'Continuity' Section for Verse Pages

[Jinx666]

Hello,

In my side-project at trying to improve the state of Inazuma Eleven profiles on the wiki, I think I have come across a useful idea that can benefit discussions of Canon/Continuity that the Wiki follows when it comes to Verses with lots of different mediums/content across them.

My pitch is to add a 'Canon' or 'Continuity' section (Name can be further discussed) to Verse pages, that neatly explains

• The standard 'canon' timeline of a Verse, or alternate canon/rebooted timelines, in order of what media takes place first or at the same time with eachother
• Canon-adjacent material, that uses facts from loosely canon materials such as character abilities, that haven't necessarily been shown in the main timeline but have reason to believe they are capable of doing as such
• Non-Canon material, that is not usually considered within main timeline scalings (But perhaps has profiles on the wiki attributed to that continuity, such as Eyes of Heaven or JORGE JOESTAR in Jojo)
• Any other miscellaneous products? (Perhaps such as official artworks?)

Canon is sometimes a widely argued upon topic in versus discussions, as this wiki has had a few itself, so I think it would be beneficial for verses that do have prevalent arguments in terms of its continuity to set how these continuites are treated in this wiki (and provide proof and explanations if necessary in this regard). It even gives viewers potential watch/read/play/etc orders if they are interested in exploring the verse themself.

In my example, Inazuma Eleven has 2 main timelines, a game series that separates itself from its anime but still has canon-adjacent considerations, and a somewhat confusing timeline to those casual with the series. I would like to express this on the verse page i plan to revamp from its current poor quality, so that viewers know how it is being treated as on the wiki. Other similar verses I can think of that would find this section useful are Dragon Ball, Yugioh, Digimon etc. I would also like to stress that this section would be optional to verses that benefit from this, as i am aware that the amount of content of verses isnt equal, so for smaller series that only have 1 main source material, this wouldnt be necessary.

Perhaps if someones even feeling like a challenge, there could be an attempt at explaining Marvel or DC's continuities...

Let me know what you think, this is a draft idea so I haven't properly organised a format to pitch, but I am happy if this gets any interest taken further

 

[Jinx666]

Bump

 

[Jinx666]

Bump?
I notice there are a few verses on the wiki that do explain timeline and continuity, but would be cool to add this on the Standard Format for Verse Creation page

 

[Antvasima]

I suppose that this might be useful as an optional section for more complicated continuities that do not divide them into separate verse pages.

@AKM sama @DontTalkDT @DarkDragonMedeus @Mr._Bambu @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @Agnaa @Just_a_Random_Butler @DarkGrath @Dereck03

What do you think?

 

[Mr. Bambu]

As an optional addition to a verse page, sounds fine in concept- but with this, it brings the implication of CRTs to handle what is and isn't canon that may offer another substantial uptick in labor-hours required to handle the amount of CRTs. It carries with it the idea that what is canon and not can be changed by a proper debate, and that if something is simply added to the canon section, then people may run wild with it.

My vote is neutral, I just ask that people consider the damage output things like this can potentially do. The section itself may indeed prove useful depending on how it is used.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I'm fine with this being an optional option, think some verses already have something like this.

 

[LordGriffin1000]

I think the optional addition is fine.

As an optional addition to a verse page, sounds fine in concept- but with this, it brings the implication of CRTs to handle what is and isn't canon that may offer another substantial uptick in labor-hours required to handle the amount of CRTs. It carries with it the idea that what is canon and not can be changed by a proper debate, and that if something is simply added to the canon section, then people may run wild with it.

If there's proof of something being canon or non canon without question, I don't see how it can spark a constant influx of threads debating on what's canon or not. I don't think putting canon and non canon sections on verse pages would cause such an issue, given we already have verses with canon/non canon profiles and they aren't running wild as far as I'm aware but I don't see everything obviously, so I'd like to know which verses do you think could potentially cause this issue?

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I invite you to search the word "canon" here on the wiki and observe the threads that appear. The notion of "canon" is treated with much the same sense of concreteness on this wiki as any other rating- something that can be debated around with enough persistence. As of current, we have rulings on what constitutes canon (our rules on crossovers and so on), as well as some precedents set on whether things are canon (the Devil May Cry debacle that's been ongoing about a gacha game with faked Tier 1 statements, for example) but I fear that by creating this section for a page, we may see a rise of arguing over the subject and that, when something is introduced and accepted as canon after several exhausting threads, it will be used as leverage to push the matter further.

Stranger things have happened.

 

[Antvasima]

I trust Bambu's sense of judgement here.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Like I said, I'm neutral- it has benefits too, it just will likely require more work to sustain those benefits. As long as others acknowledge that these downsides will exist, I'm perfectly satisfied with them voting in favor.

 

[LordGriffin1000]

I invite you to search the word "canon" here on the wiki and observe the threads that appear. The notion of "canon" is treated with much the same sense of concreteness on this wiki as any other rating- something that can be debated around with enough persistence. As of current, we have rulings on what constitutes canon (our rules on crossovers and so on), as well as some precedents set on whether things are canon (the Devil May Cry debacle that's been ongoing about a gacha game with faked Tier 1 statements, for example) but I fear that by creating this section for a page, we may see a rise of arguing over the subject and that, when something is introduced and accepted as canon after several exhausting threads, it will be used as leverage to push the matter further.

Stranger things have happened.

I'd argue that if people just used their brain, it would be at least somewhat obvious on what is canon and what isn't but I understand your point (especially about the devil may cry situation) and concede that it's likely that that kind of issue would arise.

 

[Jinx666]

Bump

Havent had internet for a while to check on this but as for any qualms about more arguments, i sadly don't think it's going to change the already large amounts of them in this debating community as a whole. The best thing the wiki can do is establish its general standing on what is taken as canon and what isn't, so then at least naysayers know that section of material can be inconsidered

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Bump.