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)

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)