All the basics are there, but I've added a few things. My additions are in bold for easy reference. They're mainly examples to help clarify things. Comments? - Cavalier One(Wizarding Wireless Network) 12:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- I really like the examples section. I had never even thought of that! But it really helps to explain it. I think I'm gonna rework the wording of the first couple paragraphs and then submit it for official policy. Thanks for the feedback. -- DarkJedi613 (Talk) 13:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Not a problem. The examples should help to serve as guidelines, and having several examples from different points of view will help. I just hope no one asks about Nigel ... - Cavalier One(Wizarding Wireless Network) 15:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- I personally think that only things from the books and what JKR says should be cannon even if they arn't contradicted in the books. Me_Potter_Fan 08:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- But what of the "expanded universe" so to say? We can't just throw it all out. We're considering it "canon", just not of the same level with this system. What improvements could you suggest? Just two levels -- JKR Canon and non-canon? -- DarkJedi613 (Talk) 13:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'll say this - we could be the last word in HP encyclopedias. Even the HP Lexicon doesn't go into detail about the games. This is our chance to stand out from all the other HP encyclopedias on the web. Me Potter Fan, by your definition, we shouldn't be using pictures or quotes from the films or games since they aren't from the books. And that would be a disaster. - Cavalier One(Wizarding Wireless Network) 14:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- But what of the "expanded universe" so to say? We can't just throw it all out. We're considering it "canon", just not of the same level with this system. What improvements could you suggest? Just two levels -- JKR Canon and non-canon? -- DarkJedi613 (Talk) 13:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of adding the Harry Potter Prequel to the JKR "tier", and I've added "and other writings" to cover any additional works that might appear later. Since the article on canon and other articles on the wiki acknowledge all JKR writings as canon, I felt comfortable in adding this one line to the policy. 23skidoo 16:50, September 18, 2009 (UTC)
A Change to the Policy
The following is primarily comprised from one of my own posts in the 'Wand' discussion page:
What I am about to say is something I have said before, and even though some may disagree, I'll still stick by my argument. I strongly feel that the wiki policy sets too much store by films and videogames i.e. "canonical" information from sources other than the books. The books contain the true story of Harry Potter, the films along with all other media are just adaptations of that story. I personally disagree with the way some articles imply that the events in the books and the respective films are side-along and part of the same universe. Often, these articles beat around the bush and mince words so as to avoid any contradicting pieces of information from two different sources; that shouldn't have to happen. The books and the films are all composed by totally different people who haven't necessarily agreed on everything together, so how can that lead to consistency? That is, J.K. Rowling isn't asked for permission on every change the directors bring to the story.
One example of how these inconsistencies arise can be seen in a question posed on the Wand discussion page. This was posted by Jayden Matthews: Has anyone else noticed that all the wands used by dark wizards have particularly sinister appearances? It's hard to imagine Ollivander making wands like Bellatrix's and Voldemort's. Is it possible that extended use of dark magic can physically warp the appearance of a wand? Jayden Matthews
My answer to him was that wand shape was purely artistic liberty on the filmakers' part and so really should be ignored. While intriguing, the idea that Dark Magic mutilates a wand does not explain the bent shape of Fleur Delacour's wand (shown in 'the Goblet of Fire' film). If the Dark Wizards' wands are bent or altered in the films then this doesn't follow with the books' versions consistently. Ollivander is the only known Wandmaker in Britain and being a very kind and benign man, is not meant to create twisted versions of wands. You might say that the Dark Wizards purposely chose to alter their wands by themselves - but without the necessary knowledge of wandlore, how are they supposed to do that?
On a more important note, I have seen countless interviews of film cast members in which they explicitly state that J.K. Rowling herself recognises the books and the films as "two separate entities", so why can't we? Instead this wiki combines the two/three universes into an unrecognisable and inconsistent storyline. I'm only saying this because I genuinely care about Harry Potter and I do like this wiki (otherwise I wouldn't bother writing anything) so please don't think I'm trying to vandalise the policy.
I think the ideal policy would allow only in-universe sections of articles to relate to the books whereas any article that refers to the films or games, is labeled out-of-universe with its sources mentioned. I propose that those infoboxes often seen over, for example, pages for the film actors stating that the article does not flow into the universe of Harry Potter, should be used wherever talk of film or videogames emerge. My most significant point is that Rowling herself has proven that she understands the films and the books to be seperate and therefore must not overlap. I hope I have made my argument clear; if anyone has any further questions about anything I have stated in the above, please let me know. Thankyou.--Yin&Yang 00:47, November 16, 2009 (UTC)
- Let me point out something that you may not have realised. If we follow this, then we will will have to remove every single image that comes from a computer game or film from our articles as they will no longer be considered canonical by the terms of the proposal. That means literally no images in nearly all character articles, place articles, object articles, etc. This means no Dan Radcliffe in the Harry article. No Robert Pattinson in the Cedric article.
- We could create articles for each separate incarnation of the character, such as Harry Potter (novel), Harry Potter (film), Harry Potter (video game), etc, but this is unnecessarily complex and would just dilute the articles further when a single, cohesive article that is well written would take into account any discontinuities and mistakes between the myriad versions.
- "Basically put, everything is canon unless specifically contradicted by a "higher" source." This is the guiding principal of the canon policy. The books are the highest canon—where there is conflict, the books are the default source of information. It's not a hard principal to understand. Examples include the fact that part of the sixth film, specifically the burning of the Burrow, is non-canon. I admit that it gets a bit murky when they invent characters and place them in roles that should be held by already established characters (I'm looking at you, Dumbledore's Army).
- It is also a fallacy to say that Rowling is not involved in the films; for example, it was her comment to the director of the sixth film that revealed Dumbledore is gay when he showed her the script with Dumbledore mentioning an old girlfriend. They subsequently rewrote the scene to remove the reference. She also advised them to put Kreacher into the fifth film when they were going to cut the role since she knew he would be important to the as-yet-unpublished seventh book.
- A change to the policy can only hurt this Wiki's credibility and claim to be one of the most inclusive information sites for Harry Potter lore. Most of our visitors in the last six months would have come here due to the release of the latest film and the upsurge in interest. Likewise, I expect a surge in numbers when the final films are released. Perhaps many editors do not realise this, but we are one of Wikia's biggest wikis (not as big as some, but it is still an achievement), and rank among one of its most active communities.
- This is the policy that we have been working to for over two years. All of our articles are written with this policy in mind. What you are asking is for us to completely rewrite nearly 3,000 articles because you don't agree with the policy. I don't think this is going to happen. - Cavalier One(Wizarding Wireless Network) 09:17, November 16, 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Cavalier One. It's unfeasible, and, frankly, ludicrous to ask us to rewrite the entire wiki. This site has always been one of the most healthy and productive encyclopedias that Wikia has to offer. I feel that what you are suggesting would damage that beyond repair. Jayden Matthews 10:44, November 16, 2009 (UTC)
- To be fair, I don't think he meant removing the films and games from canon so much as separating the continuities. Take Transformers, for example: there's G1 continuity, comic book continuity, live-action film continuity, etc. Nonetheless, as Jayden and CavalierOne pointed out, that would be a MASSIVE undertaking, tantamount to rewritting the entire 5,000 article wiki in order to completely separate out book, movie, and game canon. You'd need at minimum three articles for almost everything: characters, spells, items, locations, events, and so on. This wiki is something that's been gradually built up bit-by-bit for over four years, by hundreds of people volunteering their time and energy. Even with every major contributor pitching in for several hours a day, that would be months of extra work on top of the regular contributions and maintenance. I understand your reasoning, but I'm afraid that's not something I can feel comfortable committing to at this time. - Nick O'Demus 11:28, November 16, 2009 (UTC)
I understand completely where you all are coming from but let me point a few things out. I should have mentioned before that I did not intend to have all the images refering to each article removed (as Nick seems to have understood). I also am not implying that everything written regarding film and videogame cross overs needs to be deleted, that would be ludicrous. However, if we could tag the articles relating mostly or wholly to characters, places or things only seen in films or games as "non-canon with books" (or something of the like) then there would be less confusion. Yes this would also take time, but would require very little effort if all we were doing in passing was adding a tag to the top of the page. If you still disagree, that's fine but just know that I was trying to help.
Also Cavalier, J.K. Rowling would have to be at the film sets day in and day out to have total control of the films. In an interview dated prior to the final book's release, David Yates mentions once or twice having to ask "Jo" certain questions over emails to preserve the story in future films - that is the most she could take part in otherwise what is a Director for?
Another pressing matter was your statement of 'the books overiding the films' policy being simple, but I can think of several occasions when it is far from the like. Take Sirius Black's death for example, the book (OoP) does not describe the jet of light that hits Sirius's chest at all, unlike the film version which clearly shows Bellatrix murdering Sirius with the Killing Curse. Yet the article states that Sirius was killed by an unknown spell. According to the current policy, an omission from the book is not canon so technically speaking, the film deserves priority, right? The article should state that Sirius was struck with Avada Kedavra but then that contradicts common knowledge from the books that that curse causes instant death and Sirius's death was not so. What happens there?
As for Jayden, I have to admit that I feel a little wrong-footed considering you encouraged me to put forth my argument in the first place, yet instead you straight-out disagreed with me on this page. Oh well.--Yin&Yang 12:01, November 16, 2009 (UTC)
- Well, in that particular case, the Avada Kedavra should be considered canon as the books state that Avada can cause an individual to be thrown behind (Dumbledore's fall from the Astronomy Tower).
- I personally do not agree with the changes you proposed, as this wiki has become unique for being one of the only (if not the only) ALL-inclusive Harry Potter encyclopedia (including books/games/games). -- 12:53, November 16, 2009 (UTC)
Avada Kedavra's ability to throw an opponent backwards isn't relevant though, Seth. I'm talking about the instantaneous death that accompanies it. Say that Sirius dying at the hands of Bellatrix's Killing Curse is canon, why does it still cause such a slow death in Sirius's case when the books perfectly state that it never does? Even more to the point, the previous films indicate the same. If we were to just follow the book, we could simply say that Sirius did die of an unknown curse/spell. Furthermore, I don't doubt this wiki's credibility nor its knowledge (I know it is truly something extraordinary) but the policy is, I'm sorry to say, definitely flawed and if what I've suggested (even the simple adding of tags) does not satisfy you or anyone else, then I am willing to hear another proposition.--Yin&Yang 13:05, November 16, 2009 (UTC)
- Nick, the point you make about the Transformers universe is an interesting one, but not entirely valid. Transformers continuity is stated to be different incarnations, since the franchises cannot be reconciled into one, cohesive universe. G1 does not mesh with Universe, IDW comics do not mesh with Marvel comics, etc. Harry Potter isn't. All adaptations are meant to be telling the same story, not just using the core idea to create new storys and situations. In all versions, Harry is a boy wizard who lost his parents at an early age, etc. In Transformers, the various incarnations of Optimus Prime have wildly different backstories and, in some cases, personalities.
- Yin&Yang, the removal of images may not be your intention, but it will be the result. You cannot deem elements from the films and games as "non-canon" without having to do it to all elements. You can't pick and chose what elements we use just because it is convenient. For instance, you would tag Luca Carruse as non-canon since he is a film only character, right? Okay, fine. But then, we have a nice picture of Dan Radcliffe as Harry in his article. Okay, so if a picture from the film is good enough to illustrate the article of the main character and is not labelled as non-canon, then why is Carruse labelled as such? They come from the same source. Simple answer is you can't have half-and-half just because its convenient.
- Also, I said Rowling was involved, not that she had direct control. There's a difference, sure, but for you to say she had no involvement was untrue when she has some input into the process.
- As Seth says, this site is unique for its take on the Harry Potter universe. To lose that individuality and uniqueness would be a travesty. However, there may be a way to appease both sides in this argument without changing policy. Many other wikis use a template called "Eras" of "Titleicons". When used, it produces small images in the right hand upper corner that can be used to indicate several things. On Wookieepedia, it denotes eras such as the Rebellion, erc. On the Firefly Wiki, it denotes the media that the subject appears in. On Halopedia, it denotes the specific work the subject is from. We could implement that here, with icons explicitly showing where the subject originates from - book, film, video game, etc. Some will have more than one icon, naturally; Harry would qualify for all three. They are small, unobtrusive, and similar in look to the FA icon. - Cavalier One(Wizarding Wireless Network) 13:20, November 16, 2009 (UTC)
- I was just using the Transformers as an example, as I believe he was talking about establishing separate continuities independent of each other. In other words, the events of the books would a separate "universe/timeline/whatever" from the events of the films. Of course, another problem with establishing three separate continuities based on the books, films, and games is that game continuity doesn't exist, at least not independently. The stories and events of the games are a hodgepodge of references to the books AND films, along with the gameplay objectives and mechanics. The events in the OotP game draw upon the events of the novel and movie, rather than any continuity with the GoF game. Not to mention the differences between the various platforms. The HBP game on the DS is not the same as the HBP game on the XBOX 360.
- Also, as far as the Avade Kedavra/Sirius Black thing, what establishes that it was NOT the Killing Curse wasn't so much it's effect on Sirius, but rather Harry's reaction afterwards. Harry saw the spell hit Sirius. He saw Sirius fall through the Veil. If it had been the Killing Curse, he would have known right away that Sirius was dead. But he didn't. At first, he thought that Sirius was still alive behind the Veil, and that they could reach him if they went in after him. It took Lupin telling him, and the realization that Sirius wouldn't have left him there when he was calling for him before he realized he was gone.
- I like the idea of the icons, but there would need to be more than just book, movie, and game. Interviews, merchandise, websites, and maybe some others too. - Nick O'Demus 13:49, November 16, 2009 (UTC)
Sorry Cavalier, but I didn't say that Rowling had NO input to the films at all and nor did I imply that. Rowling of course was involved with the films, but was not allowed enough control to include or exclude pieces of information unless they were absolutely ‘’crucial’’ to the plot. The thing is, once you add more than one composer into the mix, you get inconsistencies and mistakes (no film adaptation is perfect). Also, who says that the images have to be removed if the books recieve whole priority? If a tag explains that the images are non-canonical to the books then what’s the issue? It still works! Although those “Titleicons” sound great, to include them in order to explain different versions of the Harry Potter plot without editing the policy in some way would defeat the purpose, wouldn’t it? I noticed that you didn’t reply in regards to my example of a Policy loophole regarding Sirius Black’s death. How can you justify that with the current policy? Something clearly must be changed.--Yin&Yang 13:44, November 16, 2009 (UTC)
- What you have to accept is that there is no perfect solution. There will ALWAYS be grey areas no matter which policy we decide to follow. We just have to do our best with what we have, and as our goal is to be an "all-inclusive" Harry Potter reference site, I think the current policy of acknowledging all of the sources while giving priority to those closest to Rowling herself is a pretty good one. And see above for more on the Sirius Black bit. - Nick O'Demus 13:54, November 16, 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I fail to see what could be grey about a policy that adheres to the true version of events i.e. the books. If we stick to the one source (that, of course, also includes whatever is said by Rowling) what is there to confuse? I never said that the other sources should be omitted, but at least recognised as what they truly are: "separate entities". Rowling says herself that the films and the books are apart and I thought this policy was about whatever Rowling considers right. "Rowling's word is law".
Oh, and I read your part about Sirius dying Nick, and it doesn't contradict my explanation at all, but works with it. We know that Sirius wasn't hit by the Killing Curse because he (a) didn't die instantly (my statement) and (b) Harry wouldn't have expected Sirius to emerge from the veil if he had seen the latter hit with the Avada Kedavra (your statement). So we are both right in that regard.--Yin&Yang 14:02, November 16, 2009 (UTC)
- And there's a grey area right off the bat: "the true version of events i.e. the books". Even that is a matter of interpretation. What about Rowling's statements in interviews, not included in the books? There are still MANY people who refuse to believe Dumbledore is gay because it doesn't say so in the books, even if Rowling says so herself. And what about Rowlings statements on what happened after the war? It doesn't say in the books that Neville married Hannah, or that Umbridge went to Azkaban. What about Mary GrandPré's artwork? It IS in the books, but it wasn't created by Rowling herself. Is that part of "the true version"? - Nick O'Demus 14:32, November 16, 2009 (UTC)
Okay so the 'true version' line hints some bias but it is still fact. I have already said that Rowling's book work and her out-of-text information is practically one in the same so yes, it is still part of the "true version". The Mary GrandPre artworks are still not from Rowling so would not be canon but still mentioned in the wiki as the out-of-universe artistry designed and based on the work of Rowling. Is there some confusion with what I'm saying? In a new wiki policy, Rowling's work and own words would be includeed as part of the in-universe articles but would still retain the information from the books (only referenced as either from the films or videogames).--Yin&Yang 14:53, November 16, 2009 (UTC)
- But that's exactly my point. It's your opinion that out-of-text information is practically one and the same, but someone else may feel that only what has been finalized in print counts as the "true version", and that what is said outside that has no more validity than rough draft work or cut content. Likewise, someone else may feel that because the Mary GrandPre is in the books, it's canon. She draws Snape balding and with a goatee, even though Rowling never mentions either in print. Some people will feel this is his canon appearance, others won't. Some people will be more puritanical about what is the "true version", others will be more liberal. It's a matter of personal opinion. As I said, shades of grey. - Nick O'Demus 15:01, November 16, 2009 (UTC)
Yin&Yang, I just want to say that I did not mean for you to think that I would support you if you proposed this. I was simply pointing out that (as you frequantly complain about our canon policy) you have the right to suggest changes if you wish. Jayden Matthews 14:14, November 16, 2009 (UTC)
Okay Jayden, that's fair enough.--Yin&Yang 14:22, November 16, 2009 (UTC)
- To regard one element as non-canonical from an adaptation, yet claim that something else from that adaptation (such as an image) is not, is hypocritical. And do you seriously want to tag every article that includes an image drawn from the films, video games, merchandise, etc just because you feel that you are correct.
- The "Titleicons" do not explain anything in regards to the plot; they merely indicate that a subject is present within an adaptation. And, as Nick says, more than just the three that I mentioned would have to be created. To see them in action, see the Malcolm Reynolds article on the Firefly Wiki to see them in action in the top right corner.
- Rowling's word is law when it comes to the storyline, characters, etc. That is why the books are the highest form of canon. As a community, we decided to integrate the other adaptations to produce a fresh encyclopedia with a unique take on the HP universe. You are asking us to surrender the individuality that we have worked so hard to attain. Of course there will be discrepancies and errors, or flat out contradictions. This is why we have Behind the scenes sections to explain such things. You want a purist outlook on this wiki, which only caters to the books and disregards the rest? I'm afraid to say that's not the way we do things around here. You want us to rewrite 5,000 articles to conform to your vision of how the wiki should be? I don't think people like the idea of that. - Cavalier One(Wizarding Wireless Network) 14:26, November 16, 2009 (UTC)
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 respect the wiki's individuality and don't forget that I'm now a part of it too so I know where you are coming from when you try to defend the system we have already. The behind the scenes sections do not detract from the fact that the article itself contains contradictions when it is following a policy. If it is stated in the main section of the article, then that is what is believed as truth. Behind the scenes may describe the sources of information but it cannot solve problems of the kind we see with Sirius's death. Like I said, I still think the films and videogames need to be added and a part of the wiki, just not part of the universe itself. I don't see why we can't fix small errors here and there over time if we change the policy - it's what we do anyway. Instead of saying, "Bellatrix Lestrange was present during the Battle of the Astronomy Tower" (a debate I had with Seth a while ago), why not?: "In the film Bellatrix was..." Just small edits like that, here and there, would eventually lead to a consistent wiki with full knowledge of Harry Potter. That is not destroying what the other users have worked hard on to create.--Yin&Yang 14:44, November 16, 2009 (UTC)
Because the articles are written from an in-universe point of view. Edits such as in the film version contradict that. Jayden Matthews 14:50, November 16, 2009 (UTC)
Jayden, that's exactly my point. I want to change that constant in-universe point of view so that only the books (and Rowling herself) are considered correct with all other sources specifically described as separate. Is this starting to make sense to anyone? I think I might have confused some of you, in which case I sincerely apologise.--Yin&Yang 14:57, November 16, 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, God. You really want to take that road? You really want us to say that all images are non-canonical? And yet you claim to respect the Wiki's individuality? Please—pull the other one. It has got bells on. We have worked hard to build this wiki for a long time, and yet because it does not conform to your vision, you see it as wrong. "That is not destroying what the other users have worked hard on to create." No, but it is tantamount to a slap in face to our efforts.
- Why do we not say "In the film ..."? Because our articles are presented from an in-universe point of view. That means no references to the books, or films, in the main body of the article. That is another policy on this Wiki, unless you want to rail against that one as well for not being to your liking?
- It is obvious that you dislike the policy. I can't change that. But, to be honest, I cannot see it changing any time soon. Perhaps you would be more comfortable creating your own HP wiki where you can dictate policy to your hearts content? - Cavalier One(Wizarding Wireless Network) 14:59, November 16, 2009 (UTC)
So is this standard procedure? To utterly thrash someone's views when they express an idea to change the policy? I have no qualms with you or any other user Cavalier, but I really thought that you and the rest of this wiki meant that line about allowing discussion to suggest a policy change. If this is your attitude, why not declare the policy page untouchable and be done with it? This is not my attempt to force others to conform to my "liking", I am seriously trying to help improve the wiki where I can and this just happens to be one of those cases. I am not asking you to delete the information we already have (I having contrbuted to some of it myself), I just want to reiterate that idea of the books and their adaptations, or rather Rowling's vision and its adaptations, being what Rowling herself said: separate. It is not so much my opinion as it is hers.--Yin&Yang 15:19, November 16, 2009 (UTC)
- Standard procedure? Not at all. I attempted to explain, rationally, the reasons why such a large change to the policies would not work. I even offered to bring in a Titleicons feature that would go some way to helping delineate articles and show their origins. However, you have not listened, and just want to change the wiki to the way you want it to be. By stating that nearly everything apart from the books is non-canon, including art by Mary GrandPre—art from the books themselves! You do not want to amend, or better the policy, you want us to do a complete 180 degree u-turn on it.
- You may not be asking us to delete information. But you are asking us to rearrange it, rewrite 5,000 articles, rewrite several policies, etc, all for one user's view of canon. I find this insulting, and, as I said, a slap in the face to all our efforts.
- What you want us to do is take the core of our policies and disregard them, overturning them in favour of a policy that better suits your view of how the wiki should be run. Your comments on this discussion show that you wish to rewrite not only the Canon Policy, but also the in-universe nature of the articles themselves. You also complained about the forum policy. Is there any policy on this wiki that you like?
- Is it perfect? Of course not. There will be conflicts. But to your comment on Nick O'Demus's talk page: "but it is little concern of mine how many times his policy has been compromised by other users. If this isn't a one-off thing then surely that is a sign that something ought to be changed?" If a policy has been "compromised", then it is the editor's duty to bring this to the attention of the administrators in the case of serious breaches, or fix it to fall in line with the stated policy. And, for the record, it isn't my policy, although I did have a hand in writing it. - Cavalier One(Wizarding Wireless Network) 16:03, November 16, 2009 (UTC)
Cavalier, as far as I have gathered, you were against the idea from the beginning so please don't imply that you genuinley tried to reach a compromise with me. This is very personal to you because of the amount of times someone has challenged the policy you helped write so therefore your argument is a little one-sided. I have kept my personal opinions to a minimum because we are talking about the wiki; this is no whim. Rowling herself has explained the separate nature of the books and the films (as I have said countless times now). You know what? This back and forward argument seems to be going no where else at all between the two of us, so let's settle the matter fairly by including the community as a whole. That's right, I say we vote for/against the change but only on two conditions: both sides of the argument should be presented equally and without bias, and a link should be provided to this page so that voters can read our comments and decide for themselves. If it turns out that my idea is disliked by the majority of the wiki then I will give it up peacably and return to silently conforming to the current policy; if however, my idea is favoured then... Let me just say though that, as I said before, the level of editing that would be required if the policy was changed would not be much different to what it is now. You literally have hundreds of users to help if that becomes the case, not to mention entire years ahead of pure editing. For the record, I sincerely doubt all of the 5000 articles are visited anyway and more to the point, not all of them include film/game discussion either. I think you may be afraid of selling out the policy, Cavalier, but if the community decides to make a change then you have nothing to worry about because it wouldn't have been your decision and therefore no one is "slapped in the face". As I said, if the voters disagrees with me, I will drop the subject immediately without resistance.--Yin&Yang 22:05, November 16, 2009 (UTC)
That's fair enough. I'd be in favour of vote. Jayden Matthews 09:02, November 17, 2009 (UTC)
- I've been watching this discussion for a while before commenting and Yin&Yang, I really don't appreciate the way you've made this out to be Cav's policy. The policy was voted on by the community, it was put in place by consensus, and by looking at this discussion so far Cav is not the only to disagree with you, so please don't make it personal. Next, other than the fact that this policy was already put in place by the community, this Wiki is the Harry Potter Wiki, not the Harry Potter novel wiki. It covers everything on Harry Potter and is all inclusive. This is why it is the best Harry Potter encyclopedia out there because it includes the movies, video games, etc. The in-universe writing, which was also voted on and put in place by the community, is also far better, and discrepancies between versions can be explained in behind the scenes sections. Ultimately, making this change would detract from the quality of this great Wiki, and I can tell from this conversation most people know that. Grunny (Talk) 09:08, November 17, 2009 (UTC)
I'll second the motion for a formal vote if it will put the issue to rest, as this argument seems to be getting a little personal. We have three candidates thus far:
- Keep the existing policy with no changes whatsoever.
- Keep the existing policy with the addition of CavalierOne's "Titleicons" proposal.
- Yin&Yang's proposed changes. (Would you please provide a short write-up of EXACTLY which changes to the policy you are proposing for implementation?)
Does anyone have anything further to add? - Nick O'Demus 09:17, November 17, 2009 (UTC)
Grunny, this is a direct quote of my own (see above) from myself, to Cavalier: “…someone challenged the policy you helped write.” Hopefully that clears up your query about me making out that the policy was made solely by Cavalier. To Nick, I’d be happy to word my exact proposal to the policy, but not right now. When I have the time I promise I’ll get back to you. Who knows, and I hope I don’t sound too optimistic when I say, once I’ve finished wording it, some of you might be more inclined to voting for the change. I think there is a slight confusion where my suggestion is concerned so I will do my best to simplify it in just a line or two.--Yin&Yang 10:53, November 17, 2009 (UTC)
I beleive, I know what that's like, but it is little concern of mine how many times his policy has been compromised by other users is the quote Grunny was referring to. Jayden Matthews 11:45, November 17, 2009 (UTC)
- Well, let's bring this to a vote and settle this. As for the "Titleicons" idea, I don't think it would be very helpful as they might mislead people to think they are reading FAs. Come to think of it, they seem to be a bit redundant, as we already have the "Appearances" section to serve that same purpose. -- 12:02, November 17, 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Let's make it quick and painless. Jayden Matthews 12:09, November 17, 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, so the majority is in favour of a vote; I agree, if it will end this. Since the general consensus is that this should be decided sooner rather than later, I will table the vote for twenty-four hours from now, and it will be in the main Wizengamot forum. This will give Yin&Yang ample time to put together their proposal (if said proposal is posted before the twenty-four deadline, then the vote will be tabled earlier). Yin&Yang, please post your proposal either on this page, or my talk page, so that it can be incorporated into the voting forum. If you can not, or will not, post your proposal before that time period, then this discussion will be used as evidence to support your proposed changes.
- As an addendum, the vote will only be about changing policy; the "Titleicons" matter can be resolved at a later date when I can show you a proof of how they will look on our articles. This small issue should not get in the way of the larger matter at hand. - Cavalier One(Wizarding Wireless Network) 15:03, November 17, 2009 (UTC)
That seems fair. What I think Yin&Yang is proposing is - changing the canon policy to only recognize the books as canon, and to change the style guide so that articles are written from an out of universe point of view. I don't want to speak for him, but I think that's what he means. Jayden Matthews 15:57, November 17, 2009 (UTC)
The following is from a post of my own from the tal page of Sirius Black:
I once had a similar debate with Seth about whether or not Bellatrix was present at the Battle of the Astronomy Tower. I was saying that because Bellatrix was no where to be seen in the books at that time, she couldn't have been involved in the Battle. Seth replied that she might have been elsewhere in the Hogwarts grounds, but then surely, as such a major character, Rowling would have included her in the mix regardless of where exactly she was positioned in the school. What I really don't like about the policy is that, for people who have not read the books, yet want to know the full Rowling story, there is no consistent recount of the books in this wiki without it being related to a film.
In Bellatrix's case, say a film fan is to watch the HBP film and not read the book, (and please don't say the 'not our problem line' because as we can see from the many Potter related forum questions, that not everyone has). They decide to research everything on this wiki to get a deep idea of the books. They then try to talk to a friend (who has both read the books and watched the films) and recount the overlapped story of, for example, the way Bellatrix storms into the school and smashes the Great Hall while an ongoing battle is happening hundreds of feet above. The friend says, "what the heck are you talking about? Bellatrix would NEVER pass up a chance to kill some Order members - it just isn't in her character. In other words, overlapping the versions is misleading to an outsider. No one talks about the Harry Potter story from a combined universe perspective; they either stick to the films or the books. Does that make sense? --Yin&Yang 14:08, November 18, 2009 (UTC)
I have to say I wouldn't mind the Canon policy being changed. I don't see why only book-cannon should be allowed on the Wiki and not film-canon as well. -- GrouchMan (Send an owl then scram!!) 21:55, November 18, 2009 (UTC)
Sorry GrouchMan, I don't understand what you mean. Do you agree or disagree with my proposal? Just to clarify, please read my last two posts on this page carefully where I give details about how the inconsistencies arise with the current policy. I chose to give the books priority as an extention of what already happens on this wiki anyway. The book always gets priority over the films so why not the books being the only priority? Remember, I am not saying that we must delete film/game material, but there are SO many overlaps that detract from the personalities of characters, the essence of magic and just situations that can not possibly co-exist. Look at Sirius and Bellatrix for example. Others think these minor imperfections but they are not minor in the slightest. This is an encyclopedia and as such, should be as detailed and correct in its information as possible. This can only happen if one universe is chosen. Please think this through with an open mind.--Yin&Yang 22:02, November 18, 2009 (UTC)
- Yin&Yang, I understand your wish to see this wiki conform to a definition of canon that includes only information from the books and Rowling herself, and excludes things from the films and games. I don't think this interpretation of canon is invalid. On a personal level, I'm a bit of a purist myself, and in my early days on Harry Potter Wiki, it took time for me to adapt to this site's broader, more inclusive definition of canon (as well as its in-universe style).
- But I agree with other users who've raised the point that Harry Potter Wiki's film-and-game-inclusive definition of canon sets it apart from other HP references available on the web, which focus exclusively on information from the books and JKR herself:
- The Harry Potter Lexicon - Not a wiki. Information limited to books and JKR. Supplemented by fanart.
- Unknowable Wiki - Wiki. Information limited to books and JKR. Also has extensive coverage related to fanfiction and shipping. Supplemented by fanart.
- Harry Potter Encylopedia - Not a wiki. Information limited to books and JKR. Currently down for server maintenance.
- HPWiki - Wiki. Information limited to books and JKR.
- The fact that Harry Potter Wiki incorporates information from the films and games doesn't make it better than any of these sites — just unique. I think that, on the whole, these sites are complementary, with each offering something that the others don't. This wiki has carved out its own special niche, becoming the most detailed, comprehensive source of information relating to the films and games that I've found to date.
- Thus, I don't think it would be in this wiki's best interests to change our canon policy as you have proposed, because it would mean removing our main competitive advantage, and would require substantial content revision to implement fully.
- I agree that there are places on the wiki where we need to be more careful in separating movie-canon from book-canon, but I don't see this as evidence that the current tiered canon policy doesn't work, only that it needs to be more stringently applied. The simplest solution would be to go through articles and fix any instance where movie-canon supersedes book-canon (Sirius's death, Bellatrix's presence on the Astronomy Tower, etc.). We could also amend the current canon policy to better explain how conflicts between the books and movies should be handled in articles.
- As for the suggestion to completely change our canon policy, this seems too far-reaching a solution, given the small scale of the problem. Why reinvent the wheel when you've only got to fix a couple of broken spokes? ★ Starstuff (Owl me!) 06:01, November 20, 2009 (UTC)
Starstuff, I think I (platonically) love you! That was a very well said comment and I have to agree with you on much of it. Perhaps my proposal is not suited to a wiki that has come this far but you hit the nail on the head when you said that something has to be changed in the policy so that the canon definition is more stringent. This all started with the Bellatrix Lestrange page anyway, so as long as those sort of articles can be tidied up somehow I’m willing to abandon my initial proposal method at the drop of a dime. I still think the principle of my idea is accurate, but maybe my suggested process of altering the policy is too extensive. Please, if you can devise a better one, perhaps by tightening that canon Policy like you mentioned before, then I will be more than satisfied.--Yin&Yang 07:12, November 20, 2009 (UTC)
- Just found this on J.K.R.'s site under F.A.Q.s, and as it has some relevance to her involvement in canon outside the novels, as well as book vs. film, I thought I'd post it here. - Nick O'Demus 03:10, November 21, 2009 (UTC)
- Q: "Did you actually write the information that ended up on the Famous Wizard cards? For that matter, what about the spells in the films? Did you invent those or did Steve Kloves? And why were new incantations created for the movie in the first place? (Example: "Incendio" to "Lacarnum Inflamari".)"
- A: "Yes, I wrote the information on the original Famous Wizard cards. As you have noticed, a few of them have now popped up on the ‘Wizard of the Month’ cards on my website desk. Spells in the films – there I’ve lost track. Steve invented some and I gave him others. Some of the new incantations, such as ‘lacarnum inflamari’ must have sounded more dramatic onscreen – although by the time you’ve managed to say ‘lacarnum inflamari’, you’ve surely lost precious seconds in which the Devil’s Snare might have throttled you. But that’s showbiz."
- — J.K.Rowling Official Site
Fantastic! Now I don't have to worry about the Wizard Cards if they're all Rowling's. Still, the film spells part doesn't help much for our purposes. Seeing as they seem to be part Rowling's and part Kloves's, we can't really discern between which are which. So I guess for the 'Behind the Scenes' sections of the film spells will have to remain as they are.--Yin&Yang 04:06, November 21, 2009 (UTC)
- Umm.. May I ask what happened to the voting?I don't seem to be able to find the Wizengamot forum on it. QuidditchLover(My talk)(contribs) 07:04, November 27, 2009 (UTC)
- Cavalier One moved it to the archive after the voting closed. - Nick O'Demus 07:16, November 27, 2009 (UTC)
I really don't things should be condsidered cannon by having just JKR Licensing. Many things that have JKR Licensing are not intended to be cannon, especially games (not just video games, but board games as well. many things that are cannon only in the games contradict each other or depend on how the game is played). 22.214.171.124 04:17, July 24, 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the tier system we currently employ; we know that JKR is consulted on certain things for the films, games and other canon (which is as good as her writing it in a book) we just don't know what, so we can't decide for sure what is and isn't canon. Furthermore, JKR allows all this stuff to be officially affiliated with the HP universe, therefore it has her blessing (which implies that its canon). Hence, we should really assume it unless unless a more trusted source (a higher tier) contradicts it—Green Zubat 22:51, August 15, 2011 (UTC)
Wizarding World of Harry Potter
We should include the upcoming theme park “Wizarding World of Harry Potter” in one of the Canon tiers. The thing is, how canonical are we to consider the park? Should we consider it as canon as the films? --22:47, January 19, 2010 (UTC)
- If its based on the film props, sets, etc, then I would consider it on par with the movies. - Cavalier One(Wizarding Wireless Network) 23:33, January 19, 2010 (UTC)
Harry Potter Website
So, is the Official Harry Potter website by Warner Bros third tier (I assume so) or is it higher? Green Zubat 21:49, August 8, 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, its affiliated with the films, so that would make it second tier I guess. Nm—Green Zubat 22:45, August 15, 2011 (UTC)
During my visits of the wikia, I found several mentions of things that let me in wonder. Most of them were about the deaths of characters mentionned here, taken canon from the movies : Griphook and Scabior in particular. In the chat I let there, I asked about how it could be canon. Of course, it did not totally conflict with the book, for in there their death's is not explicitely mention.
There are times when the movies have created facts to maximize the visual impact. It sometimes contradicts totally the book (wandless magic for instance), and is therefore rulled out of canon. Some times, it has absolutely no basis on the book, like made up moments, characters or spells or objects, that could exists though never mentioned (Neville attacked by his biting book or the shrunked head of the knight bus).
However, some elements leave a great deal to discussion. In the case of the two characters, their fate is unknow the last moment J.K. Rowling mentions them : the first joining the crowd of Gringott's goblins and disappearing amongst them, the second left stupefied in the courtyard of Malfoy's Manor by Draco, for either him or Bellatrix to kill him. In those two cases, and many more I think, the place and time stated contradicts the book not in a textbook manner, but in a way that rely only on the article's writers vision of the way it might have happened and contradicts logic of the books : it is so unlikely that Bellatrix and Voldemort left Scabior go free and him returning to fight for him afterwards, it is so under discussion that the unnamed goblin killed by Voldemort could have been Griphook.
What is then the policy of the wikia? Should it be written in the article as canon, in full knowledge that it might lead to endless discussions, because there always be supporters of the two ways it could be read? Or could there be a way for the articles to have an out of universe note at the end, mentionning the movie's elemnt as plausible but not confirmed?Don Silk (talk) 14:48, June 4, 2015 (UTC)
- Every article mentioning major film-only events, like the death of a character, should already have it clearly noted, both in the "Behind the scenes" section (what you call an "out of universe note") and by referencing the sentences in question, that that material is film-only and may not apply to the books. But our policy is fairly clear that the main articles do mention these events without any other qualifiers. Endless discussion on this in the past has shown that policy is unlikely to change in this matter. -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 20:57, June 4, 2015 (UTC)
Harry Potter and the Cursed Child
I have added Harry Potter and the Cursed Child as an exceptional Tier One canon source, along with an explanation on why I have done so (basically, an exercise of the "Rowling's Word is Law" adage). If there's any issue, please be so kind as to let me know. -- 02:30, June 30, 2015 (UTC)