Talk:Retroactive continuity

moved from user talk pages
"Retroactive continuity" is not a portmanteau term. Portmanteau terms are words like "smog" and "chortle", where two words have been smooshed together. &mdash;Paul A 02:41, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Paul, I beg to differ. Retroactive is one word, and Continuity another.  Seeing as Retroactive Continuity is sort a mouthful to get around in conversation written(electronic or hard copy) or on chat f2f or on the Internet; thusly to smoosh the first syllable of the two words together makes sense, and a portmanteau.  Incidentally I am a man, although one would not think that from the way I write in terms of my grammar and lexicon...
 * Michael Reiter
 * jmr

I would argue that "retcon", being composed of the first part of each word, is a simple abbreviation - portmanteau words, as I understand it, require something unusual like combining the first part of a word with the last part of another word (e.g. smoke + fog = smog). But this is beside the point anyway, because you didn't say retcon was a portmanteau term &mdash; you said retroactive continuity was a portmanteau term, which is evidently false. &mdash;Paul A 01:44, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * OOPS!!! Sorry. I guess you're right.  I didn't read you right.  I WAS trying to  state and consolidate my position that retcon is a portmanteau of Retroactive Continuity.  Once again, sorry for the mix up.
 * Michael Reiter
 * jmr


 * The list of portmanteaus includes for instance Interpol, which is also formed from the first part of each word. The term "contraction" is not correct according to the article it links to, which states that a contraction always has an apostrophe.

Fair enough. But "retroactive continuity" still isn't a portmanteau word. --Paul A 07:37, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Not to split haris, but 'retcon' is more an example of clipping than portmanteau, in my opinion. From the article on clipping: "Clipped forms are also used in compounds. One part of the original compound most often remains intact. Examples are: cablegram (cable telegram), op art (optical art), org-man (organization man), linocut (linoleum cut). Sometimes both halves of a compound are clipped as in navicert (navigation certificate). In these cases it is difficult to know whether the resultant formation should be treated as a clipping or as a blend, for the border between the two types is not always clear. According to Bauer (1993), the easiest way to draw the distinction is to say that those forms which retain compound stress are clipped compounds, whereas those that take simple word stress are not. By this criterion bodbiz, Chicom, Comsymp, Intelsat, midcult, pro-am, sci-fi, and sitcom are all compounds made of clippings." Since 'retcon' retains compound stress, it should be considered a clipped compound. --07:17, 18 Mar 2008

Not a Retcon

 * The revelation that Darth Vader was actually Luke Skywalker's father despite Obi-Wan Kenobi's earlier statement in Episode IV that Vader had killed Luke's father.

I removed this example, as I don't think it's really a retcon. Obi-Wan is simply bending the truth (speaking figuratively) in his earlier statements. --L33tminion 17:25, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)


 * That an in-story justification exists is beside the point - the question is, did George Lucas know that Obi-Wan was speaking figuratively when he made ANH, or was it something he only decided afterward? If the latter, then it is a retcon: ESB retroactively changes Obi-Wan's truthfulness and Vader's relationship to Luke.
 * That said, I don't intend to argue the point. The article has enough examples already, and we don't need to lumber it with one that is (a) arguable and (b) a massive spoiler anyway. --Paul A 03:40, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * As far as I know (heard/read interviews with George), he had written one big story, couldn't produce it all, and wrote three separate screenplays - taking a lot of things out, apparently (not surprising), but keeping the main storyline intact. He had always intended Vader to be Luke's father. 68.9.205.10 02:47, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, Lucas has said a lot of things over the years about how massively foresightedly he planned out the whole storyline in advance, but some of those things have been found to be contradicted by documentary evidence -- his actual early drafts show things going in directions that Lucas always denied they ever went, et cetera. On the Vader issue, we may simply never know whether Lucas did intend it all along, as he now claims, or whether he came up with it after it turned out Star Wars was going to be a big enough hit to merit sequels. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:20, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Just so you'll all know -- and I actually put this in the entry -- "Vader" is Dutch for "Father." Food for thought, 'n' stuff. Yar Kramer


 * Yes, which is evidence for, but not proof of, the "Lucas intended it all along" theory. -- Antaeus Feldspar 11:44, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * What kills the thoery he intended it all along for me is the romantic tension between Luke and Leia, including a fairly passionate kiss, in episode 4 (the first movie), contrasted with Leia's assertion she felt all along that they were brother and sister in episode 6. 71.191.231.65 (talk) 13:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not a retcon if it has always been planned. --Destron Commander 08:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

What about when Luke askes Leia in "Return of the Jedi" if she has any memories of their mother? Later we see in "Episode 3" their mother dies in childbirth...Was the mother that Leia remembers supposed to be her adopted mother the wife of Bail Organa? Darth Jennocyde the NecroSith 9/11/07 1:20am  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.247.153.24 (talk) 05:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No, Luke explicitly asks her about her real mother because he has no memories of her. Leia does have some memories and her recalling that her mother was deeply saddened by something is (at least for the pre-prequel audience) strongly implying the fate of Annakin/Darth Vader, therefore Padme's death in childbirth is a retcon. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * IMHO, it is a case of "I don't care what I said before, I don't even check my own stories", not a retcon. These new "films" are full of contradictions regarding the original movies: Qui Gon being Obi Wan's teacher instead of Yoda, this childbirth... one could say that this is a retcon, but there are so many big mistakes and senseless scenes ("Erase the memory of this droid"? Why? And why one but not the oder?) that IMHO, George Lucas didn't even care if all films made sense as a whole.193.202.91.11 (talk) 10:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The WWE
From the WWE itself: "At the WWE’s 1976 Shea Stadium event, he engaged in a boxer vs. wrestler confrontation with Chuck Wepner, in which he hurled the “Bayonne Bleeder” out of the ring and into the third row. Four years later, he had his first encounter with Hogan when the WWE returned to Shea." 

From IGN: "Smackdown Countdown 2003: Victoria -- She's one of the WWE's most intimidating female wrestlers and one of its most fascinating." 

From Motley Fool: "As we've mentioned here at the Fool a couple of times, lately, the WWE looked to be in the midst of a turnaround." 

From MTV: "Just when you thought that Tough Enough couldn't get any tougher, MTV and the WWE have flexed their muscle and upped the ante for a new round of competition that will bring out the most punishing training seen in the Tough Enough ring to date." 

From Brandchannel: "Castronuovo readily acknowledges that the WWE is about escapist entertainment." 

From ProWrestling.com: "Discuss the WWE"

Conclusion: There is no point in repeatedly removing the "the" from "the WWE". -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:02, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I could probably dig up just as many examples of using "WWE" without the word "the" in front; however, it seems to be unnecessary, as "the WWE" is just plain grammatically incorrect. As well, WikiProject Professional Wrestling has standardized on "WWE", sans "the", as the proper usage.  --HBK 18:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Aw, heck, I have time:


 * From WWE itself: "She wept backstage, then tried to get on with her life … until a call from WWE’s front office came."


 * From 411: "USA Network will also be promoting WWE's return to the network..."


 * From InsidePulse: "WWE's time with Spike TV ended tonight with a Tornado Tag Team Match that ended with Eric Bischoof holding up the WWE Title!"


 * From Pro Wrestling Torch: "The entire idea Spike officials are upset with Vince McMahon and WWE over Monday night’s USA Network references is laughable."


 * From 1Wrestling: "WWE purchased local spots on cable systems in top 20 markets announcing to return to USA next week."


 * I'll try to dig up more examples if you're unconvinced. --HBK 18:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * You haven't proven your point, because your point was not that "WWE-with-no-the" is a frequent usage. No, I am not convinced that Wikipedia needs to standardize on one version when the WWE itself (or "WWE itself", if you insist) does not standardize.  But hey, if you think that's where your Wikipedia time is best invested, in correcting "errors" that the subject itself doesn't treat as errors, well, you go, boy.  I am pretty sure I can find better things to do with my time and effort than enforcing a "proper usage" that makes no functional difference whatever. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * And yet you're the one who kept editing it repeatedly when I originally posted it as "WWE" with no "the"... but hey.  --HBK 22:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * "The WWE" is probably a leftover from its days as the World Wrestling Federation, when "the WWF" would have been correct use. 58.179.94.132 (talk) 02:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Married with Children
After reading the TV retcons, I'm suprised to not see Married with Children mentioned. They wrote off half a season as merely a bad dream of Al's after Katey Sagal had a miscarriage. -- Crimson30 06:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I added it here, and on the List of retcons page. BTW, I think the mention of Seven on the show should be removed. This is a case of Chuck Cunningham syndrome, not retconning. Fred8615 21:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Biblical Reference May Be Offensive
Certain populations may find the reference to the Bible as literature and in proximity works more universally accepted as fictional offensive. Likewise, the implication that the Bible is subject to revision or inconsistent may also likely offend many readers. Consider that this example may be superfluous among the large body of examples, and the article would lose little in its absence.

--Mwhidden 20:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, it struck me as an intentional troll, actually. In any event it detracts from the article. SJennings 22:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not that it's offensive. It's that it presumes Christianity to be a fiction, thus violating NPOV.  Further, it also presumes that the intended audience for the New Testament didn't suppose that the serpent might be Satan.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.231.65 (talk) 13:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it's offensive or not. The point is that it's historically accurate. Whether it's offensive is irrelevant. 203.217.21.124 (talk) 02:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I understand people thinking that any reference to the bible would be intended as provocative. However, I do think there are certain things around the bible and the interpretation of the bible that are examples of at least krypto-revisionism. Also could we not see some of the evangelical right's intelligent design ideas as retconning? For example the museum (i think in kansas) that introduces dinosaurs into the garden of eden, placing adam and eve alongside raptors. This is creating a new context for the bible by assuming there are ommissions. I think you're right to seperate it out as maybe a special case because it is factual information that is forcing the revisions of documentation of the past events covered in the bible, however I think to leave it out is missleading. Perhaps just a line (that could be noted as controversial) that states that some believe the bible and other religious texts are often recontextualised to support a differnt point of view of sect, in a way that extends beyond re-interpretation because it is presented as an extension of the core literature.--213.249.245.239 13:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

While, technically, changes in the canon version of biblical events (like, did Adam first marry Lilith, or was Eve the first female he ever was tied with?) can be regarded as retcons, the extremely charged status of the book, as well as the fact that reconstituting the sequence of events and versions is difficult to impossible, plus the fact that retconning is associated with mass media entertainment stories, rather than religious or historical/pseudohistorical books would put the bible and any similar works beyond the pale. --Svartalf 23:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

This is an interesting example of the truth being omitted because it would offend a religious power. Christian beliefs are riddled with retcons. But, unlike comic books, people are forbidden from discussing them by the threat of reprisal. And so the fact of the retcon falls from history and memory. I wonder how much has been successfully retconned to the point where no evidence or suggestion of the original version exists at all. 98.207.134.67 (talk) 15:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Einstein's laws of physics aren't retcons of Newton's. Learning further information doesn't necessarily mean it's a retcon.  But even if Christianity is a lie, The New Testament's authors' supposition that the serpent in the garden was Satan still isn't retcon, since it's not inconsistent with previous expectations.  Incidentally, what reprisal are you referring to?  Are you suggesting Wikipedia is bowing to fears of Christian terrorism?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.231.65 (talk) 13:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is pretty much bowing to fears of Christian terrorism. Vast quantities of Christian religious thought are blatant retcons on the Bible. For instance, the claim that "an angel" wrestled with Jacob is a retcon. Read the text in any honest translation, and it says that GOD wrestled with Jacob. 24.59.15.74 (talk) 13:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete article?
This article really needs to be deleted. The majority of the article is personal opinions. If the individuals editing this article just want to share how they and their friends use the term, WIkipedia is not the right place for this. This term is one of the most overused, misused terms in all of Wikipedia, particularly the comic book listings. If the use of the term has really changed this much since it was originally coined, then it needs valid references. 24.165.188.30 06:22, 17 August 2007
 * I've moved this comment from the top of the page to a new section, I hope that 24.165.188.30 doesn't mind. Personally, I found this article quite interesting and I vote to keep the page. If the term is as well-spread as seems to be the case, it must be possible to find more references however! Bjost 23:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well most of it is utter bullshit, but hey that's wikipedia for you. Retcon is when you want to make a change that would contradict something which has gone before so you have to invent a (plausible) explanation of what people thought wrong. --IceHunter (talk) 12:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a wikipedian, probably just your average end-user, I just want to point out that until tonight, I didn't know about the term "retcon," and now I know what it means... and it's actually useful to me, since I'm creating a site with fictions taking place in a consistent universe as part of my leisure. Really, I'm not too focused on this article in particular, I'm just taking a few minutes to give you my opinion about this one like I could have done about the previous or the next one, and it would have been pretty much the same. Mine is a general comment that this article illustrates, just like so many others. Like every web user I guess, I spend a lot of time reading wikipedia articles... and I just would like to point out the fact that I personally don't like the turn that your encyclopedia has taken in the last few months. I'd like to know why so many articles I find useful happen to be plagued by these eye-catching boxes on the top with various complaints that uselessly distract the reader's attention. Then I go to the discussion page to understand what happens, and I see people asking for the article's deletion... This is really beyond me, because as a matter of fact the same thing tends to happen to every interesting article that there is in this corner of the web. As a general note, I don't understand how it comes that existing exact information that is already in your encyclopedia would labelled as "useless" and that its deletion would be requested. I understand that if something is factually wrong or opinionated it should be deleted, now, if there is some other, more interesting information to be included somewhere in this encyclopedia, asking for deletion of existing content will not make said information appear magically. The more exact information there is, the better this site is for me. I see a lot of energy being put by a lot of members towards decreasing the amount of what wikipedia has to offer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.55.26.141 (talk) 22:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm very much with 90.55.26.141. I came to this page to find out WHAT quality issues there are, not having seen any, and I still don't know what the problem is! "Retcon" is most certainly NOT a private usage now, if it ever was. Check out the OTHER other wiki, TV Tropes.

And I came to the article page in order to create a link to it from the Daily Bugle article, in which the term was offhandedly used w/o a link. Which suggests a wide understanding of the term as used there and defined here!

It would be criminally stupid to delete this useful article. It most certainly would not be removing one that is largely personal opinion, because that is not the case here, nor one that is "utter bullshit", since that isn't the case either. IceHunter is either simply wrong about the usage, or has encountered only unusual variations of which it would be useful to add examples! And even if the original poster believes Pannenberg's usage is the original one, from which variation must be documented (a position that no lexicographer would endorse), that is abundantly achieved by the multiple citations in the article.

As for the complaint at the top of the page about "original research", I believe it is time for Wikipedia's horror at the idea to join the Olympic Movement's horror of professional status in the dustbin of history. The verifiable, helpful research posted in this wiki is far too valuable to be thrown away to achieve an imagined purity.

Finally, if whoever is complaining about the "quality standards" would cite a few problems--either here or to me directly--by section and item number in the "Wikipedia:Manual of Style", I would undertake to fix them. However, I'm a professional copy and tech editor, and nothing leaps out at me ... nor am I quite motivated enough to read the entirety of the Manual in hopes of disproving what therefore looks like an unsupported personal dyspepsia. (Apologies in advance if the dyspeptic in fact meets the challenge of this paragraph!)

GeorgeTSLC (talk) 19:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

This was the job of Winston Smith In Orwell's 1984
In the novel 1984, this was the job of the hero Winston Smith (as far as I recall his name). He retrospectively changed written history by altering the text newspapers etc. I think it desrves a mention in the main artivcle. Anyone agree? 80.0.125.65 (talk) 15:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There ought to be an independent page for listed retcons. There are simply too many, and too debatable to actually be helpful in the article. Perhaps the List page should be created. Mmmpotatoes (talk) 06:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Merger with Reboot(fiction)
There is a distinct difference between a retcon and a reboot. Sufficient that they should remain distinct articles. I oppose the merger, and will likely try to unflag them within the week. Mmmpotatoes (talk) 06:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree, I just stumbled on this article from outside, it is useful, and distinct from Reboot (fiction). - cohesion 18:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * We could probably roll them both into Continuity (fiction). -Chunky Rice (talk) 20:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree, with all the discussion about retcon in the Doctor Who TV series I think retcon warrants an article on its own. Derek (talk) 05:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Newhart Makes Fun of Dallas
I seem to have very bad luck with moderators accepting my changes, so I'll put this to the talk community to see if it deserved mention in the main article:

Probably the most severe instance of Retcon I can think of was Newhart 's apparent mockery of Dallas ' retcon. Returning from the final commercial break of the final episode, Bob Newhart's character wakes up to find himself in bed with his wife from the long-cancelled, Bob Newhart Show. The entire series, wherein Bob Newhart played a Vermont inn-keeper, was thus explained away as a dream had by a character of a previous TV series, wherein Bob Newhart played a New York psychiatrist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.231.65 (talk) 13:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I am rather amazed that the article makes no mention of Dallas at all - It's a pretty major example still. Lawrie (talk) 06:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure Newhart counts as a retcon. It was the last episode and made the whole series a dream! The characters and situation didn't exist within their own fiction. I thought the Newhart finale was a reference to the then more-recent finale of St. Elsewhere, where the entire series existed only within Tommy Westphall's imagination. Although the theory that St. Elsewhere "didn't exist" is debatable as well. Just1thing (talk) 17:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Men in Black
I don't know the details sufficiently to add them to the article but in the Men in Black films the characters use their "flashy device" to retcon people who have seen aliens. Derek (talk) 05:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's just erasing people's memories, not any actually changing history. - JasonAQuest (talk) 12:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not retcon
"He also retconned Gray Fox's death in Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake and brought him back in Metal Gear Solid ."

Also sentences should be edited to like that it wouldn't mean those two examples are the only ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.152.94.229 (talk) 14:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Superman
I understand that Lex Luthor was initially portrayed as a mad scientist, but later retconned to be a business man. Why is there no mention made of either this or the many other retroactive changes in the Superman universe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.168.237.198 (talk) 20:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comics generally draw a distinction between a retcon and a reboot. In the latter the continuity is usually reset (sometimes with an in-story explanation) and writers freely change and drop whatever they like in the new stories without performing great story leaps to incorporate the old continuity. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Retroactive continuity in the DC Universe (to wich Superman belongs) is mentioned in this article several times. See the bits on The Crisis On Infinite Earths --RoyimDB (talk) 16:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Retcon types: adding is not true retcon
Since adding continuity does not alter what is previously established, but only fills in spots that were not filled in and build on the established continuity without contradicting, it can be argued that adding continuity is not a true form of retcon. (See the definition in the first paragraph.) In my opinion only alteration and subtraction is true retroactive continuity. --RoyimDB (talk) 16:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Read the section on Origins of the term. Especially the bit about All-Star Squadron. The first recorded use of the term in reference to a comic book was in the additive sense. Subsequent usage has been mostly in the alteration or subtraction senses, but the additive sense has never completely disappeared. --Khajidha (talk) 21:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * (Disclaimer: I am the Damian Cugley who coined the word.) For what it's worth, I would argue that the "adding" case is the only case that can be described as retroactive continuity, because it is continuity that is added retroactively. That is the sense Roy Thomas used. The other cases are often described as retcons but are not retroactive continuity, which I would claim shows that while the term originated by abbreviating the phrase "retroactive continuity", it is used today to mean something different. This is OK—words evolve and change their meanings to suit new situations. But it suggests that renaming this article from Retcon to Retroactive Continuity was a mistake. DamianCugley (talk) 19:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that simply adding something in the past is not retroactive continuity. The entymology shows that. If it was, there would be no reason make up a new term. It is just something that happened before like a prequel. The term means to create continuity where there would not be continuity be changing something. That makes sense. Calling everything added to the past "retroactive continuity" is like calling everything added in the future something like "active continuity". There is no point. I think the "addition" section should be removed. Damian Cugley, if you were shortening the term "retroactive continuity" to "retcon" but using it to mean addition then you were using the term incorrectly. Neuropulse (talk) 22:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

But is taking anonymoys character from the past and in later work inserting him as named character and lost son of the ruler retconin?Linkato1 (talk) 16:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Trimming examples from Popular Culture section
A number of the examples given weren't cases of the term or concept of retconning itself being used or otherwise discussed, but were instead examples of retconswhich is something different. A couple were dubious even by that standard: just because something works on a metafictional level doesn't mean it's a retcon. I've left in the examples where retconning is actually described as such in the examples, or where discussions of retcons seem fairly significant. Ergative rlt (talk) 01:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Retcon in manga
has claimed at my talkpage that retcon isn't common in manga. A simple google search seems to contradict that, but I wanted to open a discussion here for comments. LHMask me a question 12:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't see how that google research contradicts my claim. It certainly doesn't show examples of a great amount of retcons in manga making the medium worth mentioning in the page.(Certainly not more than films and classic literature at least). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rioliogiz (talk • contribs) 18:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It contradicts it because it shows that retcon IS fairly common in manga. LHMask me a question 18:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you elaborate a little?
 * From that google search, the only page that actually depicts/shows/lists examples of retcons in manga is TV Tropes which is also a wiki and their manga(AND Anime) section lists about 14 series that have retcons which is the same amount as Films and half the number of Literature and Comic books sections. Let's not forget, the manga industry has been around for much longer compared to comic books and the amount of new manga series/tittles produced every year are also overwhelmingly bigger so if we go by proportions or the frequency of occurrence of retcons in manga, there is no way it deserves to be in the same level as comic books or mentioned as such in the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rioliogiz (talk • contribs) 18:47, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The Google search shows that retcon is not uncommon in Manga. The fact that some areas may have MORE doesn't negate that it is used in manga, as the article states. LHMask me a question 19:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I still don't see it, every page (save for TVtropes) the google search shows does NOT talk about retcons in manga at all. Every story telling medium uses retcons. How can you say it's common when you can list 14 cases of retcons within a medium that has hundreds of new titles published every year for centuries? Granted manga does use retcons, but to mention that it is "especially common" is incorrect. I see someone edited the article so it makes more sense (as opposed to what i read earlier today), if that edit can stay i have no more objection to make.
 * The article doesn't say that retcons are "especially common" in manga anymore. It says, "Retcons also appear in manga, soap operas, serial dramas, movie sequels, professional wrestling angles, video games, radio series, and other forms of serial fiction." The change was made very recently, by an IP editor, so maybe you hadn't noticed it yet. Does that change take care of your concern? LHMask me a question 20:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, i think that'll do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rioliogiz (talk • contribs) 21:48, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Glad we could work it out, ! Let me know if I can ever help you in your work here on Wikipedia. LHMask me a question 22:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Changes by J. R. R. Tolkien to Hobbit
I remember that he changed the part in the hobbit where Bilbo steals the ring from gollum to make gollum freak out more about it, instead of just shrugging it off. Probably worth mentioning. 92.20.129.239 (talk) 04:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Charlotte Hornets/ New Orleans Pelicans
How about a section retconning the history of the two NBA teams? Originally the Pelicans was a continuation of the Charlotte Hornets who relocated to New Orleans in 2002 until the Pelicans agreed to relinquish the pre 2002 history back to the Charlotte Bobcats in 2015 which was originally an expansion team who started in 2004. This now retconned the Pelicans as an expansion team who started in 2002 and the Bobcats as the original Hornets who suspended operations between 2002-04. Night Tracks (talk) 16:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Heroine leaving without food example sentence
Hi. Perhaps I'm not that astute, but the example of a 'subtle' retcon given in the introduction seems unclear, and furthermore how this is an example of a plot point being expunged is unclear to me (leaving aside the fact that the word expunge is an unusual vocabulary choice here.) What is the plot point? Why should she get hungry?

Presumably the sentence is intended to describe a class of more subtle retcons then, say, those that bring characters back from the dead. But the division of what retcons are subtle is confusing, especially given the bare bones example.

I don't edit Wikis enough to propose a revision but something is wrong here.

Taifunbrowser (talk) 20:19, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Retroactive continuity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150622033230/http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/story.html?id=400b0b01-ec31-42e1-8421-1cb78f133c7c&k=44564 to http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/story.html?id=400b0b01-ec31-42e1-8421-1cb78f133c7c&k=44564

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Emphasis on revisions for historical events
I believe that a very common form of minor retcon is revising for recent historical events, and therefore it should be emphasized in the article. For example, Ender's Game was changed to refer to the Russian Federation instead of the Soviet Union. This change did not alter the plot, but does prevent reader confusion over a non-existent 21st century Soviet Union. Examples like this can be found in many, many retcons. The current article alludes to these types of changes in the Alteration section, but it really needs to be emphasized, if not given its own section. What are your thoughts? --Ebakunin (talk) 21:34, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 30 October 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (non-admin closure)  Heart  (talk) 14:02, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Retroactive continuity → Retcon – Per WP:COMMONNAME. Google Ngrams data shows retcon is used nearly twice as much as "retroactive continuity". While I'm sure the full name can be mentioned in the lede, naming the article that belies what it is commonly called.

– ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:06, 30 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:27, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Abbreviations, slang, jargons, etc in titles. Unenclopedic, too informal, and hurts recognizability while harming the definition of the topic. A shortening will always do better in Ngrams because shortenings get used repeatedly, after introduction of the topic. —-SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:52, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think "retcon" would classify as slang, seeing as it's by far the most used word to describe this. It has long since ceased being classified as informal or slang.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 02:54, 31 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose per SmokeyJoe. Dicklyon (talk) 05:27, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME, and disagree with "retcon" being slang.--Ortizesp (talk) 06:03, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Then why does “retcon” get introduced with “scarequotes” in the references, and why do reliable reputable dictionaries eg https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/retcon not have an entry? “Slang” it might not be, but jargon it is.  Not a real word.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:00, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * See MOS:ABBR, MOS:QUOTEMARKS, MOS:WAW. Abbreviations and jargon do not take quotation marks. The first time a term is introduced, we may italicize it in a words-as-words manner, but this is not normal when presenting an abbreviation immediate after the term it abbreviates.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME. -- Calidum  17:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * COMMONNAME: prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources. Looking to independent reliable sources, not the authors of the neologism, not blogs, is an excellent way to tell encyclopedic usage from jargon. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:36, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Bludgeon much? -- Calidum  03:48, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Your terse !vote is a VAGUEWAVE, and I dispute that your bluelink supports your !vote. The current is a perfect fit COMMONNAME, and unlike the proposed does not predominantly occur in low quality publications (blogs, user comments).  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:13, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Blogs like Variety, The Hollywood Reporter and USA Today? -- Calidum  17:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per SmokeyJoe. I suspect we would find some disagreement about how the term "retcon" can be used. I see it used mainly as a verb and when a noun usually countable. Srnec (talk) 23:24, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per Google Ngrams, "retcon" is about 1.5 times more common in recent years, although I cannot tell how the terms are being used with respect to each other. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 19:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * More common is not good enough for an obscure abbrev. Most uses are something like this 2008 use: ...what they call in the comic business a “retcon.” Retcon is short for retroactive continuity..., defining and using the abbrev, so it becomes a bit more common but seldom stands alone. Dicklyon (talk) 23:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME. To counter SmokeyJoe's point, here are a couple reliable sources that have used the term: USA Today, The Hollywood Reporter , Variety , and The New York Times . El Millo (talk) 23:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * And you think a handful of modern sources using an obscure abbrev is enough to claim that it is so common as to be more recognizable than what it stands for? That seems nutty to me.  Nobody will know what retcon is except for the few "in the know". Dicklyon (talk) 04:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources meant for the general public are evidence in favor of it not being so much of an . According to the above-cited Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the word retcon This link also shows a history of the word and how it's become more prominent in mainstream newspapers and books. El Millo (talk) 05:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME, as many others, which is also just common sense. Note that a search for "retroactive continuity" yields 48,000 results, while a search for "retcon" yields 2.2 million. The former term is far more obscure, stodgy, and worthy of being — ahem — retconned. OrinZ (talk) 10:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose—Per Smokey Joe. Tony (talk)  11:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per SmokeyJoe, and Dicklyon, and WP:JARGON. This is not SciFiAndComicsNerds'Pedia.  Use plain English unless and until a term becomes so well absorbed into the lexicon that it  now plain English. That has not happened yet with "retcon".  The fact that the handful of newspaper sources found using it have to explain it, in every single case, demonstrates this.  They do not just use it and move on they way they do with "AIDS", "radar", "scuba" for that matter), among other former-jargon abbreviations of longer terms.  This is a case where WP:GOOGLETEST fails badly, by netting mentions of "retcon" in specialized media, and most often in a context where the term is explained anyway because it is not a part of everyday English.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * So the argument is that the long tail of related media is sooo long, that the last time Google Books had "retroactive continuity" as more popular than "retcon" was 1976? How likely are fanzines, forums et cetera to have skewed it that far? We're talking about a difference of orders or magnitude here.
 * Additionally, if discussion of a media-related concept is so ubiquitous that the original term is now only found in the introduction of mainstream explainer articles, does that really embody real-world "plain English" common usage of the concept?
 * Weird tangential point also... but I'm old enough to remember the newspaper in my hometown spelling out 'AIDS' in the mid-90s — which sounds just as silly as keeping the ungainly title this article has. Bonus: my hometown was Palm Springs, California, the highest-density gay population in America at the time (the newspaper skewed older readership, which is the only logical explanation I've heard). -OrinZ (talk) 20:11, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - As the number of franchise reboots and restarts have increased in the past 20 years, "retcon" has gained common usage. The term may still be in the gray area between JARGON and IDONTKNOWIT, but does anyone here dispute that it's becoming common? Or perhaps I just belong at SciFiAndComicsNerds'Pedia? Argento Surfer (talk) 18:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong support I have no more than a passing interest in literary devices, but I knew what retcon was but had no idea what it was short for. WP:COMMONNAME should take priority over WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Google Scholar results for "retcon" are significantly higher than "retroactive continuity", and the word "retcon" has caught on even in non-fiction contexts. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  22:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per everyone here, as well as WP:CONSISTENCY. If you think this page should stay the same, I'm looking forward to your proposed move of smog and gerrymander. Red   Slash  20:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't be ridiculous. Both smog and gerrymander have been well accepted and have become widely known over the last many decades.  Very unlike retcon. Dicklyon (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, the sources show that "retcon" has as well. Red   Slash  19:21, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "Retcon" is not widely known? In what universe?ZXCVBNM (TALK) 03:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose This term "retcon", which is not self-explanatory, is simply a device to shortcut a concept. It's inclusion in dictionaries does not mean it should be included in an encyclopedia. Dictionary entries basically say "retcon means retroactive continuity." As an example, the word xerox. It is used to describe making photocopies, but it doesn't tell you about what it means, ie the Xerox Holding Corporation. You want a reminder of what retcon stands for, look it up in a dictionary. You want to know what it means, look here. BTW, entering retcon redirects here.  — Myk Streja  ( beep ) 17:49, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That is not really a valid argument when the opening will literally say what it means. "Retcon, short for retroactive continuity..." It is merely a change of title and will not affect readers' comprehension of the article's concept.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 03:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Retrospective continuity
I found an instance in a 1988 issue of British game magazine Page 6 of "a concept known in the comics world as Retrospective Continuity" in case that is useful in any way. BOZ (talk) 05:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Is a "Comic Book Death" really a retcon?
I think the section about "Comic Book Death" needs some clarification. Maybe it's just me. I ran into this idea elsewhere and it seems to be an assumption here... but the average "comic book death" doesn't seem to me to be a proper retcon, in that it doesn't really recontextualize past stories. It just reveals that one fact that appeared to be permanently true (a character dying) was only temporarily true (a character was somehow removed from events and then returned - by a coma, an abduction, a faked death, whatever). The death of the character was merely an apparent death. The character's return only alters the future, yet-to-be-written continuity, not the pre-existent continuity, so it's not actually *retroactive*, other than at the point of (apparent) death. A retcon, to my way of understanding, is when new evidence makes all of a character's past stories appear in a different light - In Sandman, Wesley Dodds *actually* started fighting crime because Dream was imprisoned... in Swamp Thing, Alec Holland *actually* survived his chemical/fire/drowning accident because The Green needed a new avatar. The "*actually*" in those examples is the key element the way I understand a retcon. Is this not a distinction other people make? Is this distinction merely a difference in degree? I'm genuinely curious. -grant (talk) 04:57, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I would not consider "Comic Book Death" to require a retcon.:
 * In many cases, characters are missing in action following a battle or other life-threatening situation. They turn up alive later, with no particular changes to the character or their backstory.
 * In some cases, the characters are really dead. They are resurrected though the intervention of a god, a demon, or a powerful magic user. No real changes to past stories are needed. For example, Marvel's Dracula and Varnae have been restored to life through magic spells, without changing the fact that they were dead for years or centuries.
 * In some cases, the character's original body has died, but their conscious mind and memories have been transferred to a new body. Very common in stories involving clones, also works with Ultron-style sentient robots. No changes to past stories are needed.
 * In some cases, the characters have some type of immortality in fiction, like Marvel's Eternals. They suffer temporary deaths, but the very nature of their powers is that they will eventually recover and return to life. Few explanations are needed to why such characters return. Dimadick (talk) 11:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

South Park: Token→Tolkien Black
Does Tolkien Black’s name being retconned from Token Black bear noteworthy significance enough to be mentioned in the article? -- WA1TF0R䷟ 16:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Incredibly long Star Wars section
A VERY high percentage of this page is given to discussion of The Rise of Skywalker, with quite a lot of repetition, and with only a tenuous link to the overall topic, retcons. 82.41.9.78 (talk) 07:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)