Talk:Canon

Capcom games

Is "Capcom Canon" (such as the Oracle and Four Sword lines) on the same level of precedence as the "Nintendo Canon", or is it a lower precedence of Canon? --Lesoria 10:43, 28 January 2006 (EST)

This is an issue of considerable debate, and could go into a section all by itself. Most people consider the Capcom games to be just as canon as the other games, but not necessarily connected. -davogones 11:40, 28 January 2006 (EST)

Easter eggs

Similarly, where does the Four Sword dungeon in ALttP (GBA) fit into the Canon? Personally, I believe it doesn't exist within ALttP, and it exists only as an extra. --Lesoria 10:43, 28 January 2006 (EST)

This is an easter egg issue. I personally consider the FS dungeon to be full canon, because there's no reason to believe otherwise, and I think most fans agree. Other issues don't have such widespread agreement. For example, a lot of fans think the Master Sword in the Oracle games is just an easter egg. I disagree because the MS is an important thing and I don't think it would simply be thrown in as an easter egg. But these are issues that can be discussed in the article. -davogones 11:40, 28 January 2006 (EST)

There can be reason to believe otherwise if it conflicts with your timeline theories ;) [Actually, I place Nintendo's and Capcom's timelines separately to keep things sane.] To be serious about it, whether I see the FS dungeon as canon or not personally, I know there's no reason for it to not be canon for others.

I just finished reading a nice, long forum thread on canon-stuff (which I started reading shortly after posting the basic canon page). Well, I read a few, but I mean to say I did read the one with the "easter egg" debate. Luckily I wasn't around here when the thread was active, or I'd be critisizing the use of the term "easter egg". Chris's room in ALttP is an "easter egg", but something obtainable through normal gameplay (even if it requires linking with another plater) would not be an easter egg (unless someone wants to be rather liberal with their definition). But if someone does want to loosely define "easter egg", I won't argue it (much) because that's beside the point.

Ah, where was I going... Oh, yeah! I'm pretty sure that a canon page can be written out which is very inclusive of multiple peoples' views. I like to go -- again -- with "levels of canonness", which could be something like "Nintendo Canon", "BS Canon", "Capcom Canon", and one can even extended it to "English Canon". It lets one pick and choose which canon they follow without being told "Your canon is wrong!" At the same time, the wiki can say, "This is the canon we use, and this is what we consider non-canon."

So, this is where I ask, "Splitting canon like this, good idea which should go onto the canon page, a page to inform anyone curious about just what 'canon' means, or bad idea which should be handed to ??? to take down into the sewers?" --Lesoria 12:21, 28 January 2006 (EST)

Japan-only games

Also, where go non-Link "special" games, such as Kodai no Sekiban (Ancient Stone Tablets) fit into the Canon? Personally, I view them as not existing in the same Canon as "A Link to the Past". --Lesoria 10:43, 28 January 2006 (EST)

There are mixed views on this. Some people view it as full canon. Some people are leery about it starring a character who comes from outside the Zelda universe. Some people don't like that it was released only in Japan. The only reason we consider it at all is because it seems to have a solid storyline which connects strongly to ALttP. -davogones 11:40, 28 January 2006 (EST)

I need to re-familiarize myself with the storylines to games such as Sekiban. Maybe once I re-read about the storyline, I'll say, "Oh, yeah, this is canon." I view things on levels of canon (as you might have been able to figure), though, so Sekiban could still be seen as canon in my eyes, but on a lower level than ALttP. Also, I'm infamous for using the BS LoZ's Ganon-with-trident in my relentless debating that its the trident which transforms a human into that form of Ganon, so it could be hypocritical of my to discount other BS releases. =P --Lesoria 12:12, 28 January 2006 (EST)

Instruction manuals

Lesoria, your statement about manual vs in-game text is incorrect. As far as we know, manuals are made by the same people who make the game itself. So manual text and in-game text have equal weight. I don't believe we've ever found any important inconsistencies between the two. -davogones 11:40, 28 January 2006 (EST)

I was mostly thinking about the English versions, but I can't think of any examples off the top of my head. My memory isn't exactly rock solid, though =P That's the power of wikis, of course, people correcting people =D --Lesoria 12:09, 28 January 2006 (EST)