Our rules regarding composite profiles (Staff only)

[ByAsura]

Jason's resurrected key is composite, as well as the Jason X one. In the film, he didn't survive landing on Earth, or at least his mask was torn off and a guy with similar durability was incinerated. In the Jason X special, he survived, hence the "Building level+ (Survived a robot's self-Destruction and falling to Earth from outer space)."

 

[Genericstickman]

Is Composite James Bond even a composite?

 

[ByAsura]

It's a composite between the films, games, and maybe the novels as well as the TV Show Casino Royale (Climax!). .

 

[Iapitus_The_Impaler]

Any contradictions that can't be resolved.

I feel like an outlier of "has Reality Warping in two stories" isn't the kind of thing that we usually actually discount as an outlier, especially for composite profiles. Composites get abilities that they've only shown once all the time, since they don't care about the consistent representation of a character's set of abilities, just about shoving them all into one page.

Extended Canon is anything that sits outside of Article/Original Canon. What is Article/Original Canon is explained on this page, but in short, it's everything written by the author, everything that two authors canonically scale to each other, and everything in a canon/series/collaboration the character was written for. Everything outside of that is Extended Canon.

What would "resolving" contradictions look like in this context?

If those tales are within a canon where he has previously shown more to be a reality anchor, then they can still be outliers.

Ok, define the original canon for someone like Dr Cimmerian's works, or define what the original canon would be for an SCP that is intentionally written into multiple canons. From what I understand, numerous authors write within multiple canons.

If we can't have composites, then we should still be able to have multiple keys for different canons. Also, the EC thing directly states that this isn't a straight up composite, so they should still be allowed.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

EC not being an all encompassing composite doesn't change that it has multiple "general narrative trends" put into one profile. Not sure how you'd correct that, but I really feel like it shouldn't just be left as is.

 

[Iapitus_The_Impaler]

Honestly, I think it would be good if we just broke up EC into the various notable canons that make it up

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

That would be fine, yes.

 

[Agnaa]

Finding an interpretation where it's not a contradiction, I guess?

I don't know what you mean by this.

Everything written by Dr. Cimmerian's author, and everything in canon hubs Dr. Cimmerian's author wrote Dr. Cimmerian for, I think.

Different keys for different canons should be fine, I think that's been brought up as an idea before but never pursued.

I'm not a huge fan of the idea of original canon, I've railed against it tons of times. I've used the examples you just brought up in your post, as well as other more difficult to handle examples. But if there is no reasonable original canon for a character, we can just use extended canon. This is a thing that we do a lot.

EDIT: Honestly, I think it would be good if we just broke up EC into the various notable canons that make it up

That would be fine, yes.

This is, to put it plainly, impossible for 90% of characters that use extended canon.

Many characters have multiple small appearances across dozens of canons. Many don't even have much of an original canon to build these extended canon appearance off of. Splitting these profiles into a dozen gutted keys is unreasonable.

It also makes no sense for one of the main issues that had us making EC keys - collaborative test logs.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

Agnaa pretty much summed it up, I disagree as well

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

I feel like it should get a thread of it's own.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

Doing that to SCP would be like splitting up the Marvel and DC profiles for having different writers despite them following a single storyline. Extended canon SCP isn't all non-article incarnations of SCPs put into one key, its only stuff from the main universe following the storyline.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Ideally we should break them into their consituent canons.

Practically that's nigh-impossible given that every authorial interpretation of every SCP could be considered a 'canon'.

That said, the current state of SCP doesn't jive well with our composite rules. They are technically composites, and if we wish to see unessary composites removed from the site I'd be hard-pressed defending SCP as an exception. So if we're trying to split EC into multiple canons, it'd be more practical to remove it altogether then add keys for significant alt-versions of the characters, or seperate profiles.

Alright, back to studying. I support Agnaa's opinion even though it's drastically different than mine ideally, but I agree with him in practical terms.

 

[Holyhotsauce]

Extended canon as we put on the profiles is not a thing in-universe, but sifting through the wiki to make sure we know what canons connect to each other when these things are on a case-by-case basis would be monumental, and sometimes when characters only exist in tales (see: everyone around SK) with no concrete canon outside of one or two tales, have no real power basis unless we take them all together.

I guess we could create different levels of "canon" depending on how directly connected they are and what author wrote them? but eventually it all collapses into a mega-convoluted mess of webbed canons that may or may not interact. So creating a key for the original article and another key taking all the other stuff was made since it's the easiest way to go forward with it.

 

[Agnaa]

@Holy I wouldn't quite say that extended canon isn't a thing in-universe. All of those things do happen in-universe, and in-universe happen from the same character.

If you mean the 'there is no canon' stuff it essentially means "everyone decides themselves what their own headcanon is", and many authors write with this in mind. But since we obviously can't just arbitrarily pick and choose for profiles, we've got the two extremes of (in simplified terms) "Only what the author wrote is canon" and "Everything for that incarnation of the character by any author is canon".

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

Problem is that "Everything for that incarnation of the character by any author is canon" is a composite.

Not sure what to do for that. I really don't think it should be deleted tough.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

I mean, couldn't we use the Canon page as a draft for different keys?

The idea that there is no canon is a bit silly at times. It's not that we don't have any. It's that we have a multitude which touch, cross, and dip into each other. It's up to you, as the reader, to decide what you believe and what you embrace as the heart of the universe. That doesn't mean, though, that authors lack intent or design, and collaboration is the heart of innovation.

Collected below are links to the recognized, shared canons of the SCP Foundation Universe. To write in one, you should make sure that you read the other material from that canon and try to remember that these things are connected. If you're interested in forming your own canon, read the information at the bottom of the page.

http://www.scp-wiki.net/canon-hub

 

[Agnaa]

I cannot see how that's a composite. Using feats from two different episodes of a TV show that happened to have different writers isn't a composite. Simply using feats from different writers doesn't make something composite. Including things that aren't canon to each other or aren't the same character is a composite.

@Ricsi It's already been attempted, but it's a monumental task with many strange hurdles in the way. Some canon hubs point to reddit posts as canon. There's series of tales that are written by one author featuring the same character to appear in many canons at once.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

Well, regardless, should get it's own thread.

 

[Iapitus_The_Impaler]

~Snip~

That's not possible for a good amount of them

I mean that if the two examples of him being a reality warper come from canons where he is previously treated as a reality anchor then him being a reality warper is an outlier

Oh, I meant Dr. Cimmerian the author, not the character. They go by the same name, my bad for being confusing.

I agree with this. I think original canon seems incredibly hard to define. I won't preach to the choir then

I'm down with this. Let's just do each notable canons as a key

 

[WeeklyBattles]

He wasnt suggesting to make each notable canon a mew key, that would make every profile so unnecessarily cluttered and sisorganized on top of moat canons not having feats or even powers that they wouldnt be worth having

 

[ByAsura]

@Iapitus Try not to quote massive walls of text.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

SCP, like pokemon and digimon, should be considered an exception to this rule

 

[Wokistan]

Pokémon and digimon aren't really exceptions so much as they're just a different scenario. They look like a composite but it's not quite the same, since they're files for entire species. Stuff like Adeptus Astartes, Officio Assassinorum, Wizard (Destiny), Knight (Destiny), etc are similar in how they're not an individual so much as a class of individual.

The MTFs work like that, but the different interpretations of each SCP don't. There's probably some better justification we can find than just exception though

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

Isn't the whole deal with pokemon and digimon that they just appear as composites but are actually confirmed to have those powers across all of the species being taken under scrutiny? It's the same as our real world animal and gun profiles, they take the average powers that all individuals should have.

Those are quite different from SCP. I admit that up and deleting them wouldn't be the best, but some different reasons from the ones Pokemon and Digimon uses should be made.

 

[ByAsura]

A lot of SCP profiles are already separated into keys based on original and extended canon. So I don't see what the problem is here.

SCP canon is somewhat vague, I grant, but only something like The Foundatio is a canonical mess.

 

[Agnaa]

Isn't the whole deal with pokemon and digimon that they just appear as composites but are actually confirmed to have those powers across all of the species being taken under scrutiny? It's the same as our real world animal and gun profiles, they take the average powers that all individuals should have.

Those are quite different from SCP. I admit that up and deleting them wouldn't be the best, but some different reasons from the ones Pokemon and Digimon uses should be made.

WHY is SCP EC a composite though? I haven't gotten a reason for that yet.

Using stuff from different authors doesn't make something a composite, so it can't be that, but that's the only difference with the EC keys.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

A lot of SCP profiles are already separated into keys based on original and extended canon. So I don't see what the problem is here.

There is plenty problems presented for both keys above tough...

And extended is specifically the multiple interpretations of SCPs in different keys being made into a composite while weeding out inconsistencies.

 

[Wokistan]

The issue with calling it a straight composite is the whole "it's all canon" thing.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

WHY is SCP EC a composite though? I haven't gotten a reason for that yet.

Using stuff from different authors doesn't make something a composite, so it can't be that, but that's the only difference with the EC keys.

The site itself admits that different authors use different canons in mind, with different interpretations, with several being listed there.

Taking each individual canon is impossible, that is fine, but how do you take one and say "this is theextended canon"?

 

[WeeklyBattles]

Because it's all stated or shown to be part of the same storyline in the main universe, if it's an alternate universe it's required that the author state or show this somewhere in the story

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

Because it's all stated or shown to be part of the same storyline in the main universe, if it's an alternate universe it's required that the author state or show this somewhere in the story

Yes, but regardless multiple interpretations are allowed for said canon, and each one is no more right or wrong or less usable then all others.

 

[Agnaa]

Yes, but regardless multiple interpretations are allowed for said canon, and each one is no more right or wrong or less usable then all others.

Different interpretations could get their own keys/profiles. I have nothing against having a lolfoundation!clef profile. But this doesn't make extended canon composite.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

Having a different key for canoncs and interpretations that can be logically seperated and followed should be fine.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

@Ricsi Extended Canon is not multiple interpretations, it is one interpretation written by multiple authors, EC is not all interpretations of an SCP clumped into one key

 

[Agnaa]

Well.

@Weekly Better get working on that city-tier planet-mindhaxing 173 page.

 

[Agnaa]

@Ricsi Extended Canon is not multiple interpretations, it is one interpretation written by multiple authors, EC is not all interpretations of an SCP clumped into one key

To add onto this, I just remembered that there are already examples of this. 682, 173, and some other SCP's 1-B keys are different interpretations from a particular canon.

 

[Antvasima]

Agnaa seems to make sense to me. How do you suggest that we solve this issue?

 

[Agnaa]

Zark's suggestion from earlier seems the most reasonable.

Honestly, the Alternative Canon and Composite Profiles should be just deleted, and the points for the Alternative Canon section should just be copypasted into the Cano, as that requires verrrrryyyy less editing

So we'd need to figure out how to incorporate those points into the Cano page, delete all the composite profiles, and probably create an editing rule forbidding composite profiles.

I'm not sure if it's necessary to explain why Pokemon/Digimon/SCP aren't composites, but if that becomes an issue we can place that explanation in whatever place seems appropriate at the time, whether that's the verse page, or the editing rules.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay, that makes sense.

I think that mentioning it in both the relevant verse pages and editing rules seems safest.

 

[Starter_Pack]

I believe Zark and Agnaa have a valid point.