| “ | 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. | „ |
| ~ The Foundation's Canon Hub |
Contents
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Original Canon Rules
- 3 Extended Canon
- 4 Notes
- 5 See Also
Introduction
As a collaborative writing site, there is a number of issues with scaling, and even narrative consistency within the SCP Foundation verse. Due to the popularity of the website, hundreds of different authors contribute different views of the universe or multiverse, different views of the works of other authors, and different views of the site's reality as a whole. There is a common belief on the website thatthere is no canon, however the Foundationverse instead functions as a large collection of overlapping and interlocking canons.
Therefore, scaling in the Foundation universe, as well as the relations between stories that take place within it, must be treated with the highest level of scrutiny, lest webs of scaling cause popular characters to be bloated in statistics, abilities, and even dimensionality. While there are connections between different pages and even links, the issues presented by different authors without any form of restrictions or regulation beyond the downvote button is too great for the entire site to be considered as a singular, consistent universe and/or multiverse.
Similar to verses such as Star Wars, one can look at SCP in two contexts: an Original File Canon, that consists of the Author and his or her works alongside canons or series the SCP takes place in, as well as theExtended Canon, which consists of the interpretations of the SCP/Character across all canons/authors/series.
Original Canon keys on profiles must follow these rules:
Original Canon Rules
1) Every SCPfor Themselves: Unless given leeway by the rules below, every SCP file is to be looked at in isolation from tales in regards to their Original File canon and cannot be scaled to SCPs by different authors. However if both SCP's original authors have written interactions between the two, scaling is applicable.
2) No Collaborative Logs: Many SCP articles have testing logs, where the anomaly is putin various scenarios to figure out its capabilities. Some of these are tagged as "collaborative", meaning that any site member can edit it regardless of their view on the SCP. While some well known SCPs have regulation on these, the issue presented above make considering them as part of the Original File difficult, as each contribution to the page is from an author that may have a radically different interpretation of the character. Entries added by the Author can be considered, however. These logs can also be considered as part of an SCP's Extended Canon(see below) Popular examples include SCP-682 and SCP-914.
3) Author: SCP Articles and tales written by the same author are generally considered to adhere to a singular canon unless provenor stated otherwise. As a single author will most likely havea consistent interpretation of the Foundation, it is not outlandish to claim that the reality experienced in the stories written by them are one and the same. For example, SCP-682and SCP-106would be considered to be part of the same Original File canon, as they were both written by Dr. Gears.
4) Canon/Series/Collaboration: Series of articles that are clearly brodcasted as a collaboration, with a canon/serieshub specifying which tales and SCPs exist in that canon, are allowed to have scaling feats within themselves. Collaborations between authors for an SCP or Tale are to be considered canon for both authors, however this does not mean other stories by either are canon to each other. Canons can also be proven to overlap or coexist from author statements on both sides. However, original SCP Files do not scale from canons unless they were specifically written for them; a different key would be needed in that case.
5) Common Sense: After all of this, the most important factor is common sense. Even articles by the same author can demonstrably contradict each other, and each SCP should be looked at in a case-by-base basis in regards to scaling, and their canon.
Extended Canon
Extended Canon is to be a separate key on an SCP File in question where there are enough alternative stories that it can be placed in a different tier or have a sufficiently different set of abilities. It functions similarly to a Composite profile, however they still follow more general narrative trends on the website, and are thus subject to scrutiny such as PIS and Outliers. Also included in this is collaborative testing logs, which are put together by the various members of the website.
Some SCPs have interpretations that may contradict or differ fromthe Extended Canon enough to be placed in a separate key (I.E. SCP-173 and The Koitern, SCP-076 andHevel-Ab-Leshal, etc.).
SCPs that have only one or two significant canons outside of the original file may have them in different keys as opposed to an extended canon (Such as SCP-3589 and its Apotheosis Canon interpretation).
Additionally, different Branches of the SCP Foundation have their own versions of extended canon. Said different extended canons should not be composited and should be placed in separate keys.
Notes
Additionally, help in finding errors to be corrected within our SCP profiles is greatly appreciated:
See Also
SCP Foundation characters
