• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Issues with Canon Composites and levels of Canon

Putting pokemon aside because of that new point, im still very much disagreeing with this becoming the new overall standard. And i'll reply to your last reply now before the new pokemon point came up Dragon.

>I also argued that you cannot be overly selective in this situation. Especially when the games are contradicted by every other media, but this is just ignored. I disagree with this standard.

And just because you disagree with it, doesnt mean it needs to be changed. Unless you have a very good reason as for why the original source material can be challenged by simple adaptions, this is just your own disagreement being used as a basis vs something far more legitimate. Priority is here for a reason.

>They should be used equally as this is a Composite where all these sources come together. If we can't use other sources to go against the primary canon, we should not be able to use them to support it. This is my argument. Primary canon as I've explained should not be infallible. This is nothing but a circular point for what I just said. It doesnt change anything.

>The writers have no say in how we treat canon on this site, we the users do.

Oh. So you're pretty much admitting you want us to use fan-made tactics to determine canonicity in order to suit ones narrative. For the most part, we don't determine primary canon status, the creators of it do. Just because this is our site doesnt mean we can make a whole world of our own laws on what to do. This is practically saying "This is only just for us and thats it".

Pokemon I can understand being a diff story because of the new point you brought up, but speaking in general, we can't determine a franchises primary canon unless something gives us one hell of a good reason to. Like if the canons were confusing to go through and the creators don't give us good enough information to know whats canon and what isn't. I would understand where you're coming from in that case.

>Neither do all writers put canon on a hierarchy like we do. And this idea of canon is not official, but our definition. A definition I have set out to change. So bringing up, "that's how we've always treated it" is irrelevant here.

Then its a good thing they don't have to when its pretty much automatically made to be that when something is made. Along with using common sense. Whatever comes first, primary. Second, secondary canon. Anything after that comes tertiary.
 
1) Except there is still a standard that should be discussed that people agree with.

2) Pokemon is no longer a topic here btw. Like we are continuing to the standard. As for your Zelda example. I do not understand your point here.
 
"And just because you disagree with it, doesnt mean it needs to be changed. Unless you have a very good reason as for why the original source material can be challenged by simple adaptions, this is just your own disagreement being used as a basis vs something far more legitimate. Priority is here for a reason."

Me and 19 other people. Yeah, sure, it's just me. And I have given good reasons with people including staff who agree with me. I have posted my arguments multiple times with legitimate reasoning just as you have. It's almost like we are arguing the same things over and over.

"This is nothing but a circular point for what I just said. It doesnt change anything"

Like this debate in a nutshell.

"Oh. So you're pretty much admitting you want us to use fan-made tactics to determine canonicity in order to suit ones narrative. For the most part, we don't determine primary canon status, the creators of it do. Just because this is our site doesnt mean we can make a whole world of our own laws on what to do. This is practically saying "This is only just for us and thats it"."

Um, you realize that our standards don't come from the creators themselves. The standards we have now are made by us. I want us to discuss how to treat all of this. Unless you can give me an official guide to what's canon given by the writers themselves. Site regulations and standards exist for a reason. Nice to know you once again take my argument out of context.

"Pokemon I can understand being a diff story because of the new point you brought up, but speaking in general, we can't determine a franchises primary canon unless something gives us one hell of a good reason to. Like if the canons were confusing to go through and the creators don't give us good enough information to know whats canon and what isn't. I would understand where you're coming from in that case."

But by the standards we go by, this is what we do.

"Then its a good thing they don't have to when its pretty much automatically made to be that when something is made. Along with using common sense. Whatever comes first, primary. Second, secondary canon. Anything after that comes tertiary."

No shit. My argument is not what's primary canon, it's how we treat this which other canons. Just because "primary" is the most important, this doesn't mean it cannot be contradicted by secondary sources. Being "primary" =/= "infallible".

I am done with this for today as I am getting a headache. I will return tomorrow to see any new arguments. I have argued my points. I am just going to see arguments in agreement.
 
The first 2 points im not addressing since i'd be saying the exact same thing back, making it a deadlock.

>Um, you realize that our standards don't come from the creators themselves. The standards we have now are made by us. I want us to discuss how to treat all of this. Unless you can give me an official guide to what's canon given by the writers themselves. Site regulations and standards exist for a reason.

We have our own standards because indexing fictional characters and fictional debating in and of itself is purely fanmade for reasons im sure I dont need to explain. Of course we can have our own standards but when it starts to mingle with how a verse is officially treated it and publlicized it crosses a line. Unless you want us to use our standards to say the manga isn't the primary canon for Naruto or DBZ. Or a bunch of other verses where the manga takes the gold. Anything that comes first as an original creation from a creator is what becomes the primary canon, there is 0 reason to change this up.

>But by the standards we go by, this is what we do.

What verses on this site are so confusing then that the lines of whats primary canon, secondary canon, etc. are not clear enough? If you can name examples.

>Just because "primary" is the most important, this doesn't mean it cannot be contradicted by secondary sources. Being "primary" =/= "infallible".

You just contradicted yourself here. Being the most important does make it infallible as it is the original source material with the biggest importance of all. And we still have not established any legitimate reason why primary canon wouldnt or couldnt be infalliable.
 
So, what you're trying to do is basically demolishing the canon hierarchy, in the way that there's not anymore a "primary canon" and a "secondary canon", but it's just all "canon" right?

I heavily disagree with this. For every series that has ever grown big enough to have different canons is inevitably going to have contradictions in it. Even without taking the extreme examples of Marvel/DC/SCP, even series like Zelda will eventually get contradictions.

In the ALTTP manual it's stated that the Master Sword was forged by people to counter evil people who may get their hands on the Triforce. But we see in Skyward Sword that the Master Sword was forged by Link to defeat Demise.

In Pokémon depictions and statements will change (heck, the entire reason this started was because of Seismic Toss animation being inconsistent), and contradictions will be inevitably be born.

Naruto guides and OPM are already notorious enough on their own.

In other words, we need to establish a way to clear these contradictions, and the canon hierarchy is a much better method than just seeing everything and seeing what's used more. Just because GER isn't passive in EoH or Jorge Joestar doesn't mean it's not passive anymore for the canon manga. Just because guides state that Triforce wishes only last till the death of the wisher we're not going to ignore the in-game moments where this is contradicted. I could go on, but I think I conveyed my point.
 
"We have our own standards because indexing fictional characters and fictional debating in and of itself is purely fanmade for reasons im sure I dont need to explain. Of course we can have our own standards but when it starts to mingle with how a verse is officially treated it and publlicized it crosses a line."

I feel like either I am not explaining myself right or you are misunderstanding. My point here is that how we treat canon as a regulation has nothing to do with the writer. Unless the writer specifically said "this and that is more canon". I feel like I worded my point horribly. My point is simply that we decide how series without a defined rule on canonicity is treated. Sorry if my arguments failed to make that clear.

"What verses on this site are so confusing then that the lines of whats primary canon, secondary canon, etc. are not clear enough? If you can name examples."

When I said "this is what we do", I mean we automatically determine a series' primary canon.

"You just contradicted yourself here. Being the most important does make it infallible as it is the original source material with the biggest importance of all. And we still have not established any legitimate reason why primary canon wouldnt or couldnt be infalliable."

I didn't contradict myself. Just because something is the most important of something, doesn't mean it is absolute. In terms of sources, just because something is the "primary" source, this doesn't mean that it's interpretations in secondary canon should just be ignored. I am a believer that if multiple secondary canon sources contradict, then we have reason to question the primary. Unless each secondary source has a different interpretation. But if every source outside of the primary contradicts this, my argument is that we have a reason to question the primary. Just because you disagree doesn't make my reason any less legitimate. You can disagree, but you can't say I do not have a legitimate argument as there is no objective rule about this. This is simply multiple opinions coming together and deciding on a standard.

I'll stop replying eventually...but it's hard for me to ignore arguments I disagree with.
 
"So, what you're trying to do is basically demolishing the canon hierarchy, in the way that there's not anymore a "primary canon" and a "secondary canon", but it's just all "canon" right?"

Good lord, no I am not trying to demolish the canon hierarchy. Never once have I said that primary, secondary or tertiary canon should not be a thing. My argument is simply to allow one to question the primary canon if multiple secondary canon sources contradict the primary.
 
"My argument is simply to allow one to question the primary canon if multiple secondary canon sources contradict the primary."

But then, what's the difference between primary and secondary canon if both can deny the other?
 
Things can be weighed more than other things without being 100% superior in all cases
 
TriforcePower1 said:
But then, what's the difference between primary and secondary canon if both can deny the other?
Click to expand...
I'm curious of this as well. Most series I know usually have one major storyline with some spin-offs meant to flesh out the main story. Many of which are quick to say if something is canon or not to main story after a time.
 
I agree with the @Dragon's OP on canon composite. Every evidences should support another if not, the related topic should be dimissed.

If people don't want conflicting evidences to be dimissed then a profile for each version of the canon should made; I worked with canon composite of Web Novel and Light Novel for the Tensei Shitara Slime Datta Ke where the profiles add to be separated for such a reason.
 
The key word is multiple. If we have a primary source vs one secondary source, then obviously the primary wins. However, if we start getting more and more secondary sources that all contradict the primary, then I say that the primary can be called into question. That's all.

I am done for today. If there are people who agree with me, go ahead and argue, I am done for tonight, hopefully this discussion will have advanced by the time I wake up tomorrow. I am gettting more and more irratated and I am likely to snap at any moment due to stress, see you tommorrow.
 
Okay. Now that Dragon's got me on the up-and-up, I can say my piece.

I pretty much agree with Dragon. Newer, in this case, more accurate informatiom should take precedent over old information. My only issue is usage of terms "primary and secondary". If you mean like, for example, manga and anime, then yes the manga is always primary in a manga-adapted-anime scenario. But newer information always should be treated as overwriting the original unless the content creators specifically state otherwise.

For example. Dead or Alive 1-4 are no long canon because Dead or Alive Dimensions retconed and changed a lot of the detail from those series and was essentially a remake of DoAs 1-4. This is what carries over to DoA 5. We can't use DoA 1-4 in a canon argument anymore due to the continuity being overwritten by DoA Dimensions, as dumb as they changes they made are.

Ninja Gaiden also has a similar story but that's a story for another time.

Also, it really depends on what this secondary source and primary source is, again using the manga and anime for example. An anime can never invalidate a manga in a manga-anime adaptation scenario.

Please correct me if this is the wrong argument, I'm still a bit "off" after getting back from the doctor's.
 
I haven't been keeping up with the whole thread so sorry if I'm repeating something, but Pokemon doesn't have a primary cano, it has different canons for different mediums and even stories. Conquest and Mystery Dungen are both different canons from the main series games, but could I guess be considered secondary canons to the main series cause they're all video games, but the Anime is a different beast entirely with it's own set canon, but I've always been against the compositing form the start so I'll just sit back and let smarter people duke it out.
 
This proposal is to not undermine but evaluate different sources equally to the main source, such as an anime and manga even if the main source was a game?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if so I can agree with this.
 
I agree with Sera EX

A question for everyone?

Lets say a series was created in 1988, but it finished in 1990. The creator took a 18 year pause before picking up the series again for a sequel, and also created a series with events that came before the original series, but his newer works in lets say a random year of 2008. are consisent with each other despite the events happening before, and the original series after. His new writings contradict what he previously established.

in this particular instance. The new series will take precedence over the original?
 
I...would say yes. If the writer basically goes back and just retcons their own creation, especially after such a time gap, that's one thing. They're overwriting their own work basically.
 
I haven't had enough time to read the whole thread, but reading the OP. The question is if a certain technique has multiple animations throughout the series, we analyze the different results case by case?
 
I agree with Dragon for the most part.

If you have to treat feats based on the canonicity of different canons then just make different profiles for them. If it's a composite profile then you gotta throw the whole "this is more canon" argument out of the window, measure everything with the same scale, treat them equally and maintain a decent level of consistency.
 
Okay im back now.

>I feel like either I am not explaining myself right or you are misunderstanding. My point here is that how we treat canon as a regulation has nothing to do with the writer. Unless the writer specifically said "this and that is more canon". I feel like I worded my point horribly. My point is simply that we decide how series without a defined rule on canonicity is treated. Sorry if my arguments failed to make that clear.

Why wouldn't this have anything to do with the writer though? It's their creation that we are arguing about or using in an argument. Why should they have to spoon-feed us information about whats the primary source material when many more times than not its pretty self-explanatory?

If im someone who is working on a series, and I publicize my work to be a manga first and anime second, it's quite clear which one is the primary canon. The one that I had a direct hand in making. The one that I created on my lonesome, which would be the manga. Asking for information that is already quite clear shouldnt be a requirement, much less a reason for us to start coming to our own conclusions on whats the primary canon for a verse.

>I didn't contradict myself. Just because something is the most important of something, doesn't mean it is absolute *snip*

You may be a firm believer of this Dragon, but this doesnt make the point any more credible than me being a firm believer of the exact opposite. But for the sake of argument, lets use some examples to show how flawed this argument can become, first without using canonicity as a basis but credibility of information in general.

Lets say, for example, NASA was doing a research project on black holes, doing constant studying, research and analyzing every bit of possible information to fully understand how a Black Hole works. And after doing said extensive research, they publicly released an article about the information they gathered so that everyone can see what they found about what Black Holes can do. Then later on, multiple other people released their own articles about what Black Holes can do, even refuting NASA's research saying it was incorrect. So now in this scenerio, we have one research article vs multiple other ones from random people. Tell me Dragon. Which one would you find more credible? The number of random nobodies who did a mediocre amount of research into Black Holes on their own? Or an organization that not only has, like, 100s of people working on the subject but people who have actual careers specializing in researching the topic? I dont know about you, but i'd most certainly go with the one that is far more credible on the matter, which would be NASA taking the priority in information and research.

Canonicity works the same as this but on a much more deeper level. When a creator makes a form of media for the first time, that is the original source material.as that is how the franchise begins. And when we have secondary adaption sources that come after the original source's creation, not only are they just carbon copies of the original but with additional ideas to make it unique, they are always made to be their own thing in the first place. Especially when they are made by other authors aside from the original. So by saying that secondary canon sources can overide the original source material, you're admitting that these other authors can have bigger authority than the one who created the franchise in the first place, which is ridiculous. No matter how many secondary canon adapations are made, the one who created the franchise to begin will always have the priority of what dictates the series. The only way this isnt the case is if the original creator agrees with retconning the primary canon with the ideas of secondary canon sources or if the original creator dies and someone else takes over (like Ben 10 for example where Dwayne McMuffle was the original creator of Ben 10 but died before Omniverse came to be.)
 
Sera EX said:
I pretty much agree with Dragon. Newer, in this case, more accurate informatiom should take precedent over old information. My only issue is usage of terms "primary and secondary". If you mean like, for example, manga and anime, then yes the manga is always primary in a manga-adapted-anime scenario. But newer information always should be treated as overwriting the original unless the content creators specifically state otherwise.

For example. Dead or Alive 1-4 are no long canon because Dead or Alive Dimensions retconed and changed a lot of the detail from those series and was essentially a remake of DoAs 1-4. This is what carries over to DoA 5. We can't use DoA 1-4 in a canon argument anymore due to the continuity being overwritten by DoA Dimensions, as dumb as they changes they made are.
Click to expand...
This is not entirely true Sera.

Newer or more accurate information shouldnt take precedent over "old" information if the original creator didnt sign off of that being a case. Or if the original creator is no longer alive to make that kind of choice. Like for example, again, Dwayne McMuffle being the original creator of Ben 10 up to Ultimate Alien only because of him dying before Omniverse came out, therefore he no longer has a say at that point. And for obvious reason.

So in the case of this Dead or Alive franchise you mentioned, did Dead or Alive Dimensions retcon the 1-4 DoA's because the original creator allowed it to be a retconned remake? Or was it someone else doing their own thing? If the former, then yes this is when new information can overwrite the old. But if the latter, then no it doesnt because the original creator isnt signing off on it. It's someone elses doig.

So this is only partially true and is to be handled on a case by case basis.
 
This thread has turned into one massive headache (and I just recovered from the Sonic CRTs), that said I'm still neutral on most thing's.

Please remember everyone has their own different standards on the three Cs (canon, continuity and composite) while we have to be as objective as possible, it's clear to me one person's PoV will inevitably clash with another... (and neither side is 100% correct or wrong imo) hence the circular arguments that I've gotten accustomed to, as of late.
 
AKM sums it up best. If people want to composite a bunch of canons rather than use secondary canons to support the primary (I'm referring to direct anime adaptions where both are clearly following the same storyline and events), none can take precedence over the other else its just cherry picking. Seeing as this is from multiple forms of media that have blatantly different continuities, it can't be the latter.
 
@Sera Retcons are something different than inconsistency.

Letting a lot of secondary canon affect the primary canon misses the point of why we even have the hierarchy. Primary canon is (almost) always the first thing created by the author. THIS is the story that we're trying to rate, be it anime, manga, videogame or whatever. Secondary canons and so on are always INSPIRED or at least based on the primary canon.

Game guides are based on the game, Anime on the manga, mangas on Light Novel and so on. We accept these things as canon based on a series of factors (mainly having the same author), and we use them to EXPAND on the first, primary canon. We're not rating a composite of primary and secondary canon, we're rating the primary canon WITH the help of the secondary ones. Even Pokémon does it, as we accept Anime feats for a direct statement that what Pokémons can do in the anime is stuff that they can do in the games, and Manga (only Adventures) for the creator of Pokémon stating that the manga is basically how the Pokémon world was supposed to be without game limitations. So we take the primary canon (games) and use the secondary canons to help us rating the primary canon guys. That's not compositing.
 
I think I'm going to try and sum up what both sides are saying.

Dragonmasterxyz: Primary canon does take precedence over other forms of media when evaluating feats and the like, however, if multiple secondary forms of media contradict a certain feat that the primary canon says or shows, they should be taken into consideration when evaluating the legitimacy of that feat

Key word here: Multiple

Kukui: Primary canon is what should always take precedence when evaluating certain feats while secondary canon is only used for support to say, fill in the gaps between primary canon or bring to light new things that aren't contradicted by primary canon. Basically, if secondary canon, in any way, contradicts primary canon, regardless of how many secondary canons contradict it, it should not be used nor taken into consideration. I.e. Primary canon > Secondary, tertiary, etc. in any circumstance as long as there are no contradictions from other sources.

Key point: Primary always takes precedence

I'm going to stay neutral since I can easily see both sides of the aisle.
 
Just to get this straight, the question is wether or not the games should be used as the word of god, even if contradicted by other media?

If thats the case, then no, they shouldn't be. The games have loads of weird sh*t in them (especially the pokedex entires of some specific pokemon), that get contradicted by either the games themselfs, any other media or straight up logic/thinking about it. It often feels like GameFreak pulled a Thanos/JKRowling when they made some of the things (Reality can be whatever I want/I am the author, so its canon)

When it comes to Seismic Toss specifically, then no, the animation from the games should not be used since it is likely just an art choice. In Dr Stone when making gunpowder they were shown in a kitchen, this doesnt mean they actually were in one, same applies here.

About the composite characters I'd say that consistancy should always be a (at least somewhat) high priority, regardless of the type of profile. I do however understand why it is especially important for a composite profile.

If I understood everything corectly, I am in agreement with the OP.
 
When I just took a glance at the seismic toss thread, I did find the numerous depictions of seismic toss contradicting the attack animation to be a valid concern. However, that came from me not fully trusting attack animations like this as feats and yeah I know, "lol attack animation" is considered quite an infamous downplay tactic here but that doesn't change my opinion. These things are a lot more flimsy than cinematics, lore, canon descriptions and such so I personally wouldn't take them at face value if overall context doesn't support their accuracy or if the verse as a whole show a different interpretation of the attack being more consistent

Excuse my rambling on attack animation, I realize the topic is canonicity and not this. And well, I don't think I really agree with the sentiment. If you are compositing something I believe you aren't giving the character many instances of the same ability or technique, as in if "Powerful finishing attack" is explosion manipulation in one installation but energy projection in a spinoff title you wouldn't give the character both energy projection and explosion manipulation for the same technique. If I am wrong, correct me, but if I'm right then alternate media depictions of the same attack wouldn't be part of the composite just the attack from the primary one, and they wouldn't really influence how the attack should be treated

Though ultimately I don't actually know if this is the standard, if it isn't you can disregard this post. Really it all just depends on how exactly we handle composites
 
"Why wouldn't this have anything to do with the writer though? It's their creation that we are arguing about or using in an argument. Why should they have to spoon-feed us information about whats the primary source material when many more times than not its pretty self-explanatory?"

The issue isn't assuming what's primary canon, the issue is assuming that put said primary canon on an infallible pedestal. My argument is that how we treat primary and secondary canon is up to us unless they blatantly say that "this canon is untouchable". Your ideals here are not as self-explanatory as you believe.

"If im someone who is working on a series, and I publicize my work to be a manga first and anime second, it's quite clear which one is the primary canon. The one that I had a direct hand in making. The one that I created on my lonesome, which would be the manga. Asking for information that is already quite clear shouldnt be a requirement, much less a reason for us to start coming to our own conclusions on whats the primary canon for a verse."

Okay, and then you proceed to make multiple other canon sources which proceed to contradict your original source. We now have an issue and said primary source starts to be the contradictory source. You're basically ignoring consistency. This issue is more glaring when dealing with Composites as their nature is different than a normal profile.

"You may be a firm believer of this Dragon, but this doesnt make the point any more credible than me being a firm believer of the exact opposite. But for the sake of argument, lets use some examples to show how flawed this argument can become, first without using canonicity as a basis but credibility of information in general."

I never argued this? Matter of fact, if anyone, you are the one who has been trying to invalidate my points with you constant "I have not seen a valid/legitimate reason to support this" and whatnot. Or did you suddenly forget. I could easily put on a tinfoil fedora and say that you were trying to present your ideals as 100% fact, but the more reasonable assumption is that you didn't think much about it and didn't mean to come across that way.

"Lets say, for example, NASA was doing a research project on black holes, doing constant studying, research and analyzing every bit of possible information to fully understand how a Black Hole works. And after doing said extensive research, they publicly released an article about the information they gathered so that everyone can see what they found about what Black Holes can do. Then later on, multiple other people released their own articles about what Black Holes can do, even refuting NASA's research saying it was incorrect. So now in this scenerio, we have one research article vs multiple other ones from random people. Tell me Dragon. Which one would you find more credible? The number of random nobodies who did a mediocre amount of research into Black Holes on their own? Or an organization that not only has, like, 100s of people working on the subject but people who have actual careers specializing in researching the topic? I dont know about you, but i'd most certainly go with the one that is far more credible on the matter, which would be NASA taking the priority in information and research."

Wow, way to make a false equivalency when you are dealing with scientific fact compared to fictional canonicity. Obviously we are going to go with what the professional scientists of NASA says. However, this has no correlation as we are talking primary and secondary canon for a fictional series. This is by no means comparable when one is based on scientific fact and the other, unless granted by the writer, is a standard that is completely up to us to decide how to deal with it as a result of not to much information. Comparing Composite Canons and Black Hole science is a blatant false equivalency.

"Canonicity works the same as this but on a much more deeper level. When a creator makes a form of media for the first time, that is the original source material.as that is how the franchise begins. And when we have secondary adaption sources that come after the original source's creation, not only are they just carbon copies of the original but with additional ideas to make it unique, they are always made to be their own thing in the first place. Especially when they are made by other authors aside from the original. So by saying that secondary canon sources can overide the original source material, you're admitting that these other authors can have bigger authority than the one who created the franchise in the first place, which is ridiculous. No matter how many secondary canon adapations are made, the one who created the franchise to begin will always have the priority of what dictates the series. The only way this isnt the case is if the original creator agrees with retconning the primary canon with the ideas of secondary canon sources or if the original creator dies and someone else takes over (like Ben 10 for example where Dwayne McMuffle was the original creator of Ben 10 but died before Omniverse came to be.)"

No, canonicity does not work like your example above as you are now trying portray your ideals as fact once again, but proceed to act like mine is a ridiculous subjective viewpoint while ignoring the fact that your ideal is subjective as well. Yes I am indeed saying that what the creator says can be contradicted by other sources, especially if these are composite variations. The moment we begin using the other variations for evidence and consistency, we open the floodgates to allow that primary source to be questioned. Unless the writer says that their primary source is infallible, then we should not just assume it is as we as a versus site should focus on consistency and by nature should question evidence. What you are basically telling us to do is to put this form of evidence and infallible and completely ignore inconsistency. That's a bad thing in my eyes Kukui. And you may say "this is only your viewpoint", but the fact that just like you, I have people in agreement proves that this isn't just some half-baked idea, but actually a legitimate concern that is worth considering. Something that you constantly are trying to deny.

"Newer or more accurate information shouldnt take precedent over "old" information if the original creator didnt sign off of that being a case. Or if the original creator is no longer alive to make that kind of choice. Like for example, again, Dwayne McMuffle being the original creator of Ben 10 up to Ultimate Alien only because of him dying before Omniverse came out, therefore he no longer has a say at that point. And for obvious reason."

I disagree. Newer and more accurate information should in fact take over old information if the newer information has multiple showings that contradict the older information. It's called consistency. When making a composite, you are accepting all information, both new and old. While there is a primary canon, once we get multiple other canons contradicting it, the primary should be allowed to be questions. There should never be unquestionable evidence.
 
@Triforce

Again, what do you mean by a primary and secondary source? I need an example. Do you mean, for example in a video game, the in-game material is primary and secondary material is...well, secondary? Because most of our verses rely heavily on secondary material anyway due to the primary source being lackluster or too vague to interpret.

I honestly admit I'm not sure I understand what you guys mean when referring to these sources, then again I'm on meds so...maybe I'm just being silly @_@
 
Pokémon games are primary canon, anime and manga are secondary

Zelda games are primary canon, guides and books are secondary canon

Manga Naruto is primary canon, the guidebook and I think the anime too is secondary canon.

Basically, one of the things that this revision would change is that, for example, if several guides states that certain character X is planet level, but in the game it's clearly shown that he does it via chain reaction, we would still consider character X planet level because many secondary canons>primary canon
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Sparkive
Sonic Runner is NOT CANON
Replies
18
Views
1K
Sparkive
Sparkive
The_Yellow_Topaz
  • Locked
Dragon Ball Z: Kakarot - The canon and the non-canon
2 3
Replies
99
Views
8K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Freedomstar
SnO Anime canon keys
Replies
15
Views
751
Qawsedf234
Qawsedf234
LuffyRuffy46307
  • Locked
Dragon Ball Cosmology Canon
5 6 7
Replies
262
Views
17K
Damage3245
Damage3245
Köfteekmek
Fnaf world canon prof
2 3
Replies
96
Views
6K
DaReaperMan
DaReaperMan
Back
Top