Help talk:Sources - Revision history

imported>Pinkkeith: /* Webisodes */ spelling and signed comment

2008-07-29T20:38:25Z

Webisodes: spelling and signed comment

← Older revision	Revision as of 20:38, 29 July 2008
(No difference)

imported>Pinkkeith: /* Webisodes */ spelling and signed comment

2008-07-29T20:38:25Z

Webisodes: spelling and signed comment

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:38, 29 July 2008
Line 74:		Line 74:
	* I think my opinion will be leaning that way, but until I've seen an entire webisode I'm not sure.--[[User:MiamiVolts\|MiamiVolts]] ([[User_talk:MiamiVolts\|talk]]) 16:50, 10 July 2008 (EDT)		* I think my opinion will be leaning that way, but until I've seen an entire webisode I'm not sure.--[[User:MiamiVolts\|MiamiVolts]] ([[User_talk:MiamiVolts\|talk]]) 16:50, 10 July 2008 (EDT)
	* I say they should be on the same tier at least, maybe higher. My personal canon hierarchy goes Ep, GN, Evolutions, though there are those GNs listed in red on [[User:SacValleyDweller/Release_Order_Optimized\|this page]] which I consider to be deuterocanon. I'll have to watch these too to see where I put them in my canon hierarchy. --{{User:SacValleyDweller/sig}} 18:37, 10 July 2008 (EDT)		* I say they should be on the same tier at least, maybe higher. My personal canon hierarchy goes Ep, GN, Evolutions, though there are those GNs listed in red on [[User:SacValleyDweller/Release_Order_Optimized\|this page]] which I consider to be deuterocanon. I'll have to watch these too to see where I put them in my canon hierarchy. --{{User:SacValleyDweller/sig}} 18:37, 10 July 2008 (EDT)
	*I'm wondering if we are going to consider them to be ~~cannon~~ or near-~~cannon~~ sources.		*I'm wondering if we are going to consider them to be canon or near-canon sources. --[[User:Pinkkeith\|Pinkkeith]] 16:38, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

imported>Pinkkeith: /* Webisodes */

2008-07-29T20:38:00Z

Webisodes

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:38, 29 July 2008
Line 74:		Line 74:
	* I think my opinion will be leaning that way, but until I've seen an entire webisode I'm not sure.--[[User:MiamiVolts\|MiamiVolts]] ([[User_talk:MiamiVolts\|talk]]) 16:50, 10 July 2008 (EDT)		* I think my opinion will be leaning that way, but until I've seen an entire webisode I'm not sure.--[[User:MiamiVolts\|MiamiVolts]] ([[User_talk:MiamiVolts\|talk]]) 16:50, 10 July 2008 (EDT)
	* I say they should be on the same tier at least, maybe higher. My personal canon hierarchy goes Ep, GN, Evolutions, though there are those GNs listed in red on [[User:SacValleyDweller/Release_Order_Optimized\|this page]] which I consider to be deuterocanon. I'll have to watch these too to see where I put them in my canon hierarchy. --{{User:SacValleyDweller/sig}} 18:37, 10 July 2008 (EDT)		* I say they should be on the same tier at least, maybe higher. My personal canon hierarchy goes Ep, GN, Evolutions, though there are those GNs listed in red on [[User:SacValleyDweller/Release_Order_Optimized\|this page]] which I consider to be deuterocanon. I'll have to watch these too to see where I put them in my canon hierarchy. --{{User:SacValleyDweller/sig}} 18:37, 10 July 2008 (EDT)
			*I'm wondering if we are going to consider them to be cannon or near-cannon sources.

imported>SacValleyDweller: /* Webisodes */

2008-07-10T22:37:27Z

Webisodes

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:37, 10 July 2008
Line 73:		Line 73:
	Do the webisodes trump the graphic novels? --[[User:DocM\|DocM]] 16:45, 10 July 2008 (EDT)		Do the webisodes trump the graphic novels? --[[User:DocM\|DocM]] 16:45, 10 July 2008 (EDT)
	* I think my opinion will be leaning that way, but until I've seen an entire webisode I'm not sure.--[[User:MiamiVolts\|MiamiVolts]] ([[User_talk:MiamiVolts\|talk]]) 16:50, 10 July 2008 (EDT)		* I think my opinion will be leaning that way, but until I've seen an entire webisode I'm not sure.--[[User:MiamiVolts\|MiamiVolts]] ([[User_talk:MiamiVolts\|talk]]) 16:50, 10 July 2008 (EDT)
			* I say they should be on the same tier at least, maybe higher. My personal canon hierarchy goes Ep, GN, Evolutions, though there are those GNs listed in red on [[User:SacValleyDweller/Release_Order_Optimized\|this page]] which I consider to be deuterocanon. I'll have to watch these too to see where I put them in my canon hierarchy. --{{User:SacValleyDweller/sig}} 18:37, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

imported>MiamiVolts: /* Webisodes */

2008-07-10T20:50:23Z

Webisodes

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:50, 10 July 2008
Line 72:		Line 72:

	Do the webisodes trump the graphic novels? --[[User:DocM\|DocM]] 16:45, 10 July 2008 (EDT)		Do the webisodes trump the graphic novels? --[[User:DocM\|DocM]] 16:45, 10 July 2008 (EDT)
			* I think my opinion will be leaning that way, but until I've seen an entire webisode I'm not sure.--[[User:MiamiVolts\|MiamiVolts]] ([[User_talk:MiamiVolts\|talk]]) 16:50, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

imported>DocM: /* Webisodes */ new section

2008-07-10T20:45:44Z

Webisodes: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:45, 10 July 2008
Line 68:		Line 68:
	***** Check the help page again. Graphic novels are considered "near canon". They are treated as though they occur in the world of the episodes, but if there's a conflict between what's shown on the screen and what's shown in a novel, the episode is considered to truly represent what happened. So far, there haven't been any major conflicts (apart from some spelling issues), since the GNs are largely supplementary.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 15:13, 4 October 2007 (EDT)		***** Check the help page again. Graphic novels are considered "near canon". They are treated as though they occur in the world of the episodes, but if there's a conflict between what's shown on the screen and what's shown in a novel, the episode is considered to truly represent what happened. So far, there haven't been any major conflicts (apart from some spelling issues), since the GNs are largely supplementary.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 15:13, 4 October 2007 (EDT)
	****** Okay, I see the approach we are taking in this wiki. Thanks for clearing that up. --[[User:Pinkkeith\|Pinkkeith]] 15:16, 4 October 2007 (EDT)		****** Okay, I see the approach we are taking in this wiki. Thanks for clearing that up. --[[User:Pinkkeith\|Pinkkeith]] 15:16, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

			== Webisodes ==

			Do the webisodes trump the graphic novels? --[[User:DocM\|DocM]] 16:45, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

imported>Pinkkeith: /* Canon */

2007-10-04T19:16:32Z

Canon

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:16, 4 October 2007
Line 67:		Line 67:
	**** First off, I would disagree that NBC said that he's straight. What I recall them saying is that he is not gay. I was just taking the leap of faith that what is broadcasted on NBC is what NBC wants. I'm also wondering if we are taking what is broadcasted as canon, why are graphic novels listed in the character's history section of his/her article? Shouldn't that also be placed under notes, or at least have a seperate location for appearances in graphic novels? I still maintain my own idea that canon is what the creater(s) of the fictional world says exists in that world. Yet, if we are going to take the approach that canon is what is shown in the television show we should stay consistant with that. --[[User:Pinkkeith\|Pinkkeith]] 15:09, 4 October 2007 (EDT)		**** First off, I would disagree that NBC said that he's straight. What I recall them saying is that he is not gay. I was just taking the leap of faith that what is broadcasted on NBC is what NBC wants. I'm also wondering if we are taking what is broadcasted as canon, why are graphic novels listed in the character's history section of his/her article? Shouldn't that also be placed under notes, or at least have a seperate location for appearances in graphic novels? I still maintain my own idea that canon is what the creater(s) of the fictional world says exists in that world. Yet, if we are going to take the approach that canon is what is shown in the television show we should stay consistant with that. --[[User:Pinkkeith\|Pinkkeith]] 15:09, 4 October 2007 (EDT)
	***** Check the help page again. Graphic novels are considered "near canon". They are treated as though they occur in the world of the episodes, but if there's a conflict between what's shown on the screen and what's shown in a novel, the episode is considered to truly represent what happened. So far, there haven't been any major conflicts (apart from some spelling issues), since the GNs are largely supplementary.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 15:13, 4 October 2007 (EDT)		***** Check the help page again. Graphic novels are considered "near canon". They are treated as though they occur in the world of the episodes, but if there's a conflict between what's shown on the screen and what's shown in a novel, the episode is considered to truly represent what happened. So far, there haven't been any major conflicts (apart from some spelling issues), since the GNs are largely supplementary.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 15:13, 4 October 2007 (EDT)
			****** Okay, I see the approach we are taking in this wiki. Thanks for clearing that up. --[[User:Pinkkeith\|Pinkkeith]] 15:16, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

imported>Hardvice at 19:13, 4 October 2007

2007-10-04T19:13:46Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:13, 4 October 2007
Line 66:		Line 66:
	*** We're not actually showing NBC's view of events, though. Take the [[Zach]] kerfuffle: NBC's view is that Zach is straight. Kring's is that Zach was meant to be gay. Since we restrict ourselves to what actually airs, at least in the episode histories, our perspective is that Zach's sexuality is never confirmed, but that it's strongly implied that he's gay. That's not the NBC view--it's what actually appeared on-screen and is verifiable, and in this case is closer to what Tim Kring wanted than what NBC, off screen, decided to state was true. Now, if it came down to an offscreen debate between a creator and the network, in my mind the creator's view would win every time (though in reality, since such a debate would appear only in a Notes section, we'd actually note both claims and let readers draw their own conclusions). But it doesn't come down to such a debate, because only confirmed information from episodes and graphic novels belongs in the episode histories. There are a lot of reasons for this, not the least of which is that unaired information always requires an explanation of where it comes from, who said it, what else has been said, etc. That's appropriate in Notes, but it's not appropriate in an episode history or description, because it necessarily breaks [[help:perspective\|perspective]].--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 16:33, 3 October 2007 (EDT)		*** We're not actually showing NBC's view of events, though. Take the [[Zach]] kerfuffle: NBC's view is that Zach is straight. Kring's is that Zach was meant to be gay. Since we restrict ourselves to what actually airs, at least in the episode histories, our perspective is that Zach's sexuality is never confirmed, but that it's strongly implied that he's gay. That's not the NBC view--it's what actually appeared on-screen and is verifiable, and in this case is closer to what Tim Kring wanted than what NBC, off screen, decided to state was true. Now, if it came down to an offscreen debate between a creator and the network, in my mind the creator's view would win every time (though in reality, since such a debate would appear only in a Notes section, we'd actually note both claims and let readers draw their own conclusions). But it doesn't come down to such a debate, because only confirmed information from episodes and graphic novels belongs in the episode histories. There are a lot of reasons for this, not the least of which is that unaired information always requires an explanation of where it comes from, who said it, what else has been said, etc. That's appropriate in Notes, but it's not appropriate in an episode history or description, because it necessarily breaks [[help:perspective\|perspective]].--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 16:33, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
	**** First off, I would disagree that NBC said that he's straight. What I recall them saying is that he is not gay. I was just taking the leap of faith that what is broadcasted on NBC is what NBC wants. I'm also wondering if we are taking what is broadcasted as canon, why are graphic novels listed in the character's history section of his/her article? Shouldn't that also be placed under notes, or at least have a seperate location for appearances in graphic novels? I still maintain my own idea that canon is what the creater(s) of the fictional world says exists in that world. Yet, if we are going to take the approach that canon is what is shown in the television show we should stay consistant with that. --[[User:Pinkkeith\|Pinkkeith]] 15:09, 4 October 2007 (EDT)		**** First off, I would disagree that NBC said that he's straight. What I recall them saying is that he is not gay. I was just taking the leap of faith that what is broadcasted on NBC is what NBC wants. I'm also wondering if we are taking what is broadcasted as canon, why are graphic novels listed in the character's history section of his/her article? Shouldn't that also be placed under notes, or at least have a seperate location for appearances in graphic novels? I still maintain my own idea that canon is what the creater(s) of the fictional world says exists in that world. Yet, if we are going to take the approach that canon is what is shown in the television show we should stay consistant with that. --[[User:Pinkkeith\|Pinkkeith]] 15:09, 4 October 2007 (EDT)
			***** Check the help page again. Graphic novels are considered "near canon". They are treated as though they occur in the world of the episodes, but if there's a conflict between what's shown on the screen and what's shown in a novel, the episode is considered to truly represent what happened. So far, there haven't been any major conflicts (apart from some spelling issues), since the GNs are largely supplementary.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 15:13, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

imported>Pinkkeith: /* Canon */

2007-10-04T19:09:05Z

Canon

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:09, 4 October 2007
Line 65:		Line 65:
	** It think that canon has to be concerned with source with rather then being able to see it or not. I would rather see the offical source to be the creator of the show over the company that broadcasts it. --[[User:Pinkkeith\|Pinkkeith]] 15:39, 3 October 2007 (EDT)		** It think that canon has to be concerned with source with rather then being able to see it or not. I would rather see the offical source to be the creator of the show over the company that broadcasts it. --[[User:Pinkkeith\|Pinkkeith]] 15:39, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
	*** We're not actually showing NBC's view of events, though. Take the [[Zach]] kerfuffle: NBC's view is that Zach is straight. Kring's is that Zach was meant to be gay. Since we restrict ourselves to what actually airs, at least in the episode histories, our perspective is that Zach's sexuality is never confirmed, but that it's strongly implied that he's gay. That's not the NBC view--it's what actually appeared on-screen and is verifiable, and in this case is closer to what Tim Kring wanted than what NBC, off screen, decided to state was true. Now, if it came down to an offscreen debate between a creator and the network, in my mind the creator's view would win every time (though in reality, since such a debate would appear only in a Notes section, we'd actually note both claims and let readers draw their own conclusions). But it doesn't come down to such a debate, because only confirmed information from episodes and graphic novels belongs in the episode histories. There are a lot of reasons for this, not the least of which is that unaired information always requires an explanation of where it comes from, who said it, what else has been said, etc. That's appropriate in Notes, but it's not appropriate in an episode history or description, because it necessarily breaks [[help:perspective\|perspective]].--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 16:33, 3 October 2007 (EDT)		*** We're not actually showing NBC's view of events, though. Take the [[Zach]] kerfuffle: NBC's view is that Zach is straight. Kring's is that Zach was meant to be gay. Since we restrict ourselves to what actually airs, at least in the episode histories, our perspective is that Zach's sexuality is never confirmed, but that it's strongly implied that he's gay. That's not the NBC view--it's what actually appeared on-screen and is verifiable, and in this case is closer to what Tim Kring wanted than what NBC, off screen, decided to state was true. Now, if it came down to an offscreen debate between a creator and the network, in my mind the creator's view would win every time (though in reality, since such a debate would appear only in a Notes section, we'd actually note both claims and let readers draw their own conclusions). But it doesn't come down to such a debate, because only confirmed information from episodes and graphic novels belongs in the episode histories. There are a lot of reasons for this, not the least of which is that unaired information always requires an explanation of where it comes from, who said it, what else has been said, etc. That's appropriate in Notes, but it's not appropriate in an episode history or description, because it necessarily breaks [[help:perspective\|perspective]].--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 16:33, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
			**** First off, I would disagree that NBC said that he's straight. What I recall them saying is that he is not gay. I was just taking the leap of faith that what is broadcasted on NBC is what NBC wants. I'm also wondering if we are taking what is broadcasted as canon, why are graphic novels listed in the character's history section of his/her article? Shouldn't that also be placed under notes, or at least have a seperate location for appearances in graphic novels? I still maintain my own idea that canon is what the creater(s) of the fictional world says exists in that world. Yet, if we are going to take the approach that canon is what is shown in the television show we should stay consistant with that. --[[User:Pinkkeith\|Pinkkeith]] 15:09, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

imported>Hardvice at 20:33, 3 October 2007

2007-10-03T20:33:49Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:33, 3 October 2007
Line 10:		Line 10:
	:I'd also say that the policy of clearly stating when information comes from a graphic novel serves the additional function of making things clearer for fans who don't read the comics. Rather than going "OMG I MISSED AN EPISODE", they can see right away that the info is from a comic. It's kind of awkward, true, but it's a big benefit. I'd say section headings are fine, but maybe we should make sure the section heading includes "(Graphic Novel)".--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 23:48, 26 December 2006 (EST)		:I'd also say that the policy of clearly stating when information comes from a graphic novel serves the additional function of making things clearer for fans who don't read the comics. Rather than going "OMG I MISSED AN EPISODE", they can see right away that the info is from a comic. It's kind of awkward, true, but it's a big benefit. I'd say section headings are fine, but maybe we should make sure the section heading includes "(Graphic Novel)".--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 23:48, 26 December 2006 (EST)

	:: I don't think the graphic novels should be treated as canon - I like the distinction of "near-canon". So far, the only cites on the site (heh) say the name of the GN, but most don't actually say "Graphic Novel". I think that's fine in the Notes. You're right, Hardvice, if a piece of info is so important that it is included in a subheading, the subheading should somehow distinguish itself by saying "Graphic Novel". I'll go ahead and change the few for Hana-related characters. - [[User:Ryangibsonstewart\|~~RyanGibsonStewart~~]] ([[User talk:Ryangibsonstewart\|talk]]) 00:31, 27 December 2006 (EST)		:: I don't think the graphic novels should be treated as canon - I like the distinction of "near-canon". So far, the only cites on the site (heh) say the name of the GN, but most don't actually say "Graphic Novel". I think that's fine in the Notes. You're right, Hardvice, if a piece of info is so important that it is included in a subheading, the subheading should somehow distinguish itself by saying "Graphic Novel". I'll go ahead and change the few for Hana-related characters. - [[User:Ryangibsonstewart\|RyanGibsonSt***ewart]] ([[User talk:Ryangibsonstewart\|talk]]) 00:31, 27 December 2006 (EST)

	Have the writers at any point in an interview etc. directly stated whether or not the graphic novels are canon? I've been under the impression that they were, so I was wondering for what reason they are not considered fully canonical here. [[User:Branfish\|Branfish]] 03:06, 18 January 2007 (EST)		Have the writers at any point in an interview etc. directly stated whether or not the graphic novels are canon? I've been under the impression that they were, so I was wondering for what reason they are not considered fully canonical here. [[User:Branfish\|Branfish]] 03:06, 18 January 2007 (EST)
Line 64:		Line 64:
	* If we don't see it, we can't assume that it actually happens or is true. Just because a creator stated something doesn't mean that they didn't subsequently change their mind. Information from interviews is entirely appropriate for the Notes sections of articles, but since the histories and descriptions are written from an in-world perspective, such information is just not appropriate in those sections.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 15:14, 3 October 2007 (EDT)		* If we don't see it, we can't assume that it actually happens or is true. Just because a creator stated something doesn't mean that they didn't subsequently change their mind. Information from interviews is entirely appropriate for the Notes sections of articles, but since the histories and descriptions are written from an in-world perspective, such information is just not appropriate in those sections.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 15:14, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
	** It think that canon has to be concerned with source with rather then being able to see it or not. I would rather see the offical source to be the creator of the show over the company that broadcasts it. --[[User:Pinkkeith\|Pinkkeith]] 15:39, 3 October 2007 (EDT)		** It think that canon has to be concerned with source with rather then being able to see it or not. I would rather see the offical source to be the creator of the show over the company that broadcasts it. --[[User:Pinkkeith\|Pinkkeith]] 15:39, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
			*** We're not actually showing NBC's view of events, though. Take the [[Zach]] kerfuffle: NBC's view is that Zach is straight. Kring's is that Zach was meant to be gay. Since we restrict ourselves to what actually airs, at least in the episode histories, our perspective is that Zach's sexuality is never confirmed, but that it's strongly implied that he's gay. That's not the NBC view--it's what actually appeared on-screen and is verifiable, and in this case is closer to what Tim Kring wanted than what NBC, off screen, decided to state was true. Now, if it came down to an offscreen debate between a creator and the network, in my mind the creator's view would win every time (though in reality, since such a debate would appear only in a Notes section, we'd actually note both claims and let readers draw their own conclusions). But it doesn't come down to such a debate, because only confirmed information from episodes and graphic novels belongs in the episode histories. There are a lot of reasons for this, not the least of which is that unaired information always requires an explanation of where it comes from, who said it, what else has been said, etc. That's appropriate in Notes, but it's not appropriate in an episode history or description, because it necessarily breaks [[help:perspective\|perspective]].--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 16:33, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:37, 10 July 2008
Line 73:		Line 73:
	Do the webisodes trump the graphic novels? --[[User:DocM\|DocM]] 16:45, 10 July 2008 (EDT)		Do the webisodes trump the graphic novels? --[[User:DocM\|DocM]] 16:45, 10 July 2008 (EDT)
	* I think my opinion will be leaning that way, but until I've seen an entire webisode I'm not sure.--[[User:MiamiVolts\|MiamiVolts]] ([[User_talk:MiamiVolts\|talk]]) 16:50, 10 July 2008 (EDT)		* I think my opinion will be leaning that way, but until I've seen an entire webisode I'm not sure.--[[User:MiamiVolts\|MiamiVolts]] ([[User_talk:MiamiVolts\|talk]]) 16:50, 10 July 2008 (EDT)
			* I say they should be on the same tier at least, maybe higher. My personal canon hierarchy goes Ep, GN, Evolutions, though there are those GNs listed in red on [[User:SacValleyDweller/Release_Order_Optimized\|this page]] which I consider to be deuterocanon. I'll have to watch these too to see where I put them in my canon hierarchy. --{{User:SacValleyDweller/sig}} 18:37, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:16, 4 October 2007
Line 67:		Line 67:
	**** First off, I would disagree that NBC said that he's straight. What I recall them saying is that he is not gay. I was just taking the leap of faith that what is broadcasted on NBC is what NBC wants. I'm also wondering if we are taking what is broadcasted as canon, why are graphic novels listed in the character's history section of his/her article? Shouldn't that also be placed under notes, or at least have a seperate location for appearances in graphic novels? I still maintain my own idea that canon is what the creater(s) of the fictional world says exists in that world. Yet, if we are going to take the approach that canon is what is shown in the television show we should stay consistant with that. --[[User:Pinkkeith\|Pinkkeith]] 15:09, 4 October 2007 (EDT)		**** First off, I would disagree that NBC said that he's straight. What I recall them saying is that he is not gay. I was just taking the leap of faith that what is broadcasted on NBC is what NBC wants. I'm also wondering if we are taking what is broadcasted as canon, why are graphic novels listed in the character's history section of his/her article? Shouldn't that also be placed under notes, or at least have a seperate location for appearances in graphic novels? I still maintain my own idea that canon is what the creater(s) of the fictional world says exists in that world. Yet, if we are going to take the approach that canon is what is shown in the television show we should stay consistant with that. --[[User:Pinkkeith\|Pinkkeith]] 15:09, 4 October 2007 (EDT)
	***** Check the help page again. Graphic novels are considered "near canon". They are treated as though they occur in the world of the episodes, but if there's a conflict between what's shown on the screen and what's shown in a novel, the episode is considered to truly represent what happened. So far, there haven't been any major conflicts (apart from some spelling issues), since the GNs are largely supplementary.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 15:13, 4 October 2007 (EDT)		***** Check the help page again. Graphic novels are considered "near canon". They are treated as though they occur in the world of the episodes, but if there's a conflict between what's shown on the screen and what's shown in a novel, the episode is considered to truly represent what happened. So far, there haven't been any major conflicts (apart from some spelling issues), since the GNs are largely supplementary.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 15:13, 4 October 2007 (EDT)
			****** Okay, I see the approach we are taking in this wiki. Thanks for clearing that up. --[[User:Pinkkeith\|Pinkkeith]] 15:16, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:13, 4 October 2007
Line 66:		Line 66:
	*** We're not actually showing NBC's view of events, though. Take the [[Zach]] kerfuffle: NBC's view is that Zach is straight. Kring's is that Zach was meant to be gay. Since we restrict ourselves to what actually airs, at least in the episode histories, our perspective is that Zach's sexuality is never confirmed, but that it's strongly implied that he's gay. That's not the NBC view--it's what actually appeared on-screen and is verifiable, and in this case is closer to what Tim Kring wanted than what NBC, off screen, decided to state was true. Now, if it came down to an offscreen debate between a creator and the network, in my mind the creator's view would win every time (though in reality, since such a debate would appear only in a Notes section, we'd actually note both claims and let readers draw their own conclusions). But it doesn't come down to such a debate, because only confirmed information from episodes and graphic novels belongs in the episode histories. There are a lot of reasons for this, not the least of which is that unaired information always requires an explanation of where it comes from, who said it, what else has been said, etc. That's appropriate in Notes, but it's not appropriate in an episode history or description, because it necessarily breaks [[help:perspective\|perspective]].--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 16:33, 3 October 2007 (EDT)		*** We're not actually showing NBC's view of events, though. Take the [[Zach]] kerfuffle: NBC's view is that Zach is straight. Kring's is that Zach was meant to be gay. Since we restrict ourselves to what actually airs, at least in the episode histories, our perspective is that Zach's sexuality is never confirmed, but that it's strongly implied that he's gay. That's not the NBC view--it's what actually appeared on-screen and is verifiable, and in this case is closer to what Tim Kring wanted than what NBC, off screen, decided to state was true. Now, if it came down to an offscreen debate between a creator and the network, in my mind the creator's view would win every time (though in reality, since such a debate would appear only in a Notes section, we'd actually note both claims and let readers draw their own conclusions). But it doesn't come down to such a debate, because only confirmed information from episodes and graphic novels belongs in the episode histories. There are a lot of reasons for this, not the least of which is that unaired information always requires an explanation of where it comes from, who said it, what else has been said, etc. That's appropriate in Notes, but it's not appropriate in an episode history or description, because it necessarily breaks [[help:perspective\|perspective]].--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 16:33, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
	**** First off, I would disagree that NBC said that he's straight. What I recall them saying is that he is not gay. I was just taking the leap of faith that what is broadcasted on NBC is what NBC wants. I'm also wondering if we are taking what is broadcasted as canon, why are graphic novels listed in the character's history section of his/her article? Shouldn't that also be placed under notes, or at least have a seperate location for appearances in graphic novels? I still maintain my own idea that canon is what the creater(s) of the fictional world says exists in that world. Yet, if we are going to take the approach that canon is what is shown in the television show we should stay consistant with that. --[[User:Pinkkeith\|Pinkkeith]] 15:09, 4 October 2007 (EDT)		**** First off, I would disagree that NBC said that he's straight. What I recall them saying is that he is not gay. I was just taking the leap of faith that what is broadcasted on NBC is what NBC wants. I'm also wondering if we are taking what is broadcasted as canon, why are graphic novels listed in the character's history section of his/her article? Shouldn't that also be placed under notes, or at least have a seperate location for appearances in graphic novels? I still maintain my own idea that canon is what the creater(s) of the fictional world says exists in that world. Yet, if we are going to take the approach that canon is what is shown in the television show we should stay consistant with that. --[[User:Pinkkeith\|Pinkkeith]] 15:09, 4 October 2007 (EDT)
			***** Check the help page again. Graphic novels are considered "near canon". They are treated as though they occur in the world of the episodes, but if there's a conflict between what's shown on the screen and what's shown in a novel, the episode is considered to truly represent what happened. So far, there haven't been any major conflicts (apart from some spelling issues), since the GNs are largely supplementary.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 15:13, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:09, 4 October 2007
Line 65:		Line 65:
	** It think that canon has to be concerned with source with rather then being able to see it or not. I would rather see the offical source to be the creator of the show over the company that broadcasts it. --[[User:Pinkkeith\|Pinkkeith]] 15:39, 3 October 2007 (EDT)		** It think that canon has to be concerned with source with rather then being able to see it or not. I would rather see the offical source to be the creator of the show over the company that broadcasts it. --[[User:Pinkkeith\|Pinkkeith]] 15:39, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
	*** We're not actually showing NBC's view of events, though. Take the [[Zach]] kerfuffle: NBC's view is that Zach is straight. Kring's is that Zach was meant to be gay. Since we restrict ourselves to what actually airs, at least in the episode histories, our perspective is that Zach's sexuality is never confirmed, but that it's strongly implied that he's gay. That's not the NBC view--it's what actually appeared on-screen and is verifiable, and in this case is closer to what Tim Kring wanted than what NBC, off screen, decided to state was true. Now, if it came down to an offscreen debate between a creator and the network, in my mind the creator's view would win every time (though in reality, since such a debate would appear only in a Notes section, we'd actually note both claims and let readers draw their own conclusions). But it doesn't come down to such a debate, because only confirmed information from episodes and graphic novels belongs in the episode histories. There are a lot of reasons for this, not the least of which is that unaired information always requires an explanation of where it comes from, who said it, what else has been said, etc. That's appropriate in Notes, but it's not appropriate in an episode history or description, because it necessarily breaks [[help:perspective\|perspective]].--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 16:33, 3 October 2007 (EDT)		*** We're not actually showing NBC's view of events, though. Take the [[Zach]] kerfuffle: NBC's view is that Zach is straight. Kring's is that Zach was meant to be gay. Since we restrict ourselves to what actually airs, at least in the episode histories, our perspective is that Zach's sexuality is never confirmed, but that it's strongly implied that he's gay. That's not the NBC view--it's what actually appeared on-screen and is verifiable, and in this case is closer to what Tim Kring wanted than what NBC, off screen, decided to state was true. Now, if it came down to an offscreen debate between a creator and the network, in my mind the creator's view would win every time (though in reality, since such a debate would appear only in a Notes section, we'd actually note both claims and let readers draw their own conclusions). But it doesn't come down to such a debate, because only confirmed information from episodes and graphic novels belongs in the episode histories. There are a lot of reasons for this, not the least of which is that unaired information always requires an explanation of where it comes from, who said it, what else has been said, etc. That's appropriate in Notes, but it's not appropriate in an episode history or description, because it necessarily breaks [[help:perspective\|perspective]].--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 16:33, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
			**** First off, I would disagree that NBC said that he's straight. What I recall them saying is that he is not gay. I was just taking the leap of faith that what is broadcasted on NBC is what NBC wants. I'm also wondering if we are taking what is broadcasted as canon, why are graphic novels listed in the character's history section of his/her article? Shouldn't that also be placed under notes, or at least have a seperate location for appearances in graphic novels? I still maintain my own idea that canon is what the creater(s) of the fictional world says exists in that world. Yet, if we are going to take the approach that canon is what is shown in the television show we should stay consistant with that. --[[User:Pinkkeith\|Pinkkeith]] 15:09, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:33, 3 October 2007
Line 10:		Line 10:
	:I'd also say that the policy of clearly stating when information comes from a graphic novel serves the additional function of making things clearer for fans who don't read the comics. Rather than going "OMG I MISSED AN EPISODE", they can see right away that the info is from a comic. It's kind of awkward, true, but it's a big benefit. I'd say section headings are fine, but maybe we should make sure the section heading includes "(Graphic Novel)".--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 23:48, 26 December 2006 (EST)		:I'd also say that the policy of clearly stating when information comes from a graphic novel serves the additional function of making things clearer for fans who don't read the comics. Rather than going "OMG I MISSED AN EPISODE", they can see right away that the info is from a comic. It's kind of awkward, true, but it's a big benefit. I'd say section headings are fine, but maybe we should make sure the section heading includes "(Graphic Novel)".--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 23:48, 26 December 2006 (EST)

	:: I don't think the graphic novels should be treated as canon - I like the distinction of "near-canon". So far, the only cites on the site (heh) say the name of the GN, but most don't actually say "Graphic Novel". I think that's fine in the Notes. You're right, Hardvice, if a piece of info is so important that it is included in a subheading, the subheading should somehow distinguish itself by saying "Graphic Novel". I'll go ahead and change the few for Hana-related characters. - [[User:Ryangibsonstewart\|~~RyanGibsonStewart~~]] ([[User talk:Ryangibsonstewart\|talk]]) 00:31, 27 December 2006 (EST)		:: I don't think the graphic novels should be treated as canon - I like the distinction of "near-canon". So far, the only cites on the site (heh) say the name of the GN, but most don't actually say "Graphic Novel". I think that's fine in the Notes. You're right, Hardvice, if a piece of info is so important that it is included in a subheading, the subheading should somehow distinguish itself by saying "Graphic Novel". I'll go ahead and change the few for Hana-related characters. - [[User:Ryangibsonstewart\|RyanGibsonSt***ewart]] ([[User talk:Ryangibsonstewart\|talk]]) 00:31, 27 December 2006 (EST)

	Have the writers at any point in an interview etc. directly stated whether or not the graphic novels are canon? I've been under the impression that they were, so I was wondering for what reason they are not considered fully canonical here. [[User:Branfish\|Branfish]] 03:06, 18 January 2007 (EST)		Have the writers at any point in an interview etc. directly stated whether or not the graphic novels are canon? I've been under the impression that they were, so I was wondering for what reason they are not considered fully canonical here. [[User:Branfish\|Branfish]] 03:06, 18 January 2007 (EST)
Line 64:		Line 64:
	* If we don't see it, we can't assume that it actually happens or is true. Just because a creator stated something doesn't mean that they didn't subsequently change their mind. Information from interviews is entirely appropriate for the Notes sections of articles, but since the histories and descriptions are written from an in-world perspective, such information is just not appropriate in those sections.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 15:14, 3 October 2007 (EDT)		* If we don't see it, we can't assume that it actually happens or is true. Just because a creator stated something doesn't mean that they didn't subsequently change their mind. Information from interviews is entirely appropriate for the Notes sections of articles, but since the histories and descriptions are written from an in-world perspective, such information is just not appropriate in those sections.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 15:14, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
	** It think that canon has to be concerned with source with rather then being able to see it or not. I would rather see the offical source to be the creator of the show over the company that broadcasts it. --[[User:Pinkkeith\|Pinkkeith]] 15:39, 3 October 2007 (EDT)		** It think that canon has to be concerned with source with rather then being able to see it or not. I would rather see the offical source to be the creator of the show over the company that broadcasts it. --[[User:Pinkkeith\|Pinkkeith]] 15:39, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
			*** We're not actually showing NBC's view of events, though. Take the [[Zach]] kerfuffle: NBC's view is that Zach is straight. Kring's is that Zach was meant to be gay. Since we restrict ourselves to what actually airs, at least in the episode histories, our perspective is that Zach's sexuality is never confirmed, but that it's strongly implied that he's gay. That's not the NBC view--it's what actually appeared on-screen and is verifiable, and in this case is closer to what Tim Kring wanted than what NBC, off screen, decided to state was true. Now, if it came down to an offscreen debate between a creator and the network, in my mind the creator's view would win every time (though in reality, since such a debate would appear only in a Notes section, we'd actually note both claims and let readers draw their own conclusions). But it doesn't come down to such a debate, because only confirmed information from episodes and graphic novels belongs in the episode histories. There are a lot of reasons for this, not the least of which is that unaired information always requires an explanation of where it comes from, who said it, what else has been said, etc. That's appropriate in Notes, but it's not appropriate in an episode history or description, because it necessarily breaks [[help:perspective\|perspective]].--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 16:33, 3 October 2007 (EDT)