Hi, I'm an admin for the Buffyverse Wiki community. Welcome and thank you for your edit to Slayer (novel)! If you need help getting started, check out our help pages or contact me or another admin here. For general help, you could also stop by Community Central to explore the forums and blogs.
Please leave me a message if I can help with anything. Enjoy your time at Buffyverse Wiki!
There hasn't been any discussion or parameter for this specific case yet. It's the only Buffyverse story so far that was published after the end of the main canon series (Finale, 2018), so the Slayer novel series (2019–) won't ever be able to have its canonicity tested (like "Spike: Asylum" and "Spike: Into the Light" were able to become canon because characters eventually featured in canon series), despite having nothing that contradicts what was published before. Maybe we can consider it one of the aggregation we call "dubious canon", for lack of a better or more informed option, and wait if Joss Whedon will ever confirm or deny anything.
- I saw that. Thanks for the reply and for reposting it here. That's a reasonable suggestion for now with regards to Slayer I guess.
Although for future reference, what is considered okay to post on the talk page for the Canon article? I get the concern about cluttering so it would be reasonable to outsource the discussions to the articles of the items being discussed. But what does that leave as "okay" for posting on the Canon talk page? Questions about format? Since we apparently can't post questions about canon. --Kingsman28
- I see this as a misunderstanding. I've been contributing to the article itself as well as those related to the Slayer series, so I know that this matter has been intentionally avoided exactly due to lack of discussion, that the Slayer case is necessary to be included in the Canon article, and that its canonicity banner should be defined for many others based on an inclusion. So I understand the purpose of the talk was to point out missing content and discover how it should be handled, which is completely relevant to the Canon article. I can't answer for other administrators, but apparently User:OzzMan saw the talk simply as a trivia question and judged it superfluous, maybe preferring it to be in the talk page of the series itself. I appreciate your worry and can assure you did nothing "wrong", but I suggest you to message OzzMan if you feel the necessity to clear anything.
- Ellesy (talk) 03:04, September 19, 2019 (UTC)