This is the talk page for Acepedia:Canon.
Any changes to Acepedia:Canon should reflect consensus on this talk page.
See Help:Talk pages for instructions on how to create new topics or respond to existing topics.

Canon Tier List

So broached the idea of some sort of formalized Canon Tier List to Sly in the Erusean spelling guide. Thinking about it more, creating a dogmatic tier system probably isn't a great idea; it would be too rigid. But I think a sort of style guide might be of some use. Like for the example on the naming of AC3D's war, Kono says there is no canonical name for that conflict beyond coup d'etat. I think it probably makes sense for Kono's declaration of canonicity, as the effective loremaster of AC, to be even higher than the games itself. It might also be good to separate a higher level of promotional material, guide books, interviews, and world news, from stuff like marketing copy, which might contain inaccurate information.

Just a few suggestions, don't wanna make this out to be a bigger deal than it actually isScherzoPrime (talk) 05:30, June 17, 2018 (UTC)


Should we count Ace Combat Xi material as canon? Not only does some of its content seem to confuse or even contradict canon, but inferences to it are very hard to prove since:

A) the game is no longer available for download or even to play, depending on iOS version

B) gameplay footage is also equally difficult to find

Tom7896 (talk) 02:14, October 26, 2018 (UTC)

What content in Xi contradicts another game? The only thing I've always found dubious was the existence of the Gandr, but it doesn't really negate anything.
As for difficulty in finding the game or finding gameplay footage of it... technically one could claim the same thing about both Advance and Legacy :P ~ SlyCooperFan1 [message · contributions] 02:28, October 26, 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely, but at least Advance and Legacy are still easily accessible and playable; you could buy them off eBay or Amazon in minutes. You can't with Xi, which is why gameplay footage is so important when making article cleanups that reference it. Trouble is, there is nothing to work from.

Tom7896 (talk) 13:34, March 9, 2019 (UTC)

Just because it's difficult to find does not invalidate its contents. SlyCooperFan1 [message · contributions] 01:03, March 11, 2019 (UTC)

Canonicity of AC2 and AC3 routes

So as of the wiki's still extant canon page [[1]] i think this policy is pretty weak if not over all terrible.

Firstly before making any specific case for 2/3's routes, the core issue is simple, as the same page states "Acepedia holds a set of guidelines on which Ace Combat games are considered canon in the Strangereal universe" So this policy is in place for the official canon.

Yet the same page notes "Please note that Bandai Namco Entertainment has not made any specific statements regarding the canonical status of each specific media or their contradictions with one another." So already the entire validity of this entire policy is completely subjective.

The detriment here comes from the fact that as Acepedia is basically the top or near the top of most google searches, it acts with the force of argumentum ab auctoritate, or argument from authority. To the casual observer this wiki contains the "truth" of what is correct.

So already there is an impasse, as this policy claims an official canon, yet also as stated there is no actual official canon.

What this means is in practice these stances in this policy are simply made from the discretion of the editing staff, and subject to personal interpretation, which is not as if i even need say it, something a wiki should rely on.

After all many Ace Combat games have conflicting routes and choices on a basic level such as "which plane is used in which mission", and those can be properly dealt with easily enough by simply leaving the final decision to the players choice.

So in relation to Ace Combat 2 and 3's routes, the entire argument boils down to "contradicting information" as something that needs to be forcefully specified. Frankly the arguments for both games situations are very weak and flawed.

Ace Combat 3's(JPN version of course) seems very bizarre. If the issue was that there was a game set chronologically after 3 which needed to determine one of 3's endings as canon to make sense, i would perhaps be more sympathetic to the argument. But as it stands Non of these events actually contradict.

the reasoning is simple here and should be bluntly obvious, Simon has run the simulation multiple times, non of these events actually occurred in the real Strangereal, so there is no real contradiction, the simulation was successful in ensuring that Dision would be doomed, so the real life events after NEMO is purged into the actual Electrosphere are left up to the players imagination.

As these simulations looped, they were overwritten. So If that is not the issue, then i can only assume the fact the game is a simulation is the reason for this? But this is likewise very flawed reasoning. We know for example in the Matrix that Neo was in fact not bending bullets or flying or working a job in IT, he was plugged into a large simulation in a hellscape robot future.

Should the events of the Matrix taking place in that simulation, yes i know also called the Matrix, be likewise considered non-canon? No of course not. And just like Neo, to NEMO, especially as an AI, they were as " real " as the information from actual cameras or audio, so this justification even with that logic is still flawed.

Now Ace Combat 2's non-canon status i also find flawed. The reasoning here is the preferential selection of AHL's series of events. Once again, there is no official canon. So the argument there is wrong, both options should be presented as possible interpretations of events.

For comparison the original Macross TV anime and the cinema film Macross Do You Remember Love both recount the same events, the series creator Kawamori has said conflicting statements on which events are canon at various points. So in a similar vein, the safest option is simply "Both are versions of the same events, which is preferred is left to the viewer/player/listener etc".

If the argument is one of "AHL fits into the canon better" the issue becomes the fact that the canon was always treated fast and lose. Ace Combat 7 would have been the perfect as something providing a deciding factor here, as it returned to Usea. But instead in promotional material like [[2]] so, neither Ace Combat 2's nor AHL's events are even noted.

Further, Ace Combat 7 seems at times to have a hard time clarifying between AC4's and AC5's events, and does not outright mention AC2's period at all IIRC. The most is Kono referring to the conflict as the Coup D'etat, which could b applied to either game.

So in lieu of these facts i feel the Acepedia:Canon's policy on 2 and 3 is largely a subjective bias and not founded on any actual argumentation that holds up, nor even worse, any actual official sources stating anything as such. While Northern Wings is a side title, which is moderately more excusable, 2 and 3 are mainline entries at the core of the series history and aesthetic design. As such noting them as "non-canon" on such an official site and most common source of information on such weak grounds of argument is extremely flawed.

--Argonbalt (talk) 04:30, October 5, 2019 (UTC)

There's a lot to unpack here, so I'll do it one-by-one:
1. The two statements you copied are intended to explain that these guidelines are what Acepedia has set for its content because Bandai Namco/Project Aces has not discussed any of the issues presented in the page. As such, we have to hold a set of guidelines in order to keep our content aligned; we cannot say in the same breath, for example, that Larry Foulke is simultaneously 26 years old and 28 years old. The first other wiki I think of when I think about the issue of canon in fictional works is Wookieepedia, which has this canon policy based on actual published canon doctrines. Ace Combat has no such canon doctrine, Bandai Namco never made one. We have plenty of contradictions that need to be addressed in some fashion, so a canon policy needs to exist.
2. A wiki relies on the consensus of its user base. In cases where there is a disagreement, a discussion must be made and a consensus reached. Personal interpretation is inevitable, because a wiki is a community collaborative effort. After all, you're able to provide your feedback and begin a discussion as such here, and a consensus out of this could lead to the policy being edited depending on that consensus. That's the point of a wiki; it grows and changes as its community sees fit, nothing is held as a fast or true rule.
3. I'm confused by what you're trying to say with regards to AC3. Are you saying that AP:Canon#Simulation shouldn't say "the events in the simulation are considered non-canon" and instead say something like "the events in the simulation are considered to have only occurred within the simulation, not within the history of Strangereal"? I agree that the wording is off and that can be reworded with no problem. I don't think anyone disagrees that AC3 was a simulation that Simon did run, and I think everyone agrees that the runs don't contradict each other because they were simulation runs in a computer program. Is it rewording in that section you're talking about? Because we're not treating AC3 as non-canon, that's the point of AP:Canon#Japan vs export.
4. The issue with AC2 and Legacy is more complicated than just "recounting the same events" as you put it. There are missions in Legacy that didn't happen in 2, and there are missions in 2 that didn't happen in Legacy. It's the same war but not all the same events. My question to you would be, how do we present articles like Usean coup d'état and Strangereal/Timeline in an encyclopedic manner when there are different events in the two games, when Scarface Squadron did completely different actions depending on which game we're talking about? Or do we split the war article into "Usean coup d'état (AC2)" and "Usean coup d'état (Legacy)", but then how do we handle the timeline? Or do we find some other solution? Like I said in #2 above, if you and I and anyone else who chooses to respond can reach a consensus on what to do, we can change the policy, that's the point of it being a policy. If you've got any ideas, throw them at the wall and we can find what sticks.
I hope this is sufficient. Thanks for taking the time to type it all out, it's really appreciated. SlyCooperFan1 [message · contributions] 05:30, October 5, 2019 (UTC)
In response:
1.I personally have never found any majour "contradictions that need to be addressed in some fashion," So while others have felt it a necessity to stipulate these things, i have always found that there is usually an in lore reason, out of lore reason(translation errors/guide errors in particular), or development reason(Dragon and Scin/Hrimfaxi's similarities), that usually satisfy me. This "addressing" is usually mandated by those who don't consider such things.
2.If this discussion is working towards consensus then very good, i hope this changes the issues.
3.In specific the phrasing of "The Japanese version of Ace Combat 3: Electrosphere takes place in a simulation, which is revealed in the final ending cutscene with Simon Orestes Cohen. As such, every event that takes place in Ace Combat 3 gameplay is considered to be non-canon."
This seems to me to have been the result of some argument over how applicable the games events were to future "real-life" events in SR. Either way it is poorly worded. My suggestion for this area's changes would be:
"Ace Combat 3: Electrosphere(JPN version)'s events are canon." And if it needed to be specified further "Ace Combat 3: Electrosphere's simulation did happen, and are canon to the experience of NEMO and us the player, the events after the true ending are unknown, but will likely share or resemble some events of the simulations, most likely the destruction of the Dision upload copy."
4.As to AC2, yes the solution for me seems simply enough to split the two sections relevant in each article. After all the events of the AC2 missions and the AHL missions are split, as they are separate missions with separate entries.
For the Usean Coup D'etat page, a separation of AC2's version of events vs AHL's seems like the simple and obvious solution as you put it ""Usean coup d'état (AC2)" and "Usean coup d'état (Legacy)"" seems fairly logical and straightforward.
The timeline is exactly the thing i was mentioning in regards to AC7. In principle while details shift, the larger picture of the war remains the same, Scarface defeats the Coup D'etat. The issue with trying to prioritize one version of events as more important to an absolute time line of events, is the games themselves have not done this, or at least AC7's opportunity to do so has not.
So here i suggest a solution to the specific issue of the timeline:
Hard Option:
The most obvious one is simply making the same distinction between events, and then include the separation i.e.:
(AHL)"August 4: The Usean Allied Forces commences Operation Bellissima, a large-scale counteroffensive in northern Usea. Allied ground and air forces rescue Cassiopea, an AWACS that had been shot down.
(AC2)Scarface One is sent to attack a URF transport plane unit while flying in poor conditions.
Easy Option:
Simplify any timeline entries down to just the events and details that both games share. Perhaps keeping AHL's dates for the sake of timeline consistency i.e.:
August 4: The Usean Allied Forces commences Operation Bellissima, a large-scale counteroffensive in northern Usea.
In essence the issue is that for those who feel the need to stipulate events down as precisely as possible, in situations such as this there is no way to do so without forcing priority on one series/version of events/lore, which as i already mentioned, neither are prioritized by any official source or even by later games themselves.
The best solution to such situations would be to present either options as valid and leave it to the discretion of the reader to determine, not unlike how all of 0's routes are presented as valid options, because they purposefully are.
--Argonbalt (talk) 17:07, October 5, 2019 (UTC)
1. We cannot assume the reader has any knowledge of such things, therefore it has to be addressed by outright stating the problem so the user can understand.
3. I'd personally reword that to something more like this:
"The Japanese version of Ace Combat 3: Electrosphere takes place in a simulation, which is revealed in the final ending cutscene with Simon Orestes Cohen. The game is considered canon to the experience of Nemo and the player, and the events that take place after Nemo is released likely resemble some events within the simulation. The only events confirmed to take place outside the simulation are those before the gameplay (the backstory of the game's universe prior to the first mission, Awakening)."
And at the end there, we can link a reference to the AC3 Mission & World View guide book where it has a timeline showing all of the events that took place before, as the book put it, "GAME START".
If you're good with this, we can make the edit live because it's not a change in policy, it's simply a change in wording.
4. Between your ideas, I'd prefer the "hard version" because it's just as you stated: it'd be better to show more information to the reader and let them understand the difference and make a decision from there.
The thing is, while as far as I know there are no official sources that prioritize either game, it still appears obvious that Legacy is a retcon. It's the same events with the same characters, the game itself is a complete remake of AC2. AC2 didn't even have any dates for its operations, so there's no way we can even put anything AC2-related on the Timeline article.
Would we create a corresponding operation/battle page for every mission in AC2, just for the sake of "this is canon if you believe it to be canon" despite missing crucial information? For example, pages like Operation Anchorhead Freedom, are we supposed to duplicate every single one of these? Yes, we should likely show more information to the reader and let them understand the difference and make a decision from there, but we shouldn't overcomplicate the wiki itself or the readers' experience.
We can have a wiki-wide announcement about how to handle AC2 and Legacy and open it up to the entire wiki as a discussion, because there are more issues than just a single timeline article at play here. SlyCooperFan1 [message · contributions] 21:23, October 5, 2019 (UTC)
1. While nothing can be assumed about a reader, the presentation of relevant information regardless of whether it functions in canon or as an external explanation are both suitable solutions to such an issue. This has already occurred on this server, but really it still comes back to my baseline of "present all information, even if incomplete over present information completed in error"
3. As far as it looks:
"The Japanese version of Ace Combat 3: Electrosphere takes place in a simulation, which is revealed in the final ending cutscene with Simon Orestes Cohen. The game is considered canon to the experience of Nemo and the player, and the events that take place after Nemo is released likely resemble some events within the simulation. The only events confirmed to take place outside the simulation are those before the gameplay (the backstory of the game's universe prior to the first mission, Awakening), *and those of the Simon's final message at the end of the game."
With a link to the AC3 Mission & World View image sounds like a solution and far better version then the previous state of wording on that page.
4. If the "Hard Version" sounds more suitable then that is a possible solution.
As to the next bit, the issue i have really is that "it still appears obvious that Legacy is a retcon" still is problematic. In action yes, it is a retcon within the events of AHL, absolutely.
The issue is that while it "appears" as such within that game, in lieu of recent games it also "appears" that there is no real preference given or shown, as it stands the only direct references i can find within 7 are emblems which well, do not amount to all that much, we have emblems to 2 and also an emblem from AHL.
To infer anything beyond "AC7 is a game in a franchise acknowledging past games", like which is canon or not, would still basically be inductive reasoning. This is the core bit really, outside of AHL, how much do the changes AHL had made matter to the point of substantial importance? Or to the degree that it holds any higher importance over 2? As it stands presently, there is non.
Anything that can be traced back to 2 i.e. Alicorn being a modified hull of the Scinfaxi class, of which was a potential copy of the design of the Dragonet. Equally could connect to AC2 or AHL.
So i think a solution must be reached, but i do agree. A wiki should aim for some efficiency, and no duplication of all pages(and as it stands, the fact his wiki has separate battle pages always struck me as needlessly redundant considering outside of op names not being the same as level names, most of their content is basically just re-stating in game events within a lore perspective, i always thought you could easily merge these into a smaller section within the mission pages, but this is a separate issue really).
Really i dont know every single page that has this overlap, and i won't deny that AHL has more precise dates and details. My ideal solution here really is one that just needs to adhere to these points:
A) Presenting AC2's events as not non-canon, but merely an alternative
B) Presenting neither AC2's nor AHL events as some how more canon given the nebulous state of the lore and its level of importance relative to the franchise, as well as the fact most events did occur in both, only under different details,
C) Presenting this information efficiently and succinctly.
If this requires opening it up to more input i will not disagree to such an option.
--Argonbalt (talk) 23:03, October 5, 2019 (UTC)
The reason for the separation of mission pages and lore pages is a consensus discussion from a few years back, I'd have to dig to find it now but that's why we're doing it like this. It may be worth revisiting that discussion and to determine if this is really our best option.
The effects of treating AC2 and Legacy as equally canon are definitely multi-faceted. I'm trying to think of every situation and every page type that has to deal with this issue.
1. The Strangereal/Timeline article presents dates that are only shown in Legacy and cannot be assumed as AC2's dates since AC2 didn't even have any dates and had different missions. You mentioned an option of either showing all information (which I would personally prefer) or only certain shared information, but I'm not sure how we can squeeze all of AC2 into there without, again, basically duplicating everything or giving incorrect assumptions of when AC2's missions may have taken place. Treating the games as equally canon means that we cannot use Legacy's dates for AC2's dates, and since AC2 didn't have any dates, we omit them in relation to AC2.
2. Operation articles that are shared between both games, for example Operation Anchorhead Freedom, link to the mission disambiguation page so the reader can choose which mission article to go to from there, AC2 or Legacy. But operation articles like Battle of Payton Channel describe operations that only happened in Legacy and not AC2. If we treat all AC2 as canon, would we be making operation articles for AC2's missions that didn't happen in Legacy, like Greased Lightning? And how can we justify linking them to operations that aren't specifically AC2? Attack on the Keep is something that happened in both AC2 and Legacy, but would the following operation in the infobox link to both Battle of Payton Channel and "Attack on Meriton Base"? And would we make two different operation articles for operations that are shared between both games, as I mentioned above, like "Operation Bellissima (AC2)" and "Operation Bellissima (Legacy)" since there are specific differences between them? Or do we somehow include both game details on the same operation page? But then also how do we deal with the date issue of AC2 not having dates and preventing any assumptions that it did present dates?
3. Location articles for the locations featured in both games have history sections that currently prioritize Legacy. Do we include AC2 information as well, and if so, how do we separate the two to indicate to the reader that this only happened in this game and that only happened in that game, within the same article? Or, God forbid, do we separate the location articles?
4. The war article, Usean coup d'état itself, currently prioritizes Legacy as well, so how would we include operations that occurred only in AC2? Do we turn the war article into two different articles, inevitably duplicating a large portion of text, or do we include all the information in the same article?
For what it's worth, you even said "In action yes, it is a retcon within the events of AHL, absolutely." So we both agree that Legacy is a retcon of AC2. If we recognize that, then why don't we understand Legacy to be the "more" canon of the two games since it is obviously a retcon of an older game, post-creation of Strangereal itself? We're not giving more importance in terms of mission articles to either game, or I suppose less importance since both games desperately need work on their mission articles. The question of "what truly happened in the universe, Legacy's events or AC2's events" just seems kind of obvious to me since we both agree Legacy is a retcon.
I'm going to open this up to a larger discussion to the whole wiki after I discuss with User:Qbicle and User:MyNamesFurii on making an announcement because we definitely need everyone else's input on this issue. If we cannot come to a consensus on Legacy's events obviously being a retcon of AC2's events and therefore prioritized in terms of lore, then we need to come to a few points of consensus on how to handle the various situations we're facing in my numbered points above. SlyCooperFan1 [message · contributions] 18:27, October 6, 2019 (UTC)
I will try to return to these later points tonight, but just to clarify right now, by "In action yes, it is a retcon within the events of AHL, absolutely.", i mean of course as you play AHL it is clearly giving priority to its telling of events. My larger point is that as of AC7 that priority no longer seems to exist as far as we can tell, hence the issue of there being no clear distinction on AHL being all that particularly "more" canon.
1. I admit the timeline still presents a difficulty, as AHL has the relevant information like dates, but AC2 does not, instead of half guessing, perhaps the easiest method would be to simply add a single point around the start of the coup saying something like "The events of AC2 are believed to have begun occurring around this point." It is still speculative obviously, but it is of the least amount of speculation and leaves the rest of the time line as set by AHL's dates still in place? Otherwise yes a lot of guess work is needed, it is a difficult point due to the lack of dates for AC2's events.
2. The page you cite, honestly to me seems like a perfect example of just how largely redundant individual operations pages are, largely consisting of just information already present in a level description but within a in universe wording.
My best solution would be to not have multiple operations pages, as that would indeed be a large amount of even more redundancy in my opinion. One singular "AC2 Operations" page, which could simply copy the events of AC2's missions, even straight from the AC2 "campaign missions" page, directly into a chronological list with some slight re wording for in universe consistency. That way no complex linking set ups or conflicting links with the AHL operations pages are needed.
Also given the small amounts of information present within AC2's missions as is, it just makes more sense, the alternative, of a huge number of what will amount to one to two paragraph pages, involves more work to show what amounts to the same amount of information.
Best to centralize the information on a singular page, given the amount present.
3. No separate articles are certainly redundant. A simple separation and a section noting the once again, quite simple events of AC2 should be more then sufficient. What would be nice is the removal of such items as: TriviaEdit
As the location does not re-appear in Ace Combat: Assault Horizon Legacy, the event depicted in Ace Combat 2 is non-canon.
As i noted before one of the priorities should be C) Presenting this information efficiently and succinctly.
4.Same as above efficiently and Succinctly. For the Coup Detat, instead of re-writing an entire separate article, perhaps a solution might be to simply have a section on "Differences between AC2 and AHL" as some wiki's have sections labeled such things as "differences between book and film/tv and film/tv and book etc" Thus minimizing redundancy and aiming instead to merely highlight distinctions which, i will personally mention, would be a very interesting area to read through as a hypothetical interested fan, just to see and compare the differences in events. This would also 1 not be redundant to already present information, and 2 present AHL's sequence of events while also noting the content not included and only present in AC2, thus achieving the goal of presenting both sets of information without any hard judgement.
--Argonbalt (talk) 19:41, October 6, 2019 (UTC)

Resetting the indentation to signify that I'm moving this to a wiki-wide Discussion over on the Community Feeds platform, since that's easier for our users to discuss through (not everyone knows how to use a talk page): SlyCooperFan1 [message · contributions] 20:43, October 15, 2019 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.