Zelda Wiki talk:Canon Policy

Zelda Wiki.org Canon Policy
Seeing the expansion of the Tingle spinoffs, ready availability of the CDi Roms, scant information on canceled Zelda titles, disputes with the Japanese translations, etc and so on. It's becoming more of an issue that ZW has no clearly outlined Canon policy. To me, Canon goes:
 * Nintendo Zelda Title(in game stuff)> Manuals>Stategy guides(useful for finding names)>Magazine articles>Nintendo Website content(excepting Zelda.com)
 * Noncanon:Cdi games, comics, manga, books,
 * Canon until there's a conflict: Capcom LoZ titles, Flagship LoZ titles> Spinoff titles
 * Language English (American Spellings)-English (British Names-for titles not released in USA)-Japanese

Now, on the language thing. I know Timeline theorists and all are going to disagree, but we aren't going to change the entire wiki to pander to specialized interests. This policy was in place long before I even came around and will continue.

The rest however is up to debate and general consensus. 23:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I partially agree/disagree. I think there's no question about the Capcom games. They had Nintendo involvement, whereas the CD-i games did not. As for the Mangas, Nintendo has stated that they are simply to add on to the story and fun, and are not part of the canon. If I recall correctly, we decided that the Valiant comics are "Ambiguously Canon", something that other wikis have done with questionable topics. I'm currently working on a banner for that. Now remind me- what games were Flagship again? *I have a cold and it's kinda hard to think straight* 18:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What about cases in which the English translators messed up? I know it doesn't happen often, but the original American manual for ALttP contradicts OoT in several places, and there was one line in the American version of TP that said that the Oocca created the Hylians, when that contradicts the creation story set forth in both ALttP and OoT. The Japanese version just says that they created Hyrule (the kingdom).

And the Capcom games seem to be considered canon by Nintendo. Maybe we can divide this into: Flagship games: All 14 currently-released Legend of Zelda titles. Spin-off titles: Tingle games Tetra's Trackers Ancient Stone Tablets Game and Watch Link's Crossbow Training Non-canon games: CD-i games Ganondorfdude11 18:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Although stuff flat-out not produced by Nintendo should be right-out excluded, like Prima Games guides. Ganondorfdude11 15:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have scraped up a policy basesd entirely upon what has been the de-facto standard so far. It should be adaquate. And I was very descriptive, to avoid confustion. 16:45, October 6, 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's see it. Or is it on the page we already have? :P 19:27, October 6, 2009 (UTC) 19:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, besides the games' statuses
Now I think the simplest way to outline the other stuff would follow: Manuals > Developers quotes (credible sources only, preferrably print) > Guides: Nintendo's > NonNintendo's > Other books such as the story books. > Fanon

The guides and books are useful for finding otherwise unnamed Enemies, Characters etc. These will be known to a rather widespread amount of the fan base, therefore ought not be outright rejected. Fanon, let's face it, we hate it. But it's impossible to not have a small degree of it. I want it minimized. The theories may seem so obvious, but the facts of it need to be sourced. Anyway this isn't my all inclusive take, just a line of discussion for the policy.


 * ps, something concerning the release dates should be included as well, especially concerning ports. I default to whichever has the most info for the manuals, but the ingame content should be Port > Earlier Release. One benefit of that is that the GCN TP remains the canon version 21:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I am registering my protestation of the Prima Game Guides being "non-canon", as they in reality are "ambiguously canon" and fit that description entirely. Trying to say they are non-canon is biased based upon the opinions of the select few. Link87 01:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I support Link87. Until there is evidece that they are not cannon, then they should be left as ambiguously canon. BenitoPerezGaldos 19:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)