Talk: Canon/Archive1

draft article

• Started an article on what is, or is not, considered canonic. Obviously Admin and the SYSOPs are the actual and official arbiters of this issue at Lostpedia, so this article text should be considered a rough draft only. †††GodEmperorOfHell††† apparently has some content relevant for this article, for example. Also an actual list of canonic and noncanonic sources might be considered, although there would be some overlap with such lists such as List of websites. I also noticed that the canonic source of the forums at The Fuselage does not yet have a Lostpedia article.  ^Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  ^Talk 19:10, 7 June 2006 (PDT)

• i've restated what canon is in the case of this site (in a clearer way, i hope) - also linked to [[sanctioned sources]], which could end up a total beast of a page :) kaini. 20:17, 7 June 2006 (PDT)
  • I like your clarifications  ^Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  ^Talk 21:10, 7 June 2006 (PDT)

• FYI for editors: see also the Canon article at lost.wikia.com here. Interestingly they mention an "order of precedence" for their wiki, dvd and script deletions, and address the creators' views on canonicity.  ^Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  ^Talk  00:48, 8 June 2006 (PDT)

• If Claire had coffe with the pilot and someone deleted that scene, did they have coffee? --†††GodEmperorOfHell††† 20:20, 8 June 2006 (PDT)
  • you're opening a well scary multidimensional can of worms there. kaini. 20:26, 8 June 2006 (PDT)
  • IMHO it's nonCanon, but at best gray. This is simply how filming works-- lots of material is filmed, and only some of it is chosen for the final cut. The editing is not only in the interest of time, but is also related to the actual creative choices in the development of the storyline. The fact that it did make the DVD makes it a nice gray area though. At any rate, one way or another, we should mention it in this article. If the article gets too complicated, we can maybe make a subpage for nitpicky stuff like gray areas and contradicitons, so as to keep the "bottom line" definition short and to the point.-- ^Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  ^Talk 

I created the Template:Deuterocanon for this grey area, however I think that adding a layer of canonicity could be very confusing. Someone was kind enough to create a Deleted scenes entry. Analyzing what was cut coould help. --†††GodEmperorOfHell††† 19:36, 9 June 2006 (PDT)

• Just making sure, we all know about the levels of canon that "Star Wars" uses. While their system works strictly for their realm, judging canon by levels might be a helpful way to organize... or throw everything into chaos... whichever. Just mentioning how another group judges such things, not a real suggestion [1]. Tebor 22:19, 9 June 2006 (PDT)

• done for now. fresh input on this one would be nice because it will be important as lostpedia gets bigger, imo. the bloopers/continuity errors etc thing is still a little muddy, i think :( kaini. 20:20, 10 June 2006 (PDT)

some things that need clearing up

• Speaker. Is Speaker considered a canonic source? He is official, but is some of his information ever (intentionally) false? At any rate, it appears that he helps identify non-canonic scam sites, so at the very least Speaker is a useful resource for evaluating canonicity of websites. -- ^Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  ^Talk 19:10, 9 June 2006 (PDT)

It's hard to judge Speaker as a source. He is a part of the Lost Experience for sure, but anything he says relating to the show's mythology is questionable. There are also rumors he is a writer on the show which would suggest what he says is some form of canon. However, we will never know his identity... well, not for a long, long, long time anyway. Tebor 22:06, 9 June 2006 (PDT)

When I update things like the "Speaker" page, I'm usually updating it based on information from the source is orginates from. I don't really go to other Lost pages and add information to them. So, Speaker might make a mention that Alvar Hanso likes blue socks. I'd update that on Speaker's page, but not necessarily on Alvar's page, or if I did, I'd credit Speaker for the information. That would give people some sense to the authenticity of the information. If Damon Lindelof walked on screen of Lost the show and said, "Alvar Hanso likes blue socks" that's most definitely pure canon... and would give us all something to talk about for weeks :) . I see no problem keeping facts consistant on their pages, i.e. keeping all information from Speaker limited to his page unless it is backed up by another source. Tebor 22:28, 9 June 2006 (PDT)

• i think the same question applies to javi's site. kaini. 19:27, 9 June 2006 (PDT)
• and, when i think about it, that silly diary on the abc site too. kaini. 20:30, 9 June 2006 (PDT)
  • I agree that The Lost Experience qualifies as "bonus material" canon... I really think this is a great way of putting it. It does not supercede show material, which should be able to exist independently, but at the same time, should be made in a way so that it never contradicts it. However, we should be clear that the ABC Diary and oceanic-air are NOT part of The Lost Experience and will not tie in as seemlessly, and thus are a difficult gray area that is pre-TLE. There are many points in which the diary contradicts timelines and body counts given on the show, for instance. The writers have also been snarky and expressed subtle disapproval of the diary in the past, leading me to believe they have little control over its development, as opposed to TLE. --PandoraX 12:32, 27 June 2006 (PDT)

Loving this.

Ok, It is pretty much complete now, a vfar cry from the sketch it was. Do you think there is space for Deuterocanon? is it a good idea or should it be trashed?. Is it covered in the suspension of disbelief?--†††GodEmperorOfHell††† 15:29, 15 June 2006 (PDT)

good idea. definitely merits a mention, i think. perhaps group with speaker, javi, etc? one thing i'm not 100% on is the name. i get the nice reference, but the term is kind of clumsy? kaini. 18:21, 16 June 2006 (PDT)

i've added deuterocanon (i still think we can think of a better phrase for it, though!)... can we move this along? i'd like someone else to polish this page to completion in the spirit of NPOV, so we can move it from process to policy, if possible. kaini. 18:38, 21 June 2006 (PDT)

Agree with Kaini-- I know GEOH is attached to the name, but with due respect... Deuterocanon is an unusual nomenclature specific to Catholicism (or nearly so). Canonicity, although derived from a similar source, is also a well known term in more general usage in non-religious contexts. Ideally the template should be labeled with a name that a casual reader of the pedia does not have to look up-- it should be largely self-explanatory. -- ^Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  ^Talk 21:45, 9 September 2006 (PDT)

New definitions for canon/deuterocanon/etc?

I feel that the definitions of canon/deteurocanon on the project page are unclear. I propose the following instead. I feel these are both clear and precise.

Canon: Information revealed through LOST itself.

• This currently includes televised broadcasts (primary medium), episodes on ABC.com and iTunes, and sanctioned releases on DVD.
• Contradictory information from later episodes or subsequent rebroadcasts supercedes information from previous episodes if continuity is violated.
• Production errors (i.e., bloopers) are not canon. Typically, the producers will identify these occasions, or they will be evident to viewers.
• This information is writ.
• Takes precedence when contridicted by other information.

Deuterocanon: Information revealed by activites that are offically sactioned by LOST's creative authorities, other than the show itself.

• This currently includes The Lost Experience, the tie-in novels, and related promotional ARG activities. Conceivably, all future materials of a similar nature.
• This information is writ.
• This information literally comprises a "deuterocanon": a "second story," coherent with the canon.
• When contradicted by the canon, the canon taks precedence, unless the deuterocanon can be understood as correcting a misperception from the show. For instance, the Sri Lanka Video seems to contradict information from the Swan Orientation Film.

Ex cathēdrā: Comments, made in the public media, by LOST's creative authorities.

• This currently includes the official podcasts, the Fuselage discussion forums, official ABC press releases, and other published or transmitted interviews.
• "Leaked" information, unoffical spoilers, private communications, and the like are excluded from this category, as they were not intentionally revealed by the LOST's creative authorities.
• It should be noted that ex cathēdrā comments from producers are sometimes intentionally deceptive or misleading.
• Information revealed ex cathēdrā is writ, but is not canon unless/until confirmed on LOST.

Apocrypha: Materials generated by LOST's creative authorities that were offically excluded from the canon.

• This currently includes Deleted scenes, outtakes, and unused parts of offical screenplays.
• This information is not writ, because the omission of these materials is for both technical and artistic reasons. Informally, it can be considered "offical background" to the established canon.
• This information is literally "hidden."

Notes

• Writ: Offically part of the LOST universe.

Comment, etc. If liked, I volunteer to merge with and clean up the main article. Perhaps we could see a policy status soon? --Scottkj 16:47, 1 August 2006 (PDT)

although i like those categorizations (but not, it must be noted, the names), i think that it's overcomplicating things. to expand; ideally i'd like to be able to divide things into canon/noncanon. that's not feasible because of the nature of show/arg/novels/jigsaws etc, but i think the more cats are made available, the more blurry the definitions will be for the author/editor of an article.
at the moment, it's pretty easy to distinguish between canon/noncanon/deutero/parody; the more categories are provided here, the harder it is to categorize something, and the more 'cracks between cats' are made which articles can fall between. my personal opinion is that categorization of stuff should be as black and white as can be made possible. i would hate LOST to end up in a position where we had a multi-tiered canon system, like star trek has at present due to contradictions between plots. i think this is a situation where we need to observe how season 3 pans out, and adjust accordingly. --kaini. 20:19, 2 August 2006 (PDT)

Yes, the names are roughly placeholders I stole from theological equivilents. However, I maybe in the minority here, but I argue that the amassed corpus of the story, as created by the exposition of the show alone, should constitute the canon. ARGs are sort of a modren complication. For someone who is unable or disinterested in such external additions, the story revealed by the show should stand alone. Hense, I think that canon should be precisely that story itself. Perhaps a categorization of writ materials would be useful? I will recategorize my proposal and simplify as much as possible whilst maintaining the precision I want. --Scottkj 16:47, 3 August 2006 (PDT)

Revised for simplicity and clarity. I still use names for each category taken from theology, but perhaps others can be suggested? --Scottkj 17:26, 3 August 2006 (PDT)

this is definitely better. we need to be very careful in these definitions; the question we need to ask is is every eventuality covered?. the definitions need to encompass all possibilities (be flexible), but at the same time be very clear in providing clear definitions (be rigid)... it's pretty paradoxical stuff. i'd like it if more members of the community provided input on this, because at the end of the day these delineations should be used by everybody. i may make a topic on the forum tonight, to this end. this page should be as visible as possible, because this stuff is important. (i'm with you on the ARG... way to muddy the waters, ABC ;D) --kaini. 19:02, 4 August 2006 (PDT)

I can formulate some very precise epistemological definitions for each category, but they'd be too technical to be helpful to most editors. I will go back and try to be as encompassing (and yet demarcating) as possible in the next day or so. --Scottkj 21:39, 6 August 2006 (PDT)

editors like you are exactly what we need round here when it comes to meta stuff. i am very glad you have devoted attention to this article. major props!!111! --kaini. 21:49, 6 August 2006 (PDT)

Here are revised defitions. I have tried to anticipate most eventualities. I eliminated the def for fanon because dealing with the fan-created stuff is a separate project and I want to nail down the official stuff at the moment. The only possible blurry line I can anticipate is between ex cathēdrā and deuterocanon. The show's creators are really trying hard to blend the line between the ARG and reality. Some of their public comments (such as that Hanso is supposedly a "real" foundation) are downright misleading and potentially could fall into both categories. I also suppose that in the future they may try to blend the show itself and reality together a bit more, which could blow this entire categorization to bits. I guess if that ever happens, instead of a canon/noncanon classification, we could work on a fiction/nonfiction classification!!! --Scottkj 14:23, 7 August 2006 (PDT)

I like it. If we put this to a vote eventually, let me be the first to vote Yes. --Aero*Zeppelin 16:54, 3 August 2006 (PDT)

I appreciate the categories as laid out here, but I'm a bit uncomfortable in the assertion that material gleaned from The Lost Experience is "not essential" to Lost. The way that I would put it is that the information is essential/canonical, but its mode of distribution falls outside the show. For example, The Lost Experience has revealed the acronym of DHARMA - is this "not essential" to the show? I assume that this revelation will not remain exclusive to TLE (my guess is that in early Season 3, the characters will watch the orientation video now being revealed on the Sri Lanka Video to catch up viewers, but TLE players are getting a sneak preview of the footage). The core distinction, which is more philosophical than actually answerable at the moment, is "are TPTB supplementing a TV show, or are they telling the story of an island using a wide range of media?" I think it was conceived as the first option, but has evolved into the second. Thus "canon" should encompass all forms of the story being told, whether on the show, in TLE websites/videos, and Bad Twin. Deuterocanon seems more appropriate for the ABC.com diary, the other novels, and the like - elements that (mostly) don't contradict the show but add nothing to the story. --Jajasoon 20:53, 10 August 2006 (PDT)

Yeah, LOST is definitely paving new teritory with the addition of such a detailed ARG and such sophisticated tie-ins to the show. By "not essential," I imply that deuterocanon is not nessasary to understand the story told on the show itself -- even though it is perfectly coherent with that story, and even rewarding to follow. I draw the distinction between delivery formats because it's hard to do otherwise, without becoming somewhat ad hoc. In this case, when I say "canon," I perhaps even mean "protocanon," the first story told on television, and then the ARG is "deuterocanon," the additional second story told in addition through other formats. I qualify both of them as writ, but two separate canons. In regard to oceanicair.com, ABC.com diary and similar stuff, I realize that we have evidence to suggest that they hold some lesser degree of importance, but a multi-tiered system for the deuterocanon (as defined here) would be very confusing! Another reason I want to maintain two separate canons. The deuterocanon can contain a somewhat more unstable collection of data, bu the protocanon will have a rock-solid construction (information on the show, period). Thanks for the comments, BTW. Anyone else have thoughts on Jajasoon's suggestions?--Scottkj 22:09, 10 August 2006 (PDT)

Thanks for the response. To complicate things, the Sri Lanka Video in TLE seems to be presenting an orientation film that is so central to the island's mysteries that it will undoubtedly be featured on the show in some form (if not the actual video itself). So if that film appears on the show, or when the show tells us what DHARMA stands for, does it shift canonical spheres? Does the ARG become protocanon for that info (as it appeared there first)? Then is the show deuterocanon? It gets way tricky... --Jajasoon 20:58, 14 August 2006 (PDT)

I have simplified, cleaned, and unified the definitions of canon/deuterocanon so that they are only distinguished by delivery medium and canon is not given primacy. I also unified the format of the definitions. A definition of writ was also in order. Thoughts everyone? --Scottkj 16:57, 16 August 2006 (PDT)

I like. I made a few tweaks/additions, but think this should be incorporated into the larger article. --Jajasoon 17:25, 16 August 2006 (PDT)

I also tweaked. Whenever deemed ready, my offer to add to/clean up the main article stands. Thanks everyone for the help! --Scottkj 13:18, 18 August 2006 (PDT)

We can also discuss this while finalizing definitions.

• On Impementation: Within Lostpedia, marking canon and deuterocanon are unnessasary, except when contridictions arise, because both are writ. This is current practice. However, the source of any writ information should always be noted (episode name, which part of TLE, etc). This is also common practice. Ex cathēdrā information should be noted as such, including references to the source of the material (interview date, podcast number, etc). Apocrypha materials should definitely be marked, preferably with a special template. A modification of the curent deuterocanon template would be efficient, since most of these materials are marked as such under the old policy. We should rename the template to avoid confusion though.

--Scottkj 13:22, 18 August 2006 (PDT)

• Scottkj: I'm sorry but IMHO Lostpedia should not model itself on an ivory tower academic resource. The word "Canon" and, to some extent, "Apocrypha," are terms that are used outside of their original meanings. In other words, many casual visitors of Lostpedia from the lay public will immediately know what these words mean, even if they are not an experts in religious or philosophical fields. However the terms Ex cathēdrā, Deuterocanon, and Writ spectacularly fail this test of usability. (Even Apocrypha is a word that I'd bet fewer than 1 in 10 people on the street would be able to define, depending on demographic). The fact that we have a theory policy discussion article that seems to be metastatizing (to use a word from cancer medicine) is not an open invitation to push it even further into that direction, toward a document that feels like an academic, philosophical, or legal treatise-- a document that must be carefully read and critiqued simply to be comprehended. Consider:

1. The definition of Canonicity on Lostpedia has a utilitarian purpose; it does not exist solely for its own definition, or its own research.
2. The purpose of Lostpedia's definition of Canonicity is to guide the casual visitor of Lostpedia to learn conveniently how this website uses the word "Canon", with respect to an actual article. A five- or six-pronged fragmentation of canonicity is absurd in this regard.
3. Possible solution: Create a "simple Canonicity" as the text for the main part of the policy. Then, think of a simple, elegant, and user-friendly way to incorporate the concerns that Ex cathēdrā, Deuterocanon, Apocrypha, and Writ raise, while retaining usability for the casual visitor to Lostpedia.
4. Another suggestion: investigate how star trek and star wars communities solve this problem, and if they have done so elegantly. Lost's universe of content is nowhere near as convoluted as these, so it is doubtful whether we need a more complex approach.
5. For now, I would put the brakes on the flurry of new templates until the Lostpedia policy is more clear.

-- ^Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  ^Talk 21:56, 9 September 2006 (PDT)

Merge

Canon and fanon are closely related. Fanon is currently defined with respect to canon, which is defined here. --Scottkj 17:34, 14 August 2006 (PDT)

I think it's helpful to keep canon/fanon/theory all separate. The theory policy site is more of a user's guide, while canon is much more detailed & philosophical. --Jajasoon 20:59, 14 August 2006 (PDT)

Yeah, I guess so, but the theory page would be updated when this policy is finalized. --Scottkj 16:09, 16 August 2006 (PDT)

My ideal world would be merging and having it "Canon and Theory" and then defining each in like a separated comparison. It'd be one hell of a job to do though --Nickb123 (Talk) 13:25, 18 August 2006 (PDT)

that's a very good idea once this page is finalized; my only worry would be that merging them would risk creating a page that's way too TL;DR --kaini. 19:19, 18 August 2006 (PDT)

Point taken, we'd have to be extremely concise to pull it off --Nickb123 (Talk) 02:35, 19 August 2006 (PDT)

I've since read the comments above a little more, and have seen that the once-simple notion of summarizing "Canonicity" at Lostpedia for our visitors has mushroomed into an insular academic effort. Please see additional comments and possible solutions in this regard, in the previous section above. -- ^Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  ^Talk 22:02, 9 September 2006 (PDT)

let's vote on the new revisions to canonicity, then

yes: i still think the names are a bit clunky, but the reasoning is sound, and every eventuality is covered. --kaini. 14:22, 17 August 2006 (PDT) yes: good coverage, clear balance. --Jajasoon 15:10, 17 August 2006 (PDT) (discussion bumped --kaini. 22:38, 1 September 2006 (PDT))

This doesn't seem to be pulling much interest. I'll integrate with the main article this weekend and detractors can battle it out at that point if they so desire. I'm more interested with moving on to integrating this with the theory policy, or at least unifying the definitions. --Scottkj 21:18, 7 September 2006 (PDT)

sounds good to me. --kaini. 20:39, 9 September 2006 (PDT)

not yet Scott, I love all these new definitions of canonicity, I think the definitions themselves should stay. However, I have a minor issue with the categorization of Lost Diaries and The Lost Experience being in the same category as the ABC Diary and the tie-in-novels. There is a clear distinction between them, IMHO. The former two are highly promoted as tying in very tightly with the show, and there is significant crossover of the creative team input. The latter two are written by writers who were only given loose guidance from ABC, and since then, because of several contradictions with true show canon (such as obvious ones with body counts and timelines), ABC has tried to distance itself from. For example, in one of the podcasts, D & C had no idea who Janelle Granger was, sounded like they knew little about it at the time; and there were articles about how Shames (of Bad Twin) was just given a list of a few items he should write about relating to Lost, and didn't follow it as closely as the producers wanted him to (to say nothing of the other novels on that list, that I think had no direct sanction at all). TLE, on the other hand, seems to be getting a lot more official sanction, and writers/ex-writers (like Javi) are integral in creating at least parts of the storyline, so there are fewer continuity errors and contradictions; and the Lost Diaries are also heavily promoted as from the same TPTB. In my mind, it's somewhat 4 tiered: 1) Lost, 2) TLE & Diaries, 3) tie-in novels, ABC Diary, oceanic-air.com, etc. 4) noncanon that has no association with the official. In some ways, our problems stem from the fact that the writers themselves are being groundbreaking in their use of multimedia, that many of the old boundaries are no longer as clearly defined in this age of the internet and other collateral media. --PandoraX 21:27, 9 September 2006 (PDT)

• Summarize - This talk page is so long it is unwieldy. I don't even know what's to be voted, and I don't want to read through this entire column of text and replies, and sort it in my head, and neither can you expect most editors not intimately involved with the preceding Canonicity discussions to do so either. SUGGESTION: Have one of the editors who are very familiar with the controversial issues write a summary for the rest of us LP editors. If the controversial points are easily organized, we can even run a nonbinding straw poll. If there are other issues those need to be summarized briefly as well. -- ^Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  ^Talk 21:39, 9 September 2006 (PDT)

• i've made a summary at Lostpedia:Canon/policy --kaini. 21:52, 9 September 2006 (PDT)

Revisions -- concerns, etc

COMPLEXITY

Two issues become apparent:

• Definitions of canon becoming too complex to be useful.
• Definitions of canon being too simple to be useful.

Accusations of both in the case of the revised definitions have already been produced. TLE has created a layer of complexity that is difficult to categorize and describe, because various elements have been created of differing narative weight. I didn't even attempt to address this, because it would invaribly be an ad hoc solution. --Scottkj 23:29, 9 September 2006 (PDT)

USEABILITY

Simplicity, useability, and comprehension were my primary axioms in seeking the new definitions and the accompanying writeup. The article is actually quite short, if you observe that it is primarily include/exclude lists. Suggestions and edits are welcome. It is a wiki, after all. --Scottkj 23:29, 9 September 2006 (PDT)

MISC

IMHO, the old definitions are significantly more problematic. Viz., suggesting that deleted scenes are "ostensibly canon" is a terrifically bad idea. If the show's creators can't exclude something by deleting it, then artistry has fallen much since Gilbert & Sullivan.--Scottkj 23:29, 9 September 2006 (PDT)

NAMES AND THE TERM "WRIT" Nobody likes these (ex catherda, etc.), including me, so I eliminated them in a fit of late-night sleeplessness/irresponcibility. The replacements I made have some shortcomings. Feel free to complain. Or *gasp* do some editing and add alternatives yourself. --Scottkj 00:28, 10 September 2006 (PDT)

Hey Scott, I made some minor revisions, revert back if you absolutely hate it. 1) I used the term "Bonus narrative" instead of "ARG narrative". ARG stands for alternate reality game, which is somewhat specific to TLE and possibly including last summer's OA.com, wouldn't include the ABC Diary or serial diaries. 2) Per the above explanation, I really do think the ABC Diary and the novels should be separated out, so I put "Possibly conflicting" instead of a flat out "Included". There's a lot, esp in Janelle's Diary, that is no longer accepted as canon by readers and conflicts with timeline and storyline (refer you to: Is the diary canon?). Although the story of Gary Troup and his words are tied into the ARG (like his interviews), the book itself and other offshoot novels are not tightly tied into Lost and may have conflict, because they are considered fiction-in-fiction. The truth is that there have been small points of the Bonus material that have been conflicting before they were tied in better with TLE; OA.com had issues with seating charts, for instance (different from show), but not nearly as bothersome as the more serious problems with the Diary. --PandoraX 05:56, 10 September 2006 (PDT)

I like the changes. Another option is to move contradicted narratives (televised or bonus) - currently, OA.com, diary, novels, etc. - to the apocrypha, where we can think of them as somewhat sanctioned, but not canon. Thoughts? --Scottkj 11:46, 10 September 2006 (PDT)

Can someone who knows how make an archive page for the above discussion page and move most of it there? The size is becoming unwieldly, as Santa has noted. --Scottkj 12:02, 10 September 2006 (PDT)

RESOLUTION HIERARCHY

• with all due respect, imho it's very simple. Our own common sense dictates what is canon or not. (Lostpedia editors rarely disagree on labeling something noncanon). The policy text should reflect the simplicity of such common sense:

1. List canonic sources (e.g. official sources)
2. In the case of conflicts, list hierarchy of which source supercedes another.

• Yes, we may have sections on what I will lump together as "gray areas", but even there, common sense operates when we decide what supercedes what.
• In other words, the goals of this approach are different from yours:

1. The common sense approach I propose simply attempts to resolve any conflicts

• My assumption is that official sources are obvious, and their 'grayness' may help resolve any conflicts; if there are no conflicts, then there is no problem-- simply list the information and its source, and the goal of the wiki article is fulfilled-- further description of the "Degree" of canonicity is not necessary, as it falls outside the scope of a wiki help policy.

2. Your approach appears to be attempting to define Canonicity itself, on an individual basis with each piece of information and its source, i.e. item X is Canon. Specifically Item X falls under Y subcategory of canonicity". IMHO this goal of absolute categorization of each item departs from the utilitarian goal of a wiki's canon policy.

-- ^Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  ^Talk 15:30, 10 September 2006 (PDT)