I'm afraid the grammar lesson is actually much, much well-needed feature instead.
The answer to your objection boils down to an awfully basic acknowledgement: "canon" is used exclusively as a noun in any given dictionary here in 2018. So, nope, until I - or anyone else - see a dictionary canonizing (ha-ha!) "canon" as a substitute of canonical, we still have a misuse on our hands. "We don't need no education!"... oh, wait.
But let's elaborate on your point. Language can and will change over time naturally, but common protocols and orthodoxy over the established uses of any given element of the accepted body of language comes from *above*, not *below* like you're indirectly suggesting. 8-year olds don't write grammar books.
And be honest, you might as well start to accept "who's/whose" "it's/its". I mean, a lot of people get this wrong on the internet as well... why not make them both correct? As of today canon as an adjective is an incorrect form, that ought to be straightened, not willfully endorsed. Even if we want to be disingenous about it, there is no added value in eliminating the adjective "canonical" from dictionary (a simultaneous use as an adjective and noun only creates another layer of ambiguity).
Oh, hey, I'd rather we started using "LOL" as en expression of bemusement personally. Now, wouldn't *that* be cool?
Fixed up the grammar paragraph to be inclusive of both colloquial and technical camps, as discussed and agreed upon in the forums.
Is the information on the SW example in film actually accurate? Given the sheer number of arguments that both sides have made at various points in the past, this page's stance of "based on two quotes from this dude's blog, the answer is X" seems a bit questionable, and doesn't actually match what the pages for the SW EU here on tv tropes say. And wrong, as Disney hasn't confirmed that that was the old policy or that they're sticking with it (in fact they outright said the new EU is canon).
Edited by battlegrinderWait, are the examples supposed to be about debates? Why would we even want to document wars like that?
Edited by OldManHoOhI removed this from the article due to the Natter going on. Paste it back if you must. Oh, and this is in regards to whether or not the spinoff games of the Super Mario series are canon.
- "This is contradicted by Professor E. Gadd's appearance in Mario & Luigi: Partners in Time, making reference to Luigi's Mansion, as well as references between Super Mario Sunshine, Luigi's Mansion}}, and Super Mario World. Also, a Hammer Bro in Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door mentions his grandfather being in World 7-1 of Super Mario Bros.''
- A character in a spin-off who was also in a main game doesn't make the spin-off canon. If that was true, Mario would be the most obvious indicator, not E. Gadd. The Hammer Bro mentioning World 7-1 doesn't make the game canon either. It's like saying PM is canon because one of Mario's main attacks is jumping on enemies like he did in the canonical games."
As he pointed out, a character appearing in the main games and the spinoff games does not really make it canon. Neither do references to past games. Still needed to be removed because of the Natter, though.
Edited by SamMax
I'd like to discuss this large batch of text in this article's description:
To be blunt, I'm not convinced any of this is actually true. Sure, it's absolutely true when discussing biblical canon, but the word is used so differently in regard to fiction that it's basically a homonym and ought to be treated differently.
Thus we come to the endless debate surrounding the English language: how much must "incorrect" word usage be used before it becomes correct? Personally, I believe "canon" has long since passed that point. If that big block of text is to be believed, "non-canon" is not a word and should never be used. This is complete nonsense. If literally everyone uses the word that way, then that is a correct use of the word.
I'm not at all saying that the article should be rewritten (the current use of "canonicity", "canonical", etc. is all correct usage too), but I do think that there's no need to include a big grammar lesson in the middle of the page that's debatably even correct in the first place. I'd like to cut these paragraphs.
Edited by Unknownlight Hide / Show Replies