Talk:Canon - Revision history

imported>Admin: temporary redirect Should be deleted soon.

2007-02-22T22:04:18Z

temporary redirect Should be deleted soon.

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:04, 22 February 2007
(No difference)

imported>Admin: temporary redirect Should be deleted soon.

2007-02-22T22:04:18Z

temporary redirect Should be deleted soon.

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:04, 22 February 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
			#REDIRECT [[Help talk:Sources]]
	OK, guys, let's talk this through more formally...I've read several discussions that touch on 'canon' in relation to specific areas, people, etc...Let's try to nail down a consistent approach.

	Was talking on the Pam Green discussion about the 'deceased' thing. It was confirmed that Pan/Pam are the same person from two writers. The Interactive Map clearly shows deceased. Our Pam page shows the postit of that. The computer shot shows Pams name (not in red like other deceased folks), but it also covers up the deceased column.

	Pam seems to be a good example, but there are others as well.

	Stepping away from Pam, we have some pages that show good material, albeit for non-canon (or arguably canon) sources.

	What is canon?

	*Are just screen caps from the TV episodes alone?
	*Are Q&A interviews from the writers, producers, directors, etc....?
	*Can the interactive map be?
	*Can the Graphic Novels be?
	*Can the unaired pilot be?
	*Can unaired scenes be?
	*Can Primatech data be?
	*Can Hiros Blog be?

	There are probably other options out there besides these. My point is, do we have a strict 'canon' law to apply everything to, or should it be a little lax, and try to ecompass all of the reasonable sources (and we can determine what they are)?

	Because at this point, if we removed or qualified all non-eposodic sources with 'possibly' or '????' or whatever, we would have tons of pages, paragraphs, pictures, etc.....that aren't 'official canon'.

	For my opinion, I would like to see as much 'reasonable info' reflected from this fansite as is available. I would think at least each of the things above are all reasonable, for if we stick to a very strict canon, we should be consistent and remove a whole ton of stuff from the site.

	If a new Heroes fan comes to this fansite, should they be able to find info on most stuff they would expect to be valid source material(from the sources above), or only episodic-sided and verifiable proof?

	Your thoughts?

	<small>--[[User:HiroDynoSlayer\|HiroDynoSlayer]] ([[User talk:HiroDynoSlayer\|talk]]) 16:37, 22 February 2007 (EST)</small>

imported>HiroDynoSlayer: A more formal and general discussion on "WHAT IS CANON"....sources for this fansite?

2007-02-22T21:47:11Z

A more formal and general discussion on "WHAT IS CANON"....sources for this fansite?

New page

OK, guys, let's talk this through more formally...I've read several discussions that touch on 'canon' in relation to specific areas, people, etc...Let's try to nail down a consistent approach.

Was talking on the Pam Green discussion about the 'deceased' thing. It was confirmed that Pan/Pam are the same person from two writers. The Interactive Map clearly shows deceased. Our Pam page shows the postit of that. The computer shot shows Pams name (not in red like other deceased folks), but it also covers up the deceased column.

Pam seems to be a good example, but there are others as well.

Stepping away from Pam, we have some pages that show good material, albeit for non-canon (or arguably canon) sources.

What is canon?

*Are just screen caps from the TV episodes alone?
*Are Q&A interviews from the writers, producers, directors, etc....?
*Can the interactive map be?
*Can the Graphic Novels be?
*Can the unaired pilot be?
*Can unaired scenes be?
*Can Primatech data be?
*Can Hiros Blog be?

There are probably other options out there besides these. My point is, do we have a strict 'canon' law to apply everything to, or should it be a little lax, and try to ecompass all of the reasonable sources (and we can determine what they are)?

Because at this point, if we removed or qualified all non-eposodic sources with 'possibly' or '????' or whatever, we would have tons of pages, paragraphs, pictures, etc.....that aren't 'official canon'.

For my opinion, I would like to see as much 'reasonable info' reflected from this fansite as is available. I would think at least each of the things above are all reasonable, for if we stick to a very strict canon, we should be consistent and remove a whole ton of stuff from the site.

If a new Heroes fan comes to this fansite, should they be able to find info on most stuff they would expect to be valid source material(from the sources above), or only episodic-sided and verifiable proof?

Your thoughts?

<small>--[[User:HiroDynoSlayer|HiroDynoSlayer]] ([[User talk:HiroDynoSlayer|talk]]) 16:37, 22 February 2007 (EST)</small>