroughly explain something in the mainline canon (manga), could we use that as supporting evidence?

For example, if we see that a character died in the manga, and came back 20 chapters later, with the explanation being "he resurrected", but then we find out from a novel, that he didn't actually die, but he was instead hospitalized and healed up from the injury, how would we go from there?
This is assuming it's wholly "canon-adjacent" and there's no statements or anything that concretely considers it as canon. (Like maybe, the magazine that the manga is written in, promotes the novel, however we have no proof that the actual author considers it as canon to the main story or whatnot)

@Deagonx

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

I mostly agree, but I have a question.

If a "canon-adjacent" material (like a novel for example) were to thoroughly explain something in the mainline canon (manga), could we use that as supporting evidence?

For example, if we see that a character died in the manga, and came back 20 chapters later, with the explanation being "he resurrected", but then we find out from a novel, that he didn't actually die, but he was instead hospitalized and healed up from the injury, how would we go from there?
This is assuming it's wholly "canon-adjacent" and there's no statements or anything that concretely considers it as canon. (Like maybe, the magazine that the manga is written in, promotes the novel, however we have no proof that the actual author considers it as canon to the main story or whatnot)

@Deagonx

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

I mostly agree, but I have a question.

If a "canon-adjacent" material (like a novel for example) were to thoroughly explain something in the mainline canon (manga), could we use that as supporting evidence?

For example, if we see that a character died in the manga, and came back 20 chapters later, with the explanation being "he resurrected", but then we find out from a novel, that he didn't actually die, but he was instead hospitalized and healed up from the injury, how would we go from there?
This is assuming it's wholly "canon-adjacent" and there's no statements or anything that concretely considers it as canon. (Like maybe, the magazine that the manga is written in, promotes the novel, however we have no proof that the actual author considers it as canon to the main story or whatnot)

@Deagonx

 

[Deagonx]

but then we find out from a novel, that he didn't actually die, but he was instead hospitalized and healed up from the injury, how would we go from there?
This is assuming it's wholly "canon-adjacent" and there's no statements or anything that concretely considers it as canon. (Like maybe, the magazine that the manga is written in, promotes the novel, however we have no proof that the actual author considers it as canon to the main story or whatnot)

This proposal was mostly related to works that are referred to by the authors as "canon-adjacent" or with some sort of asterisk. What you're referring to would likely be secondary canon or tertiary canon which our rules generally allow.

We should update the Canon page to reflect this minor clarification, though.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

We should update the Canon page to reflect this minor clarification, though.

What do you propose we change?

 

[Deagonx]

What do you propose we change?

The second paragraph on the Canon page reads as follows:

The generally agreed-upon definition is that the work by the original author and creator of the fictional setting is canonical, unless the author or the copyright holder declares otherwise. Few other exceptions are also possible and should be noted on the verse page.

I propose changing it slightly to this.

The generally agreed-upon definition is that the work by the original author and creator of the fictional setting is canonical, unless the author or the copyright holder declares otherwise. Notably, if a work is referred to by the author/publisher as "canon-adjacent" or otherwise given an endorsement of canonicity that contains some form of asterisk (mostly canon, etc) in the absence of more specific information it should be assumed that these works are not usable given our inability to determine what aspects of the work are not fully canon. A few other exceptions are also possible and should be noted on the verse page.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

The second paragraph on the Canon page reads as follows:



I propose changing it slightly to this.

Fine by me.
@Antvasima Can we apply this now?

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Fine by me.
@Antvasima Can we apply this now?

@Antvasima

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

The second paragraph on the Canon page reads as follows:



I propose changing it slightly to this.

@Antvasima

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

The second paragraph on the Canon page reads as follows:



I propose changing it slightly to this.

@Antvasima

 

[Antvasima]

Fine by me.
@Antvasima Can we apply this now?

That seems fine to me, yes.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

That seems fine to me, yes.

I have applied these changes. This can be closed now.

Canon

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. The generally agreed-upon definition is that the...

vsbattles.fandom.com