Yeah, it's not a good color. Anybody wanna try to make it look more aesthetically pleasant? Kulaguy 21:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest a sky blue or a dreamy gray. --AuraTwilight 01:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

a very late second.--Falcon At 20:28, April 12, 2010 (UTC)
I'll come up with something in a sec. However...--OtakuD50 20:32, April 12, 2010 (UTC)


Should we stack it with update/cleanup or should we only apply it after those tags have been resolved? - Kuukai2 05:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's best to stack them. Kulaguy 13:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


I don't really think Bear's quote is appropriate. I'm in favor of changing it to Bordeaux's "Oh come on, don't tell me you believe that crap!" XD --CRtwenty 05:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

>_>; I like Bear's better because he goes on the "What if?" scenario, something that GU likes to milk for all its worth. Kulaguy 13:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
It's a little confusing though, if you want something like that how about Haseo's "I wonder, what would have happened if I'd never become the Terror of Death?" --CRtwenty 16:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Gonna have to agree with CR here (LOL 3-yr-old discussion). Besides, we've got Bear on the Conflict template. Do we really want the old man doing double duty?--OtakuD50 20:32, April 12, 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone here know about the exact quote that CR's alluding to here? I'm thinking of making the switch and making some additional changes to the noncanon template, but I need the right quote and where it comes from.--OtakuD50 01:43, April 16, 2010 (UTC)


regarding the whoel non-canon alerts, you think we can change that? it's a bit fan-based to refer it to canon and i dont really understand what it means to come from non-canon "media". We could call it an alternate version.Aqua00000 19:16, April 12, 2010 (UTC)

Coming from non-canon media is more accurate than "alternate version."--OtakuD50 20:21, April 12, 2010 (UTC)
Canon refers to how an individual media (game, book, anime, ect.) fits in the grand scheme of things. It helps realistically fit together all the puzzle pieces and lets the more obsessive fans (me included) speculate and reason possibilities of the series. It is indeed a fan-made addition, but then again, .hack//WIKI wasn't chartered by CC2 anyway. In terms of relevance, it is simply a tool used by fans to figure the mindset of the writers, not as any concrete law. The writers don't even follow canon, so it's understandable that it may look overly sever. The name however is a commonly accepted term amongst fanbases. --Falcon At 20:27, April 12, 2010 (UTC)
I know what canon is, still, you think we can make the template smaller yet noticable? maybe at a template to the infobox saying canon: yes-no.Aqua00000 20:45, April 13, 2010 (UTC)
I'm all for making it smaller, but adding a section to the infobox would be stupid.--OtakuD50 00:20, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

Why would it be "stupid"? I dont think i'm helping at all with this if they get shot down so easily. what do you suggest? a tag on top really, isn't so necessary. we dont have to make it all announcer like. I still question wether we should even use the word canon because it's based on a certain perspective that isn't official. Aqua00000 20:20, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

AI Buster timeline

Because people need to know if the info they are reading is related to the main storyline. I fucking laugh at these people complaining how we dictate canon. We try to organize the canon so that the story makes sense as a whole and is as cohesive as possible. The creators themselves don't give a fuck about canon. That's why there's so many retellings of G.U., and that's why every single piece of media, even non-canon ones, are in LINK. Although, at times, they do try to dictate the canon, and we do follow it as much as possible. Example: Timeline to the right. Are you seriously suggesting we just say fuck it and make everything canon? That's idiotic. It would make no fucking sense. How the hell could XXXX and the Games coexist? Or the LotT manga and anime? Or the G.U. Games, G.U.+ and G.U. Novels? Simply put, they can't. Yes, we can make the template smaller. I'm fine with that. But I don't like the idea of putting it in infoboxes. That is a dumb idea considering we have too many infoboxes and it would just make a mess. Kulaguy 22:07, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
Let's say we DO go with the option of adding it to infoboxes. Kite's article. Canon: Yes. Oh wait, there's 4koma Kite, and XXXX Kite. Whoops! See the idiocy in putting that in infoboxes? I do wonder about the template and its use though, but at the very least, the distinction between canon and non-canon must be made wherever necessary to avoid confusion.--OtakuD50 01:46, April 16, 2010 (UTC)

Defining Canon is basically a fan perspective, like i said, its all based on what we think happened and what didnt. technically everything is canon because it all happened, just in different media. thats why i said alternate version while the original version is there. Canon is simply what we believe is fact. Usually adaptations always have some difference. Can you guys at least be more constructive. im just trying to make it easier. Also Otaku i dont see the problem with it. you invented something that could apply for the same format we have now, nothing saying XXXX is non canon in the kite article so why would you need to place canon infobox in his. i was mainly talking about non canon media itself rather every specific section. I tihnk many people know the difference between canon and non canon even if they didn{t know the word.

Canon isn't ONLY fan perspective. That's just ignorant. "Technically everything is canon?" Do you even understand what canon IS? The assumption as we experience new .hack media is that everything is canon, but if something isn't canon (because it conflicts with already-established elements), we say it isn't canon, simple as that. This isn't complex rocket science, boy.--OtakuD50 04:55, April 16, 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is a fan0only perspective, you sort of proved it yourself. everything is canon because techinically it all happened and all could be established as fact in the media. Thats why alternate version is much less fan oriented. still'you can check wikipedia on it, but since you guys say wiki is not wikipedia, you probably will take that as an excuse still. 19:03, April 16, 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how I proved that it is fan-only perspective. You need to show proper evidence and actual logic. None of what you say makes any sense. By the way, here's what wikipedia says: A canon, in terms of a fictional universe, is a body of material that is considered to be "genuine" or "official". This is as opposed to non-canon material, which is a body of material considered to be a fictional offshoot of the canon universe or storyline. For example, a reward video for beating the original Halo on its hardest difficulty setting depicts a main character of Halo 2 dying. This is considered non-canon material as it doesn’t “really” happen. This does not go against anything we've claimed, and it doesn't specifically address whether it's "fan-only." However, classifying canon as "fan-only" or not is itself a pointless pursuit. Its definition is what it is regardless of what fans believe. By canon's very definition "everything" can NOT be canon. The entire concept of canon exists BECAUSE of contradictions that arise by including all parallels. In short, if you continue to stick to your guns, YOU ARE ONLY PROVING YOURSELF A STUBBORN IDIOT. Canon can be proven canon by "word of god (creators)". At most, fans can create so-called "levels" of canon, but they can't just decide for themselves what is canon and what isn't out of nothing.--OtakuD50 20:00, April 16, 2010 (UTC)
BTW, troll less, Aqua/XXXth form. It's getting tiresome trying to inject any amount of logic into that dense skull of yours.--OtakuD50 20:20, April 16, 2010 (UTC)
XXXth form, is no longer me, i just didn't realize that different wikis could have the same account plus i use my aqua account for kingdom hearts wiki. but yes, fans determine the canon. No one questions whether it's retconned or something. Also as long as it has the same ending or similar ending, there's no real point adding canon to an laternate version. if it's a completely new version, maybe. still that's not the argument. the argument is how to make canon announcements less noticable. clearly this wiki doesnt want to admit it's more fan-based than knowledge-based.
canon is what actually happened, what the in-game universe defiens as fact, but the problem is we are the ones defining it. who are we to say that .hack//GU novel wasn't as real as the video games? who to say they were suppose to follow the same universe as the games?/?? the definition with yours is that everything is technically official, it all related to .hack part of projct .hakc and .hack conglomerate, who are we to say it's not official???? Alternate version and original version are much better terms.

still despite that, i say canon can be entered in infoboxes, and i'm only refferring to media-wise. not characters or such. 18:49, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
Seriously? You of all people want to argue semantics? Sorry, but you have zero credibility in that field, so you may as well be ignored. "the argument is how to make canon announcements less noticable." I've been working on that, but no one's gotten back to me with the info I need to make the changes I want. "clearly this wiki doesnt want to admit it's more fan-based than knowledge-based." Stupid, stupid argument. Why even mention this? What the HELL does this even mean? You do know that these two terms aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, right? You DO know that it's the fans that write and contribute to this wiki, RIGHT? You DO know that we try everything in our power to verify information first, which is the entire reason why the LINK character pages have been bare for so long, RIGHT? "who are we to say that .hack//GU novel wasn't as real as the video games? who to say they were suppose to follow the same universe as the games?/??" You could make arguments about this subject that would be valid only because of the lack of "word-of-god" specifically stating that something is canon or non-canon, but overall, what's canon is generally which version has the most support from the rest of the metaseries. The conclusions we make don't just pop out of nowhere, don't you dare try to argue otherwise. We can't just address every single possibility because they ARE a possibility. Talk about an exercise in unnecessary futility. Speaking of unnecessary futility, why the hell do you have so much self-importance in your ideas about what we should do? "Alternate version" and "original version" are NOT better terms. We do have better terms available, and they are not mutually exclusive to canon. It's pointless to call something the "original version" because that's usually INCREDIBLY OBVIOUS. We merely need to call something a remake (hasn't happened yet), a retelling (used very often especially in G.U.), or a revisualization. There aren't many examples of any of these three actually becoming canon over the original story, although many of them do not conflict enough with the original and thus do not automatically become non-canon, and rather just becomes an expression of the original work in a different form of media, like a novelization of a film.
If you REALLY want to argue about the supposed canonity of something, I suggest you do so on the boards. And not the boards here in the Wiki because no one likes you, but maybe the official boards or the dothackers boards. I'm sure there are plenty of people there that can give you a worthwhile conversation on the matter. Just don't bring it here and try to affect policy with it.--OtakuD50 21:30, April 19, 2010 (UTC)

your just shouting now, not even trying to bring apoint. Anyways, that was jsut my two cents, the main point is to make canon less visibly annoucned, or the way i say it less noticable. we don't have to announce whther something is canon in such a big format. i honestly don't care if you don't like me, there are no real morals in the wiki anyways24.249.176.77 19:02, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

You're the one spinning off into tangents. Everything I've said was in response to something you've said. Do you even READ? It's like all you ever do is ignore every good point I make and immediately claim that I'm in the wrong while attempting to make it look like you're under attack for no reason. You're not even trying to debate and come up with any sort of compromise, you just state your side and repeat it without taking into consideration anything else. And I already said that I'll work on it as soon as someone gets back to me on the quote I need.--OtakuD50 22:11, April 21, 2010 (UTC)