Caveat: this thread contains wormholes to parallel universes, alternative realities, a possible multiverse and even Knots Landing. Don't say you weren't warned. Intrigued by little nuggets of information that some Dallas fans haven't watched Knots Landing (and vice versa), I'd originally considered posting a simple poll asking if fans consider Knots Landing an official part of Dallas universe. Who knows, maybe I still will. But this starting thought has opened a whole can of worms. The Dallas canon is a very broad church indeed. And my mind is starting to get a bit blown with too many possibilities and combinations for one poll to contain. To clarify (or potentially confuse), here are a few definitions: Canon: The source material. In fiction-based fandoms, "canon" is simply the source narrative you're referring to when you talk about that thing you like. Some people have different ideas of what "canon" is — for example, many Harry Potter fans don't consider anything but the published books to be canon, while other fans include the extra information author J.K. Rowling has provided about the wizarding world on her website and on Twitter. In Dallas terms, some might choose to take on only oral history spoken within the primary series, while others build a bigger picture from written material and those fleshed out in books, spin-offs, sequels and prequels - or any combination thereof. Fanon: These are the pieces of information fans make up to supplement their canons. Sometimes a detail gets widely distributed and becomes a major fanon trope, meaning it makes its way around fandom and becomes a well-known idea. And to really break your brain, sometimes that trope makes its way back to the creators of the source material, who stick the fanon trope into canon. An example of this might be a trope common in the Knots forum that Knots Landing and Dallas operated in the same universe until Bobby's resurrection and different universes thereafter. Headcanon: A sub-branch of "fanon" is actually called "headcanon." When someone invents a piece of fanon they really believe in, it may not be accepted as a general part of fandom, but it still stays tucked away inside its creator's brain; it thus becomes his or her personal "headcanon." The question of Wes Parmalee being Jock might fit here, though perhaps not a great example since the storyline was somewhat open-ended. But it's an example of how two viewers may receive the information differently and reach different conclusions. I'm sure someone can come up with a better example. (Source) There is indeed Knots: the direct, official spin-off. But there's also The Early Years, pitched as the official prequel. There are the Nineties reunion films which seem to have a lukewarm reception and are perhaps skipped by some. There's (dare I say it) TNT Dallas. But even within the "main" series itself there are arguments for creators and fans alike choosing to cherry pick what's real and not. Changes in creative teams might arguably have changed the vision for the series established in 1978, taking it to a point that is no longer viewed as canonical. Events and characters from later in the series might retcon facts established earlier on. Most famously, the dream "resolution" asked even the most casual of viewers - and at least one character - to accept that the source narrative had changed. Or had it? Some people's DVD collection might end with Bobby's death, Pam's tanker crash or Sue Ellen going off with Lovejoy. Some viewers may have switched off with Bobby's resurrection and kept the Dream Season as their headcanon. For others, events in Knots or in 21st Century Dallas enrich the original series and the picture is only partially complete without the information in these. In addition, there's printed-word Dallas. The novels which fictionalise both the series and its pre-history, and where events could sometimes happen slightly differently to on-screen. Can we assume these are non-canon? Some alternative universe? Or would either option be taking a lot for granted? In non-prose books, we have the "official" biographies of the characters in the Laura Van Wormer book. Do contradictions in later seasons make the book non-canon? Or is it the other way round? Or was the book non-canon to start with. There's also the concept of a multiverse in which all the realities happily co-exist and even depend on one another to exist (which to my mind is probably closer to the reality of the situation). So, with this in mind, I'm curious to know: Which areas of the available material make up your true Dallas universe? And why? Is your Dallas universe made up of multiple parts of the available material (parent series, spin-offs, prequels, reunions, books), or restricted to just one? Do you have a headcanon that differs from what you understand canon to be (i.e., do you know that certain things are "real", but airbrushing them keeps you sane)? Has your opinion about what Dallas is changed over the years? It might be helpful if we don't talk in terms of "absolutes" about whether something is right or wrong. It's all subjective. It would be a miracle to get a consensus as to what's absolute canon or and what isn't, so let's not even try. But it might be fun to see what material makes up the Dallas universe that you choose to call yours.