• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

"Scaling and Canon Rules for the SCP Foundation" Addition

Status
Not open for further replies.
5,968
4,158
Last edited:
Yeah this addition is fine. It's been a long while since those rules have been implemented so we kinda just forgot about them once the SCP wiki evolved.
Actually, the reason why I propose this is because someone claimed that CN Breach is "broken". But further, a proposal for better organizing profiles from different breaches may be launched considering that we already have three non-English-breach SCP profiles.
 
I mean yeah, if the other branches have their own canons they would fall under our current canon scaling system.

The current foreign branch profiles aren't part of any canon to my knowledge, and they're mostly standalone.
 
I mean yeah, if the other branches have their own canons they would fall under our current canon scaling system.

The current foreign branch profiles aren't part of any canon to my knowledge, and they're mostly standalone.
Like other breaches can make a story where they finally killed 682, but it is not reliable to assume that the 682 they killed is Extended Canon 682/
 
To be clear, this is creating standards for foreign language SCPs?

I think that having those is a problem unto itself, but yeah, they shouldn't cross-scale on-wiki if they don't intersect off-wiki. Seems fair.
 
Yes, should we even feature them at all if their information has not been translated into English?
 
To be clear, this is creating standards for foreign language SCPs?

I think that having those is a problem unto itself, but yeah, they shouldn't cross-scale on-wiki if they don't intersect off-wiki. Seems fair.
Yes.
Yes, should we even feature them at all if their information has not been translated into English?
Since users can translate foreign SCPs in SCP International, translated SCPs are preferred.
 
Wait so, what this thread plans to do is allow the use of other branches?

Like, can I go ahead and just make a profile for a Korean SCP branch, as long as it's translated?
 
Like other breaches can make a story where they finally killed 682, but it is not reliable to assume that the 682 they killed is Extended Canon 682/
Why is the 682 termination log considered extended canon when it is linked directly from 682 page?
 
Like, can I go ahead and just make a profile for a Korean SCP branch, as long as it's translated?
You presumably could since there are already three profiles from other branches and Mariogoods even gave a link for that.

Actually, the reason why I propose this is because someone claimed that CN Breach is "broken". But further, a proposal for better organizing profiles from different breaches may be launched considering that we already have three non-English-breach SCP profiles.
 
As I said, as long as it's treated with the same separate canon stuff already used, it is no more problematic than the current standing SCP rulings.
 
Thank you for the replies. I think that this revision seems to have been accepted then.

@Mariogoods
 
Thank you for the replies. I think that this revision seems to have been accepted then.

@Mariogoods
I have noticed this, though
is currently locked and therefore maybe someone else could help add the proposed rule.
 
I have unlocked the page for you. Tell me here when you are done.
 
Can you improve on the language structure of your linked edit above first please? It is currently hard to understand what you are saying.
 
Thank you.
Update: I have reworded the rule, but I'm not sure if it is OK.
 
It looked mostly fine now. I made a few minor adjustments and locked the page in question.

Should I close this thread as well?
 
Thank you to everybody who helped out here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top