• Welcome to Touhou Wiki!
  • Registering is temporarily disabled. Check in our Discord server to request an account and for assistance of any kind.

Talk:Canon

From Touhou Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

From the references in-game mentioned here, is it safe to say that the events from Lotus Land Story onward are canon? -brocoli

Are fanon characters even needed in this section?

I know a while back we talked about fanon and memes being removed in some sections such as the characters section...so is this even needed?MaronaPossessed 17:50, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

I think there's no problem in listing the most popular ones, just for reference.Master Bigode 18:33, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

Adding a note on Wiki's assumption regarding Inaba of the Moon and Earth

Would it be okay to add something like "Currently, this wiki is written under the assumption that the events of Inaba of the Moon and Inaba of the Earth are canon, but please bear in mind this may not be the case." (er, the wording of that might be bad. Feel free to suggest something better)

That way, wiki editors won't have to disclaim "This might not be canon" all the time when referencing Inaba of the Moon and Earth.

(I think "being written under the assmption that Inaba is canon" is a safe enough thing to do, due several shout outs to Inaba in latter games. There is an interview where ZUN states that although he allowed the writers lots of freedom, he's the one that typically brings up the initial suggestion of who should appear. I'm sure that interview is on this wiki somewhere... I'll have to find it and add it to this page. But it would mean more questionable events in Inaba like "Is it really possible that the Watatsuki sisters would come to earth just to visit?" could be answered with "ZUN likely suggested their appearance himself, with all that might imply")

Of course, while this means people won't have to always clog up pages with the word "Semi-canonical", they should still state when something is coming from IotMaIotE in the references, etc. TiamatRoar (talk) 18:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (note: I actually wrote this like, in 2011 or 2010 long ago but am adding my signature now)

Regarding convenience, putting "being written under the assmption that Inaba is canon" can be acceptable (not that I've checked it though). But if in that case, the Inaba page itself and other pages which are strongly referring to canon works will need notes indicating that the fact of ZUN being a 原案 (original planner) and he himself let Arata do his job freely and ZUN only made suggestion of who should appear, making it a kind of official secondary, and fans must take it easy about it when regarding to canon.--Doncot (talk) 14:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Calling PC-98 non-canon in relation to the Windows games seems a bit much, don't you think?

I brought this up a while ago in the IRC, and was directed to ZUN's E-mails as the source, specifically the line "Basically, they're whatever-works types, so they might not be dead. I generally have no comment regarding the PC-98 games. Please ignore them just as one can ignore derivative works."

Is it just me, or is taking this to mean that the PC-98 games are entirely non-canon an extremely harsh and narrow reading of this? In light of the fact that PC-98 is referenced several times in the Windows canon, and the fact that Reimu's profile in Embodiment of Scarlet Devil explicitly states that the game is set shortly after Mystic Square, it seems much more likely that the intent in this line is to simply to suggest not thinking too deeply on the PC-98 games rather than striking them from canon. More of a handwave than a condemnation, so to speak.

Canon is a pretty heavy subject, so I did not want to leap right into editing the page without saying anything beforehand. I'd like to gather input from others before making any changes, if possible, but I think this is something that warrants a closer examination. If there are no disagreements, though, I'd like to change this soon. - Patchwork (talk) 21:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

It actually comes from ZUN's reply to messages on the former Gensou Bulletin Board 3. "Please think of it that what is canon is fundamentally in the newest work's fine details" and "please think only that what is present is only bringing it to the surface" and so forth. I'll add the reference to the page. TiamatRoar (talk) 18:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
That still seems like a peculiarly harsh reading of his statements, especially when they also include lines like "fundamentally, before Embodiment of Scarlet Devil, the world view is the same." In fact, that second line is lifted from a question and answer that seems to explicitly confirm PC-98 as canon:
Q: "Gensokyo" Do the canon of the PC-98 games still live?
A: Definitely they have not changed. Nevertheless this is not to say that there is nothing canon other than what is said in the game, within the game please think only that what is present is only bringing it to the surface.
This suggests that the events of the PC-98 games have explicitly happened, but merely that ZUN does not want to concern himself with working out the exact details of the connection between PC-98 and Windows. If anything, this provides even more of a reason to change the current contents of this article. - Patchwork (talk) 18:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Hmm.... originally I took that to mean that the PC-98 series was a separate existence like the original editor of the canon page section in dispute did. However, when you put it that way, and looking at it again, you could very well be right that it is instead stating "Yea, the games are canon, but don't bother working out exact details that aren't in the games." Well, if no one else objects, I'll add that interpretation as a possibility (unless someone else wants to add it) TiamatRoar (talk) 21:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Basically, since it's a disputable matter, the wiki should state it as such. All related ZUN quotes should be provided, and judgement should be left to the reader. --WGH (talk) 19:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I originally thought it was reasonably clear but Patchwork's interpretation made me realize that there was an alternate interpretation that's just as plausible (possibly more so). (as an aside though, just so no one gets the wrong impression, I wasn't the one who created that paragraph currently on the page, although when I skimmed it many months ago, I agreed with it). At any rate, if other people really think it's disputable, then it probably is (otherwise, they wouldn't be disputing it). It should probably be changed, although I do admit I'd also like to see if it's possible to get a more clear translation of ZUN's replies too just in case. With all due appreciation to the one who gave us a cursory translation of it in the first place, the current translation of them is honestly a bit... murky ^^;; TiamatRoar (talk) 21:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I think calling PC-98 works non-canon is a bit weird. It's more better if it's written like "technically it's still canon, but currently there isn't much connection between the formal works and the Windows works". If you're talking about whether if it's alive then I'll say it's 90% dead, but you can't deny the fact PC-98 are ("were" at the very least) canon. Also I made a change in the translation since I thought it was clumsy too. It's now
>A: Of course, nothing particular has changed.
>No need to say that it doesn't mean it's not canon if it wasn't mentioned in the game, think it as only some portion of it emerges inside the game.
On a side note, we should keep in mind that this was written nine years ago, and things have change (a lot), and we can't be completely sure about the "Of course, nothing particular has changed." part applies to the works these days, since he has never mentioned about the PC-98 works after this reply, specifically--Doncot (talk) 16:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I think the confusion here arises from a mistranslation of ZUN's response. Here's what I think is a more accurate translation:
"Fundamentally, I believe that those people who view the games before EoSD as having the same world setting, but not being canon, will also be able to enjoy the series."
There's also ZUN's response to the next question, which is better worded as
"Just think of it like this: while it's not that there's no more to the canon than is spoken of in the games, only a small part of that setting actually becomes an issue in the games."
Basically, what ZUN is saying here is that even though events from PC-98 are not mentioned in the Windows games, doesn't mean it was all retconned, it just isn't mentioned because it's not an issue in the games unless he feels like slipping something in, like with Alice and Yuuka. Ryas (talk) 04:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
While he didn't say it was all retconned, he didn't say anything about how much of it changed either. And this is always the concern when talking about the PC-98 era canon (I think that even for Alice and Yuuka, their setting have fundamentally changed. like their relationship, appearances, story line and so on. But this is just my opinion and there're tons of guys who disagreed it).
And think the translation for the formal one isn't correct. I've rewrote it:
>A: Regarding the setting, consider that the newest work is basically the most detailed and right.(Note that he's not talking Touhou series in general, the "newest work" specifically indicates PCB [remember the date when this post has been done].)
And basically,for the works before Embodiment of Scarlet Devil, even if the world view (to be precise, the original word sekaikan (世界観) has a lot more complex meaning than this) looks the same, I believe that you could enjoy the works from now on better if you regard the setting doesn't exist.
In any case, I think using the word "canon" is not appropriate here. In the original sentence he used "setting" (設定 settei), and even if he were writing the sentences in English he would had never use a strong word like "canon". On a side note, maybe the page can have a note that using the word "canon" is a custom that is unique to the English community (in the Japanese community we only say "primary" (一次 ichiji) or the "original work" (原作 gensaku). Frankly I was surprised to see what a unique word you use to describe it. Is this only in Touhou, or used in other works too?)--Doncot (talk) 05:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
It's used for pretty much every work, whether it's Star Wars, Star Trek, several comic book series, etc. Any "official" storyline, to have occurred in the fictional universe, is considered canon. In the case of Touhou, this means the Windows games for sure. There can also be different levels of canon, where some levels supercede others.
I think it's best to keep PC-98 canon and Windows canon separate in text. Those who consider them separate will appreciate it, and those who consider them to be unified can still pick details from both. When you use the label "PC-98 canon", it can imply complete separation from the Windows canon. Back before EoSD was published, those games would've been canon. - Kiefmaster99 (talk) 08:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm slashing the line that says ZUN directly states that the PC-98 games are non-canon. The translations on the site are wonky and whether his next statement implies that the two canons are separate is unclear and can be interpreted in different ways (though to me it sounds like he's confirming that they're connected, just never brought up within the new continuity.) Ryas (talk) 10:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
@Ryas I had to revert your edit because that was a mistranslation (the post that you've linked was also wrong - it's [2]). And your impression of that comment being vague is true; because he's INTENDING to make it vague. He doesn't want clear it out whether it's even connected or not, due to the fans repeatedly asking him what happened to Mima or Shinki or what-so-ever PC-98 era character he doesn't want to talk about now (at least that's the mainstream opinion we have in the Japanese community).--Doncot (talk) 11:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Canon is people

The article's first sentence, "Canon refers to certain individuals who own official status of a certain work" says that canon refers to people. What's up with that? Flan27 (talk) 09:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Wiktionary seems to hold a better definition of canon on definition no. 10. Could that be used instead for the definition of the article? Tony64 (Talk/Con.) 17:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)