PathfinderWiki talk:Canon policy/Archive 5

Subjects that are removed from canon

Currently, there is at least one subject that has a full-fledged article on this wiki, but has since been excised from canon itself, namely Tiamat. The revised draconic creation myth (as described in Travel Guide) makes no mention of her (note that in previous material, this creation myth was the only place to mention her at the first place), and according to this dev statement:

“

Tiamat is not a part of Golarion with the edition switch (Honestly, she never should have been in Pathfinder in the first place), so that myth is retconned away. She's a D&D character, not a Pathfinder character. Age of Ashes doesn't mention her at all for this reason.

”

I don't think that the wiki currently has an adequate policy to handle such cases (since if the subject already has an article, you can't comment the whole thing away unlike what was done to the formian hives on the Axis article). - HTD (talk) 11:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps we could create a banner for articles (or sections) such as this. I would suggest we do not delete the originals from the wiki, but simply give them a banner that points out that they are no longer part of Golarion canon similar to the spoiler warnings. The wording for this could be that they are now considered "Apocrypha", which generally refers to noncanonical Christian texts, but is also used in a more general, non-religious context. --Brandingopportunity (talk) 16:09, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I might even go as far as to move the entire article to Talk:Tiamat/Conflicts, and put the above reasoning above the current contents of the article (which is kept around for archival purposes, minus categories). Would such a change be too big and radical? - HTD (talk) 03:05, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I think that would be a fine solution. --Brandingopportunity (talk) 16:04, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

This is relevant yet again in 2023/2024 thanks to the Pathfinder Second Edition Remaster Project. Of particular note is the state of drow, which have been retroactively removed from the campaign setting history only via forum post.

It will likely be years until the ramifications of that business decision have a more direct canon impact. In the meantime drow is now badged non-canon, which points to PathfinderWiki:Canon policy, which doesn't explain why drow would be considered non-canon. -Oznogon (talk) 19:27, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Started compiling a list of articles likely to be affected by a retcon policy at User:Oznogon/Retconned articles, where all or a significant amount of content that's present on those subjects on the wiki have been retconned. Please contribute if there are any that should be called out. -Oznogon (talk) 02:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Changes Accepted This section contains a discussion about changes to this policy that have been accepted.

Proposal 1

Alright, I'll propose adding this paragraph under Deleting invalid articles in whole or in part:

If an subject of an article is excised from canon:

• Cite the relevant statement(s) from Paizo staff that confirm that the subject no longer canonically exists in canon on the Conflict subpage of the article's talk page (such as Talk:Tiamat/Conflicts).
• Move the entire content of the article to this page below the staff confirmations.
• Turn the main page into a redirect to the Conflict subpage.

Is this sufficient to become an official policy? - HTD (talk) 11:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

There are some counter suggestions to consider too from Discord. We have a non-canon badge already [1] we could add to a page but keep the page as-is, as a very simple alternative. I think I'd prefer a descriptive note on a page to aid navigation, rather than 'hiding' a page as well. The conflict dagger is tiny and easily missed. This keeps us consistent with existing non-canon policy - we don't need two policies I'd say.--Fleanetha (talk) 09:48, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

The non-canon badge (or all badges, for that matter) are tucked in a corner and also easily missable. I see this as an extension of the current canon policy, with retconned content being removed from the main page and context put on the conflict page; since the entire subject is removed from canon, there would be nothing left on the main page (which could then automatically redirect to the conflict page, with no need for the conflict dagger). I'm not sure what 'hiding' a page is supposed to mean here; anyone searching for the subject can still find the content of the article, with a clear note that it's no longer canonical and is only kept around for archival purposes. - HTD (talk) 11:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I've made a preliminary mockup at Talk:Tiamat/Conflicts. - HTD (talk) 14:55, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Seems the 1E badge has been added to the article. I can't say this is an adequate measure for three reasons:

• • Badges in general are tucked in an out-of-the-way corner and easily missed. You also need to hover over them to even know what they're supposed to mean (which you cannot do on mobile devices).
  • It does not provide any context why this article is 1E content. It is simply there. Just an image and generic message.
  • While retcons might be most often with edition switches, there's no reason that prevents Paizo from changing continuity (and, by extension, excising subjects from canon) at any other time. Hell, the other such example (Folca) was removed nearly two years before 2E came out. - HTD (talk) 00:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
  • As someone who added 1E badge to Tiamat, there is no badge that clearly determines "was canon or officially in 1E but not in 2E". --Laclale (talk) 07:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I suppose you didn't get my point. Adding a badge to the page is a woefully inadequate solution to address this problem. Even if you implement a brand new badge for 'things that used to be canon in 1E but not 2E', all three of the points I raised remain. - HTD (talk) 08:49, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

With the new reveals at Paizocon, it seems another article (which is much more higher-profile than the aforementioned two) is joining the club soon (drow). And since the retcon was made in the middle of 2E (after there's been a bit of drow content in 2E APs), it absolutely makes no sense to just slap the article with the 1E badge and be done with it. - HTD (talk) 23:46, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Proposal 2

As an alternative to moving content that aren't discussions to the discussion namespace, and to preserve article histories and search functionality, and clarify valid sources for retcons, here's an alternative proposal:

• Add the following text to the canon policy under a new section header placed before "Regarding dates":

== Incorporating changes to canon ==

The Pathfinder campaign setting is a living and constantly evolving setting that changes in real time alongside new publications. Real-world events can also require changes to the setting, including retroactive changes to the setting's history, outside of this natural progression. Such changes can affect many articles on the wiki and require coordination and careful editing to retain consistency.

As part of PathfinderWiki's mission to compile official canon related to the Pathfinder campaign setting, we must balance documenting the setting's current state with retaining its history, including the parts of it that have been removed or changed over time.

Wiki visitors approach Pathfinder from multiple editions and for different reasons. To help visitors find information about canon subjects regardless of the edition or source that they are attempting to reference, never delete articles about canon subjects, and avoid moving entire articles out of the main namespace to other namespaces, such as Talk or Meta, in a manner that leaves only a redirect behind.

Deleting articles removes their history, which visitors researching past content about the campaign setting can use to reference it as it once existed without disrupting our work documenting the setting's current state. Moving entire articles out of the main namespace makes it harder for visitors to find and learn about the changes.

=== Defining canon changes ===

The wiki broadly classifies canon changes into three types:

• Paizo rarely issues setting errata, in which Paizo staff have explicitly and precisely stated that some aspect of the setting was included by mistake and never should have been acknowledged as canon.

The decanonization of Guardians of Dragonfall and removal of Folca are errata. Paizo staff have clearly stated that all published content related to those subjects is either fully retracted or retroactively considered wholly non-canonical.

This is the rarest form of canon change. Setting errata is the most authoritative tier of canon source; per the canon conflict process, it can result in the removal of wiki content with a conflict indicator and explanation added to a conflict page. See "Handling canon changes" for additional guidance.

• Paizo infrequently retcons, or retroactively modifies the continuity of, concepts in the campaign setting. Unlike errata, Paizo staff acknowledge in a retcon that a past aspect of setting canon was previously and intentionally part of canon, but have also retroactively changed or removed that aspect. A retcon represents a retroactive change or removal of acknowledged past canon, while errata represents a correction that can result in erasure.

The retroactive removal of the drow from the campaign setting as part of the Pathfinder Remaster is a retcon. Drow were allowed in Pathfinder canon only under a previous license, and after changing licenses Paizo have explicitly stated that drow cannot legally exist in the current canon state or history of the setting as they once did. Published canon works that used the drow under the prior license remain acknowledged as having intentionally, and not mistakenly or regretfully, been a past part of the setting canon.

Retcons can create canon conflicts and might include an in-universe justification for the retroactive change, but they do not require one. See "Handling canon changes" for details on resolving a retcon.

• The Pathfinder campaign setting advances in real time alongside new publications, and newly published events can result in large-scale changes to the current state of canon. This is the most common type of canon change. For example, the renaming of Sargava to Vidrian is an in-universe change explained in published canon works through the Vidric revolution.

An in-universe change is generally not considered a conflict and should not result in the removal of content from the wiki. If such a change appears to create a canon conflict, we prefer attempting to explain the event from an in-universe point of view unless a Paizo staff member issues a correction or clarification (see "Valid sources") that resolves the conflict. If a canon subject, such as Sargava in this example, is no longer present in the current state of the setting as a result of an in-universe change, retain its article and reflect this change in it as part of the subject's background or history.

=== Handling canon changes ===

• If errata has removed a previously canon subject from the Pathfinder campaign setting, the subject's main namespace article should very briefly identify what it was, link to a detailed description of the removed content and why it is no longer canon on its Meta page, and link to the last revision of the page prior to its canon removal. This documents the subject's removal, helps visitors who search the wiki for the subject learn about its removal, and helps editors identify links to that subject from other articles that should also be updated.

This serves a similar purpose as a main namespace disambiguation page: it helps readers find content relevant to the subject, even if that content primarily points out that the subject is no longer part of the setting.

• When a retcon affects only part of an article, cite the change inline as a reference. The citation should briefly describe the reason for the change and link to either a relevant article about the reason for the change, such as Pathfinder Remaster or the article's Meta page, or should link to an official statement on the retcon. If this also creates a canon conflict, follow the process for handling a canon conflict and describe both the retcon and conflict on the article's conflict page. For an example of a template that assists with this, see {{Cite canon change/Drow}}.

• If a retcon changes most or all of an article's content, describe the change on the article's Meta page, briefly summarize the change in the article's "References" section, and link to its Meta page description in this summary.

• When a retcon necessitates renaming an article, follow the process on Help:Renaming pages due to canon changes.

• In the rare instances where a retcon invalidates or removes all of a subject's canon relevance:

• Explain the change in detail on the article's Meta page, and include links to official sources that describe the nature and reasoning for the change.

• Add the retconned badge to the subject's article, which categorizes the article as retconned content, adds a banner that notes the retcon and links to the Meta page explanation, and links to the article's last revision prior to the retcon. Logged-in users can optionally disable this banner in their user preferences.

• Briefly summarize the retcon in the References section of the article and link to the detailed description on the Meta page.

• Though not all retcons have an in-universe explanation, if one exists, prominently incorporate it into the article's lede or first section.

• Edit any articles that link to the retconned subject to also reflect the change. This can be an inline retcon or might result in a canon conflict. If there is no canon explanation or replacement in the linked article's context and the course of action is unclear, raise a discussion on the subject on its Talk page or in our Discord.

• Make the Meta namespace searched by default per $wgNamespacesToBeSearchedDefault.

• Add a new retcon badge, and add a conditional banner with the badge that appears at the top of the page for anonymous visitors, similar to the spoiled badge banner. Add a gadget to allow logged-in users to opt out of it. (mockup image, prototype) If possible and relevant, such as in the event of a subject's complete retroactive removal from continuity, include a link to the article's last revision prior to the retcon in the banner.

• Add the following to the top of the "Valid resources" section:

Valid canon resources are organized into tiers, with Tier 0 being the most authoritative and Tier 4 the least. Published sources are preferred in all cases. Avoid citing sources that refer to works that have not yet been released, including official sources.

Errata and retcons are defined with examples in the "Defining canon changes" section.

• Replace the "World clarification..." point in Tier 3 of the "Valid resources" section as follows:

Verifiable statements from Paizo editorial staff that correct or clarify specific canon setting details, with the exception of retcons, posted in citable sources such as:

• permanent message board or blog posts on the Paizo website
• transcribed or timestamped videos, podcasts, and livestreams

-Oznogon (talk) 20:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I think this is a good proposal. I would specifically highlight the use of a 'no longer canon' banner (hideable for logged in users but big & bold by default) and the preservation of page history by not moving the text as very good ideas. Frankly, I might start the section with the bit about not moving it for page history reasons, since that's very important. -Petronius (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Edited proposal with a retcon-specific badge and banner example, to avoid overloading the existing non-canon sources badge. -Oznogon (talk) 00:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree that this proposal addresses the major issues at play, and is wide enough that it should be relatively future-proof. Our problem up until now was that this level or documenting retcons was never needed, and the proposed policy would address future retcons without us needing to establish new policy. I think one of the most important parts of this is the stress on not removing content from the Main namespace. That may mean we want to separately address how we do Conflict pages, and make them subpages of the Main article instead of Talk, or incorporate Conflict content as a header into the Meta pages that already exist, along with the proposed retconning info.— Yoda8myhead (talk) 22:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Out of curiosity I checked if the default namespaces used for search can be configured. They can: Manual:$wgNamespacesToBeSearchedDefault. It's possible to add Meta to the default search categories, so content copied or moved there could in theory still appear in normal search results without being in the main "canon" article.

If that's possible and works, I'd also suggest moving Conflict subpages from Talk to Meta. Extending default search namespaces might also maintain search results for entire articles moved out of the main namespace, since that's also a factor in HTD's proposal.

(I'd rather search the Meta namespace than Talk since discussions aren't necessarily canon-relevant for search, but the Meta namespace containing information on unincorporated canon sources, canon conflicts, and retcons is.)

Main namespace subpages have a few side effects, like appearing in editor and search bar autocompletion suggestions, that aren't necessarily bad but worth keeping in mind. -Oznogon (talk) 23:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Edited the proposal formatting and noted that in the event of a completely removed subject, the retconned content should be included on Meta. Added a point that Meta should be added to the default search namespaces. Added a suggestion that the retcon banner links to the last revision prior to the retcon in the event of a subject's complete removal from canon. -Oznogon (talk) 01:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Re: how to cite editorial staff clarifications, I think what's here might be as clear a policy as we can get, given that these are going to be very situational, and no policy is going to cover everything. I think we can head that off by saying that editors should use their best judgment to avoid causing more confusion, and if official staff statements have sweeping ramifications or contradict one another, to raise the topic to an admin or the discord for guidance.

It may also be good to clarify that only staff comments made on the Paizo forums using their verified account (not social media posts or reddit threads) can be cited in this way. References to timestamps in permanently available videos or podcasts is probably ok as well. I just want to avoid any weird impersonation issues, not that that has ever come up.

I think we may want to remove the freelance author line, however, at least for anything that isn't released yet, and even then, they are not the final arbiter of what saw print. It's entirely possible someone wrote something and clarifies based on their turnover, not knowing why specific changes they may invalidate were made.— Yoda8myhead (talk) 05:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Significantly expanded and edited the proposal based on this and the associated discussion on the Discord.

• Defined and distinguished errata from retcons, and how in-universe changes are distinct from both, with examples. This might be more appropriate for PathfinderWiki:Canon policy FAQ.
• Separated the process of an errata-based full article removal like Folca from a retcon-based full-article flag or edit like drow.
• Added a point requesting that articles linking to a retconned subject be updated.
• Completely rephrased the Tier 3 clarification point to emphasize its limited scope, require verifiability, and remove the freelancer provision.

I also proposed a new guideline for using comments from Paizo staff on the wiki, and more broadly on interacting with staff on wiki-related subjects, at PathfinderWiki:Interact respectfully with Paizo staff. -Oznogon (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Tomorrow, 11 January 2024, will be one week from the last major revision to Proposal 2. Please comment in favor of, against, or for further revisions to both current proposals as soon as possible before a decision is made. (As an admin and the proposal's author, I support Proposal 2 but will not make a decision on whether to approve it.) -Oznogon (talk) 16:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Only proposal 2 or similar makes any sense. Anything that causes content to be removed, vanish, or be "swept under the rug" is the wrong answer. The wiki should encompass all info in all Pathfinder sources, even those that Paizo might want to consider obsolete. Any other solution is a huge disservice to the entire community (which is much, much more than just active Pathfinder 2e Remastered Organized Play players) and an offense to previous contributors to boot. --Emky (talk) 20:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree with this change to canon policy overall. CadeHerrig (talk) 04:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to HTD and Oznogon for proposing solutions to this knotty problem. We need to do something and it is impressive to see the gradual and sensitive evolution of a proposal that tackles all the concerns and foreseen problems raised, namely Proposal 2, which now supersedes the original Proposal 1 for its scope of handling the various issues here. I am very comfortable to support Proposal 2 as a policy change. --Fleanetha (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

As of 14 January 2024, all input here since the last revision made (on 4 January 2024) has not sought amendments to either proposal and all editors who have commented have supported the adoption of change and, where stated, specifically that in Proposal 2. It thus seems we are close to being able to make a decision, so I propose we aim to close this process in one week's time, namely on Sunday 21 January 2024, so please ensure any further comments and votes are made here by Saturday 20 January 2024. --Fleanetha (talk) 16:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Deadline has come and gone and we have a consensus to adopt the changes in Proposal 2 above into formal PathfinderWiki policy. Many thanks to all who have taken part in an important and timely discussion to make some very necessary changes. --Fleanetha (talk)

Fanon now uses non-canon badge

Changes Rejected This section contains a discussion about changes to this policy that have been rejected.

Fanon is mix of Fan and Canon, so non-canon badge is usable for there. --Laclale (talk) 23:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Why is fanon content even being added to this wiki at the first place, though? - HTD (talk) 00:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Paizo's april fools blog entry --Laclale (talk) 07:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

That does not qualify as fanon. - HTD (talk) 08:49, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

First, I came here for my fanfic. But felt like they aren't accepting it. Even our headcanon, except paizo staff's.--Laclale (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Headcanon and fan fic should not be on the wiki. That is the current policy. It is your right to disagree, but you would have to sway editors' consensus against it to change the policy.

The policy is in this project page, specifically:

"Articles should not be created for subjects that are not included or referred to in an official Pathfinder source."

as well as:

"The following resources are considered invalid and should not be referenced in any form in an in-world article:

• Fan-made personalities, locations, deities, events, spells, items, or histories, including those in such publications as Wayfinder.
• Fan fiction of any kind."

- Petronius (talk) 22:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Correct, fanon is beyond the Scope of the project, and as such should not be on the wiki at all, even with a non-canon indicator. There is probably room in the community for a fanon wiki maintained by a different wiki staff, but this wiki is used by internal Paizo staff, freelance contributors, and licensed partners as a comprehensive record of canon, and having fanon here (even with notices) risks having that non-Paizo-owned content leak into official sources in a way that could cause legal trouble for Paizo. This is not something we should even be discussing as a policy change.— Yoda8myhead (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I didn't realize this was even a proposal. If it really is, I fully and aggressively agree that it should not be enacted. Fanon content has no place on a canon wiki. -Oznogon (talk) 01:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Apologies from me too, Laclale, as I also hadn't seen this as a formal request for a policy change. I have made it such now by adding the {{Change policy}} banner. We can now conclude this formally and have this discussion preserved as per PathfinderWiki:Policies and guidelines for future editors to review. I suggest we time box this discussion and conclude it in just over a week's time, next Saturday 13 January 2024. --Fleanetha (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

My personal view is that I think what you want is a great idea but would be a perfect sister website or wiki separate to PathfinderWiki, with this wiki acting as the 'baseline' for the fan-added material, rather than something we should add to PathfinderWiki. Unfortunately, Laclale, I also then have to disagree with this proposal. --Fleanetha (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Disagree with this change. Do not want fanon on the wiki. CadeHerrig (talk) 04:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

At deadline day and a good amount of interaction received - thank you all. Result is that the majority do not want fanon admitted to the PathfinderWiki sources, so I am formally attaching a 'Changes Rejected' badge to this change discussion and closing this process. --Fleanetha (talk) 13:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Updating Valid resources section

Changes Accepted This section contains a discussion about changes to this policy that have been accepted.

Should Lost Omens books be Tier 1 or Tier 2? They sort of take the place of the Campaign Setting books, but seem much more firmly enmeshed in editorial canon. CadeHerrig (talk) 19:39, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

The tiering of this policy is very outdated in general, and the product offerings under P2 are both created differently and intended to serve different audiences than their P1 counterparts. I think Lost Omens books should be Tier 1, for what it's worth, but also that we should look at revising this list entirely to place P2 sources over P1 sources, and perhaps rearrange how different product lines are treated in relation to one another.— Yoda8myhead (talk) 00:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree that we need to overhaul the 'Valid resources' section of Canon Policy. Of necessity, we need to decide where the missing V2 product lines fit, namely Lost Omens, Pathfinder Adventures, and Pathfinder One-Shots, as well as other important missing lines, such as Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, plus any others I missed. If we simply follow suit, they would all be Tier 2 except for Lost Omens World Guide, which would rank as Tier 1. However, Yoda's point above is well made that V2 books are not direct counterparts of V1. For clarity, we should also probably insert 'Pathfinder First Edition' ahead of some of the lines, such as the Tier 1 Bestiaries comment too. I am very unfamiliar with the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, so have plumped for Tier 2 as a guess for that. Anyway, here is a strawman of the relevant section updated in a basic fashion. For ease of reading, I have put a [F] marker against lines amended - these will obviously be removed before promotion to the formal canon policy. Please comment on anything that is missing, whether we need new tiers to make this work properly, and anything that needs amending up or down in its tier. We can then amend the strawman as the process runs. --Fleanetha (talk) 17:18, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposed text

Tier 0

• Errata created by Paizo editorial staff

Tier 1

• [F] All Pathfinder Lost Omens volumes
• All Pathfinder Adventure Path volumes, excluding fiction in the Pathfinder's Journal section
• [F] Hardcover books in the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game line published as of Pathfinder First Edition's Adventurer's Guide (but not including older Pathfinder RPG books except as noted)
• The Inner Sea World Guide
• [F] Pathfinder First Edition Bestiary, Bestiary 2, Bestiary 3, Bestiary 4, Bestiary 5, and Bestiary 6: these are Tier 1 resources solely for monster statistics, i.e., not for monster text

Tier 2

• [F] All Pathfinder Campaign Setting volumes, and their earlier Pathfinder Chronicles designation (including the Campaign Setting), with the exception of the Tier 1 The Inner Sea World Guide
• All Pathfinder Module volumes
• [F] All Pathfinder Adventure volumes
• [F] All Pathfinder One-Shot volumes
• All Pathfinder Player Companion volumes
• [F] All Pathfinder Society adventures, including Pathfinder Society Scenarios (including retired scenarios), Pathfinder Quests, and Pathfinder Bounties
• All Pathfinder fiction, including, Pathfinder's Journal fiction within the Pathfinder Adventure Path volumes; Pathfinder Tales novels published by Paizo or by Tor Books; Pathfinder Tales web fiction; Pathfinder Tales short fiction
  • when resolving conflicts between works of fiction and sourcebooks, both of which are Tier 2 sources, take into account the possibility of, for instance, an unreliable narrator in the fiction; always explain the rationale when a sourcebook is considered of greater authority than a fiction source
• [F] All Pathfinder Adventure Card Game material
• All canon content in playtest materials, such as Pathfinder Playtest content

Tier 3

• Web supplements released by Paizo
• [F] Any past or current versions of the officially sanctioned guides to Pathfinder Society organized play, with the version number specified in citations
• World clarification from a citable source such as permanent message board post, chat transcript, or podcast
  • by a member of the Paizo editorial staff on any topic
  • or a freelance contributor in relation to a topic on which they are credited with having written

Tier 4

• All licensed Pathfinder campaign setting material in non-Paizo sources including but not limited to:
  • Official content in Kobold Quarterly or other periodicals
  • Pathfinder Online or other computer/video games based in the setting
  • Pathfinder-branded comic books
  • Pathfinder Legends audio dramas

Comments (continued)

Counter to this proposal, I agree with Yoda's suggestion that the Lost Omens line should be in Tier 1 instead of Tier 2, allowing newer Lost Omens books—the flagship setting line that has explicitly resolved several prior Adventure Paths' outcomes in canon—to officially override older Adventure Path issues. This was a relevant point before the Remaster and becomes only more important now and ahead of the two upcoming Tian Xia releases.

I'd also suggest including Pathfinder Quests alongside Pathfinder Bounty scenarios in the Tier 2 line for Society works.

The conflict policy already favors newer sources over older sources, and all Second Edition sources are newer than First Edition sources, so I don't think Yoda's suggestion of downgrading the tier of First Edition-era lines is necessary. The rest of the proposal looks good to me. -Oznogon (talk) 18:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Oznogon. I have amended the strawman with your suggestion—as it is a simple way of incorporating Yoda's point mentioned—and my omission: please check. Happy with those points, personally. I also agree with your third point. --Fleanetha (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Just a bit of terminology tweaking to suggest.

First, the Guide for Society play is most formally the “Guide to Organized Play: Pathfinder Society (Second Edition)” or more commonly the “Pathfinder Society (2e) Guide to Organized Play.” The same naming convention is used for Starfinder Society. It’s been on my list to tweak the article & title, but not really top priority.

Maybe the canon policy should just say “Guides to Organized Play” or maybe the PFS current edition Guide outranks PFS older edition Guides & the SFS Guide?

It's had a few names, so I have modified to the main ones to how they appear on the wiki for 1E and in the latest doc for 2E (latest on-line version is called Pathfinder Society Guide to Organized Play, which is different from your two names and the name on the wiki ??) so they can be linked to their wiki pages. If they need changing, then we can accommodate that later. --Fleanetha (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

The title of the full single-page document as it exists at this moment on Lorespire is "Pathfinder Society Guide to Organized Play", and its shortened title as commonly used within the guide is "Guide to Organized Play". If that title is inaccurate, or if there are multiple conflicting titles for the guide, that's a concern more for the guide than us. If that link's not the canonical location of the complete and official guide as it should be cited on PathfinderWiki, it's unclear what is or should be that location.

In a quick scan of the internet archive, it's also been titled "Pathfinder Society Guide to Play (Second Edition)" (2019) and "Pathfinder Society (Second Edition) Guide to Organized Play" (2020–2023 pre-Lorespire). In both cases the single-page document itself used a different title, typically "Pathfinder Society Guide to Organized Play".

Since it's had many, many titles and versions over the years, I second the suggestion of using a generic reference to the officially sanctioned guides and avoid specifying a precise title, such as:

* [F] Any past or current versions of the officially sanctioned guides to Pathfinder Society organized play, with the version number specified in citations

Unlike organized play officials, PathfinderWiki is not vulnerable to anyone seeking to game benefits from the organized play system through imprecision, so this should be sufficiently clear for the policy. Precision in the case of this policy is arguably more of a problem than a benefit. -Oznogon (talk) 06:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Re: maybe the PFS current edition Guide outranks PFS older edition Guides & the SFS Guide?; as noted w/r/t First Edition/Second Edition sources in other lines, the conflict policy already prefers newer sources over older sources in conflicts, so specifying that in the tiering is unnecessary. The Starfinder Society Guide is not a Pathfinder canon work and should not be listed, full stop. -Oznogon (talk) 07:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Second, the name of the group which includes PFS Scenarios, Quests, and Bounties is most properly “Pathfinder Society adventures” lowercase a. “Bounty scenarios” is best avoided. “Scenario” is the main/meatiest type of adventure in the list, but Quests & Bounties are not types of Scenario.

Done --Fleanetha (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

(That’s slightly irritating, I know. But we have to go for that level of specificity when making the Guides, since some folks will always be confused, try to game the system, or both.) Petronius (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks - I have added to / amended the strawman. --Fleanetha (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

First, I have added headings to separate the proposed text from the comments about it. Secondly, I have amended the line regarding the guides to Pathfinder Society organized play with Oz's slimmer version. Over a month has elapsed since the last comment, so let's get this important policy discussion concluded - last call for comments please and I'll aim to conclude next Sunday 3 March 2024. --Fleanetha (talk) 13:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I approve of the suggested changes. -Oznogon (talk) 22:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Policy accepted and updated. Thanks all for help in getting us 2E shipshape. Note that I have not reverted the changes made in January to the old text above for bullet 3 of Tier 3 and its sub-bullets, as that would be pointless and just a consequence of several policy change requests happening at the same time. --Fleanetha (talk) 12:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Categorization of retroactively removed subjects

Changes Accepted This section contains a discussion about changes to this policy that have been accepted.

The policy lacks clarity on whether subjects retroactively removed from canon should retain their categories. For an example, see Talk:Folca.

Proposed change

In the "Categorization" section, change this sentence:

Note that production errors, such as Old-Mage Jatembe's alignment misprint in Inner Sea Magic or the "buttery knife" in Adventurer's Armory, are exempt from this; superseded content can be categorized, but content that was never deemed correct should not be.

to (additions bolded for emphasis)

Note that canon inclusion errors, such as the inclusion of Folca and the Slohr, and production errors, such as Old-Mage Jatembe's alignment misprint in Inner Sea Magic or the "buttery knife" in Adventurer's Armory, are exempt from this. Superseded content can be categorized, but content that was deemed to have never been correct, or which in hindsight should never have been mentioned or included in the setting canon, should not be categorized.

-Oznogon (talk) 03:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Note that Tiamat ("Honestly, she never should have been in Pathfinder in the first place", per the Tiamat meta page), for example, also falls under exactly the same classification of Folca, so any decision should take that into account. Tiamat . "Hindsight" is different than "literal typo" type errata. --Emky (talk) 00:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Updated the proposal to be more explicit about that, and thanks for the reminder to decategorize Tiamat, who had already been removed from navigational templates, and to audit the inbound links to that article. -Oznogon (talk) 03:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I am comfortable with this, though I would like to append the following sentence to the suggested new text above: […] should not be categorized. In a case where a page exists that already has categories attached, hide those categories but do not delete them. This aligns with what has been done so far but makes it explicit to avoid doubt. --Fleanetha (talk) 23:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

There is the categorization to go for "removed articles" at least. That's obvious to me and should be to others. But overall, these articles *should* still be *discoverable* and not orphaned. How would this wiki handle that? They could of course be searched for to find, and this one category. But orphans and disconnected networks are a problem that most other wikis go out of their way to avoid. (And, yes, it's important the articles do stay. At least for those that were real items and not literal types like the knife.) --Emky (talk) 16:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I have no problems with non-canon subjects having orphaned articles, and indeed I would prefer that they were orphaned. We don't want articles about non-canon subjects to be passively discovered through links from canon articles, canon categorization, or other connections related to subjects that are canon, because articles about subjects removed from the canon intentionally have no canon relevance. They should not exist in the canon, so they should not be discoverable through articles about canon subjects.

They would still be discoverable through directly searching for them by name, which is the point of retaining the article. If someone comes across a reference to a removed subject and searches PFW for it, they'll find it. Nobody else should, and intentionally so. -Oznogon (talk) 23:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

The last comment on this proposal was about 1 month ago. -Oznogon (talk) 22:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Policy accepted and updated. --Fleanetha (talk) 15:00, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Categorization of retroactively removed subjects

Changes Accepted This section contains a discussion about changes to this policy that have been 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)

Thanks Oznogon for setting this out so well and providing a simple but clear way to highlight these areas to users. I approve this change. --Fleanetha (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Marking three months with one approval, but no consensus and continuing confusion over what constitutes "legacy". -Oznogon (talk) 16:45, 10 September 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 This section contains a discussion about changes to this policy that have been 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)

Handled the ancient typo (2009) - well spotted. --Fleanetha (talk) 10:08, 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)

Thanks all and, as this has run for over two months without dissent, the change is accepted and I have amended the policy with the suggested text. --Fleanetha (talk) 11:44, 6 November 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 This section contains a discussion about changes to this policy that have been 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)

Withdrawing all opposition and exiting conversation. -Oznogon (talk) 22:10, 19 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)

There is no consensus here and the discussion changed direction. I am, therefore, rejecting this proposed change as it stands, but would suggest a new change policy be created to pull out any elements still deemed useful. --Fleanetha (talk) 11:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)