Talk:Finnall Goldensword/Canon

I bet she is gonna be in dalaranCormundo 05:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily canon

 * I’m sure this will be controversial, but I don’t necessarily consider her canonical, and based on that we haven't really had any plans of leveraging her in the future. Uh, I think she appeared in one of the rpg books, but you know she's just not a character I have thought about, so at this point I don't really know if we are going to do much with her.-Chris Metzen

So, apparently Metzen says she is not canon. (part 2 video) --WarlockSoL (talk) 05:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Saw that too. No clue how to treat this one. A note for starters. After that not sure. 05:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think its interesting to note that she started out as Daelin's daughter back in Shadows & Light (which was the question that was asked, or rather flat out stated). But Alliance Player's guide actually started moving her away from that, with a retcon denying her legitamacy as being connected to the family. So the canon of her "being daelin's daughter" is questionable, but the character as a whole maybe not. But it really depends on what Metzen decides to do in the future. ...but he's sometimes cryptic about these things...and he has said that books (novels, etc are "mostly canon", thus not completely) If she isn't really Daelin's daughter she really isn't that important in the scheme of things, and certainly not important enough to introduce her to the novels. So like he says "at this point I don't know if we will do much with her" makes logistical sense.Baggins (talk) 15:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh you have GOT to be kidding me. He didn't say "her being Daelin's daughter" isn't canon, or "her being a half elf" isn't canon. He said, flat out, she's not canon. I don't know how it could be simpler. Omacron (talk) 00:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

That's what I said. She's simply not important enough to use ever. Even Metzen said she wasn't that important and he would probably never use her again (later in the interview). I.E. he does say that he has no plans to use her at this time, and will probably never use her ever again. He could have stuck with just saying she was non-canon, but he had to qualify his comment with reasons why she "probably" won't be used again (not that its set in stone that she won't be used again). He qualified this statement by saying "at this point in time". In other words he stated he could still use her, if there was a reason to use her, but he has no plans to use her the forseeable future. One might argue though that by even giving her that much of a leeway sorta contradicts his first statement that he doesn't think she is canon, instead he reduced it down to something that equates to "less than canon". His statements are sorta wishy-washy on the issue.

Even his "I don't neccessarily consider her canonical..." comment is sort of wishy-washy and weak way of making the statment. If he thinks she is completely non-canon, then he just should have came out and bluntly said, "she's non-canon & doesn't exist" and left it at that. He didn't have to try to explain reasons why he won't use the character in forseeable future. Truly non-characters should not even be given the benefit of being possible future inclusions; to even argue the possiblity of an inclusion however remote, gives the character some form of legitamacy. Statements should be firm, otherwise one risks undermining their own stance.Baggins (talk) 01:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like denial. This is a joke. You're writing paragraphs to twist Metzen's words to make it sound like 'I don't necessarily consdier her canonical' to mean she's canonical. But you go ahead and get it into your head that Azeroth has leprechauns and chupacabras and whatever. Just don't ever expect to see them outside of Wowwiki. Ever. --Timolas (talk) 22:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you should be firm in your statements because someone in denial could come up and twist them in a very convoluted way to support their personal beliefs, right? --Wulfang SoL (talk) 22:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Baggins, are you serious? He said "SHE IS NOT CANON". Clearly and fairly - SHE IS NOT CANON. What more you need? "Don't put her on WoWWiki"? Severin Andrews 22:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Removing the article simply isn't going to happen, nor should it. Like i said earlier i think the article should absolutley be updated to clearly state metzen's decision, but we can't simply deny the fact she was at one point canonical and exists(existed). Beyond that theres always archival reasons. 23:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'm all for keeping a reference to her - I actually thought she was a pretty cool charcater - just don't pretend she's still canon when Metzen clearly said she isn't. --Wulfang SoL (talk) 23:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Couldn't agree more! Don't we have tags for this sort of thing  (I think the articles about the "example" characters with Scourge templates in Manual of Monsters have them)?  --Super Bhaal (talk) 23:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The way the article is currently written is the way that it should be written. The quote by Metzen with no interpretations included. Sorry beyond that there will be no "deleting" of the article. Edit: I guess I didn't make it abundantly clear, I actually don't care if she isn't canon (i'm not denying that metzen doesn't necessarily consider her canonical). The reason I don't care that she isn't canon is that all intents and purposes she has been a worthless character, she has done absolutely nothing. She isn't even that interesting, and no one has ever really utilized her, except for a one off article, and Brann talking about her. I was just trying to point out there really isn't much reason to ever leverage her (though Metzen left that ever remote possibility open in the way he worded himself). Though I also was trying to point out that its a bit contradictory to even talk of possibilities of leveraging something you don't believe exists... Of course with retcons something non-canon can later be made canon & vice versa (he probably wanted to leave himself an out, if there was a need for such a character).Baggins (talk) 08:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying you should completely remove her - just tag her as it should be - as WoWRPG authors' fanfiction. Severin Andrews 15:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Being non-canonical does not make her fanfiction. She was still created legitimately. Fanfiction does not belong anywhere on lore articles, but this is not the case here. There is no tag for fanfiction on mainspace articles, fan fiction would be moved under the creator's username. The note added to the bottom is sufficent. 16:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary Adminy Ruling

 * Right. Here's what's going to happen: 1) Article remains as is, possibly with a disclaimer at the top, and with Metzen's quote titled something other than "notes". 2) All mention of the Goldenswords will be removed from the Proudmoores' infoboxes.
 * Finnall is not fanfiction, she is a canonical character whom the lore team has no interest in exploring, and who will probably be retconned out if anyone cares enough to do so. -- Ragestorm (talk &middot; contr) 16:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Now you too? He said pretty clearly that she is NOT canon, how can you say she is a canonical character? Severin Andrews 23:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, he said she's not "necessarily" canon. That's rather different then NOT canon, and it certainly does not mean that she is the"WoWRPG authors' fanfiction". He also said that she wasn't a character he had thought about, not a character that he was cutting. Now, this means two things: 1) the character isn't canon or 2) the character is canon, but simply has no further role to play in the story beyond existing. Metzen's comments indicate, to my mind, 2), but that we shouldn't be surprised if 1) happens eventually. We're not deleting the article, and we're not doing anything besides posting the comment and removing her from the infoboxes.-- Ragestorm  (talk &middot; contr) 00:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "People, let us go back to the original topic for a while. I've just been to WoWWiki and Baggins says that, through is interpretation of Metzen's words, Finnall isn't necessarily non-canon. Read his stupidity here. Now comment."-Wulfgang,
 * "Predictable. We all knew that was what would happen. What an idiot" - Timolas
 * "Whatever he is, it seems like a live assault on Baggins right now." - Xarthat
 * "Not worth it, he'll make up some crap why it's still canon. Or he'll say only she isn't canon and everything else is."-Warlock
 * "Hah, fuck...oh well, at least there´s still the very small possibility of her appearing in the future, i have a soft spot for her, don´t really know why." - Vicious

Nice try, but no where did I state that Finnal is "canon", nor did I state that all things are canon, infact I even brought up another interview were Metzen pointed out that things in books (novels, etc, aren't all necessarily canon).


 * Ya, the novels are pretty much considered canon, um, the funny thing is some things are less canon, we shoot for canon...typically the characters in novels are canon...-Chris Metzen

But nice of you to try to twist my words. I bring up Vicious (though neither of us are calling this character "canon") he was the only one that even noticed what Ragestorm and I noticed about his comment (that is that Metzen's comment doesn't preclude the possible use of the character in the future if there was a need however even if the possiblity is small). Yet you didn't attack him. I think I'll let your own hypocracy and the fact that you feel you have to resort to ad hominem attacks (& other logical fallacies) show you for the kind of people you really are.

BTW, SoL Parody is hilarious.Baggins (talk) 04:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Bruce Spence as Kirkburn? --Super Bhaal (talk) 06:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the ruling. Warcraft is not the only subject to run into this problem of what is canonical and what is not canonical. Usually, material is divided into three terms: canon, apocrypha, and fanon. Canon is genuine material by the original author or creator, apocrypha is material that still has some authority, and fanon is fan fiction which is 100% not genuine. Remember, what is canon one year could be deemed not canon a few years later and vice versa. Finnall Goldensword came from the RPG books which were approved by Blizzard and/or Metzen. Also, Metzen has said that books (novels, etc.) are "mostly canon". So are we going to remove all info relating to the books because they are only "mostly canon"? Last time I checked, the RPG books had Blizzard and Metzen's names on the cover or within its pages. John Q. Public didn't publish them, they were officialy published. So this article should stay and just put the quote in the article from Metzen. It is not like Finnall Goldensword was an idea someone had, never existed in the first place, or was something that was only in a rough draft and didn't make the final cut. She was in a finished published book. We have a lot of articles on WoWWiki about things that did not make it into games or are from "behind the scenes" material. Due to Metzen's specific quote on her it would seem she has been moved from the canon category into the apocrypha category. So she is still somewhat important, but if Finnall Goldensword or material connected to her says something that conflicts with other information we have, the other information would take precedence. In conclusion, this article should not be removed for the following reasons so take your pick: 1) Archival - It should be kept for posterity's sake. 2) Neutral Point of View - WoWWiki has a policy of a neutral point of view so the article should stay since the character does exist and was once canon (and may be again in the future). 3) Lore - Metzen wasn't hypnotized into approving the books or secretly not told about the RPG books, they were approved by Blizzard and/or Metzen. Rolandius ( talk  -  contr ) 07:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Is there some conflict between WoWWiki and Scrolls of Lore? Rolandius [[Image:Paladin.gif|25px]] ( talk -  contr ) 07:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Point of note I don't entirely aggree with removing the related links from infobox, since the interlinking is helpful for keeping track of information, even if it might be aprocryphal. However, I think small note should be put next to the link in the text box pointing out the material is questionable. If it is moved out of the infobox the info should be inserted elsewhere in the article to maintain the links. The info should at least be inside Daelin Proudmoore article in some form since the info originally connected her to him. However it does not necessarily have to go into any of the other Proudmoore family articles since the original sources for Finnal never brought them up (other than a single off-hand reference to Jaina). Same goes for Kilnar Goldensword who was hit as collateral damage to this situation. We have taken a similar approach to information from Kilrogg Deadeye.Baggins (talk) 07:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * To add onto Baggins comment, technically, at least to my knowledge, there isn't any info saying "Daelin Proudmoore only had one daughter and two sons" or "Jaina only had two brothers". As for, "he started out as Daelin's daughter back in Shadows & Light (which was the question that was asked, or rather flat out stated). But Alliance Player's guide actually started moving her away from that, with a retcon denying her legitamacy as being connected to the family.", couldn't that be seen as an in-universe attempt by some people to protect Daelin and his status from any rumors of him having been married and at the same having this high elf girlfriend...with children to add onto the scandal? Rolandius [[Image:Paladin.gif|25px]] ( talk -  contr ) 07:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I deleted the links from the siblings, but I left it in Daelin's for now. Action has been taken, that's that. -- Ragestorm (talk &middot; contr) 14:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * How funny Baggins, what you say certainly makes sense. Except for the fact that I don't see an ad hominem argument anywhere - perhaps that expression doesn't mean what you think it means. What I see is us noticing that you took a stance that, as far as we can see, is dead wrong and some of us shrugging and saying "What did you expect, it's Baggins." - because you're the guy who freaking believes leprechauns and chupacabras are Warcraft canon against all common sense, even after one of the RPG books' developers flat out told you they aren't. We weren't condemning your argument because it was made by you - we were condemning it because it was wrong, but some of us expected such a reaction from you anyway.


 * And Vicious at least acknowledged that Finnall was never going to be used, which is not what you're saying. He even said in the same post that, due to Metzen's words, fanfic writers could now use her impunely because she was now up for grabs and Blizz wouldn't provide characterization for her. How convenient of you to have left that part of his post out of your argument.


 * Now, leaving your cries of hypocrisy and ad hominem were there were none behind, I think Finnall's page shouldn't be removed, but also clearly marked as non-canon (or once-canon - make a tag for that) and her name and that of her mother removed from the family lists of the Proudmoore family. Put a note instead at the bottom of those pages, but don't pretend she's going to have any impact on the other character's lives or that her story is important at all to understand the others.--Wulfang SoL (talk) 18:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Edits go to the end of a discussion. Point of note calling someone's posts "stupidity" and/or calling someone an "idiot" is an ad hominem fallacy. But I guess you never realized that. Also Vicious "fanfic" discussion is irrelevent, we are not discussing fanfiction here and fanfiction created about this approcryphal character would not be allowed into the article. Since the discussion of fanfic is irrelevent there was no point in bringing it up.

Also you haven't realized I don't state anything is canon or not-canon, including "leprechauns". We maintain a neutral point of view on these issues. BTW, chupacabras have never been mentioned any book. I'm skeptical that they ever will be... Also you have seemed to have "conveniently" overlooked that I've repeatedly been saying that this character has no impact or importance at all... Anyone who looks up can read that for themselves. Nice of you to try to try to put words into my mouth.Baggins (talk) 18:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Baggins (talk) 18:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you Baggins for providing me with a site that proves my point. So, according to your site, an ad hominem is:
 * Person A makes claim X.
 * Person B makes an attack on person A.
 * Therefore A's claim is false.


 * However, what we did was:
 * Baggins claims that Metzen's words don't completely express wether she's canon or not.
 * We claim that said point of view is wrong because it was explicit in Metzen's wording and your point of view requires a rather convoluted analysis of his words.
 * Therefore, taking this and his stance on Appendix III into mind, Baggins is an idiot.


 * And thanks for misunderstanding what I said about Vicious' post. I wasn't discussing fanfiction. I was saying that Vicious' claim was different than yours: you think it isn't clear wether she's canon or not; Vicious thinks it's clear she isn't and, while she still has some (though very, very slim) chances of being used as a character, he thinks she can now be used inpunely in fanfiction because Blizz doesn't care about her and won't provide characterization for her.--Wulfang SoL (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, you have taken from step of not just an ad hominem fallacy to a personal attack. I hope you understand that flames are not allowed here by policy. I personally will not resort to this level and will not flame you back.Baggins (talk) 18:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I really couldn't care less about who is the idiot here. If you want to duke it out, could you please do so in a more appropriate place. This page is for discussing changes to the article, and now that that had been resolved, this discussion is over, not that this was the place for a finfiction discussion in the first place. If this discussion doesn't cease immediately, I will lock this page and start issuing bans.-- Ragestorm (talk &middot; contr) 18:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well dear Baggins, I'm not flaming you. I'm just repeating our thought process over at SoL and explaining it for you. If there we called you an idiot and I didn't flat out say we did, wouldn't that be hypocrisy on my part for not having the guts to relay the same insult in your face?


 * And ban me if you want. I don't really care. I just created this account so I could come here and tell Baggins directly that he's being irrational.--Wulfang SoL (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, you're flaming him, you're just trying to pass yourself off a messenger of the flame instead of the flame itself. While I don't entirely disagree with you (he and I certainly disagree on Appendix 3), you were warned. -- Ragestorm (talk &middot; contr) 18:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Baggins, I couldn't help but notice you were quoting things said in Scrolls of Lore. That has nothing to do with this article; if you have a problem then come and post about it at Scrolls of Lore, don't quote ME in here as to what my opinion is. If you want to contest something I said on Scrolls of Lore then come to Scrolls of Lore, be a man and contest it there, not in a Finnall Goldensword talk page. What does my post there have to do with my stance or arguement in here? You seem to exclude yourself from the rule which Wulfang got banned for. That's all I came back to say. --Timolas (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * To be technical, Wulfang started it, and he was banned for continuing a closed discussion and creating an account for apparently little purpose other than attacking Baggins. You're quite right, of course, that virtually none of what's been said today actually has nothing to do with Finnall at all. Steps will be taken to avoid this sort of thing in the future.-- Ragestorm (talk &middot; contr) 21:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ragestorm, I'm not involved enough to take decisions, but this discussion should be archived in my opinion. Too many people are/were childishly fighting over it. If anything else should be said, it probably belongs on usertalk pages. 05:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Motion carried.-- Ragestorm (talk &middot; contr) 15:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)