Forum:Vote to change the Wiki's Canon Policy

Due to a discussion raised here on the Canon Policy talk page, a vote is being tabled to decide whether or not to change our current policy regarding the Canon status of various media within the Harry Potter universe as it is presented on this Wiki.

I encourage all voters to both read the evidence presented by who has proposed this change, and my own statement as to what this would mean for the Wiki itself. Both are listed below. Also, a thorough reading of the discussion on the canon policy talk page should be undertaken.

Voting will last for one week, and be closed on the 25th of November, 2009. However, if it is clear that one option has significantly more support before that time period has elapsed, then the vote will be closed early.

New Canon Policy Proposal, as proposed by
The following is the basis supporting the ‘for’ side of the argument which proposes to remove the second and third tier from the Canon Policy as a means of following the statements of J.K. Rowling who views the books/her own creative story/her word-of-mouth information and the films/videogames as “separate entities”. This adheres to part of the policy which essentially states that Rowling’s word is law. The overlap between the “separate” storylines in this wiki is very great, often blurring the boundaries between what should be separate (according to Rowling) and what is not. If the aforementioned tiers are removed, this would NOT mean that all the references, sources, articles, in-text quotes or images pertaining to the films and videogames found within the wiki would be deleted, but rather, no longer included under the title of in-universe.

There are two possible repercussions to this; and a choice would need to be made between Situation [a] and Situation [b]. The former ([a]) would mean that any language found within text that is written from the perspective of in-universe would require editing to conform to the altered policy. For example, the line: Bellatrix was present during the Battle of the Astronomy Tower in 1996, a statement worked from the current policy, would be changed to: In the film, Bellatrix was present during the Battle of the Astronomy Tower in 1996. Also included under Situation [a], would be that all article pages devoted entirely to a character, location or object existing only in the films or videogames would be given a tag identical to those present given to the current out-of-universe pages e.g. those relating to the actors of the real world.

Situation [b] would still include the use of tags on pages wholly dedicated to films or videogames, yet would differ greatly and admittedly require fewer alterations to in-text language, than if Situation [a] was selected. If Situation [b] is chosen, then there would be a rule enforced to ensure that all relevant articles have ‘Behind the Scenes’ sections in which it is clearly pointed out that a certain event only occurs in a film or book. Since most, if not all pages, already do that, there would be very little effort required to conform to the change in policy.

Supporting Evidence for Reason of Change
The current policy regarding ‘canonical’ information, while well thought out, fails to cover all the appropriate aspects of what should be included as an in-universe topic. In other words, there is a loophole in which contradicting versions of the Harry Potter storyline crosses over inconsistently. Here is an example of such a case: Sirius Black's death: The book (Harry Potter and the Order of Phoenix) does not describe the colour of the fatal jet of light that strikes Sirius's chest. This is most unlike the film adaptation which clearly indicates Bellatrix Lestrange murdering Sirius with the Killing Curse. The article, Sirius Black, states that Sirius was killed by an unknown spell due to the book’s omission of the spell’s description. According to the current policy however, an omission from the book allows the film priority meaning that it was the Avada Kedavra that indeed killed Sirius. This is where the consistency halts, however. If it is accepted that the Killing Curse destroyed Sirius, and the Killing Curse itself, as laid out by the books, causes instant death then that does not explain why Sirius took a slightly extended period of time for him to die (again as described in the book). In conclusion, only a policy that firmly stands by Rowling and her books would be consistent.

Rebuttal by
I believe that the proposed policy would, if adopted, be a disaster for this Wiki. The greatest strength of the Wiki has always been its individuality, and with the current Canon policy we can confidently say that we are one of the only&mdash;if not the only&mdash;Harry Potter encyclopedia to deal with canon in this way. I have always been immensely proud of this Wiki and the way it deals with integrating the various media in the Harry Potter universe into a single, cohesive whole. I am proud to be a member of this community, and to administrate it.

When I joined this Wiki almost two and half years ago, it was not as comprehensive as it is now. Through the efforts of many editors, we have made this Wiki into one of Wikia's largest wikis, and are among its most active communities. This could only have been done through the addition of material from the various adaptations&mdash;film, video game, etc. And I firmly believe that the addition of this material was only done because our existing Canon policy allowed it by treating it as part of the Harry Potter universe and not segregating it.

Make no mistake, the above proposal is not a simple adjustment or improvement. It is, in effect, a 180 degree U-turn from our current policy. 5,000 plus articles will need to be checked and corrected (or in some case completely rewritten), tags will need to be applied to many articles, and, in some case, articles will need to be renamed. For example, Wool's Orphanage; the name comes from the films, so it would need to revert back to a name like Tom Riddle's orphanage.

The current proposal is also hypocritical; by deeming elements from the films and games as non-canonical, then surely by extension this would mean the removal of images from those media in articles? Apparently not: "We don't have to tag every page to indicate a non-canonical image if it is written in the policy that all images are classified as non-canonical anyway; there is no hypocrisy in that." I would have to disagree; using an image from other media to illustrate a policy that only regards the books as the "true canon" is hypocritical. If you wish to have a "true canon" policy, then surely any images from support media dilutes this and then only serves to confuse the reader as to the intent of the Wiki? Why portray film and game events as non-canon and then happily display images from these media alongside the "true canon"? This, apparently, would even extend to declaring artwork by Mary GrandPré as non-canonical despite the fact that they are including in the novels themselves.

Also note that this policy does not only mean to change the Canon policy, but also to change part of the general policy, specifically the section that states that articles must be written from an in-universe perspective. By accepting this proposal, in-universe events from the films and games will be replaced with out-of-universe quantifiers such as "In the film", or "In the game". I can understand this being done over at a general encyclopedia such as Wikipedia, but we are a dedicated Harry Potter Wiki&mdash;we can be better than Wikipedia; in fact, we are better.

As Yin&Yang notes above, confusion can become apparent, and cites the complications surrounding Sirius's death. Fair enough, but a total retooling of a long standing policy should not be undertaken to fix these minor contradictions. Perhaps a rewording of the existing policy should be discussed to fix this&mdash;and other complications&mdash;rather than throwing out a policy that underpins the entire Wiki just to correct them.

I love this Wiki for the way it handles Canon, and I suspect that many of my fellow editors feel the same or you would not be here. Since the policy has been in force we have seen an influx of talented and dedicated editors that have done their best to build this Wiki into the achievement it is today. This policy makes us unique, and I believe it is the reason many editors chose to come here and contribute their time and effort to making this Wiki what it is. There is no new Harry Potter stories from Rowling on the horizon, but we do have the last films coming. Do we accept this new policy and possibly alienate new editors who come here off the back of watching the films? Every time a new film has been released, this Wiki has seen an upsurge of interest and activity. Do we dare to risk the viability of the Wiki? I say no. I say the Canon policy, while not perfect, has served us well and makes us a community and an encyclopedia with a unique and fresh outlook on the Harry Potter universe.

Voting restrictions
Since this vote will impact the entire wiki and its contents, I am tightening the voting eligibility to stop single issue voters, possible sock puppets, and newly registered users from deciding the fate of the wiki. As such, voters will have to have made their first edit at least one month prior to the opening date of this vote, which by my calender is the 18th of November, 2009. This means any user whose first edit was after this date is ineligible to vote.

Any user caught using sockpuppets registered before that date will also have their votes&mdash;their own and their sockpuppets&mdash;struck. There are ways of checking whether or not you are using sockpuppets, and I will be checking any vote considered to be suspicious.

As always, unregistered users will not be allowed to vote. All ineligible votes are to be stricken using and.

When voting please follow this format: #~

Against adopting the new policy

 * 1) Cavalier One Gryffindorcrest.jpg( Wizarding Wireless Network ) 12:18, November 18, 2009 (UTC)