Editing Talk:Canon

==Trial Under Fire==
What is the official status of Loren Coleman's Mechwarrior 3 novelization, Trial Under Fire? That of a game, or that of a novel? And can it affect the status of the game?[[User:Omeganian|Omeganian]] 18:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
:These are two different sources, even if they largely cover the same story. The novel and the events depicted therein are canon; the computer as such game remains apocryphal. For each individual bit of information from either source this means that it is canonical if taken directly from the book, and (still) apocryphal if found in the game but not in the book.
:Your second question is one I have wondered about myself - if the game's storyline was deliberately canonized through the novel, should that be taken to mean it is elevated to canonical status even regarding those bits of information that were not explicitly canonized? (There are actually a lot of those partly-canonized things out there: The [[Crescent Hawks]] exist in canon but their computer game backstory was not technically canonized, the [[Kiudo]] fortress was canonized but its extensive fluff was not, etc.). Of course there's the officially sanctioned comment that you can "assume" stuff from computer games to be part of the shared universe. This is as near as canon as apocrypha can get... but techically they remain apocrypha, and are not elevated to canon status on the sidelines just because lots of other items from their apocryphal source are canonized. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 19:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

==Authoritative Universe==
In a [https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=63253.0 recent discussion] on the [[BattleTech Forum]] about the BattleTech computer game by HBS and specifically, if and how the [[Aurigan Reach]] could or should be canonized, it was [https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=63253.msg1455717#msg1455717 pointed out to me] (by the CGL Assistant Line Developer no less) that there are in fact two distinct BattleTech IPs ever since the rights to BattleTech computer games were separated from FASA's rights and ended up with Microsoft. He had also in the past described the BT canon situation as a [[w:Venn Diagram|Venn Diagram]].

That forced me to think over my position on the matter. Truth be told it had never occurred to me to even question wether or not the CGL universe canon was authoritative, as it had never occurred to me that there is in fact at least one legally distinct IP. But now the HBS game (which also happens to have a Stackpole tie-in novel) has its own, slightly different take on a few things such as planet descriptions, the capabilities of the ''[[Argo (Individual Argo-class DropShip)|Argo]]'', or ultimately the existence, development and importance of the entire Aurigan Reach. And they have Jordan Weisman himself, and a massive player base that might outstrip the classic BT player base. Now whose vision is more authoritative?

I've amended the Canon article to include an introduction to the effect that Sarna considers the CGL (boardgame/sourcebook/novel) IP the leading BattleTech IP in this because of sheer size and depth. But the thread linked above got me thinking and made me re-assess my position to the point where I think this warrants discussion. So... opinions please. :)  [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 14:03, 4 November 2018 (EST)
:For authoritative what ever we pick. As we have always operated on the assumption that the "board game" universe is top, most of our existing content is geared towards that so no reason for it to change, so we just purge the new "non-canon" stuff unfortunately.

:For me this is something that I find really disheartening. It in effect is a statement of intent by CGL to eventually have the IP do what a lot of the big Sci-fi IPs have done and split off into completely separate universes, Per things like the Marvels however many hundreds of universes they have or Transformers rather than a unified universe.  That really turns me off, I think CGL have just put the final nail in their coffin for me if this is the case.--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 14:28, 4 November 2018 (EST)
Latest revision		Your text
Line 13:		Line 13:

	:For me this is something that I find really disheartening. It in effect is a statement of intent by CGL to eventually have the IP do what a lot of the big Sci-fi IPs have done and split off into completely separate universes, Per things like the Marvels however many hundreds of universes they have or Transformers rather than a unified universe. That really turns me off, I think CGL have just put the final nail in their coffin for me if this is the case.--[[User:Dmon\|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon\|talk]]) 14:28, 4 November 2018 (EST)		:For me this is something that I find really disheartening. It in effect is a statement of intent by CGL to eventually have the IP do what a lot of the big Sci-fi IPs have done and split off into completely separate universes, Per things like the Marvels however many hundreds of universes they have or Transformers rather than a unified universe. That really turns me off, I think CGL have just put the final nail in their coffin for me if this is the case.--[[User:Dmon\|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon\|talk]]) 14:28, 4 November 2018 (EST)
−
−	::The IP situation is nothing new. It just came to the forefront, again, with a new game. I play the board game and board game canon is the only canon I care to follow. The video game designers pick and choose what they want from the CGL canon and change things as they see fit. This happens with every video game produced. And this points out why I only care for board game canon: There is little to no consistency with video game canon. They are the flashy, short-sighted movie version of short periods of time in the entire board game universe. Short answer: Keep doing what we're doing. --[[User:Cache\|Cache]] ([[User talk:Cache\|talk]]) 21:07, 4 November 2018 (EST)