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

Warhammer 40k - Lexicanum:Accepted sources

From Warhammer 40k - Lexicanum
Revision as of 09:37, 15 April 2020 by Inquisitor S. (talk | contribs) (Why the term "Canon" or "Canonicity" is problematic)
Jump to: navigation, search
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.
  • Games Workshop authors (past and present) sometimes making statements in a private capacity that are then picked up by some readers as "official"
  • and many other potential sources for confusion and contradictions

This (non-exhaustive) list of potential sources of problems should make it quite clear why it is impossible to reconcile all material ever published by Games Workshop (and subsidiaries and license holders, further on simply and collectively referred to as "Games Workshop") into one stringent and logical continuity. Add to that the inevitable tendency of readers/ "fans" to consciously or unconsciously add their own spin, interpretation, extrapolation or sometimes plain made-up elements and the problem that most users of the internet do not bother to actually check if something is a verifiable fact or simply a rumour or even lie sold as fact and the mess is complete.

Games Workshop itself has not been very forthcoming with any helpful statements on this conundrum. But then again why would they? As a company they certainly have no interest to limit themselves by a too strict corset of which parts of their own intellectual property they will use at any given moment - or not. And even if they do not use certain elements at a given time, who is to say said elements might not come in handy at some point in the future? So from a commercial point of view this is a very logical approach even if it is one that can vex readers.

There are nevertheless some insightful statements by Games Workshopon the subject matter. In an older version of their FAQ section Black Library included the following answer to the question if their material was "canonical":

"Is Black Library fiction canon background material? The BL editors work with the GW studios to keep the fiction the way that it should (very hard might I add! - RK), though due to the sheer volume of detail involved there can be the odd discrepancy here and there. If you want to consider anything "canonical" then both BL fiction - be it novel, graphic novel, art or background book - and GW fiction - be it White Dwarf, Codex, Army book or rulebook - are such.

Keep in mind Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 are worlds where half truths, lies, propaganda, politics, legends and myths exist. The absolute truth which is implied when you talk about "canonical background" will never be known because of this. Everything we know about these worlds is from the viewpoints of people in them which are as a result incomplete and even sometimes incorrect. The truth is mutable, debatable and lost as the victors write the history ... Black Library:FAQ (saved archive page, dated 19 May 2008, last accessed 15 April 2020)'



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