Regarding the SCP Canon

[Kepekley23]

I will go to bed as soon as I post this, so I will have to make it quick.

Introductio
Currently, we seem to consider anything stated on the SCP tales to be canon, since many of 682's powers come from tales written years after Gears left the wiki

However, this approach is, in my view, flawed. Tales that are not written by the original writer of the SCP are not canon to the article, with only a few exceptions. This doesn't come from my mouth, but the mouth of Word of God. From a verse that fully depends on it.

This approach also contradicts what is stated in our SCP page:

Also, please take into account that due to the fact that the SCP Foundation has no solid canon, but a "fluid" canon which is subject to different interpretations and headcanons by various members, and Tales are essentially a sort of psuedo-fanfiction, it is best if a Tale was written by the original author of the SCP/is considered an integral part of the "mythos" related to the SCP before you use it to index powers.

- SCP Foundatio

And they are right; tales are fanfictions that get upvoted based on how good the plot is. That's why a tale that reveals what 447 does when it reaches a dead body shouldn't remotely be canon, because it goes against the point.

So, what I'm proposing is:

- Only scale tales to the articles if they were written by the original author

In this case, Experiment Logs would become the next best thing to draw OP abilities from.

 

[MrKingOfNegativity]

Fully support this.

 

[Kepekley23]

Going to sleep RN. Will respond tomorrow.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

I wholeheartedly agree with this. Although, since there is the new implication of "muh composite hierarchy makes canon", would it be better to have different pages to the characters that pertain to certain tales? Such as the SCP-682 who is the child of the Scarlet King, The SCP-682 who is the steed of the horseman of death, etc

It would certainly be better than mixing everything into a giant mess of a page

 

[Sir_Ovens]

I believe I've stated my stance on this topic before, and that was that there is a way to view all SCP canon as canon, and that is to treat each canon hub as it's own universe. After all, the canon hub is called the cano hub for a reason.

I agree that the profiles need adjustment, but I disagree that they need to be scaled to the original author's works.

 

[Js250476]

I also agree with this ( especially sicne your dealing with these types of characters original author does sound like the best way to handle it.)

 

[Sir_Ovens]

The original articlws and the canon hub is like what the Cthulhu Mythos is to Demonbane. The canon hub is just expanding on the article and is it's own continuation.

 

[DMUA]

This again.


Sate Sate Sate.... Well, let's see what Weekly does.

 

[Numbersguy]

Why can't we do composite and kill the entire flock of birds with one stone?

 

[Sir_Ovens]

Kep is making the argument that we are disregarding the SCP verse page rules and should keep our profiles scaled to the original author's works on the SCP Wiki.

 

[Yobo_Blue]

Don't know how to fell on this yet.

 

[Numbersguy]

Kep is making the argument that we are disregarding the SCP verse page rules and should keep our profiles scaled to the original author's works on the SCP Wiki.

Then we will have tons of content revisions threads saying "Add X, add Y, add Z".

Plus, those are their rules, not ours, we don't have to obey them.

 

[Sir_Ovens]

I think there is a misunderstanding. Kep is saying that we are disregarding the SCP verse page rules on '''our''' wiki.

 

[Numbersguy]

I think there is a misunderstanding. Kep is saying that we are disregarding the SCP verse page rules on our wiki.

Ah, then we delete the statement? Considering most of our stuff is composite

 

[Sir_Ovens]

Either we composite our pages, or we separate the diffrent canon hub versions of each character into different pages.

 

[MrKingOfNegativity]

It'd probably be a much better idea to do the latter than the former.

 

[Numbersguy]

It'd probably be a much better idea to do the latter than the former.

Separate the chars in other pages?

Too much work, doing a composite is easier.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Only reasons why our pages are composite is because people want to exaggerate the SCP powers and end up creating characters who do not exist in any of the separate SCP canon.

My solution: use keys. Do not cross-scale powers, feats, or AP just so you can make the lizard unreasonably OP by ignoring how the verse works.

 

[Numbersguy]

Only reasons why our pages are composite is because people want to exaggerate the SCP powers and end up creating characters who do not exist in any of the separate SCP canon.

We would have banned composite profiles long ago with that mindset though. But seperate keys are fine, but not separate pages.

 

[The_2nd_Existential_Seed]

I agree with separate keys... However we should let Weekly comment. He is debatably the most knowledgeable on this discussion topic.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

Going to respond to this in a bit but I'm just going to come right out and say we absolutely do not treat everything as canon and I seriously wish you would have waited until Azzy and I discussed this matter before you made this

 

[Saikou_The_Lewd_King]

Staying neutral for this, but Weekly you do know that the Low 2-C 682 thing is from something that's explicitly an alternate interpretation of 682, right.

 

[Creaturemaster971]

Popping in to follow this

 

[WeeklyBattles]

@Saikou No its not, it's a study of ALL interpretations of 682 from every universe with information that is backed up in 682s Library entry

 

[MrKingOfNegativity]

Too much work, doing a composite is easier.

See, this is one of my issues here.

Doing what's "easier" isn't what we're supposed to be doing on this wiki. We shouldn't be going around making profiles that are problematic just because they're "easier" to make than ones that are genuinely reliable and helpful to the common visitor.

If the entire wiki were to operate on the mindset of non-composite profiles being "too much work", then not only would we have far less profiles than we currently do, but our representation of certain verses (Marvel, DC, Image Comics, the Cthulhu Mythos, etc.) would be far beyond unreliable.

 

[The_Everlasting]

There will be a time where we must choose between what is right, and what is easy.

Cookies for whoever gets that reference.

 

[EliminatorVenom]

I agree about making separate keys.

And fully agree with @King, we shouldn't do what is "easier".

 

[Schnee_One]

There will be a time where we must choose between what is right, and what is easy.

Cookies for whoever gets that reference.

Albus Dumbledore

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ffQmb-cNFuk

 

[Numbersguy]

I agree about making separate keys.
And fully agree with @King, we shouldn't do what is "easier".

Yeah, the keys are fine. Because doing seperate pages is going to be not worth the effort because some will have stats "missing" or something.

 

[Aeyu]

I also agree with making separate keys for the characters.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

Once again, i heavily advise against doing anything until me and Azzy have had a chance to work out all of the issues here

 

[Iapitus_The_Impaler]

I'll wait to give my opinion on this until Weekly and Azzy talk this over

 

[Azathoth_the_Abyssal_Idiot]

I still need to actually find time to work on canon shit. That said, this clarification is actually pretty important, and thus might factor into that. As I said before, guys like 682 are currently kinda clusterfucks based on pretty much anything that's ever featured it and isn't an obvious joke (as in, he doesn't have "Can be killed by drunk driving" under his weaknesses), which needs changing.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

Agreed, the pages are in need of a bit of work Whenever youre ready we can discuss, is there anything you'd like me to find for you?

 

[Azathoth_the_Abyssal_Idiot]

Nothing in particular. Just anything that helps clarify what should and shouldn't be added to pages.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

I should really get working on that timeline...

 

[Agnaa]

Currently I'd go for having separate keys on pages for separate canon hubs, and disregarding non-noteworthy standalone tales. However, I'd defer to Weekly/Azathoth's opinion on this.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

i would have the separate keys, and one last key gor composite with all powers mentioned in the other keys

 

[WeeklyBattles]

Thing is, unless its explicitly shown or demonstrated to be an alternate universe counterpart (such as the alternate universe future 682 being the Steed of Death or the instances of different SCPs from the Black Queen's studies), there is almost never an actual difference between what you guys are considering 'canon' and 'composite'. Its less 'non-canon' and more 'expanded canon', taking what is in the articles and expanding on it as a means of fleshing out the characters.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I disagree with this. A lot.

A long while back I attempted to argue the point for Creepypasta profiles and compared them to SCP. While I stand by that belief, people brought up a valid point- the stories on SCP Foundation have to be accepted by an admin, a person who literally runs the verse. Like Weekly and others said, this is just an expanded canon. Excluding this would be tantamount to disregarding any comic book not written by the original creator of the character.