Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Buffyverse task force/Canon

message: Bases of the argument
Why canon is important?
It is extremely important to be able to discuss expanded universe fiction in terms of canonicity.  There are two major reason for this:
#This project struggles as it is against Wikipedia:Notability.  There is no question that Buffy Summers is notable enough to warrant her own article.  Does every character from the comics and novels?  Even if there were enough to say about all of them, they would be relentlessly hunted down by deletionists.  And not without reason.
#*WP:FICT is not "highly controversial".  It is highly ignored.  There's a difference.  There is very little opposition mentioned on its talk page and it was coauthored by a host of editors.
#*If every minor character from every relatively unknown novel in the English language had an article here, the servers would die.  I'm all in favor of articles mentioning them, merged stub articles, etc., but the servers simply can't handle everything.
#Mixed information is extremely confusing.  Most people who are not avid Buffy fans have no idea that these comics and novels even exist.  And yes, it is useful for this information to be available so they then can know that they exist.  But to have to wade through so much unofficial information to find "something I saw in that show that time" is counterproductive.
So what do we do?
We need to make sure that all necessary information is available, but also that it is clearly and rationally written and organized.  This does not mean to delete all non-canon information.  But it does mean to clearly indicate what comes from what sources.  It also means dividing the information sensibly.
The word of Joss is what distinguishes official from non-official in the Buffyverse.  Because he does not always say what is and what isn't official, we have to interpret.  Please note that the fact that something is "licensed by Mutant Enemy Productions" makes it official Buffy merchandise, but does not automatically make it official Buffy canon.  (For example, the Oz-Wolf action figure implies that Oz can play the guitar with his claws.  Although the company needed ME permission to sell the figure, this is ludicrous and is in no way official information.)
*The two shows clearly and unequivocably deserve special treatment.  They are the core of the universe, the basis of the mythology; they are complete and stand alone as a complete work.
*Joss has written some of the comics, most notably Fray and some of the Tales of the Vampires / Slayers.  These can generally be assumed to agree with the continuity of the shows, for the most part.
*The rest of the comics -- the Dark Horse ones -- are not really associated with Joss.  They are to be treated dubiously.
*The novels are clearly not official information.  Joss has said he never reads them.
*Don't even get me started on "e-seasons", webcomics, fanfic, etc.  A note in the Buffy main article that says that there are a lot of them suffices, and they warrant no more mention.
The shows need to be handled in and of themselves with little interference from outside information.  The "canon" comics can be used to support this information, but only in a way such that it cannot be confused with things that appear on the show.
Non-canon information can also be written about, but must be clearly divorced from official information.  An article about a non-canon character or piece should have a warning on it (as Paxomen has been doing).  An article about a character or concept which incorporates more than one "classification" of information needs to have this information clearly separated such that there can be no confusion.
Furthermore ...
I am sensitive to the concerns of people who are writing about non-canon information and having it deleted.  Welcome to Wikipedia, prepare to see your long hard work destroyed.  But let's get real for a minute.
Buffyverse canon is in no way analogous to Catholic views on abortion and birth control or the Israel-Palestine conflict.  Nor does it resemble medieval imperialism or book-burning.  I live with a fellow from Palestine, and I daresay he would be rather insulted by such a comparison.  I personally find the comparison intellectually insulting.  A cancelled TV show about a skinny blonde who kicks the daylights out of guys with lumpy faces does not deserve to be compared to a huge wall with automated machine guns running through the heart of a country.  Such comparisons are provocative and may be construed as bad faith.  In the very least, making these arguments may open you up to criticism of not being sensitive to very complicated, very serious real-life issues.
What is and is not "canon" in the most literal sense is, indeed, a POV issue.  What is and is not acceptable on Wikipedia is also a POV issue.  But there are guidelines, and we follow those guidelines.  And if your work approaches the borders of those guidelines, prepare to have it criticized, edited, or deleted.  Hell, prepare to have it criticized, edited, and deleted anyway.
Your work is not being deleted because "this information is wrong" or "your opinion is less important than X's".  Your work is being deleted because it is considered by others to be non-notable.  Wikipedia relies greatly on judgement calls, and to claim the NPOV rule in this case is taking the rule out of context.  The discussion over the differences between the official Catholic viewpoint and the secular viewpoint on abortion is indisputably rather notable.  The discussion over a particular novel or comic in the Buffyverse may not be.
In closing ...
When I wrote my opening notes for this project, I said I wanted to disclude noncanon information because the vast and often contradictory information in the extended universe seemed just too much to handle.  We have enough trouble keeping the core 'verse articles up to par.  And yes, the core 'verse articles are the most important because a) they are the most notable and b) they reach the broadest audience.  An article with 50 hits a day deserves more attention than one with 5.
I fully encourage, however, people to keep working on the supplementary extended 'verse information.  But it has to clearly and unmistakably be presented as such if we want to maintain the airs of an encyclopedic project.
If you would leave this section intact and start discussion in the next section, that would be great.  Thanks.
: Che Nuevara:  Join the Revolution 16:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening notes 

message: General discussion not tied to an article.
-----------
I think that the canonicity argument should be avoided entirely, since fandom will never come to a consensus about what is or isn't canon. Even if Joss were to show up on WHEDONesque tomorrow and type up a post declaring that x is canon and y is not, many would simply ignore him. In my experience, every fan has their own personal idea of what constitutes "canon", and thus, a neutral encyclopedia like Wikipedia isn't the place to settle something so subjective.
I propose that instead of labeling whether or not x is "canon"/"non-canon", unless it comes from a televised episode of Buffy or Angel, we simply clearly source where it comes from (whether it be a comic, a novel, one of the video games, whatever), and let the readers decide for themselves whether or not it's part of their personal "canon". This is the exact policy that the Doctor Who WikiProject uses, and considering that fandom's IMMENSE amount of "expanded universe" material, I think we should follow their example (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Doctor_Who#Canon_or_not.3F for more details). 
I do agree with most of Che's opening statement, in that material from the expanded universe should be clearly labeled as such, and separated from the main body of an article. I just think that declaring whether or not something is "canon" is something of a judgment call that shouldn't belong here.
--SHODAN 00:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canon: discuss it here! 

message: This page is still under contrustion. Can someone help me fix it? I just learned that some of these are non canon slayers, so we need alot of help editing this. Some are written by canon authours like Joss, so those are canon. Others are just bogus, and not connected to Joss whatsoever, like India Cohen. So we need alot of help sorting this up. -Lil_Flip246
I dunno if the Tales of the Slayer stories would count as canon: people like Nancy Holder, who weren't really associated with Joss, wrote stories in there.  I don't know if those stories could really be considered cannon....also, you could add in that Buffy's predecessor in the Whedonverse was a pretty unattractive female, because it's been hinted at in the series very many times.  --Ooks
Only the TALES OF THE SLAYERS ("S") is CANON. Joss says he doesn't bother reading non canon books, cause there is no point. He says they could make buffy have an abortion or something, but that is just their fanfic. Only stories associated with Mutant Enemy, Joss, and Buffy writers are CANON. -Lil_Flip246
So, since Tales of the Slayer is NOT canon, why are Thessily and Peri (among others from Tales of the Slayer) on the chart? They should be removed.  That was the point I was trying to make.  And I'm sorry for misspelling canon!  
--Ooks
I told on the edit summary that I wasn't sure yet whether SOME of these were canon or not. So I hope that clears your quesyion. -Lil_Flip246
"Only Canon Slayers are featured in this list. You may notice some Non Canon slayers, cause this page is still in development and re-editing."
Plus this is what I wrote on the headline. -Lil_Flip246
I kept the Peri because it was written by a Mutany Enemy/Buffy TV Writer, Jane Espenson, which makes it canon. The only canon story in those non canon novels. Someone should make a non canon salyer timeline. -Lil_Flip246
Okay, well, I'm sorry for the confusion.  I also was wondering whether or not to consider things written by Rebecca Rand Kirshner or Jane as canon, and when I consulted my friend at the Buffy boards about it, he said that even if people like Jane are closer to Joss Whedon's mind than the other writers, it doesn't make anything they write instantly canon.  So, I'm not sure, but Peri could just be kept on here.  
On another note, Yuki Makumura should be here, because even if she was in those non-canon comics mostly, she was seen in the last picture in last story, Tales, in Tales of the Slayers.  (wow, a lot of repeat of words in that sentence)    
--Ooks
Okay add her then. Which story was she featured in the comic? -Lil_Flip246
Why did someone write unattractive slayer? -Lil_Flip246 Anyways, someone should make pages for each of these canon slayers.
Can someone please add Fray to the list of slayers. I haven't read the comics so I don't know much about her. -Lil_Flip246
You just saw her picture in the last story, 'Tales' (with Fray).  Uh, that was me with the whole unattractive slayer thing, because there are various hints throughout the television series that Buffy's predecessor was not too attractive.  
I'll add Fray.
--Ooks
What are the hints? Anyways, I checked google, and Buffy fansites, and Yuki Makumura has ONLY appeared on a NON CANON comic. So I don'y think she belongs in this list. Again, someone should make a non canon slayer list, which excludes Buffy and co.
I agree with you on that fact, but in the Tales of Slayers story 'Tales', which is canon, she is pictured among the other canon slayers.  Here's a picture, she's the tallest one pictured.  http://www.pylia.co.uk/tales_of_the_slayers.htm   That's pretty much the only reason I included her, because she appears in a canon comic.  
--Ooks
Ok, add her. Anyways, can someone make a page for Rachel O' Connor. More info can be found here on Rachel and Yuki, etc..http://www.geocities.com/tales_slayer/ -Lil_Flip246
Can someone/s help us make pages for these canon slayers? Also we need help to fix the format of the list. As you see it looks like it's been done poorly. Can someone who is an expert help us make it more presentable? Thanks. -Lil_Flip246
There's this slayer named "Nubian Goddess" and she's from Tales of the Slayer (Novel), Vol. 2, "The Ghosts of Slayers Past" by Scott Allie. But in this site: http://www.pylia.co.uk/tots_timeline.htm   it shows a pic of her. Where is that pic from? Unless it's from Fray or Tales of the Slayers, I won't add it as canon.
I'm might add Mary O'Brian because she was from the Origin, which is apparently an adaptation from the original scripts of the buffy movie. Does that mean that this comic is like the season 7 novel, "Chosen"? If so I'll add her. Slayers like Jing Po are also in this book.
It says that the picture's from Buffy Mag, "Note From The Underground", Part Five, Cliff Richards....I dunno what that is, does anybody read the Buffy magazine?  lol...but, I probably would'nt add it.  
I was not sure whether or not to add people like Mary O' Brian, Lady Sarah, Jing Po, etc.  either.  I don't really think it would hurt if we did.  
By the way, nice job making it neater!
--Ooks
Can someone please fix the format here? It looks pretty cheap. Can someone please make it look more presentable? -Lil_Flip246
Can someone please make a Yuki page? There's alot of information in the internet about this slayer. Thanks. -Lil_Flip246
Can you guys help me add more canon slayers? Thanks. -Lil_Flip246
I think there are some erros. Can someone fix that? Thanks.
:::The Slayers timeline page needs to be redone. Non-Canon slayers (i.e. The non-canon slayer which Spike killed in a non-canon novel) have been included with canon slayers. Viewers will not be able to tell which slayers are canon and non-canon. Viewers won't be able to tell which stories about canon slayers are canon or not. The viewers need to be notified. There should be seperate lists for canon and non-canon slayers. Lil Flip246 19:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Buffyverse Slayer timeline]] 

message: An encyclopedia should consider all points of view not just the dominant ones. Should the abortion article just focus on republican views? Should the Palestine article be written only from a Jewish perspective? A good encyclopedia should try to remain neutral or deal with all points of view without rubbishing any of them.
Wikipedia should capable of dealing with the whole Buffyverse not just the canon Buffyverse. Wikipedia's policy is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I hope I have recently been dealing with 'canonical issues' in a reasonable and neutral way based on actual cited sources but have had whole sections/links deleted because they are not conforming with what certain people consider 'canon'. People's use of language, in articles implying 'uncanon' material is unimportant, or a waste of time is not showing neutral point of view, and shows disrespect to those who read the materials, and even more disrespect to those writing articles about them.  I personally do not see the problem with using information from uncanonical sources as long as it is clearly referenced as such. For example the article on India Cohen in my opinion deserves a place on the Slayer (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)#Known Slayers page?
Thanks -- Paxomen 21:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a valid point.  Noncanon material can be discussed, if someone is willing to take the time to write it up.  But the distinction has to be very sharp.  The main difference between canon and noncanon materials is that the canon materials are sanctioned and endorsed by the creator.  That's a huge difference, and yes, it means that canon materials take top shelf over noncanon.  Articles on strictly noncanon material should say very clearly, right off the bat, that they are about noncanon materials.  Noncanon information about a canon character/thing ought to be sectioned off from the canon information in a section such as "Xander in the extended Buffyverse" or something.  I originally created this project just to deal with the canon aspects of the 'verse because I honestly didn't want to deal with the mountains of noncanon material; if you want to write about it, go ahead.  But noncanon means exactly that: not official.  In order to consider ourselves "encyclopedic" we need to ensure that nonofficial information cannot be mistaken for official information. -  Che Nuevara:  Join the Revolution 18:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buffy]] 

message: Okay, this caused a little bit of bother over at the Illyria talk page, do spin-offs that don't exist yet count as canon? If/when the Spike movie gets made, I would of course accept it as canon. However, I am of the opinion that, until the Spike movie gets made, we cannot accept any events that are 'planned' to be in it as canon, as it may never get made and these events may never occur. See the Illyria talk page for what I'm talking about. Jayunderscorezero 08:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future spin-offs