Do we need this?[]
Do we really need both this page and HPW:CANON? I don't see why the two can't be merged, but I thought I'd ask if there was a reason here first before slapping on a delete/merge template. 1337star 03:25, August 8, 2011 (UTC)
- I also think the two pages could be merged. FrenchPygmyPuff (talk) 10:03, January 15, 2017 (UTC)
- While the original suggestion is over 5 years old and possibly not an active idea, I think it would be better to modify the article to cover not only the wiki's 3-tier approach to canon, but HP-Lexicon's JKR-only canon policy, the question of CC's canonicity, the notion of head-canons, etc. That is to expand the article to differentiate it from the canon policy instead of merging them. --Ironyak1 (talk) 13:15, January 15, 2017 (UTC)
- Exactly. This article should be more descriptive of the several views on canon and of possible problems with our own take on it, rather like the Fanon article. -- Seth Cooper owl post! 14:08, January 15, 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with Ironyak and Seth. I also propose covering the FB film series since Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald contradicted several established pieces of canon like Professor McGonagall's age. It would be great to acknowledge different views of canon, what take the wiki has chosen and the problems with it. - Kates39 (talk) 10:25, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
I think it's worth mentioning lots of fans' headcanon specifically exclude Cursed Child. SeichanGrey (talk) 11:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
How about a change?[]
I propose a change to the canon policy... but not yet. In 2024 when the final Fantastic Beasts film comes out, I propose this change: if the actors playing a character have not been recast (i.e Eddie Redmayne is still Newt, Dan is still Jacob, Zoe is still Leta, etc) then we use the on screen descriptions of the characters because there is no more coming, so nothing can contradict it. (Except J.K. herself, but she's frequently done that on this wiki anyway!). Would that work? When we physically will not receive any more information about how they look, we use the only canon source we have - the films - to fill in the gaps. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 00:21, November 2, 2017 (UTC)
- Not feasible. We didn't know we'd have Cursed Child until that happened. We didn't know we'd have Fantastic Beasts until that happened. We don't and can't know what additional canon we are going to get until it is presented to us. -- Seth Cooper owl post! 00:41, November 2, 2017 (UTC)
- The difference is the Cursed Child is a badly written. unfaithful and unconvincing fanfiction with a half-baked approval from Rowling of which it is not deserving of in the first place. The Fantastic Beasts franchise comes from Rowling directly, with some help to create the visuals of her vision. Ninclow (talk) 02:29, November 2, 2017 (UTC)
Entirely feasible, Seth. In this situation, it works; if we do get anything else, then we just undo it - we did that with using actor appearances once and with Pure/Half-blood definitions, so it's not exactly a problem. It's very unlikely we'll get anything else after Fantastic Beasts. If we do get anything, it'll be Founder related probably (and that doesn't affect the characters anyway as it's 1000 years before they're born!). --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 03:26, November 2, 2017 (UTC)
Not really. I'm with Seth on this one. I just really don't like the Cursed Child and personally don't consider it canon. What on Earth makes you think there will be something Founder related in the future? Ninclow (talk) 05:21, November 2, 2017 (UTC)
I was using it as an example, Ninclow. That, and it's the thing people most want to see!--HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 13:43, November 2, 2017 (UTC)
This wikia don't work by what most people want to see. It works on the decisions of the staff, with only ocassional consensus when multiple sources of canon are in conflct and/or ambigious. Ninclow (talk) 16:45, November 2, 2017 (UTC)
Update?[]
In our canon policy, we have Pottermore (now Harry Potter (website), which will need to be added). However, I propose that the policy needs to seperate WW content given by Rowling and content given by others that don't involve her. That's because of articles that for a while now, give details about things that haven't been given by Rowling herself. They even have a few articles that haven't been fact-checked. One about spells give titles that haven't been supported / given by Rowling, and has errors throughout. Since the website has changed and Rowling hasn't put new content of her own for years, I feel our perspective of the content and purpose needs to adapt.
While WW content by Rowling would of course stay in Tier One, I think the other content needs to be in Tier Two (the one for official things "based" on her work). That should solve any WW contradictions to her own content of which she was the writer. What does everyone think? - Kates39 (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- Also agreed, although I'd also say there is probably a similar need to differentiate sources between original Pottermore (the interactive site with the pieces written by Rowling as companion readings to the book chapters) with the later Pottermore (reinvented with more social media-esque articles and quizzes as the precursor to Harry Potter (website)). Given Rowling's statements about her involvement during the original Pottermore's development, the Harry Potter Wiki:Canon policy always placed Pottermore as first-tier canon, although after they dropped the interactive site, there were many articles not written by Rowling that had accuracy issues similar to those you raised with Harry Potter (website).
- That said, WW would still be a (lower) canon source so info like "The Fogging Spell" could be integrated with the Nebulus page for instance from that spell article you mentioned, as well as other items that don't contradict higher canon from Rowling. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 04:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you! I agree to the suggestions too. Her original involvement has waned over the years, and the website has been through a few phases since it was set up, so hopefully a policy update can help solve any contradictions and confusion over content. I will type up a few things and update the policy, but please change any wording if needed. - Kates39 (talk) 13:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- I am also in agreement, though wouldn't a change to policy have to be voted upon? - MrSiriusBlack Talk 13:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- I could be wrong, but we haven't voted on changes to the canon policy unless it would change the way it operated, e.g. changing the tier system itself. But we add and adapt sources based on J.K. Rowling's word being "law". Tier One has been defined for work "proved to be coming from J. K. Rowling herself". Tier Two has been defined for "projects based on works by her, and in which she was involved in some capacity at some point" but haven't been taken from the "mouth" of Rowling. So that's the policy we follow when adding and adapting sources in each tier. We have tended to just update the canon policy for any projects/sources if and when needed, like when they get put out. - Kates39 (talk) 13:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Seems like this discussion was intended to be directed at the real policy, but only the Canon page was changed, which isn't the real policy page. Do we need a vote for the change to be propagated to HPW:CANON? MalchonC (talk) 14:20, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- It was always admins who updated the HPW:Canon page which I wasn't at the time. It was an oversight of mine which I should have fixed/brought to attention. The tier-system very clearly defines what constitutes canon and where it is placed. Harry Potter (website) content not written by Rowling is tier-two canon because it is a project based on works by her, and in which she was involved in some capacity at some point. So there is no need for a vote because it fits the criteria. For example, there was no need to have a vote on whether the Canon policy should add Hogwarts Legacy to the tier-three section because it fits the criteria. I can update the Canon policy with anything still needing to be added today. - Kates39 (talk) 14:37, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- I mean, why maintain a more detailed, but still essentially duplicated section about the three tiers here in a non-policy page, when the policy page already has it? Why not just update the whole section there? I think we should just copy and paste the section from Canon to HPW:CANON and make all future edits there, if everything to be moved is without dispute. MalchonC (talk) 14:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- Oh, well, my idea is either reducing the policy page to only the descriptions of the three tiers so that they would not need modification unless the whole idea of the tiers changes, or move all which-source-belongs-to-which-tier info to the policy page and discuss only extra stuff on the non-policy page, otherwise if without constant immediate synchronisation, the policy page would only have an incomplete list that can't be properly referred to as a policy. MalchonC (talk) 15:07, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- I agree the wiki shouldn't have two pages trying to explain the same thing. It is confusing, especially when one is very clearly a policy page but doesn't have every possible detail about it on it. Your idea is certainly a possible resolution that is easily done. I will try and create a sandbox and put together a draft for how this page can be repurposed. If it is okay with others, I will publish it here and transfer the info it has now to the policy page. - Kates39 (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)