PathfinderWiki talk:Canon policy FAQ

J2

While it is true that James said there that it shouldn't be taken as a source on dragons, it also has not been outright refuted by any later product. When Dragonfall was originally brought up in the Tuesday night Paizo chat that was referred to in that thread, Erik Mona stated that he wasn't very keen on declaring anything "non-canon" this early in the game (or ever, for that matter). I don't know the date of that specific conversation, but I'll start looking through the logs of the chats and see if I can find it.

In any case, I think that we should not discount the whole module, as there are other references to Dragonfall in the PF4 article by Mike McArtor and there's no clear guideline from James Jacobs's comment in the linked thread to indicate what is and isn't canonical in the module. Perhaps a better line to draw would be that if another, more recent source refutes or contradicts something from J2 that the second source should take preference? This will allow anything from J2 which has not been officially corrected by the Paizo editorial staff and lets them make the call of which items from the module don't belong in Golarion, as opposed to us making that call. --yoda8myhead 02:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Updated this FAQ to reflect a 23 November 2023 note from James Jacobs that J2/Dragonfall isn't canon, with additional context about both its intent and how its content was used going forward. -Oznogon (talk) 22:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

PFS

It has been said numerous times on the boards that PFS scenarios are not canon, though locations and such described in them are. As above, I think making a distinction between canon and non-canon within the same document or set of publications is tricky and a gray area I'd rather avoid. I propose we take a similar stance on these, stating that all content within a scenario is considered canon, though any non-PFS scenario source will take precedence in the case of a dispute. The fact that editorial is less involved in these will undoubtedly lead to some confusion at some point in the future, but until those situations arise, they are an invaluable source of information about different parts of the world that we haven't seen in other sources.

That said, I would not count interactives as canon (which makes me sad, as I'm contributing an encounter to the one at PaizoCon in two weeks) since they are less structured and can not be widely obtained to verify any statements which might cite them as sources.--yoda8myhead 02:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Real-world equivalences

Pathfinder incorporates real-world creatures, concepts, and mythology, and we can often provide context from real-world sources that are assumed to be true in the Pathfinder campaign setting. For example, turtles exist in Pathfinder, but no canon source describes a "normal" turtle's biology because the setting assumes equivalence with real-world turtles.

However, there are limits to inferring Golarion canon from real-world sources. One that has frequently come up recently follows a pattern like this:

• Something is described in a canon source by its name in Japanese.
• An article for that thing or concept is added to PathfinderWiki.
• That article asserts a connection to Minkai or the Minkaian language not stated in the canon source, and references a real-world source for the real-world equivalent.

See Talk:Sugi and its initial version for an example; the article initially asserted that sugi trees are called "Minkaian redwood" because sugi is a Japanese word, and the Wikipedia article for sugi (Cryptomeria) notes that they are also called "Japanese redwoods". However, no canon source refers to sugi trees as "Minkaian redwoods", the only canon reference to sugi trees places them in Shenmen, and the same source distances Shenmen from any real-world place, so the inferred real-world equivalence between the Minkaian language and Japanese is the only citeable source.

Should the FAQ spell out limits on making real-world equivalences in articles about canon subjects? For example:

• A real-world equivalence is appropriate for basic facts about concepts that exist in-universe that also exist in the real world, unless a canon source explicitly overrides that equivalence.

Example

• Sugi trees can grow to up to 230 feet in height with 13-foot trunks. Their leaves are needle-like with scaled seeds arranged in globular forms.

This assertion on the sugi article cites the Wikipedia article about the genus Cryptomeria, which describes the physical attributes of real-world sugi trees. Such facts are supported in contextual descriptions of Golarion's sugi trees and are not explicitly contradicted in a canon source, so the equivalence is assumed. If a canon source were to contradict this, the assertion should be removed.

• Dromaeosaurs are covered from head to toe in downy feathers ...

This assertion cites real-world research depicting dromaeosaurs as heavily feathered. However, canon sources describe and depict Golarion's dromaeosaurs as scaly-skinned or sparsely feathered, and a sidebar suggests taking inspiration for depicting dinosaurs in fantasy settings from more than real-world research. The real-world equivalence is not supported by canon sources and should not be directly asserted in the article's content, but an external link to the real-world subject is acceptable as context.

• 

  Non-canon artwork used to depict a cave bear.
  Non-canon artwork, such as File:Arctotherium.jpg, is uploaded to PathfinderWiki depicting a creature or concept that exists or is depicted in both the real world and the campaign setting.

Any such artwork must be freely or acceptably licensed, such as through a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial license or the public domain; must not conflict with a published canon description; and might be judged for its appropriateness on a case-by-case basis. Such artwork should ideally be replaced with a canon or canon-incorporating work as allowed through the Community Use Policy as soon as one is available.

• It is inappropriate to extrapolate further real-world equivalences solely on any inspiration from or commonalities with real-world concepts.

Example

• Sugi trees, alternatively known as Minkaian redwoods, ...

This assertion cited the Wikipedia article on the genus Cryptomeria, which states that sugi trees are also known in English as "Japanese redwoods". However, no canon source at the time made this assertion. This assertion therefore inferred that sugi trees on Golarion must also be referred to as "Minkaian redwoods" because aspects of Golarion's Minkai and Minkaian language are inspired by real-world Japan and Japanese. The canon source for sugi trees did not imply this; the trees were located in Shenmen rather than Minkai, a sidebar explicitly does not connect Shenmen to any specific real-world nation, and the source does not imply any relationship between sugi trees and Minkai or redwood trees. However, an external link to the Wikipedia article is acceptable as context.

• Players of the ball sport known as basilisk wield scoops that resemble jai alai cestas ...

This assertion cited the Wikipedia article on jai alai, and the scoops depicted in canon artwork do closely resemble cestas used by players of jai alai. However, jai alai does not exist in Golarion and PathfinderWiki is written from a canon point of view, so this assertion should not be made.

• A real-world equivalence can be appropriate for a specific creature, type of creature, or concept that exists in-universe and is also a fictional or mythical concept in the real world, but only if a canon source explicitly connects the Golarion concept to the real-world concept. Such assertions should be limited as much as possible to what's written about the subject in a canon source.

Example

• Baba Yaga, the Queen of Witches, is perhaps the greatest witch in existence. She has a hundred schemes on Earth (where she originated), Triaxus, Golarion and across the Great Beyond alike.

This assertion on the Baba Yaga article cites canon sources, and sidebars and forewords in canon sources explicitly identify Golarion's Baba Yaga as the same being of real-world mythology. Adding an external link for context is acceptable, but referring to real-world tales about Baba Yaga should be limited to those directly referenced by a canon source.

• Tengus on Golarion are yokai...

This assertion referenced real-world Japanese tales about yokai, a grouping of mythological beings which includes tengus. However, canon sources do not make this specific assertion or classification, and they also define Golarion's tengus as relatively common natural creatures and Golarion's yokai as both a class of supernatural being and as a broader term for unexplained phenomena, of which Golarion's tengus are neither. An external link to the Wikipedia article on tengus is acceptable as context, however.

-Oznogon (talk) 23:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

If similar happened in non-Japanese, consider adding it to main FAQ. I, who created that Sugi article, didn't edit qanat article because the word was not from Japanese.--Laclale (talk) 01:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I had already added non-Japanese examples for each proposed suggestion. We don't have to include all (or any) of the examples I proposed if the policy suggestions are accepted. -Oznogon (talk) 19:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

And consider in-game earth is 95 year behind if time parallel momentum is continued.--Laclale (talk) 02:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

In instances where Earth and the campaign setting have intersected, such as Reign of Winter and Strange Aeons, there are explicit references in canon sources that confirm those very specific and narrow crossovers. One of the points of my proposal is to provide guidance in the canon policy to account for, cite, and limit the scope of both explicitly stated and implicit connections when asserting them on PathfinderWiki, per PathfinderWiki:Scope of the project.

As you note, Earth itself also exists in the campaign setting — as a separate, distant planet with its own peoples, cultures, languages, and histories. We shouldn't infer secondary, conjectural connections to Earth facts as also being in-universe facts by asserting them on PathfinderWiki unless they've been made explicit in a canon source, such as details on Rasputin, Baba Yaga, Mosin-Nagant M1891 rifle, Cthulhu, Hastur, the Osirian pantheon, etc. -Oznogon (talk) 19:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I approve the suggested addition to the FAQ. Other subjects that frequently use real-world sources in their articles are those for Earth nations like Russia or for real-world weapons.— Yoda8myhead (talk) 22:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

We might further cover these instances by making a floating template akin to {{disambiguation}} that states that this article uses non-canon sources due to an overlap between Pathfinder canon and the real world. That template could link to this section of the canon policy FAQ to further contextualize the logic behind how those non-canon sources were used on the wiki.— Yoda8myhead (talk) 22:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)