PathfinderWiki talk:Canon policy
| Archives: |
Categorization of retroactively removed subjects
|
Changes Accepted |
We should formalize our definition and handling of subjects determined to be "legacy content"—retained as canon, not retroactively removed or changed, but not appearing in future works due to OGL/ORC licensing issues and potentially replaced in their setting role by another subject.
Proposed change
Add the following bullet point to "Defining canon changes", after the retcons bullet point:
- Due to licensing and intellectual property agreements or conflicts, Paizo might not be able to continue to use certain canon creatures, deities, or other subjects that Paizo had previously licensed for used in Pathfinder. While some of these subjects are later explicitly retroactively changed by Paizo, Paizo has also confirmed others are retained in the campaign setting's canon history but will not be revisited in future works. In official and licensed sources, such retained but abandoned canon subjects are referred to as legacy content.
- PathfinderWiki retains articles on legacy content but clearly designates their status with the {{Legacy content}} banner, which also categorizes the articles into Category:Legacy content. Such content should otherwise be considered canon content, remain on the wiki, and retain its categories and links to and from other canon content. Legacy designations should be the result of official errata or a confirmed canon clarification by a Paizo staff member that is documented on the subject's Meta page. For examples, see Kostchtchie (Meta:Kostchtchie) and golem (Meta:Golem).
- An existing or new canon subject sometimes replaces the legacy content subject's functional role in future Paizo works, such as being a creature of a certain level, type, or encounter circumstance. However, unlike a retcon these replacements do not retroactively assume the abandoned subject's history, relationships, or past actions in the setting. If a new canon subject warrants a PathfinderWiki article but uses the name of an unrelated legacy subject, consider moving the legacy subject's article to make way for the new canon subject.
Add the following to the Canon policy FAQ:
- Archives of Nethys (AoN) lists a subject as legacy content, but PathfinderWiki doesn't. Why do the designations differ?
- PathfinderWiki flags some First Edition subjects as legacy content that aren't related to the Pathfinder Remaster. Why?
- While some omissions or inclusions of legacy content banners on PathfinderWiki might be in error, note that AoN programmatically designates all Pathfinder Second Edition content published prior to the Pathfinder Remaster as "legacy content". AoN's definition includes subjects confirmed to still be canon in Remastered works because it is focused on game mechanics. As a project that comparatively avoids mechanics and focuses on setting canon, PathfinderWiki's definition does not align perfectly with AoN's.
- Also, the Pathfinder Remaster project is the most wide-reaching cause of legacy content designations, but not the only one. Content such as coeurl, deep crow, or certain Elder Mythos content from Strange Aeons are designated as legacy content because they were specifically and narrowly licensed by Paizo from third parties, and Paizo is similarly legally unable to reference those subjects again unless they re-license them.
-Oznogon (talk) 22:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Marking five months with no dissent and noting that the above policy has reached de facto status with, for instance, 142 items and 9 subcategories currently in Category:Legacy content. I think for clarity it is best to approve this now as a guide to all users about our current standard practice. It can always be amended later as the wiki evolves. I shall update the policy and FAQ shortly. --Fleanetha (talk) 11:56, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Edit to video games, board(/card) games, and a typo
|
|
Changes Accepted |
Tier 4's text is out of date and needs to link to the Pathfinder Comics article. I assume that the bullet-points for "computer/video games" and "comic books" should be replaced with:
- Pathfinder: Kingmaker, Pathfinder Revolution!, and other licensed video games and board games based in the setting
- Dynamite Entertainment's Pathfinder Comics
That's if Revolution! is a Tier 4 source, and if we want to choose to highlight Kingmaker rather than Wrath of the Righteous.
At a later date, the PFWiki will eventually need to define tier(s) for Paizo-made board games like Pathfinder Quest, or possibly Pathfinder Elemental Stones and Pathfinder Goblin Firework Fight. (Firework Fight is kind of a card game, as listed on one paizo.com page?)
Also, the following sentence of "Conflicting sources" has a typo:
"However, in all cases is that valid sources should be construed so as not to be in conflict."
--Descriptivist (talk) 07:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Initial thoughts are that, while this is raising a valid point about the policy's need for an update at Tier 4, rather than updating the specific titles, we should make the policy wording more generic and longer lasting, such as the strawman below. The list ordered alphabetically by category and I also suggest removal of the vague 'but not limited to'. Some of the elements included now in Tier 4 are Paizo made, I believe, so that wording needs amending too. Finally, as suggested above, all elements are hyperlinked to the best comprehensive page on the wiki. Descriptivist - have I captured all your points in this strawman too? --Fleanetha (talk) 09:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Tier 4
- All licensed Pathfinder campaign setting material in Paizo—if not listed above—and non-Paizo sources, including
but not limited to:- Pathfinder Legends audio dramas
- Pathfinder-branded board games
- Pathfinder-branded comic books
- Computer/video games based in the setting
- Official content in Kobold Quarterly or other periodicals --Fleanetha (talk) 09:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Agree that over-specificity causes more problems than it solves. I'd go a step further and move examples of what's included in each tier out of the policy and into the FAQ; answering questions is what a FAQ should do best. Only exceptions should be specifically named in the policy, and I'm not aware of any for this tier. -Oznogon (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Iconics and continuity
On the PathfinderWiki Discord server, Mark Moreland asked for PFWiki editors' thoughts on how to define the nuances of iconic characters' canon policy going forward, especially across iconics' appearances in different forms of media, such as the upcoming novel Godsrain: https://discord.com/channels/499368889176555520/1277454088044286045 --Descriptivist (talk) 07:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- They're characters, just like any other character. When they appear in canon works, filling roles that aren't player-character stand-ins in adventure art and adaptations, their actions are canon according to the rest of the policy. This is already in practice with the Comics line. -Oznogon (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Citing non-canon PF1E RPG
|
Changes Rejected |
Pathfinder setting articles require that all statements of fact be supported by reference to identified source material that is a "valid resource".
Both the canon policy text and the RPG-line FAQ text apparently say that PF1E RPG-line books pre-Adventurer's Guide are "non-canon" and "not valid". As written, this sounds like it "disallows" chroniclers from ever citing these books in setting articles; however, we cite them in possibly countless setting articles. This feels almost like these books exist in an unwritten "sixth tier", so both the policy text and the FAQ text should be revised to better document the fact that citing these "non-canon" sources actually seems to be standard practice when they're relevant/useful. (I'm not certain if there exists a metric for defining when they're relevant/useful, and when they're irrelevant.)
Pathfinder RPG-line books older than the Adventurer's Guide are not Tier 1 resources, and their contents do not necessarily reflect the canon setting. Creature statistics from Bestiary volumes remain the sole exception to this rule; bestiaries are still considered Tier 1 sources, but only for creature statistics.
I would remove the word "sole" from the above paragraph, because its strong wording may lead readers to believe that Bestiary statistics are the only information that is ever allowed to be cited from these RPG-line books. "Allowance" explanation might be included in a new paragraph directly following the above paragraph, something like this:
However, although setting-neutral books do not fit into a canon tier, it's still acceptable or can even be necessary to cite them for clarity or information that is relevant to setting articles. The [citation needed] template {{Source}} can often be placed next to these citations to suggest that a canon source would be a good confirmatory addition.
--Descriptivist (talk) 13:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Strongly oppose. Every assertion should cite a recognized canon source, full stop. Citations of non-canon sources, including 1E Bestiary and Core Rulebook and pre-Adventurer's Guide rulebooks, should be replaced as quickly as possible because they are not reliable canon sources. Those that lack such sources should be flagged for changes—not removed, in accordance with this policy.
- If the policy's language discourages inexperienced users from boldly adding non-canon sources, that's a feature to me, not a bug. The strength of the policy's statements is intentional. We should not encourage the use and retention of non-canon sources, especially when they are or were necessary. They should remain a reluctant last resort, should remain subject to immediate scrutiny when added, and should be expediently replaced with canon sources as soon as one is available.
- Intentionally and tendentiously adding non-canon sources without context or discussion, and against consensus, is and should remain a sign of a disruptive editor—and even in that policy, we neither prohibit nor ban the use of non-canon or low-quality sources. We instead flag and open discussion, just as suggested elsewhere in this policy (particularly the "Deleting invalid articles in whole or in part" section) and also in the relevant deletion policy.
Additional context →
This proposal suggests codifying a weakening of this language in part because the use of non-canon sources is an existing and widespread practice:
"we cite them in possibly countless setting articles. This feels almost like these books exist in an unwritten "sixth tier", so both the policy text and the FAQ text should be revised to better document the fact that citing these "non-canon" sources actually seems to be standard practice when they're relevant/useful."
But such a suggestion lacks the context of how much of that usage came to be. The suggestion that {{Source}} can be optional especially troubles me since such flags contribute to maintenance categories that could be used to mitigate the problem. There should be no metric or threshold where a non-canon source becomes allowable; they should always be flagged and queued up for replacement ASAP, and removed if redundant or unnecessary.
For example, more than 200 creature articles on PathfinderWiki were created or edited by one editor in 2018 and 2019, who in doing so cited only non-canon Bestiary volumes in direct and acknowledged violation of this policy. They did not use {{Source}} and pointedly ignored all requests to add canon sources to those articles. I've spent a disproportionate amount of time in the periods where I've been active on PFW since flagging, replacing, or removing unnecessary non-canon citations in those articles. The unabated practice largely contributed to burnout and a significant period where I walked away from editing or using PFW.
Some—not all—of those 2018–19 articles I've mitigated in the last few days alone include Svartalfar, Arshea, and Sacristan. (While checking, I ended up finding and fixing another affected article's sources.)
Many affected articles have also become increasingly factually unreliable because their appearances in 1E and 2E canon sources have predictably deviated from assertions sourced from those non-canon Bestiary volumes. Archives of Nethys reproducing the actual Bestiary text along with full mechanics for the creatures then made that editor's work relatively incomplete and fully redundant.
Those hundreds of articles are now a detraction from PFW's reliability and a time sink for editing. They are prime examples of non-canon citations that were not necessary, even when they were created, but were added in a disruptive manner nonetheless. To invoke such widespread and damaging violations of this policy, even unintentionally, as a reason to advance a proposal to encourage more such citations only encourages my opposition to it.
--
- I'd argue that explanations of how to use non-canon sources should at most be covered in the policy FAQ, but I'd argue a much better venue would be Help pages like Help:Citing sources, Help:Editing articles, and Help:Creating articles, which right now cover how to cite sources but not why they're used, nor how to improve them. These are actively linked to from the editing interface and main navigation in ways that this policy is not, and are more relevant and appropriate places to describe the editing concerns that Descriptivist raises in the proposal.
I'd more strongly argue that the best use of time and labor toward improving PathfinderWiki's reliability regarding this aspect of the policy would be instead to work on replacing or otherwise mitigating the use of non-canon sources, in line with the policies we already have but fail to enforce. The best illustrations of an intentionally subjective policy should be the content itself. -Oznogon (talk) 19:00, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for all the insights; I'll follow your lead! Yeah, observing the widespread practice of rule-breaking really surprised me and is exactly why I needed this information. Your history and direction deeply help!
- Okay, so I think basically the only potentially misleading things about the canon policy page are that the texts of the "#Citations" paragraph and the "#Canon tier of Pathfinder RPG-line books" FAQ do read as prohibiting or banning the use of non-canon or low-quality sources; they even end up giving readers an impression to, "boldly" or "indiscriminately", remove whatever old RPG-line information they find, for being unusable under the policy. I definitely appreciate the "#Deleting invalid articles" section's instruction to "not be edited to simply delete text", but I don't think I can see where any other section of the page clearly refers readers to the existence of that paragraph which seems like the key source of the ability/concept of "do not prohibit/do not remove". I hope that a couple edits along the following lines would start to help bring all information in line with what you're saying:
- Failure to identify a referenced source, or use of a source that is not a valid resource, may result in removal or revision of the associated statement and/or article.
- Replace with:
- Failure to identify a referenced source, or use of a source that is not a valid resource, will be [[#Deleting invalid articles in whole or in part|flagged for scrutiny and may result in removal or revision]] of the associated statement and/or article.
- Pathfinder RPG-line books older than the Adventurer's Guide are not Tier 1 resources, and their contents do not necessarily reflect the canon setting. Creature statistics from Bestiary volumes remain the sole exception to this rule; bestiaries are still considered Tier 1 sources, but only for creature statistics.
- Replace with:
- Pathfinder RPG-line books older than the Adventurer's Guide are not Tier 1 resources, and their contents do not necessarily reflect the canon setting. Such citations are a reluctant last resort, should be [[#Deleting invalid articles in whole or in part|subject to immediate scrutiny]] when added, and should be expediently replaced with canon sources as soon as one is available. Creature statistics from Bestiary volumes remain the sole exception to this rule; bestiaries are still considered Tier 1 sources, but only for creature statistics.
- If a hardcover book in the Pathfinder RPG line suggests a specific result to the events of a Pathfinder Adventure Path, is that considered canon?
- And since this question's current text seems misleading about the question's scope, I would replace it with something like:
- If a hardcover book in the [[Pathfinder First Edition|First Edition Pathfinder RPG]] line includes information like metaphysics, magic, or references to the events of a Pathfinder Adventure Path, is that considered canon?
- --Descriptivist (talk) 11:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)