- Okay, I'm putting my input up here so it gets seen, but if this is a problem, then someone can move it to another place.
- I have a very strong opinion about what's canon and what's not. If it's in an actual episode, it's canon unless something happens at the end of the episode to make "never have happened" or whatever eg. "Phineas and Ferb's Quantum Boogaloo," the "Invasion of the Evil Platypus Clones" portion of "Terrifying Tri-State Trilogy of Terror" (and arguably the entire episode...), and maybe a few more. Also, "Phineas and Ferb: Star Wars" which was actually stated to be non-canon, although if they get to do "Empire" it's canon unto itself. Anything that happens in comic books, chapter books, picture books, and other Disney PnF merchandise counts as "sub-canon." Any merchandise should have a page to itself on the wiki with descriptions, summaries, and other stuff, but any information revealed should not be automatically assumed to be canon unless confirmed in an episode. This information shouldn't be stated outright as fact on character or episode pages unless it's in the "trivia" or "background" sections with a source eg. "Learn to Draw Phineas and Ferb" states that Isabella is sensitive about the fact that she doesn't have eyebrows, but she is often shown with eyebrows in episodes." Instead of "She has no eyebrows and is sensitive about it as revealed in "Learn to Draw Phineas and Ferb". However, she sometimes does have eyebrows."
- Not only had the eyebrows thing never been revealed in any episodes, but even if we do assume it's true, she may be wearing makeup to give herself darker eyebrows. It's something she would most likely do if she was sensitive about it.
- Anyway, I'm not here to talk about errors. I also think that things revealed by the creators (especially Dan and Swampy) should be considered canon and can appear as fact, as long as they're referenced properly.
- For the comics and books and stuff, they should pretty much just keep to their own pages to keep from cluttering up the main canon and prevent confusion among fans who don't have access to things outside the episodes. Not everyone can subscribe to Phineas and Ferb magazine and buy every storybook that Disney decides to publish! Some time ago, Phineas's page included information about a character who appeared exclusively in the one comic book story from the magazines. The information was unnecessary, confusing to people who had not read that comic, and taking up space and making the page more cluttered. The information should have stayed on the page of the specific magazine issue it was from.
- Alright, I think I'm done for now, but count my vote with ON SCREEN UNIVERSE for "What is Canon?"Parable the Dragonpus 03:40, October 15, 2014 (UTC)
Hi Wikies, I'm not sure how to properly weigh in on this format-wise, so I just hit "reply" (if this isn't the right way to do it, my apologies and feel free to delete my response here or move it to the right place). Either way, in terms of the original books being "canon," I would say that, yes, the books written by writers from the show (I did "My Funny Valentine") would probably fall into that category, although, I'm pretty sure if something came up for either a TV episode or movie that was really great and somehow contradicted a book idea, then the book idea would be ignored. As for the comics-style books based on episodes, in many cases there, for example, the "Chronicles of Meap, " they basically just took the episode Piero and I wrote and drew word for word (with some edits for length and formatting) and put it in "comic book" form with screen captures taken from the episode - so no one actually wrote one new word or drew one new picture for the book, YET these books are credited to someone other than the writers and storyboarders of the episode it was taken from. In fact, neither my name nor Piero's name is anywhere to be found on the book even though every word and image was created by us. Very strange. I'm not sure why Disney decided to do it that way, or how the "authors" of these books who WERE credited can look in the mirror and feel good about it, but, the point is - even though they have been credited to people other than the show's writers and artists who really DID write and draw them, these books should probably be considered canon, as well. Sorry for the grumbling editorial in there. It's just very strange to me. Peace, I'm out, Jon Colton Barry
Now, recently, as new merchandise has been coming, we have been having
arguments discussions over what is canon or not. Several talk pages, forums, and IRC chats have become cluttered with comments on canonization, and we need to have an official, all community discussion over what's canon. Following will be headings over canon subjects we still need to discuss, along with possibilities. Beforehand will be a list of canon, non-canon, and yet to be decided canon, and a decision on what we consider to be "canon." —Excelsior, The Flash - (Talk to me, talk to me, talk to me bay-bay!) 02:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
|Canon||Non-Canon||Yet to be Decided|
There are two usual representations for canon: 1) Made by official people of the media, in this case any PaF production member 2) Does not interfere with the story line. Which one should we use needs to be considered when checking canon sources. —Excelsior, The Flash - (Talk to me, talk to me, talk to me bay-bay!) 02:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- I have a very strong opinion on the canonicity of this new merchandise, however, I will save that opinion until the conversation gets rolling, so I don't influence the discussion too much. However, let me expand on what Flash is talking about. There are two versions of what is usually considered canon, or "the truth" of what happens to characters in a series or "universe":
- On-screen Universe — This is the way Memory Alpha defines canon for their wiki about Star Trek. Only things seen on-screen are canon. For them, if it was in the any of the Star Trek series or movies, or if a reference book was made by one of the behind-the-scenes personnel it can be referenced as canon on their site. The on-screen material always wins out if there is a difference between the two sources. Even though there is a bunch of books and comics put out which feature the Trek universe, this is not considered to have happened in the real universe of Trek, according to Memory Alpha. It does not matter whether the information in these novels matches the on-screen material or not. The main reason that the books are not considered canon is that the creators of the series are not directly involved in the writing of these books. Most of the time it is the studio, not the creative team, that has final say on what gets put out as Star Trek. Memory Alpha may have gaps in what it may know about characters, locations, technology, etc., but fans of the on-screen universe can comfortably read the encyclopedia and know that it won't be confused by information that didn't happen on-screen.
- Expanded Universe — This is the Star Wars method. Wookieepedia, the Star Wars wiki, covers all the movies, series, novels, and comics that carry the Star Wars label. As seen in the link to Wookieepedia, this came from an official word from Lucasfilm, the production company for Star Wars, owned by Star Wars director/writer/producer George Lucas that all this material was and is canon. Lucasfilm has the luxury of being both the studio and the creative team responsible for its Star Wars universe. Therefore, Lucas has direct control over what goes into the novels and the comics and anything else marked Star Wars. Wookieepedia, then, includes all the information from the novels, etc., in all of its articles. While this fleshes out articles more, it also may alienate and confuse fans that aren't familiar with the thousands of books and other licensed works out there.
- Then the question becomes which one is Phineas and Ferb? Will its merchandise be carefully monitored by the creative staff making the series or will its licensed product be controlled by others in the Disney company? Again, I have my opinion on this, but I will let you discuss it before I weigh in on it. I will say this, though. This is the question we should be asking. How much control does the creative staff have on the book, not could this happen to the characters in the on-screen universe. Looking at it this way makes the question black or white: Does the creative staff control what goes into the books or not? You'd have to look no further than the title page of the book to find this out. In a universe where pre-teens have been in space no fewer than three times, Candace has become the Queen of Mars, and a platypus is a secret agent, is there really anything that could truly be argued that couldn't happen in this universe? Well, other than the claim in one of the books that Perry can't smile (which we've seen him do). I guess you know which of the two sides I sit on now, but there is still a discussion to be had here. Remember, my vote only counts once, just like every one of yours. Please make up your own minds and let's have a full, civil discussion about this. Before you comment, listen to this starting at 21:45 where Dan and Swampy talk about the books. —Topher 05:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Now that's what I call a response. I'll set up the vote, and we can discuss it before the actual system so people can comment. Unfortunately, I can't seem to watch or listen to the video. —Excelsior, The Flash - (Talk to me, talk to me, talk to me bay-bay!) 20:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Whoops. I've got the thing, actually. Never mind :P —Excelsior, The Flash - (Talk to me, talk to me, talk to me bay-bay!) 20:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Just watched it. Writers are taking part in stories, books, and comics, so they are canon. I therefore would like to use the EU version. —Excelsior, The Flash - (Talk to me, talk to me, talk to me bay-bay!) 21:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Why not, instead of being one or the other, we do both? And when one thing is canon on the On-screen Universe we could put a little icon of maybe a television screen or something on the top right corner (see the Avatar Wiki for example as well as other wikis of which I am unsure of which ones they are currently) and when something is in the Expanded Universe maybe toss a globe there? felinoel ~ (Talk) 02:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Our systems here tie us to stay near-100% in-universe. We do have icons, but they are used for different purposes. I think it'd be easier for us if we stick to one in the other. Your thoughts on those? —Excelsior, The Flash - (Talk to me, talk to me, talk to me bay-bay!) 02:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Canonicity gets horribly complicated in any system with alternative futures. Also, it doesn't strike me the writers are working to a show bible, so continuity errors are inevitable, complicated by the fact that we don't know the "actual" order of events (as opposed to order written or order broadcast - which aren't necessarily the same). Further complicating things is that there's a lot of backstory that will never make it on-screen but may legitimately be considered by the writers and/or the voice actors. Personally, I tend to consider actor and writer input as valid additions to canon where there's no contradition, along with where screened stories have added details in printed form or where a story was written for screening but never transmitted for reasons other than rejection on the grounds of not fitting in. (This would include stories kept in reserve but never actually made, stories made but never transmitted, etc.)
What I would not consider canonical is material I'd consider as publisher-owned fanfic (ie: the writers produce wholly original novels or comics that have not been "peer-reviewed" by any script editor or director for the series). To me, that's the key to the whole thing - has it been peer-reviewed? I accept that this is not the "normal" way canonicity is decided, whether on-screen or "extended", but nobody gets to be an ebil scientist by doing things the normal way. --Ebilscientist 00:10, January 27, 2010 (UTC)
Canon System - On-screen Universe
Canon System - Expanded Universe
- —Excelsior, The Flash - (Talk to me, talk to me, talk to me bay-bay!) 21:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- —Ardi 03:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- —Mai~(Talk) 05:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- ---Thomas Laliberte 06:03, 25 February 2011
Possibility - What if we have cards and comics?
If we were to have cards, that had original artwork and stuff, based on moments not seen, such as Peter meeting Doofenshmirtz or Destructicon and Doofenshmirtz. Could we use them as images for history sections? Harry Potter Wiki does not consider the movies and cards as canon, but still uses them for imagry purposes. Can we? And the same goes for comics: are THEY canon? Can we use them to explain not-seen things or use them as real character events? —Excelsior, The Flash - (Talk to me, talk to me, talk to me bay-bay!) 02:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, comics are coming out (Yes!), and apparently the writers are working on them. This therefore makes them canon. Still, discuss. —Excelsior, The Flash - (Talk to me, talk to me, talk to me bay-bay!) 21:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Flash, where did you see that the writers are working on them and are they helping in making it or are they the only ones making it? It helps to know how they contribute to be able to discuss it properly.—Ardi 03:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
An official podcast interview (the link is above in Topher's super-long reply; it's the link that says "this") with the creators said it. The writers are writing and editing the comics, is what I mean, Ardi. —Excelsior, The Flash - (Talk to me, talk to me, talk to me bay-bay!) 04:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- So if they write and edit it, I agree that it is canon.—Ardi 04:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Speed Demons to Big-Top Bananza (Chapter Books)
Discuss the canonicity of the topic.
- Having just reviewed the first three chapter books (Speed Demons, Runaway Hit and Wild Surprise), I can say that they do a very good job of following the episodes very closely. As I wrote, they are near word-for-word. Some scenes are moved around so that the books don't have to jump around to cover a sequence of events, but that's understandable because if you were a young kid, it would be hard to keep track of what was happening. There's other minor items that are added to help fill in details that you'd only otherwise know if you'd watched a lot of episodes, so these help new readers. The only thing that could be a problem are the lines that are missing from the book. So far, none of these have been vital to the plot, so their omission does not alter the continuity of the series or change the P&F universe, but future books should be checked to see what they leave out. The nature of the show isn't dependent upon continuity (as compared with a show like Babylon 5), so these ever-so-slightly abridged versions should be fine. — RRabbit42 01:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- Alright, cool. Swampy said that he wasn't sure on the books canonicity, though he wasn't very sure. As well, we should still count these as references. —Excelsior, The Flash - (Talk to me, talk to me, talk to me bay-bay!) 01:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Future 8x8 Books - My Funny Valentine and Oh, Christmas Tree
Discuss the canonicity of the topic.
- In my opinion, this should wait out until the above vote on what exactly we use to decipher canon itself. —Excelsior, The Flash - (Talk to me, talk to me, talk to me bay-bay!) 19:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
The Video Game
I think the video game is only 50% canon. One reason is because there are events that don't happen in the show, such as the time machine in their backyard at the end of the game that doesn't disappear, Buford's goldfish named "Bubba" ( It should be Biff ) and other events that might or might not be canon. Can anyone else who has played the game help in this conversation?—Ardi 06:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia, Dan and Swampy had no knowledge that the Video game was being made until it was released. See this page in the third paragraph for more info.—Ardi~(Talk)~(Correspondence) 08:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
The soundtrack and in-character interviews
While I don't have any objections to the soundtrack itself, we need to discuss the premiere of the soundtrack on Radio Disney. Are we going to take the commentaries in-between certain songs as canon? or will we write it off as speculation? I think it should be canon, since Dan and Swampy were the ones that voice Dr.D and "Monobrow". What do others think?—Ardi~(Talk)~(Correspondence) 12:22, September 24, 2009 (UTC)
- When the creators said it themselves, how can it not be canon? By the way, the song names and artist names that the backside of the cover provides should also be considered canon in my opinion.
-Audun 15:54, September 24, 2009 (UTC)
Actually I remember hearing Mai tell me that whe was talking to Toph, and he said tha tif it didn't happen on the show, it shouldn't be put on the wiki.—Ardi~(Talk)~(Correspondence) 02:29, September 25, 2009 (UTC)
- Avatar Wiki had this problem with the Avatar trading cards, but those were explicatively stated to not be canon, I think that unless there is any mention of otherwise, it should be considered canon. felinoel ~ (Talk) 02:52, September 25, 2009 (UTC)
- Yes definitely especially if they participated, unless I am mistaken I believe the people of Avatar had nothing whatsoever to do with any kind of input or anything with the trading cards. felinoel ~ (Talk) 08:05, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
For that matter, there have also been some other in-character interviews that Dan and Swampy have given to promote the show; for example, this promotional interview with an Illinois-based school sports talk show. A good number of the jokes are taken directly from the Christmas special, which is what they were promoting, but there were a few off-hand jokes from the characters that didn't come from the show, such as Major Monogram claiming he has a mother who lives in Billings. I don't think there have been that many in-character interviews in this style, but one has to wonder a bit, given the fact that the creators of the characters also provide the voices, which is something that cannot be said for many fictional characters. Mobo85 23:55, December 28, 2009 (UTC)