'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.

 

[Bobsican]

Bump.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Bump.

 

[Antvasima]

@Mr. Bambu @DarkDragonMedeus @LordGriffin1000 @IdiosyncraticLawyer

What do you think should be done here?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I have said I think it's fine for an optional addition; if there is an official chronology, it might as well be listed. It helps for sourcing verses where the entries chronologically exist out of order or consist of multiple mediums that are still canon. But at the same time, I can understand some of Bambu's concerns where if there are material canon, but the exact order of it is a different story. Or some dubiously canon material can later be argued in future content revisions for a removal of they were added at first. But simply having a continuity section can still help quite a few verses in the long run.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes. I also do not mind this as an optional section, but it depends on what the other staff members here think as well.

 

[FinePoint]

The canon page currently separates canon into categories already:

• Primary: The primary canon is the source material first released
• Secondary: ...with the other author works being secondary canon
• Tertiary: The tertiary canon consists of official adaptations not overseen by the author, which do not modify or contradict source material.
  • Entirely new feats of tertiary canon, like for example new abilities, should be disregarded.
  • Any changes based on tertiary canon will only be accepted if they are not contradicted by any instances of another canon
• Alternative: If a spin-off version of a character is very popular, prominent, and distinctive from the original, with a sufficient number of feats or descriptions to scale from, it can generally be featured.
  • Certain franchises feature several characters that are considered as equally valid "official" versions of the character. These types of profiles can generally be created without any problems.
  • Should said alternative versions originate within the main continuity, they would also be considered primary canon, and allowed, if notable enough.
  • Franchises which contain non-canonical spin-offs/movies/videogames, et cetera, each with their own continuities and feats, yet not to the extent that Marvel and DC Comics do, should only be allowed profiles for notable original characters from said spin-offs, and not alternate versions of canonical characters, unless they are very prominent and notable.
  • Certain franchises also contain a variety of spin-offs and alternate continuities, yet justify their existence due to in-series Multiverses

Therefore, we can create this section under these terms without deviating from existing standards at all, and maintain concretely whether something belongs in any of the canon sections, and which one.

And in that case, I think it's immensely helpful, at the very least from an organizational perspective, to have everything neatly separated for review.

Right now we make no or little distinction, which can be very confusing for people who want to look into a verse in detail, or understand exactly where a feat comes from and how obscure it is.
(And the canon page may need to be my next reorganization project...)

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you. That seems like a very good idea.

 

[Bobsican]

In any case if this idea passes I would think it'd be worth clarifying what to do for series where the place of something in a series' timeline notably (emphasis on this part, I'd rather not have to list a specific set of parts in KH that fall earlier or later on, for example) happens in multiple places at the same time (thank time travel and flashbacks), would it be best to just list it as many times as needed to basically list the multiple separate places it fits on the timeline?

A example that quickly comes to mind is Sonic Generations taking place both after Colors but before Lost World, yet also after Sonic 3&K and before Mania.

 

[Flashlight237]

I personally vouch for this as an optional addition as I feel it helps people explore the canonicity of various entities and verses.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

If I must vote, having already said that I'm neutral, then I will accept an optional section, provided it does not cause too many issues. Part of the OP particularly worries me with suggesting non-shown elements as 'canon', or rather as "canon-adjacent materials".

I'm willing to see it in effect, basically, if only to resolve one of many threads victimized by bureaucracy.

 

[Antvasima]

If I must vote, having already said that I'm neutral, then I will accept an optional section, provided it does not cause too many issues.

What do you think about FinePoint's suggested approach above? I think that it seems to make sense.

Part of the OP particularly worries me with suggesting non-shown elements as 'canon', or rather as "canon-adjacent materials".

Yes. FinePoint's suggestions seem mostly fine though.

I'm willing to see it in effect, basically, if only to resolve one of many threads victimized by bureaucracy.

Myself not being able to respond frequently enough you mean? Or just our staff in general recurrently having that problem?

 

[Mr. Bambu]

What do you think about FinePoint's suggested approach above? I think that it seems to make sense.

Yes. FinePoint's suggestions seem mostly fine though.

At its core it is fine, yes. As I said, I'm content to see how it plays out.

Myself not being able to respond frequently enough you mean? Or just our staff in general recurrently having that problem?

No, you reply as much as is necessary, if only to try to rally the troops across the finish line. I just mean that threads tend to drag on and on, getting staff input here but then moving on to there where that input may not really be relevant anymore. So then one must muster the staff again, who have already pivoted to other threads that are reportedly very important for them to look at, but then the thread is discussed more and it moves once more... the bureaucracy is necessary, but it is evil. It is a monster that eats time. I shift from neutral to hesitantly accepting in the interests of not allowing it to consume more here.

The change is, after all, mostly inoffensive. Let's see it in action, if it causes issues, etc.

 

[Antvasima]

So what do you have in mind regarding the bureaucracy problem? Nothing drastic I hope.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Nothing. It's just the way the wiki is. It was little more than an off-the-cuff comment.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. No problem then.

Anyway, I personally think that applying this change according to FinePoint's suggested structure seems good, but we need more staff input here for such a significant revision.

 

[Antvasima]

The canon page currently separates canon into categories already:

• Primary: The primary canon is the source material first released
• Secondary: ...with the other author works being secondary canon
• Tertiary: The tertiary canon consists of official adaptations not overseen by the author, which do not modify or contradict source material.
  • Entirely new feats of tertiary canon, like for example new abilities, should be disregarded.
  • Any changes based on tertiary canon will only be accepted if they are not contradicted by any instances of another canon
• Alternative: If a spin-off version of a character is very popular, prominent, and distinctive from the original, with a sufficient number of feats or descriptions to scale from, it can generally be featured.
  • Certain franchises feature several characters that are considered as equally valid "official" versions of the character. These types of profiles can generally be created without any problems.
  • Should said alternative versions originate within the main continuity, they would also be considered primary canon, and allowed, if notable enough.
  • Franchises which contain non-canonical spin-offs/movies/videogames, et cetera, each with their own continuities and feats, yet not to the extent that Marvel and DC Comics do, should only be allowed profiles for notable original characters from said spin-offs, and not alternate versions of canonical characters, unless they are very prominent and notable.
  • Certain franchises also contain a variety of spin-offs and alternate continuities, yet justify their existence due to in-series Multiverses

Therefore, we can create this section under these terms without deviating from existing standards at all, and maintain concretely whether something belongs in any of the canon sections, and which one.

And in that case, I think it's immensely helpful, at the very least from an organizational perspective, to have everything neatly separated for review.

Right now we make no or little distinction, which can be very confusing for people who want to look into a verse in detail, or understand exactly where a feat comes from and how obscure it is.
(And the canon page may need to be my next reorganization project...)

I personally think that applying this change according to FinePoint's suggested structure seems good, but we need more staff input here for such a significant revision.

@AKM sama @DontTalkDT @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @Agnaa @Just_a_Random_Butler @DarkGrath @Dereck03 @Planck69

What do you think about this?