Template talk:Story: Difference between revisions
Fireheart& (talk | contribs) m (Add 'nowiki'.) |
Fireheart& (talk | contribs) m (Formatting.) |
||
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
I wonder if this would be better served with a <code><nowiki>{{protocanon}}</nowiki></code> template at the top of the page where necessary. Stories that are ''paracanon'' are probably listed as ''canon'' anyways, yes? And stories that are ''non-canon'' would simply not be shown in this website. So the only stories for which canonicity is anything other than ''canon'' are those which contain ''protocanon'', and we already have a template for that. | I wonder if this would be better served with a <code><nowiki>{{protocanon}}</nowiki></code> template at the top of the page where necessary. Stories that are ''paracanon'' are probably listed as ''canon'' anyways, yes? And stories that are ''non-canon'' would simply not be shown in this website. So the only stories for which canonicity is anything other than ''canon'' are those which contain ''protocanon'', and we already have a template for that. | ||
I also think this dispels the intended impression of an ''open | I also think this dispels the intended impression of an ''open'' setting. There is a sort of stamp of approval in having something recognized by you at all, Skunks&, but to emphasize canonicity as an intrinsic property that something may or, pointedly, ''may not'' have seems a little fraught, don't you think? | ||
[[User:Fireheart&|Fireheart&]] ([[User talk:Fireheart&|talk]]) 16:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC) | [[User:Fireheart&|Fireheart&]] ([[User talk:Fireheart&|talk]]) 16:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 16:16, 8 February 2024
Canonicity
I wonder if this would be better served with a {{protocanon}}
template at the top of the page where necessary. Stories that are paracanon are probably listed as canon anyways, yes? And stories that are non-canon would simply not be shown in this website. So the only stories for which canonicity is anything other than canon are those which contain protocanon, and we already have a template for that.
I also think this dispels the intended impression of an open setting. There is a sort of stamp of approval in having something recognized by you at all, Skunks&, but to emphasize canonicity as an intrinsic property that something may or, pointedly, may not have seems a little fraught, don't you think? Fireheart& (talk) 16:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)