Wiki 24 talk:Canon

Magazine
If we're putting commercials on the list and explaining why they're not canon, and putting a note on deleted scenes and closed captioning and why they're not canon, I see no problem explaining why this isn't canon, especially considering it is similar to the website, providing background information, etc. Comparing it to the tonight show is just a straw man. - Xtreme680 00:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * "Straw man"? The hell are you talking about?  Putting The Official Magazine on here is no different from putting The Tonight Show, since they both contain interviews with 24 actors.  TOM is not a story, it is a publication about 24.  It makes no sense to say that events in TOM are more or less genuine than say the comics, because there are no events in TOM.  It's a compilation of articles and interviews about the show.  There is no story material, therefore it does not belong on the canon list.


 * Neither does the website. It provides lists of facts and background information on characters. It's a straw man because I don't want to add the Tonight Show. You're adding something I did not say in order to make me argument easier to defeat. I want to add a publication that, like it or not, is official, and has information about the story and plots going on in the 24 universe, and explain it's place in canon. Is it so horrible that we go out and tell people "also, ignore this"? This place is supposed to be a guide, a helper. If I had to ask its place in canon, is it so impossible that someone might have the same question? I'm trying to establish some continuity so that one day, when they post some obviously wrong piece of information (That say, Vincent O'Brien is really named Vincent Chase or something) and someone potentially tries to add it, we'll point to the canon list. The magazine is confusing because it tries to claim that it has this word official in front of it, giving it a false sense of legitimacy. Also, it's not even a big deal dude, no need to bust out the italics on little ol me. If you really want to take it off, sure, whatever. - Xtreme680 04:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I did not create a straw man argument:
 * You wouldn't mention The Tonight Show on the canon page.
 * You want to mention The Official Magazine on the canon page.
 * Both contain interviews and "facts" about 24. Therefore:
 * You shouldn't want to include The Official Magazine on the canon page.


 * I never said you wanted to include The Tonight Show, I was just pointing out that including TOM is akin to including that show. Oh well, I'm sure you'll agree this isn't worth arguing about.


 * The only information on the website that's relevant to the canon list is the character profiles. This is original IU information that is written specifically for the site.  Everything else on the website provides trivia or OOU facts.  So far, there's no original IU information being provided in The Official Magazine, so it doesn't even apply to this page.  If TOM mentions "Vincent Chase", that's clearly an error, but since it's mention OOU it doesn't matter.  Kiefer Sutherland has mentioned many things about 24 in interviews that are incorrect, both in TOM and on shows such as The Tonight Show.  It may be worth noting on Wiki 24, but IU information shouldn't come from an OOU source.


 * If someone wants to know where the 24: Soundtrack fits on the canon list, what do we say? Is it an official 24 product?  Of course.  Does that mean it contains story material?  Of course not.  Even if the liner notes of the CD say that Jack's last name is "Bower", it's not an IU reference so it doesn't matter.  Now, if the liner notes suddenly made up something like Jack's middle name being Bartholomew, then we'd have to assess it's canonicity.  Until then, it's just an OOU product. --Proudhug 07:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That's my point. It does. It says Bauer has 122 kills. I'm guessing that we will have something different due to our standards. Is 122 canon now? Or do we stick to what kills we find on the show? Just because it's from an OOU perspective doesn't mean its not canonical. The magazine, like the website, jumps around. If it didn't have things like this in here, I would not have brought it up.


 * When I said your argument was a straw man, I was attacking the argument, not you. It really doesn't matter either way.


 * Okay, my point is that TOM saying Jack has 122 kills is no different from Time Magazine saying Jack Bauer has 122 kills. They're both OOU so they're not really contributing to the mythos.  Now, if TOM had a story or a comic in it where Jack walked up to some guy and said, "You know, I have 122 kills under my belt" then we'd have a conflict.  The magazine saying that Jack has 122 kills is also no different from it saying that Jack and Palmer met for the first time at the hotel.  It's merely pointing out an (incorrect) fact from the show, not adding anything to the 24verse.  It can't actually conflict because it's not IU.


 * And besides, the Jack Bauer kill count is an OOU article anyway. It's not a count of how many people Jack has killed, it's a count of how many people Jack has killed on-screen, which has no context IU.


 * Another thing to keep in mind is that the magazine still isn't "caught up" with the show. The first issue is only current up to about half way through season 5.  The second issue has information up to about three quarters of the way through.  Therefore, I would assume this count only goes up to that point anyway and isn't as complete as ours is. --Proudhug 17:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

24-themed Commercials
''Commercials - 24-themed TV commercials for Calorie Mate and the Ford F-150 were spoofs never actually intended to be a part of the 24verse. They are not canon in any way and are included here merely for the sake of completeness.''

If those items were never intended to be part of the "24-verse", why are they part of the Canon list, which is described as the body of work that is considered to be "genuine" or "official" within a certain fictional universe? -Kapoli 23:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Three reasons. The third of which is already mentioned:
 * The canon page lists all in-universe items which feature the world of 24. These are meant to take place within the 24verse, but not meant to be official stories.
 * There's nothing within the commercials to indicate that they didn't happen within the 24verse, so why not include them? Since they were produced in connection with the show or people involved with the show, they're not merely fan films.
 * For the sake of completeness. It's not inconceivable that someone will want to know how "Jack Bauer #2" fits into the storyline or when Jack visited Japan.


 * --Proudhug 23:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Well maybe it's just me, since I've never seen the commercials, but I think something needs to be re-worded somewhere, because it doesn't make sense to me. I mean, we say they're not canon in any way, but they're still on the canon list? That seems stupid. Then again, I've never understood the whole IU/OOU explanation. -Kapoli 00:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Real-Life Information
We've been hashing out what real-life info to include on the wiki on several article pages, but I think it will be easier to follow if we just do it here.

My opinion is that we should assume things are as they are in real life unless the show contradicts real life. For instance, in real life, George W. Bush has been President since 2000. On 24, it's been David Palmer, John Keeler, and Charles Logan. If Bush had been mentioned, however, we would assume it was the same one as real life and include any relevant information. Insisting on relevance would probably eliminate most of the conflicts we've been having. -StBacchus 10:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

If you ask me, we should assume that both Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. existed in the 24 universe.

Bush Sr: Curtis Manning served in the Gulf War, the Gulf War was waged by George H.W. Bush. Bush Jr: The Department of Homeland Security exists in the 24 universe, it was created by George W. Bush. I don't think we should assume that the creators of this show would't want us to believe that their letting fictional Presidents take credit for real-life things.


 * As it's been stated many times, this is Wiki 24, not Wikipedia. Information in articles about real life items on the site need to come specifically from the show and/or detail how exactly these items specifically pertain to the show.  This includes pictures as well as stats and facts.  Any trivia notes or additional real life facts that weren't mentioned on the show can be mentioned in a "Background" paragraph if it's felt more information is necessary.  And as you've said, including external links is a good way to provide additional information to a reader, however, this doesn't mean we should include a Wikipedia link on every single real life item page.  I think it's pretty much given that if someone wants to know more, they can easily look it up.  If there's a related page of interest that may not be as easily found, for sure we could include it.  Check out Memory Alpha's North America page for a good example how to do an article on a real life item, only including mentioned information and screen grabs. --Proudhug 13:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Right, but Aaron Pierce says he started working with Secret Service during the Reagan administration. Do we assume it's Ronald Reagan, a reasonable assumption, or do we leave the possibility that it's Johnny Reagan? I think it's idiotic when we don't state the obvious. Relevance sounds like a good rule of thumb to me. Memory Alpha does things their way, but I don't see why we have to do it the same way as them. I mean, are we to assume that canonically, Iowa really has mountains because the show said it did? - Xtreme680 03:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course we are. Are we to assume that since GWB wasn't mentioned on the show that canonically he wasn't the president?  Of course we are.  Are we to assume that despite there being no such thing in real life that canonically CTU exists?  Of course we are.  There are many things that we're meant to assume while watching 24.  Some things we're meant to assume are the same and some we're meant to assume are different, but it doesn't always mean we need to include this information on Wiki 24.


 * The name of the president when Pierce began working with the SS was "Reagan." Obviously we're meant to assume it's Ronald Reagan, but since we're trying to create an encyclopedia of 24-related things, there's no point in referring to him as anything more than "Reagan," and including a note at the bottom expaining any further information that may be useful.  In the case of Iowa, a note on the non-existence of mountains in the real world would be appropriate.


 * I'm not saying that we should assume things not mentioned on the show don't exist.    I'm just saying that including such information is unnecessary to our project. --Proudhug 03:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * That's why I say we should include real-life information where it's relevant. Basic contextual information should be included for the sake of clarity and thoroughness. There's no need to leave people wondering if we're talking about Ontario, Canada or Ontario, California just because it wasn't stated explicitly. On the other hand, I don't think we should go around making up dates. There have been dates given on the show, but they've avoided pegging any season to a specific year. I'm going to start taking out those dates when I see them.


 * Memory Alpha's canon policy says that "obvious errors" (like, say, mountains in Iowa) don't count. I just screencapped Andre and Alexis Drazen's dossiers from season 1, and according to those, they were born 5 months apart. Are we supposed to shrug our shoulders and assume the human gestational period on 24 is 5 months? If someone said that 1+1=3, would we call that canon? I'll simply make a note of it on their pages, but it's still an error and not something to be taken seriously as part of the continuity of the show. -StBacchus 08:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Heard But Not Seen
I don't know who the final authority here is, or where I should ask this question, but this seems like a reasonable place.... In season 2, Bob Warner says the names of Reza's parents: Hasan and Karima. But their names don't seem to be listed anywhere official. Is it OK just to guess at the spelling and put the names in anyway, since they were spoken on the show? -StBacchus 4 April 2006


 * I'm going to go ahead and say you should look up some common spellings of Middle Eastern first names, and see what the most common spellings are. That or look at a script of Season 2 and see what their names are spelled as in the script. -Xtreme680


 * I just watched the episode and it's very difficult to hear Mrs. Naiyeer's first name. This means nothing but there's an online fan transcript that spells them "Rima" and "Hassan".  Briefly checking online, I found the names "Hassan" and "Karima" (but no "Reza", go figure).  The DVDs don't have subtitles, the characters aren't listed in the closing credits, and 24 Season 2: The Unofficial Guide lists them merely as "Mr. Naiyeer" and "Mrs. Naiyeer".  It's not official but is anyone able to check the closed captioning?  I would go with "Karima" and "Hassan" until they can be verified by an actual script.  How do you go about getting these?  Ebay?  --Proudhug 15:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, haha. The region 1 DVDs do have subtitles ("English for the hearing impaired," so I assume the closed captions would be the same), but it didn't even occur to me to turn them on. They say "Rima" and "Hassan." I thought it was Karima because that's a real Middle-Eastern name. I suppose we'd better go with Rima and Hassan, since it's as close as we're going to get without a script. Can/should we then add subtitles/closed captions to the canon list? They are most likely contracted out, so that would put them slightly below the show. -StBacchus 14 April 2006

Tie-in Merchandise
They can be bought at this website here, but I think it's OK to put up the pages with those names. If anyone has a problem, then we can move the page later, unless anyone wants to buy the script, which I doubt they do. Also, considering the writers and producers worked on 24: The Game, I am suggesting that we move it above the Fox website, and another question. We cover unofficial book guides to 24, or at least have links up for them. Where do they fit in the canon discussion? -Xtreme680


 * Only one of the shows writers worked on the game. And I think the only other people from the show who did were the actors and Sean Callery.  I'm pretty sure the rest of the show's crew had nothing to do with the creation of The Game.  I'm not sure whether The Game should take precedence over the website or not.  My thinking is that there's less chance of the show contradicting the website than there is contradicting The Game.  Really, they're probably of equal "value," but maybe you're right.  I don't know who writes the website.


 * As for the guide books, I don't think the issue of canon really pertains since they don't contain original story material. Unlike Findings at CTU, they're merely non-fiction summaries of episodes and compilations of information. --Proudhug 01:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I doubt the show's creators have anything to do with maintaining the website, although it is possible that whoever made the website used the show's bible (man, would I love to get a look at that!). Without knowing whether some hack at a web design company made up the information on the web site, I would consider the game closer to canon, even though it's just the one writer. -StBacchus 14 April 2006

For people who are just interested in the programme and not the trading cards/fan books etc. is there any way to distinguish what info has come from the TV show and what has come from the spin offs? It would be good to have some sort of way of telling where the in fo has come from--Acer4666 23:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * In the top corner of most pages there are little icons that inform you of this. There are numbers 1-7 representing if the information comes from the seasons, or one that says "EU", meaning "Expanded Univerise" i.e. the novels, game and other tie-in content. -- SignorSimon (talk/contribs/email) 08:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Changes
I'm going to paste the argument I wrote at Template talk:Spinoffs:


 * ...but the very concept of the books contradicts the series, and the characters. Trojan Horse has Teri being held hostage at gunpoint along with hundreds of other innocents. Chaos Theory has her bringing Jack a package while he's on the run from the cops and nearly getting shot. Do you think any of that can count as background for their relationship, when in Day 1 he's completely devastated by the idea of his work affecting his family? Hell, that season is child's play compared to what the books would have you believe they already endured. They're great reads, but by no means should they be considered even partly canon. That's part of the reason I added the EU and Canon templates - to clearly distinguish between info that is firmly established and EU stuff that will never be acknowledged except in their respective books/comics/etc.

Add to this the fact that the books/comics patently cannot fit in the timeline of the show, and the fact that they're essentially licensed fan fiction, and I really don't think we should consider them as "canon" per se, or a source of background information. I'm talking about instances like on the Counter Terrorist Unit page - the only source that the World Trade Center bombing was the impetus for starting CTU is the Declassified intros. The showrunners and writers have never even mentioned the WTC, for obvious reasons Also, I don't recall, but I believe that CTU being a branch of the CIA was taken from the novels, rather than a particular episode.

This would require overhauling a few pages - Operation Nightfall would need to be rewritten to place what little was in the show at the forefront, then subsections detailing the events of Nightfall and Findings, which don't match up. Ryan Chappelle would need to have the profile moved or otherwise "decanonized," as well as any other info from Findings. ...etc.

As far as character pages, I strongly feel something like EU or Canon is needed to distinguish between the show's established history and the books. The latter is based on a template at the Fallout wiki, since that series has more cancelled projects and non-canon elements than most others. I just don't want to mislead readers into thinking something is true when it's only true in the mind of one or two writers with no input on the actual series. --Pyramidhead 18:06, April 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * So how are you proposing we include all the novel/comic information? Have an "expanded universe" section at the bottom of a page that effectively moves all the information we currently have into a separate section? I understand your point that the novels and comics degenerate from the impact of many of the storylines of the TV series but the fact remains that they are officially published media related to 24 that the creators must know about; they would not be allowed to be published without their consent. Just because some people are less than happy with the events that take place in the expanded universe stuff that doesn't mean we can disregard their information. -- SignorSimon (talk/contribs/email) 20:48, April 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course somebody at Fox knows of the books, but there's no way that someone like Howard Gordon goes through and okays all of it. It's a situation very much like with Star Trek: hundreds of people have written novels set in that universe, and yet not one of them can be said to have actually happened. All I want is to draw a clear line between what is established and what isn't. In some cases, yes, that would mean moving some info to the background section - CTU's origins come to mind. In others, like lengthy character summaries for a particular book, something like the Canon template would be helpful, so that it's perfectly clear which is which. --Pyramidhead 23:20, April 22, 2010 (UTC)