Welcome to Warhammer 40k - Lexicanum! Log in and join the community.

Difference between revisions of "Warhammer 40k - Lexicanum:Accepted sources"

From Warhammer 40k - Lexicanum
Jump to: navigation, search
m
m (Why the term "Canon" or "Canonicity" is problematic)
Line 8: Line 8:
 
*the immense wealth of available publications stretching back to the 1980s across several editions of the [[Warhammer 40,000]] (and related) games
 
*the immense wealth of available publications stretching back to the 1980s across several editions of the [[Warhammer 40,000]] (and related) games
 
*[[Games Workshop]] almost never officially disowning any of the previously published material
 
*[[Games Workshop]] almost never officially disowning any of the previously published material
*elements that by some are considered [[Wikipedia:Retroactive continuity|retcons]] or [[Reboot (fiction)|reboots]], although these terms strictly do not apply to [[Games Workshop]]'s modus operandi
+
*elements that by some are considered [[Wikipedia:Retroactive continuity|retcons]] or [[Wikipedia:Reboot (fiction)|reboots]], although these terms strictly speaking do not apply to [[Games Workshop]]'s modus operandi
 
*rewriting parts of older background
 
*rewriting parts of older background
 
*dropping parts of older background (explicitly or implicitly)
 
*dropping parts of older background (explicitly or implicitly)

Revision as of 09:05, 15 April 2020

Grotwrench.jpg Attention Adept of the LEXICANUM!

This article is being created or revised.
Please consider this before you edit this text!

The term "accepted sources" as used in the Lexicanum describes the body of source material that an Editor is permitted to use when creating or editing articles in the Lexicanum wiki. These sources are sometimes also referred to as official, legitimate or canon sources but the term that should be used with reference to any work within the Lexicanum is nevertheless accepted sources (see also further down). Only acepted sources can be used in the compulsory

Why the term "Canon" or "Canonicity" is problematic

Wikipedia defines the concept of "Canon" in fiction as follows: "In fiction, canon is the material accepted as officially part of the story in the fictional universe of that story. It is often contrasted with, or used as the basis for, works of fan fiction. [...] Other times, the word can mean 'to be acknowledged by the creator(s)'."

The passi "officially part of the story" and "acknowledged by the creator(s)" in a nutshell already highlights why using the term "Canon" in conjunction with Games Workshop is somewhat difficult. Some reasons for this are:

  • the immense wealth of available publications stretching back to the 1980s across several editions of the Warhammer 40,000 (and related) games
  • Games Workshop almost never officially disowning any of the previously published material
  • elements that by some are considered retcons or reboots, although these terms strictly speaking do not apply to Games Workshop's modus operandi
  • rewriting parts of older background
  • dropping parts of older background (explicitly or implicitly)
  • reintroducing parts of previously dropped background
  • authors ignoring or being ignorant of previously published material on the subject they write about
  • continuity errors
  • the same names being used for different persons, places or events
  • creation and disappearance of multiple Games Workshop subsidiaries that sometimes seemingly operated quite independently or at least not with a very strict supervision
  • multiple license holders (former and present) ignoring or being ignorant of previously published material on the subject of their licensed product
  • some Games Workshop publications publishing fan-submitted material that sometimes found their way later on into other publications
  • rearrangement of the spatial or temporary fictional reference systems to allow the insertion of new races, events or products
  • so-called "alternative" timelines
  • fictional events as described by different protagonists from their "own" points of view
  • often non-distinction between (fictional) "facts" and "legends/ mythology/ rumours" etc.
  • and many other potential sources for confusion and contradictions


For more information on this topic, see "Canon" as a concept in fiction.

Introduction

Canon as used in the Lexicanum simply refers to what publications or content is considered official and can therefore be used as a legitimate source. We are aware that canon sources might contradict each other, but there is no "hierarchy of sources" - i.e. no official source is considered more valid than another official source. More recent sources do however take precedence over older sources. This does however not mean that the old information is considered "wrong" and non-Canon and has to be deleted altogether. It is an explicit goal of the Lexicanum to also reflect outdated information - with appropriate disclaimers and explanations.

Examples of canon publications

The following list is non-exhaustive:

  1. Rulebooks
  2. Codices
  3. White Dwarf Magazines
  4. Black Library Novels, short stories, audiobooks...
  5. Games Workshop, subsidiaries and license holders websites
  6. Background Books
  7. GW licensed Comics and Graphic Novels
  8. Games Workshop licensed computer games based in the Warhammer 40,000 universe
  9. Collectable Card games licensed by Games Workshop
  10. Games and background material published by Black Industries and Fantasy Flight Games (under license)

etc. etc.

Examples of non-canon publications

  • Other Wikis
  • Private homepages of authors or artists working for Games Workshop or license holders
  • Fan-made content or fanzines