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)


 * This topic seems to have stalled with little objections elsewhere, and none posted here where it can be accessed readily. 19:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Would we want each guide listed with its canon status for the prima guides? And other guides as well. As the image I'm getting here is that from Twilight Princess on it should be somewhat canonical. It would be less confusing to list them all rather than saying ones before a certain point are not. 20:05, October 8, 2009 (UTC)

Game guides and regions
As people might have noticed there is numerous differences between American spirit and European spirit tracks. This brings in the question as what should be counted as the canon names. Since this is a mainly American based wiki we use the American names, but should we? I say we should use the names closest to the Japanese names, or the meaning of the Japanese names.

On a related note if an official guide or websites refers to an enemy by a different name then what the enemy obviously is (slimes vs zols and eye brutes vs Hinox in PH) should we use the guide name or the common enemy name? In twilight princess the so-called moldorms are obviously lanmolas.

23:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Hyrule Historia
Is it canon? Some thing in the book (like the timeline) contradicts the games, on the other side it is from the creators... so is the book canon or not for the wiki? --Soran 15:55, 3 January 2012 (EST)
 * It's not as much of a contradiction as a retelling/retconning of the events. So if it's from the creators, then it has indeed credibility. Hopefully the wiki staff will update the article ASAP for updating's sake. -- 16:18, 3 January 2012 (EST)
 * In my eyes it's to much, so I can't accept it... for me the book isn't canon, but what is more importend here? A book or the games--Soran 16:27, 3 January 2012 (EST)
 * Both are important. At first it seems like the games don't show much of the timeline connections, but that's because they were developed long before a timeline was ever in consideration. This is true for the NES and SNES games. So just because you refuse to call the book canon doesn't mean the entire wiki has to go with the refusal as well. You're free to build your own canon with theories and the such, but please leave a way for the confirmed stuff to be placed wherever they're relevant enough. -- 16:37, 3 January 2012 (EST)
 * They don't ignore just a few sentence, they ignore the intro of FSA (where was say, that the Link is the same from FS), they ignore the Ganonconflict, they ignore just fakes how zelda and link doesn't know each other ... for me it isn't canon. But we have the problem, how we work with the book. If it is canon for the wiki, we can use the infos of the book like infos of games, if not, we can just use it for some notes... that the problem not if I refuse the book or someone alse, just how we can work with it... --Soran 16:45, 3 January 2012 (EST)
 * No timeline is perfect. None of our fan timelines have been perfect, and many required fanfiction to make it work. You can't expect the official timeline to work perfectly either. However I have to say that it works way better than any of our fan timelines before. The book was authorized by Nintendo, its editor is Aonuma for heaven's sake, it is indeed canon by all means since we take developers' word for canon. Soran, no offense, but I think you're acting a little butthurt over this. Which I can kinda understand, I was a little butthurt at first too. The Goron Moron 17:21, 3 January 2012 (EST)

An admin should add Hyrule Historia! Zeldafan1982 17:50, 30 April 2012 (EDT)

Canon Issue Regarding the SS Manga
As I was reading the October 2012 (Vol. 283) issue of famed magazine Nintendo Power, I noticed that in an article on Hyrule Historia, Dark Horse Books editor Patrick Thorpe was quoted as saying, "[...]Newer fans are going to be excited about the large Skyward Sword section and the manga by Akira Himekawa, which contains some really important continuity that impacts the entire series." His statement about the manga makes me believe that said manga, or at least parts of it, should be considered canon or semi-canon. Granted, this hinges on whether or not one believes that his word should carry the same weight as that of a series developer. As the leader of the localization, though, his statement certainly demands some attention, and should, in my opinion, be at the very least recognized by the staff of this wiki. Whether or not it makes the manga in question a viable part of the official timeline should be your decision. Thank you for your time! Linebeck IV 22:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I can't say I'm very familiar with the Zelda mangas, but as I understand it, they've always provided extra continuity and explanations in regards to the games they're based on, so I don't see how the Skyward Sword manga is particularly different. I would say the manga remains non canon barring an explicit statement from a Nintendo representative saying otherwise (and there doesn't seem to be one; just took a look at Aonuma's statement in Glitterberri's translation of Hyrule Historia). The fact that parts of the manga can be found in the same book alongside canonical material is certainly significant, though. I wouldn't be surprised if certain elements of the manga appeared in a future title... I guess we'll have to wait and see. 23:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree, though in this case the manga should probably be marked as ambiguously canon in the same way as the Satellaview games. Your thoughts? Linebeck IV 13:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Even though they may have taken endorsement a step further with Hyrule Historia, the manga has always been officially endorsed by Nintendo. And so, as I said, I personally don't see how the Skyward Sword manga is particularly special as to deserve a different canonical status. 23:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the difference here is that the Skyward Sword manga does not, to my knowledge, directly contradict the events of the game unlike all the other mangas, which are based on the games but take liberties with the plot for the sake of writing an interesting story. The Skyward Sword manga actually depicts a series of backstory events that could of occured, and given their appearance in Hyrule Historia, may indeed of occurred. Of course, without a fully translated book, I'm not sure yet if the manga is included simply as a bonus or if there is any mention of it's relevancy to the series.
 * I think at this stage, at least until we get further translations, it would qualify as "ambiguously canon". The others are official, but not canon as they simply contradict the stories in a number of ways and thus cannot be so. 23:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

What Fizzle said. 01:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmm, yeah. Fair enough. 01:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Indubitably. :P However, we should also consider the arguments against it. We don't know if Thorpe's statement should truly be considered an endorsement from Nintendo (not to mention that the wording of said statement is suspect, as I now realize that the phrase "really important continuity" might also apply to the SS section of Hyrule Historia). Also, while I believe nothing in the manga contradicts the main game, has anyone here actually read it? Because if something is in conflict with the main game, the rest of the subject matter might very well be discounted. Until we have definite proof that it contradicts the game, though, I believe we should certainly consider tentatively classifying it as ambiguously canon. Obviously, the Zelda story and continuity is sometimes just as confusing and vague as it is fascinating. Linebeck IV 11:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

How does canon affect what can be added to the Wiki?
You've done a great job categorizing what is and is not canon. But you've not explained what canon means to the wiki. Different wikis handle this differently, and I think it would be a good idea to specify.

Canon is usually handled the same way everywhere: it's what can be added to any relevant article on the wiki. But ambiguous and non-canon are handled differently. Some wikis don't allow non-canon to be mentioned at all. Others allow it in articles about that particular work (like an article about the CDi games) and/or in special "apocrypha" sections in regular articles.

Questionable canon is even more complex. Some, again, don't allow it at all. Others allow it, but only in special "questionable canon" sections and/or in articles about that particular work. Others allow it in the main sections, but only with a special template. And still others allow it to be in any main section as long as it doesn't contradict full canon.

As you can see, as a new editor, this page does not give me all the information about canon that I would need to edit this Wiki. I think it should. It would be pretty easy--just add a sentence or clause after what's currently in each bullet point. For example, the canon bullet point would be changed to read "Canon — This material makes up the fictional universe and can be added to any relevant article or section of the wiki."

The others would get similar sentences, depending on how you like to handle them. For example: "Ambiguously Canon — This material cannot be definitively considered canon, but as it does not necessarily contradict canon sources, is considered canon by many people. It can only be added in special sections."

Wouldn't this be a good idea, so that new users know exactly what can be added? Trlkly 13:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Edited. Hopefully it's clearer now. 17:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)