Talk:SCP Foundation/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Original Research?

The SCP Foundation's main page says that the users Roget and Vincent_Redgrave helped to write this article. Does this mean that the first source, written by Roget, is original research? Planterobloon (talk) 14:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I was the one who actually wrote the article, but I communicated with those two users about Wikipedia policy and issues on Wikipedia that might impact the website. Additionally, they helped with proofreading and checking the factual accuracy of the article (as a side note, this communication was partially why I went through AfC instead of the normal creation route). The essay I cited is in fact a primary source, but its generally ok to use primary sources for lightweight claims about the topic of the article, so long as the lightweight claim is directly stated in the source. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 19:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Extended content
I think this comes under WP:██, so it's OK so long as [REDACTED]. Neldo (talk) 13:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

A problem (might not even be one) I see with the About the SCP Foundation cite

The link to the About page links to [1], an overhauled version of [2]. The new version is rewritten by Aelanna, while the original one is indeed written by The Administrator. How should we clarify that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wuzh (talk • contribs) 00:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd say credit The Administrator as the creator and Aelanna as a significant expander. If this isn't possible, give Aelanna an author listing, but make it come after The Administrator. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Containing The Size Of Examples of contained SCPs Section

(Pun intended)
I am a bit worried that people will just add more and more examples to that section and cause its size to completely go out of hand. I am suggesting that we should reduce it to just the most notable ones, and by that I mean the ones on the Heritage Collection. And even then, we shouldn't add all of them, just the "most" most notable ones. Does that sound good? Wuzh (talk) 02:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I added a hidden message asking that any contributions be sourced to a reliable source independent of the SCP Foundation, and stating that any entry that fails this requirement may be removed. There are only a small number of SCPs that have gotten enough coverage to get an entry, so I'm not too worried about the lists size so long as we make sure to regularly prune entries that have not gotten coverage in reliable sources. Also, I'm hesitant to limit entries on the list solely to the Heritage Collection. The SCP listing is meant in part to illustrate the wide variety of SCPs on the website. All of the entries in the Heritage Collection are from generation I, while a good listing of SCPs would contain listings from all three generations. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

About Examples

I'm thinking that we can restructure the example of SCPs into something more useful, such as a section describing the style of the articles with specific example SCPs being used to demonstrate them (basically just folded into the Writing style section), like 426 being used to demonstrate the commonly found "Meta" article style, or 087 being used to demonstrate an example of a Euclid class anomaly. This is because A: just having a bunch of examples there is very much a bait for random editors to add in random examples, and B: it is quite possible that in the far future, when there are enough sources, the section will just go out of control and into a big list of in-universe stuff, which Wikipedia doesn't want (I'm sure there is a wikipedia rule page for it somewhere, can't find it though)

Also, I don't think SCP-2317's apollyon classification is covered on the source immediately after it. Should probably remove that.

--Wuzh (talk) 02:21, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I’ve removed the information about Apollyon, as well as thaumial class SCiPs. In regards to the Apollyon class, there is really no need to list every single non-standard classification that occurs throughout the series. In regards to thaumial, it is an officially recognized esoteric class by the SCP Foundation wiki. However, it lacks coverage in secondary sources and is getting into too much detail for what should be a more general overview of the series.

In response to the list, I think what you are proposing would be a nice addition to the writing style section, but I’m not sure if there is enough coverage to create the category based description. Regardless, I would prefer that a short list of SCPs be maintained in the synopsis section since they are such a critical part of the universe and since two of them, 173 and 087, are discussed elsewhere in the article (meaning the short explanations are needed for context, so putting them in a more central location is preferable to burying them in the middle of the writing style section). Also, the source requirement is just a stopgap measure that we can always make more stringent as needed. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:59, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Collaborative writing or just shared universe

Is it more accurate to describe the SCP works as collaborative writing (where multiple writers work on the same text) or just shared universe (where the works are by individuals who don't cooperate per-work, but all occupy the same fictional milieu)? These, to an extent, overlap - and a shared universe is itself a collaborative work - but Wikipedia's article distinguish the two. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 18:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The term "shared universe" just feels kind of awkward while the term "collaborative writing" is way to nuanced for the lead paragraph. It could be argued that the entire website constitutes a work. However, the majority of specific articles are written by an individual author, and users are generally prohibited from making major changes to articles without the original author's permission. Personally, I prefer the term "creative writing". Its an accurate description of the site that does not require a footnote to explain, plus its what the SCP Foundation calls itself in its FAQ. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 22:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

It's a collaborative writing site; people can edit other articles and often subject their articles to peer review. Sleepdelay (talk) 01:02, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, collaborative writing within a set premise. Ceoil (talk) 14:51, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Use of a Doctoral Thesis as a source

I recently found a doctoral thesis entitled "Participatory storytelling and the new folklore of the digital age", which covers aspects the SCP Foundation that the sources already present in the article do not. Specifically, it contains:

• a detailed description of the various parts of an SCP article.
• language regarding the presence of forums on the website, and the fact that they are used to offer feedback on articles (some of the specific information the author provided about the forums was incorrect, so I only intend to give a more general overview from the information listed).

I made a post about this at the reliable source noticeboard. Most of the respondents said the source was acceptable, but one editor recommended evaluating what and why I'm using the source. If anyone has any thoughts about this, your input would be appreciated. If no one has any objections, I'll add the content in within the next day or so. Also, the full citation for the source is: Newsom, E. T. (2013). Participatory storytelling and the new folklore of the digital age (Order No. 3601025). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1466302542). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1466302542?accountid=11091. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

That link requires a Georgetown University NetID. I found one that does not require registration: http://gradworks.umi.com/36/01/3601025.html .--Auric talk 20:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Source added for SCP count

I used the SCP Foundation's "SCP" tag page as a source for the number of SCP articles on the website. To update this count, please save the tag page in archive.is and update the archive.is link in the citation. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:16, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Russian Branch is Official Again

Good news: the issues affecting the Russian Branch have been resolved, and it is now an officially recognized translation site again. As proof, here is the staff thread reinstating Russian membership (scroll down to the very bottom) and here is the main page, which lists the Russian Branch as an official member again. Unfortunately, the Russians are still not listed on the "Links" page, and no official announcement was made regarding the reinstatement. For a source, I'm planning on citing the table on the main page unless anyone has a better idea. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:55, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Hypertext

I recently removed language stating that the SCP Foundation was an example of hypertext fiction. No citation was provided for this claim nor was I able to find one. However, the claim is pretty self-evident. My main two concerns were our policy on verifiability, and maintaining summary style. Was this removal appropriate, or do other editors think the language should be re-instated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spirit of Eagle (talk • contribs) 03:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Example list size

So I've noticed that the list of contained SCPs is getting a bit... large, even with the sourcing guideline. Although there's no policy on this kind of thing afaik, I'd propose either capping it the current 10 entries, or bringing it down to eight. SCPs could be chosen based on mentions in sources, popularity, and/or equal distribution from SCPs 0-3999. User:Axisixa [talk] [contribs] —Preceding undated comment added 07:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Eight should be more than enough to put forth the concept that SCP fiction has a lot of weird things. And yes, the list currently includes the Toaster but please, anyone reading it, don't change it to 'I am a toaster'. That's for SCP fiction writings, not here. Lots42 (talk) 13:49, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. The “only add SCPs with coverage in reliable sources” standard was effective a few years ago when coverage of the SCP Foundation was scant. However, a lot more sources have popped up over the years, and the list will likely become bloated if every sourced SCP gets included. At this point, I would be in support of locking down the list, and require approval on the talk page to add additional SCPs. Going forward, I believe that we should prioritize SCPs that are either discussed elsewhere in the article or that show off the diversity of SCP content. I would also support editing the list so that we have at least one SCP from each series (i.e Series 1 is SCPS 1-999, Series 2 is SCPs 1000-1999, etc.). Thoughts Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. User:Axisixa [talk] [contribs] 01:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Even so, we still only list those that are mentioned in RSes. We might not list them all, but those are the only ones we list. DS (talk) 04:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I've updated the hidden text before the list to state that additional SCPs will only be added if they receive the approval of the talk page. I also kept in the language about requiring the SCPs to be covered in reliable sources. I had no intention of removing the reliable source requirement, although I probably should have been a bit more clear about this here. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:14, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2018

In the Spin-off Works section, before talking about the video games, I suggest adding a line noting the large international network of translation communities.

"Apart from the original English community, satellite sites representing other languages and nationalities have come to exist alongside the original community. These branches include Russian, Korean, Chinese, French, Polish, Spanish, Thai, Japanese, German, and Italian writers making both translated and original works. The SCP Foundation has also inspired multiple independent video games. One of these games is SCP – Containment Breach. In the game, the protagonist is a member of D-class personnel who attempts to escape the facility he is stationed at during a containment breach..."

Sources on the sites:

http://scp-ru.wikidot.com/ (RUSSIAN)

http://scp-kr.wikidot.com/ (KOREAN)

http://scp-wiki-cn.wikidot.com/ (CHINESE)

http://fondationscp.wikidot.com/ (FRENCH)

http://scp-wiki.net.pl/ (POLISH)

http://lafundacionscp.wikidot.com/ (SPANISH)

http://scp-th.wikidot.com/ (THAI)

http://scp-jp.wikidot.com/ (JAPANESE)

http://scp-wiki-de.wikidot.com/ (GERMAN)

http://fondazionescp.wikidot.com/ (ITALIAN) Rogay (talk) 23:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done No_Spaces✔ ^talk 00:59, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2018

Important mistakes in "Writing style", "Reception" and "References":

• Change name Gregory Burkhart to Gregory Burkart. (Proofs: http://www.the13thfloor.tv/2015/10/29/creepypasta-of-the-week-the-scp-foundation and https://twitter.com/G9Burkart);
• Change name Lisay Suhay to Lisa Suhay (Proofs: https://www.csmonitor.com/The-Culture/Culture-Cafe/2014/1110/Urban-Druid-writing-contest-What-s-behind-the-dark-side-fiction and https://twitter.com/NiceChess757);
• Change name Bryant Alexander to Bryan Alexander (Proof: https://books.google.ru/books?id=_NgoDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA72&dq=SCP+Foundation&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=SCP%20Foundation&f=false);
• Change name Bechizza, Rob to Beschizza, Rob (Proof: https://boingboing.net/2017/06/29/brilliant-short-story-about-be.html).

Little changes:

• Change in source [[Pocket dimension|pocket universe]] to [[Pocket universe|pocket dimension]] because of: there are no "Pocket dimension" article in English Wikipedia (only "Pocket universe"), current link make redirection to "Pocket universe" article and this place has title "pocket dimension" in the original (in sentence "SCP-106 is able to “vanish” inside solid matter, entering what is assumed to be a form of “pocket dimension”." in http://www.scp-wiki.net/scp-106);
• Change "live-action" in sentence "A live-action web-series also entered production in 2013 which was based on the SCP Foundation." of "Spin-off works" to "live action" like in this article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_action);
• Change "web-series" in sentence "A live-action web-series also entered production in 2013 which was based on the SCP Foundation." of "Spin-off works" to "web series" like in this article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_series);
• Change "Pop Matters" in "References" to "PopMatters" like in this article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PopMatters).

Wikipedia's links:

• Add link (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki) to word "wiki" in first sentence of "Writing style";
• Add link (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrative) to word "narratives" in sentence "The SCP Foundation lacks a central canon, but stories on the wiki are frequently linked together to create larger narratives." of "Writing style";
• Add link (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bustle_(magazine) ) to word "Bustle" in sentence "Writers from the Daily Dot and Bustle have noted that the website maintains strict quality control standards, and that sub-par content tends to be quickly removed." of "Community";
• Add link (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Suhay) to words "Lisa Suhay" in sentence "Lisa Suhay, writing for the Christian Science Monitor, also noted the SCP Foundation's "tongue-in-cheek style"." of "Reception";
• Add link (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_action) to "live action" in sentence "A live action web series also entered production in 2013 which was based on the SCP Foundation." of "Spin-off works";
• Add link (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_series) to "web series" in sentence "A live action web series also entered production in 2013 which was based on the SCP Foundation." of "Spin-off works";
• Add link (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PopMatters) to "PopMatters" in "References";
• Add link (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter) to word "Twitter" in "References";
• Add link (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock,_Paper,_Shotgun) to "Rock, Paper, Shotgun" in "References";
• Add link (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belfield_FM) to "Belfield FM" in "References";
• Add link (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_College_Dublin) to "UCD" in "References";
• Add link (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campus_radio) to "Student Radio" in "References";
• Add link (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Una_Power) to "Una Power" in "References".

Sorry for maybe bad English and Thanks! LALKOVED (talk) 10:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done No_Spaces✔ ^talk 05:09, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! But why you didn’t add links, which I offered? LALKOVED (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Please see MOS:OLINK. Not every article that can be linked needs to be linked. None of these links really contributes to understanding the subject or provides important context - they are all just links to either common terms or links to articles on sources and writers for the sake of linking. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay. LALKOVED (talk) 16:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2018

Suggest removal of this line, as Max Landis was permanently banned from the community due to his known sexual indiscretions:

"Notable contributors to the SCP Foundation include screenwriter Max Landis." Rogay (talk) 17:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't have any opposition to removing this line since it is only supported by one of Landis's tweets. Additionally, I've always felt that the information was a bit extraneous for a section about the site and community history, features, standards, etc. I have zero desire to discuss the status of Landis's account beyond what is necessary. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

SCP 173

Which was invented first, SCP 173 or the weeping angels? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.83.199 (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a discussion forum, talk pages like this are intended for discussing (and improving) the article, not its subject. The SCP Foundation site has its own forum, which is suitable for the question you are asking - I would recommend you try that. User:Axisixa [talk] [contribs] 00:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

This is actually somewhat important, as the article lists the original post on 4chan being posted in 2007, the year the episode of Doctor Who in question aired, and the cited source, a web archive, says the original post was made in May of 2008. Either the article is currently wrong, or the archive is. — Preceding comment added by 173.23.126.44 (talk) 18:50, 28 March 2018‎ (UTC); original signature removed while fixing wiki markup errors

If I'm not mistaken, things are often reposted on 4chan due to its ephemeral nature (I think all threads disappear after a certain amount of inactivity). The original SCP-173 was quite popular, so it would have been reposted for a long period of time. User:Axisixa [t] [c] 01:42, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2018

change "SCP-426 is a toaster which can only be referred to in the first person." to "I, SCP-426, am a toaster which can only be referred to in the first person." 173.16.204.164 (talk) 01:46, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

No. The cognitohazardous effect only applies in-universe. It's the same reason we remembered to include a mention of SCP-055. DS (talk) 02:11, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Need to edit

Someone needs to edit about the newer scp game called do secret laboratory. Apersonthatlikesmemes (talk) 02:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

There's a bunch of SCP games. We only list the ones that appear in reliable sources. DS (talk) 02:32, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Spin-off works section

Over the last few months, a number of SCP Foundation video games received coverage in reliable sources; more of these games are inevitably going to be published and get a bit of media attention. I really do not want the "Spin-off Works" section to become a mass and indiscriminate list of independent works. To snip this problem in the bud, I'm proposing that we add the following hidden language to the top of the section: "This section is meant to give a general overview of independent works based on the SCP Foundation. Individual works should only be mentioned if they are either particularly important to the SCP Foundation or show off the diversity of works based on the SCP Foundation. Repetitive works may be removed from this section". Does anyone have any thoughts or objections? Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:37, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Updated Quality

I'm of the opinion this meets all criteria for a Class-B article so I've gone ahead and updated that. I reckon it's not far off GA quality but I'm not going to decide that one myself. Additionally, I'd say it fits at least mid-level importance. Thoughts? CoconutOctopus talk 17:22, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I think this classification is appropriate. Low-importance basically means that the article subject is periphery or something incredibly narrow, while mid-importance means that it has some larger, but not necessarily major, significance within the field. The SCP Foundation is a major creative writing website that grew out of 4chan creepypasta, so I think its more appropriate to label it mid-importance. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:48, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Whilst it may not have major significance within horror as a whole, it has a very large significance within online writing and creeepypasta communities, as well as being pretty unique in its methods and size. With many, many fan games, youtube videos, and other works, it has left a large impact online. CoconutOctopus talk 22:52, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok with B Class here. But, note the class and importance scales are not related. Ceoil (talk) 22:56, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Aware of that, but noticed it when updating quality and thought it was worth a mention too. CoconutOctopus talk 23:05, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Grand. I'd be thinking mid-importance myself. Ceoil (talk) 23:14, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Importance

Well, with three people suggesting mid-importance I've gone ahead and done that for the reasons specified above. Always open to other comments. CoconutOctopus talk 23:21, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok. For the record I think in 5-10 years we'll get a lot of by then established writers mentioning that they cut their teeth on SCP. <rubs hands>. Ceoil (talk) 23:25, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Already are a few published authors on the site! Wonder if we'll have a section about them here someday... CoconutOctopus talk 23:29, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

"published authors" doesn't mean now what it did 20 years ago (ie traditionally), in terms of reach and sustainability. But yes, and the aesthetic will probably move into the mainstream much like creepypasta did, slowly and very subtly, prob through screenwriting. Ceoil (talk) 00:08, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Somewhere in the archives of S. Andrew Swann's blog is a statement that he writes for the Foundation. (It might only be on archive.org, actually. But I saw it.) DS (talk) 01:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Wasn't aware Swann had a wikipedia page. Might be worth adding in future. CoconutOctopus talk 03:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2018

I think that SCP-426 should only be referred to in first person, since a person can only talk, think and write about me in first person. So just change all the "It"s to "Me" in the article written about me. Thank you. =) Spizzie (talk) 17:57, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done. This article isn't about this fictional toaster; it's just a one-line entry, and none of the "it"s in the article even refer to it. Even if it were, still no, for obvious readability reasons. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:26, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2018

Change "SCP-426 is a toaster which can only be referred to in the first person." to "I, SCP-426 am a toaster which can only be referred to in the first person." LiamMaclean216 (talk) 19:56, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: MOS:REALWORLD. If you'd like to make in-universe edits, please head to the SCP wiki. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 20:39, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Suggestions from an SCP staffer

Hello, my name is Modern_Erasmus and I'm the new co-head of the SCP wiki's Internet Outreach team, replacing Roget (who was consulted earlier in this article's creation). I'd like to thank @Spirit of Eagle: for doing a great job maintaining this page over the years, and to offer a few suggestions. It would be nice to get one article from series 3 and one from series 5 in the list of SCP examples, just so each series has at least one representative. SCP secret lab has become the most notable SCP game since Containment Breach, so it should probably get a mention. https://twinfinite.net/2018/07/remedy-control-scp-foundation/ Remedy entertainment is developing the game Control https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_(video_game) that is the first AAA game to be explicitly inspired by SCP which is quite notable. The rise in popularity of youtube SCP readers (several of which are in the 100s of thousands of subscribers like SCPreadings and Volgun) has been big in the past few years, and Lord Bung's SCP animated series Confinement is hugely popular with over 18 million views across 6 episodes and several stand alone shorts and trailers. Finally, it would be good to mention the rapid growth we've been experiencing over the past few years, with figures https://imgur.com/gallery/t79IDuk here. On a more clerical note we've also expanded our official social media presences far beyond just a subreddit (twitter, tumblr, instagram, deviantart, etc). Thanks again for your excellent work, and let me know if you have any questions.

"nice to get one article from series 3 and one from series 5" - not without media coverage. That's the only way we've kept the list from bloating up. DS (talk) 23:46, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Gotcha. Also I've been informed twinfinite isn't the greatest source, so here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4KFu3zLB6M is the interview in which the remedy devs mention SCP as the influence. Timestamp is at 9:55.Modern Erasmus (talk) 09:58, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

https://www.robotbutt.com/2016/01/12/unexpected-internet-rabbit-hole-scp-foundation/ Here is an article with a paragraph about SCP-2521, which would be the perfect representative of series 3 since it's the second highest rated SCP of all time after 173 itself. I suppose it isn't too big a deal that series 5 isn't represented yet since it's fairly new and still ongoing.Modern Erasmus (talk) 09:58, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the shout-out and suggestions. Reliable sourcing has been a bit of a pain, since the available sources often fail to cover important aspects of the SCP Foundation (we can use the SCP Foundation itself for non-controversial facts about topics that have received some coverage in secondary sources, but this usage is very limited). I'm currently incredibly busy with Christmas coming up, but I'll look into some of your suggestions when I get the opportunity. (Specifically, I'll look into your social media presence, YouTube readings, Control/ SCP secret laboratory, and adding/replacing SCPs on the scip list. All of these would be good additions to the article if they have sufficient sourcing (which to be clear, they may not). Lord Bung has sadly received no coverage (I've checked).) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Over the last two days, I've been working on researching and incorporating the above suggestions where appropriate. I added language to the article about the SCP Foundation's social media presence, Control and SCP Secret Laboratory. I was not able to find any sources discussing the YouTube community. As for 2521, Robot Butt seems to have minimal to non-existent editorial review; the source unfortunately does not meet our standards on reliability and I was unable to find a replacement source. In the future, there will likely be sources covering these left-out topics. I conduct searches for sources on the SCP Foundation every few weeks, and will add to the article as sourcing allows. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:07, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Add what the acronym means

Nowhere in the article does it actually state that SCP stands for "Secure, Contain, Protect". Seems like a rather big oversight. Could someone with editing privileges please add in this information ASAP? --77.254.187.154 (talk) 00:49, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Done. Added as a note to prevent it clogging up the main page. CoconutOctopus talk 16:50, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

SCP does not stand for Secure, Contain, Protect. That is an unofficial motto and backronym DrDragon53 (talk) 01:00, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2019

}} 204.113.238.2 (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

 Blank request--Auric talk 20:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:SCP Foundation/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: A. Parrot (talk · contribs) 20:23, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, this has certainly been waiting a long time for a review! It's tough to finds sources that discuss online culture, and it's tough to find the right amount of detail when writing about fictional subjects; congratulations, Spirit of Eagle, on managing both. I really only have one concern to address before passing this article. A. Parrot (talk) 20:23, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Looks good overall, but my one problem is in the second sentence: "In universe, the SCP Foundation is responsible for locating and containing…" The phrase "in-universe" is a bit of Wikipedia jargon and may confuse those unfamiliar with it. The simplest alternative would be something like "Within the website's fictional universe", but I'm not entirely comfortable with that, either; it wasn't so long ago that discussion of "fictional universes" was pretty rare.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Looking at the results from Earwig's tool, the only potential copyright problem I see is the phrase "toaster that can only be referred to in the first person", which is found in the CNET article. As I can't think of another straightforward way to say this, I think it's allowable. (The text did say "which" instead of "that" before I edited it, but only "that" is 100% correct in a restrictive clause like this one.)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   The reception section is almost entirely positive, but that tends to happen with analysis of creative works in a new medium, and the not-entirely-positive remarks from Eichler provide a reasonable amount of balance.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Thanks a lot for the review. This article has been many years in the making, so I’m glad that it turned out well.

I changed the opening of the sentence you identified to read “Within the website’s fictional setting.” This should hopefully eliminate any confusion about switching between a real-world website and a fictional organization, while also avoiding the in/out universe issue (a term which I was surprised to learn was not in wider usage).

I spent about eight minutes trying to come up with a way to rephrase the language about the toaster and was unable to come up with any intelligible alternative. I agree this is just one of those concepts that can only be stated one way. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@Spirit of Eagle: When I think about it, "in universe" isn't restricted to Wikipedia, but Wikipedia is the first place I can recall seeing it, back in the late 2000s. The notion of analyzing fictional universes and working out their history and rules dates back at least to Tolkien and was obviously adopted by the science fiction and fantasy communities of the late 20th century, but I'm not sure how common it was to speak of "fictional universes" before there were wikis to document every planet in Star Wars and every elf in Tolkien, or before those fandoms collectively went mainstream in pop culture around the same time. The SCP Foundation is an outgrowth of that way of thinking about fiction. For those who haven't gotten the cultural memo, so to speak, I think it's best to make the WP article on it as accessible as possible. </end rambling>

Anyway, "Within the website's fictional setting" is a good solution, but the phrase "in universe" is still in the second sentence of the lead. I don't know whether you want to vary the wording or just paste in "within the website’s fictional setting" in its place. A. Parrot (talk) 04:03, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@A. Parrot: I've changed the language in the lede sentence to refer to "fictional setting" instead of "in universe." Your anaysis was spot on; I've most commonly seen the phrase "in-universe" used on various fan wikis. The phrase would probably be familiar to a fan of the SCP Foundation, but I agree that the language used within the article should be accesable to all. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Pass. Congratulations! A. Parrot (talk) 05:24, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

SCP Apollyon Class

I noticed that Apollyon isn't included in the list of SCP class. Since I don't have the perms to edit it in, I would like to ask for someone who does to do it. For those who don't know, the Apollyon classification indicates that the SCP can't be contained.

CrownedLime747 (talk) 16:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I don’t think the class is appropriate for the article. Apollyon is not an official object class and it’s gotten no coverage in secondary sources. It’s really just one estoteric class amongst many, and listing it in the article gives it undue emphasis. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 21:46, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Agreed on this- if we were to list every esoteric class out there we'd need a whole new page. CoconutOctopus talk 11:57, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Site Spin-offs

Not sure whether or not this is entirely necessary, but in the past few months, beginning in July—or maybe June—a site was split off from the original following disagreement over an LGBTq+ "pride month" makeover to the site. There's a nifty chart floating on 4chan with all of the different split-offs, or clones, but the most prominent is the RPC Authority (http://rpc-wiki.net) There's no need to address this, but it would certainly enhance the article.

• (Youtube | What is the RPC Authority?) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6-bkcJ8qoE&vl=en)
• (Youtube | Why people are leaving... SCP Foundation) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJS7LnzCRkw)
• (SCP Forums | RPC Authority) (http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-6179567/rpc-authority-website)
  

72.197.181.103 (talk) 04:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. To add content to articles, we need coverage from reliable sources (i.e. news articles, books, academic journals, etc.). This was the only secondary source covering the drama, but I quite frankly have serious concern's about the articles accuracy, reliability, and ideological slant. If the drama ever gets more significant coverage, I'll add it in where appropriate. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:41, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Worth noting that all of those websites are virtually dead or else have very little activity. Also, only one relatively notable SCP author (von pincier) actually left the wiki, there was no actual exodus from the SCP community itself. Source: I am SCP wiki staff and was present during these events. They aren't notable anymore and don't directly relate to SCP.Modern Erasmus (talk) 09:58, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

RPC is still active with its attendance still going up not plateauing or going down, I know this as I have access to its analytics. SinaticusAnimus (talk) 12:40, 05 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2019

Please change "SCP-426 is a toaster that can only be referred to in the first person.[7]" to "I am SCP-426. I can only be referred to in the first person.[7]" because the toaster can only be referred to in the first person in all descriptions of the toaster. Cyberman112 (talk) 19:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Per MOS:REALWORLD. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Light novel series

https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2019-04-18/seven-seas-licenses-dumbbell-nan-kilo-moteru-and-my-father-is-a-unicorn-manga-scp-foundation-iris-of-the-mirror-world-novel/.145899

Someone actually released a light novel series based on the SCP Foundation. I'm currently deep in exam period, but I'll add this into the article when I get the chance (unless someone beats me to it). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 21:45, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

The language has been added to the article. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:02, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Ongoing License Violation

It looks like there's some drama over in the Russian SCP community.

http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-11572837/announcement-regarding-ongoing-license-violation http://05command.wikidot.com/russia-licensing-statement https://www.reddit.com/r/SCP/comments/blh828/someone_has_trademarked_the_scp_logo_in_russia/

Should the article be updated to talk about this or are reputable sources needed? CyanoTex (talk) 12:55, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for bringing this to our attention. I did find a single source. However, I’m going to wait before adding anything to the article. We’re supposed to be giving a summary overview and I think its best to wait to see how this plays out. I know that the SCP Foundation has to deal with a ton of copyright violations per their Creative Commons license, so this isn't that unusual at this precise moment in time. However this issue has some major legal implications and could explode, so I’ll keep an eye out for developments. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 21:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Source: [3]. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 21:16, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Automatic archiving

The talk page for this article has been getting pretty lengthy, and I really don’t see the need to keep conversations from 2015 on here. Would anyone object to setting up an Help:Archiving a talk page#Options? I was thinking it could be set up so that anything not commented on in 120 days gets archived; it should be set up so that there are always at least 5 conversations up. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I've set up Mizabot to archive any section that goes 120 days without a response. This should be sufficient for now, but please feel free to edit this figure as needed. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:34, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Commercial: No should be removed from the sidebar

While the wiki is not run for the profit of its staff, our web host does profit off of the traffic and our license allows for commercial use of SCP derivative works so long as they follow the license terms. We've recently had a few cases where this element of the wikipedia page has confused people and led to licensing issues. I'd really appreciate it if the line was removed. I leave it to your judgement if it should be changed to commercial: yes or just removed entirely, though personally I think the latter would be best since the former could leave the false impression that the wiki itself is a for-profit organization. Modern Erasmus (talk) 14:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I’ve removed the language about the SCP Foundation’s commercial classification; my apologies for all of the licensing trouble the infobox caused. (Policywise, the removal is appropriate because the SCP Foundation’s commercial status is a controversial claim needing a source; it’s also far more nuanced than is appropriate for an info box). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2019

Change SCP-426's description to, "SCP-426 I am a toaster and can only refer to myself in the first person." Bobbyn1224 (talk) 12:19, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: per MOS:REALWORLD. If you'd like to make in-universe edits, please head to the SCP wiki. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 12:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2019

Requested addition: {{other uses of|SCP}} 97.65.103.250 (talk) 19:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done; the current article title is already fully unambiguous. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:15, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Edit request

Change "Examples of contained SCPs" to "Examples of contained anomalies". SCP means a contained anomaly. The way it's worded now is redundant. 67.80.28.74 (talk) 20:57, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: You are correct since there is some redundancy here. However, this article is geared towards a general audience, so the redundancy helps make things clearer to the reader who may be less familiar with SCP terminology. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 22:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I should also point out, not all SCPs are contained (that's what the 'uncontained' tag means). DS (talk) 00:57, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Adding SCP-2521 to the SCP list

Paste Magazine recently discussed SCP-2521 in an article about the SCP-Foundation. I propose that this SCP be added to the SCP list due to its uniqueness and because the list currently lacks an SCP from series-3. What are everyone's thoughts on adding this SCP? Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• "SCP-2521 is an entity which steals all verbal descriptions of itself; as such, its SCP article is composed entirely of pictograms" ? DS (talk) 03:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Although since the Paste article misses the point on 2521 (it steals, not destroys) and on some others (426 isn't an arsonist toaster), I'm wondering to what extent we should cite a source that's wrong. DS (talk) 03:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
    • And it looks like I jumped the gun on this source, since it gets fundamental facts about the SCP wrong. We could do a double cite to both the news article and the SCP in question. However, I'm hesitant to do this since it would defeat the spirit of the secondary source rule and give prominent real estate to a very bad source. I support tabling this until a better source on 2521 (or any other series 3 SCiP) can be found. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

SCP 5888

Object Class:Euclid SCP 5888 is a lizard human made by a cult in Africa which wanted to mix human bones and giant lizard bones together.But then they notice there was no head they only had one thing they could do.They had a human skull with a knife in it.So they used that.But then when the the bones were brought together the bones took the knife out of it's head.But the skull broke so the SCP started swinging aimlessly killing seven of the cult members and letting three get away.But when it was contained it has a lot of different skulls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.118.253 (talk) 20:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Hey, if you want to write an SCP, you should post it on the SCP Foundation website. This talk page is for reviewing Wikipedia's article on the SCP Foundation; its not a good place to put your SCPs. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 22:57, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Why not directly link excerpts of the specified SCP articles as references

They are primary sources and therefore reputable, no?

apologies if this is wrong, as I am just an SCP fan pondering why this is the case — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.159.251 (talk) 02:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Good question. Back in 2015, we created a "secondary source" requirement to keep the SCP list at a reasonable size. We were worried that if everyone could list their favorite SCP, the SCP list section would end up many times longer than the rest of the article (similar to what the creepypasta article used to look like). At the time media coverage of the SCP Foundation was rare enough to accomplish this goal, but once media coverage became commonplace we required talk page approval in addition to the secondary source requirement. This rule has unfortunately led to the overrepresentation of Series I SCPs on the list as well as the outright exclusion of several later series. I hope this answers your question. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:27, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2019

Add under the Cultural Impact:

" On May 5th, 2019, the SCP Foundation announced that Andrey Duksin had illegally filed a trademark claim on the SCP logo, (source here: http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-11572837/announcement-regarding-ongoing-license-violation#post-4239832). As of November 12, 2019, the wiki has declared that it seeks to dispute this trademark claim in court (source here: http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-12800526/announcement-regarding-licensing-emergency#). Sympathetic members of the community have voiced their concern through the usage of the hashtag #StandWithSCPRU in an effort to raise awareness of this issue. N. Aepic Fael (talk) 16:36, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. This doesn't exactly seem to be about any sort of cultural impact, merely a legal squabble for the foundation itself. Moreover, this is sourced only to the foundation, not to any secondary sources. It also appears somewhat promotional in terms of advertising awareness raising. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:17, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

BoingBoing([4]) and Bloody Disgusting ([5]) have both covered this. DS (talk) 16:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Also noting that there was coverage back in May 2019 and a few days ago after Markplier did a video on the trademark dispute [6][7]. I think at this point there is enough coverage for a succinct description in the article. There are two key issues I see. The first is finding a good place to put the information and the second is extra diligence to our rules on BLP and neutrality (since this does involve incredibly contentious claims about a living person and a controversy undergoing litigation). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2020

Change the description for SCP 426 from "is a toaster that can only be referred to in the first person" to "I am a toaster that can only be referred to in the first person" 173.68.129.226 (talk) 21:45, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: We do not describe fictional objects or plot details from an "in-universe" perspective. See MOS:INUNIVERSE for more information. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

That perspective makes sense, but I'd argue that referring to me (426) in the first person within the article is more for consistency with how the community speaks about 426, even when discussing me from an outside of universe prospective. Maybe add a note that most community members purposely adhere to the rule even when not participating in any kind of roleplay Tornado547 (talk) 04:34, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the suggestion, but I really do not think this is necessary. The article is aimed towards a general audience that may be unfamiliar with the SCP Foundation. While SCP fans may see a first-person description of 426 as a fun little easter egg, more general audiences trying to figure out what the SCP Foundation is would just be confused. As for the note, I don't think we need to describe community norms regarding the SCPs; we certainly don't describe SCP-173 as peanut even though a lot of fans call him this. Besides, we'd need a source independent of the SCP FOundation community for this claim. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:57, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposed text on trademark registration issue

A Russian artist trademarked the name and logo of the SCP Foundation, which resulted in the SCP Foundation filing a lawsuit against him (as well as a lot of media coverage). I've attempted to give a succinct summary of the issue. This is something currently being litigated, there are serious BLP issues at play, and I'm a bit worried of NPOV violations, so I thought it would be prudent to get feedback before trying to post this to the main article. (Also, I'm planning on just adding this to the cultural impact section. It isn't the cleanest fit, but I think giving this its own section would be undue weight). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC) .

In 2018, a Russian artist registered the name and logo of the SCP Foundation with the Russian Federal Service for Intellectual Property; the artist allegedly demanded ownership of the Russian branch of the SCP Foundation and successfully shut down multiple fan websites using the marks.1. In response, the SCP Foundation field a lawsuit against the artist seeking to cancel his registration; the litigation is ongoing.2.

I really don't think we should mention his name while litigation is ongoing. DS (talk) 16:18, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Good point. I've removed all mentions of [his] name and replaced it with "the artist." Spirit of Eagle (talk) 18:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for that. Do you have any other suggestions, or do you think this can be posted to the main article? Alternatively, we could always just hold off until the lawsuit reaches its conclusion. We'd have a more complete picture of what to write and we wouldn't have to deal with active litigation. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Probably best to hold off so we can be conclusive, to be honest. Whatever happens, it'll get some coverage. DS (talk) 23:43, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I'll just table this proposed language for now. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Pseudoscientific tone

The article variously calls the tone of SCP entries pseudoscientific and pseudo-academic. I disagree—The SCP Foundation itself is fictious, and therefore pseudoscientific and pseudo-academic, but its tone is (or at least tries to be) scientific and academic. Will you allow the corresponding amendment? Ant 222 (talk) 20:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

That would depend on what the respective sources say. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to do so right now, but I'm sure another editor can look. - Axisixa T C 08:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

After reading through your proposal and reviewing the source cited for the pseudoscientific claim (which actually used words like analytical and scientific), I've gone ahead and made your suggested change. SCP articles are pseudo-scientific documents, but they are also not written to convey that their in-universe authors are people pretending to write scientific articles; it looks like the article stumbled over the multiple layers of meta. Anyways, thanks for catching this. (For the record, I'm fairly sure I was the one who added the pseudoscientific language claim). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 18:13, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Axisval, no sources are quoted to support either statement, but I can provide a first-hand source (SCP itself) that declares an academic tone, without pseudo-.

Spirit of Eagle, thank you for the cookie—I really enjoyed it with tea. I fear you have removed only one instance of pseudo- of the two. Ant 222 (talk) 19:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

That other instance of pseudo- repeats the usage of Winston Cook-Wilson. His exact wording is:

Like SCGs, Lovecraft’s stories feature little action, and are written in an pseudo-academic style.

In this single sentence, Cook-Wilson manages to make a typo (SCGs), a spelling error (an pseudo-academic), a punctuation error (extraneous comma after action), a factual error (little action in Lovecraft's tales), and a mischaracterisation of Lovecraft's style as pseudo-academic, which is just exquisite literate English—picturesque and emotionally rich—opposite in fact to the plain "clinical" style of SCP. It is the subject matter, not style, of SCP that may be said to have Lovecraftian traits on account of its otherwordliness and anti-anthropocentrism. All in all, a poor choice of source. Ant 222 (talk) 20:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm honestly fine leaving this in since this is a reception section meant to reflect the views of various reviewers. This is more of an opinion than fact-based section. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:17, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Include new classification method?

As the header suggests, there is a new classification method that is being used for as an enhancement in newer SCPs. To put it simply, instead of just the SCP's Object class, the newer system includes:

• 6 Clearance levels (Who should know this)
• 5 Disruption classes (How far the SCP can affect if let out; basically range of effect)
• 5 Risk classes (How much it can affect the world if let out; basically severity of effect)

The justification for this newer system seems to be that the older system only presented one side of the SCP, i.e. how difficult it is to contain. A Keter-class SCP could be as benign as an always-teleporting cup of coffee, while a "Safe" SCP could destroy the universe if someone purposely let it out. This newer system is supposed to help the reader by giving more details about the SCP in question.

Should this newer classification system be included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MostlyPasserby (talk • contribs) 08:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. I've added a sentence to the bottom of the object class footnote addressing this since several hundred SCPs do appear to use this new system. The footnote doesn't go into too much depth though since this new system is not official and is only used in a small minority of SCPs. (The SCP Foundation is a rich and nuanced writing site; the need to abide by summary style means that a lot of details only get limited discussion). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2020

The bit about SCP secret labs under "Cultural Impact" lists the playable characters, but its missing the facility guards. Also "the armed militia of the defending SCP Foundation" is written a little bit strangely, "the armed militia defending the SCP Foundation" would probably be better 104.249.226.250 (talk) 19:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

 Declined: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Are you asking for feedback on suggested changes or would you like the changes to be implemented? If the latter, please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Please re-open the edit request and another editor will implement the change of wording. Donna Spencer^{talk-to-me⛅} 20:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

A wikipedia page for SCP: Secret Laboratory should be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scoutstheman (talk • contribs) 18:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Could we please add SCP-682 to the list of scps?

In my opinion, SCP-682 is one of best examples of an SCP as it's regenerative and adaptation abilities make it indestructible. Could we please add it to this list. It would also be a good example of an SCP that the foundation is actively trying to destroy due to its threat to humanity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scoutstheman (talk • contribs) 18:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think adding 682 is in the cards. Over half of the SCPs on the list are from series I and we've already received criticism for overrepresenting the first series. I'm not absolutely opposed to adding 682, but we are limited in how many SCPs can be added and I hesitate to add another Series I. (For the record, you need coverage from secondary sources to add an SCP for the list; I don't make an issue of it here because I know coverage exists of 682).Spirit of Eagle (talk) 19:46, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Add that theyre also called anomalies

idk why it isnt already there, in the same line as,"(referred to as SCPs)" within many stories and articles on the scp wiki, they are referred to as anomalies. an scp is an anomaly that has been, at some point, contained by the foundation. there are plenty of other organizations within the scp universe that call them anomalies or even have their own names. 2001:56A:F0D2:1E00:9D4B:4AD9:4FD0:B3BC (talk) 07:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The article is meant to summarize the SCP Foundation in a way that can be understood by those who are unfamiliar with the article's subject. This is especially true for the sentence you cited, which is a lede sentence meant to impart information that readers need to comprehend the rest of the article. Adding in this additional information would just complicate the article. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry

I didn't know that i couldn't add SCP's from the talk page, can i just add some examples of un-contained SCPs? --StaleGuy22 (talk) 19:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

We are deliberately limiting the number of SCPs on the list to prevent the section from swamping the rest of the article. To add SCPs to the list, you'll need first need to find a secondary source independent of the subject covering that SCP (the SCP Foundation and Villains Wiki doesn't meet this requirement). Next, you'll need to get approval on this talk-page. If you can find a series 3 (2000s), 5 (4000s), or 6 (5000s), we may add it. We may also possibly an additional SCP if you can present an exceptionally strong argument for why it belongs on the list. Series 1 SCPs are right out though; they already comprise more than half the list and we don't need any more. To be blunt, I doubt you'll be able to find any SCPs meeting this requirement, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok! So tell me the link to get a approval. Also, How the HELL is the SCP wiki dot site not RELIABLE? Because people only in 10th Grade (That is, 15-16 YOA (Years Of Age)) can edit the site, and not kids. --StaleGuy22 (talk) 05:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

You’re where you need to be to get approval; just create a new section for your proposed addition(s) when you’re ready. As for sourcing, we require coverage from secondary sources such as news media, books, academic journals and the like. This isn’t about reliability so much as it is ensuring that only the most important SCPs get listed. (SCP articles are primary sources. They’re perfectly relible for non-controversial claims about themselves, but we generally like having some secondary sources as well).05:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)Spirit of Eagle (talk)

I'm still confused, can i please get a example of a sourced approval for SCP I series, SCP II series, and SCP VI series? — Preceding unsigned comment added by StaleGuy22 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Since the rule went into effect, we haven’t had any more additions; the only proposal to add an SCP can be read here. To put it bluntly, it is really difficult to add to the list and I have serious doubts you’ll be able to find the sources needed to expand the page. Listen, I’m not trying to be a wet blanket here. If you’re interested in editing articles about online horror, then drop me a message on my talk page; I’d be happy to point you to a few promising areas. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

btw... if the scp foundation is fiction, then why is there a such thing as area 51 that is real?- brobafett219_2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:4482:7D00:3D73:4488:1DD3:CA6A (talk) 09:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Untitled topic

What is scp 999 made of?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by I.am.the.yeet (talk • contribs) 18:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

This is a discussion page for improvements to the article. Your question would probably be better suited at the SCP wiki's own forum. - Axisixa T C 00:33, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2020

Change URL in infobox from "scp-wiki.net" to "scpwiki.com" as the URL is different as of August 1, 2020. BradleyA1234 (talk) 00:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

scp-wiki.net still works without redirecting. Do you have a source that states that scpwiki.com is the primary URL? A .com address is generally more prestigious and expensive than a .net one, so I'd say it most likely is, but evidence is still needed before it can be changed. Actually it appears that the page was cached or something; it redirects now - Axisixa T C 04:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for the confusion.  Done - Axisixa T C 04:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Use of the Word "Universe"

This is a bit nitpicky, but multiple times the article states that various things (Foundation Tales, SCPs made after 173, and the Wanderer's Library) are "set in the same universe." However, the SCP Foundation has no single fictional universe or canon, which is made clear by many contradicting tales, SCPs, world ending events, and the like, as well as the fact that there is an entire section of the site to organize separate canons. This is even explicitly referenced by the SCP-001 proposal "Project Palisade," where the fact of there being many universes within the site is used to create the narrative.

I'm not totally sure what to use or say instead, but just "fictional setting" might be better as it doesn't incorrectly imply a single shared universe. --nzsaltz (talk) 15:39, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Several sources referenced in the article do use the term "universe". You are correct, though, in stating that the term is technically wrong, so I've changed it to reduce ambiguity (excluding the mention related to SCP-173, as this was before the "no canon" policy was instituted). - Axisixa T C 01:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Inside the SCP wiki is many canon (such as the scp series ranging from series 1 to 6) AND non-canon (non series) documentation of SCP's (canon hub) and tales (stories within the series). So yea, Nszaltz is right. You got to be careful nudging the "Universe" concept in the article, cuz it might make people misunderstood how "Universe", "Canon", and "Non-Canon" concept of the foundation is.

180.253.97.21 (talk) 02:36, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2020

Add SCP-1730 in the examples list, an rogue interdimensional Foundation site from an alternate universe (Formerly the cancelled Site-13), directed by the mentally unstable, Dr. Emerson. Logically impossible, the state and infrastructure of the building is dimensionally unstable, perpetually changing. Inside, many anomalies have been created due to the activation of a THRESHER Device, originally created by the alternate dimension Emmerson to exploit and harness the power of dimensionally changing anomaly. The device now, manually overridden by Mobile Task Force Zeta-9 “Mole Rats” Leader, Captain Hollis, have rendered the anomaly stuck in a time and space void, with Hollis still inside. Reclassified to a Neutralized anomaly.

Actually the original story is more dramatic, but for the sake of simplicity, i have summarized the story. 125.167.116.16 (talk) 04:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

In short, per WP-philosophy, this article will only mention specific SCP:s if they have been covered by WP:RS independent of scpwiki.com (and it may be selective among those as well). You can see examples of acceptable references in the SCP_Foundation#Examples_of_contained_SCPs section. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:01, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Toaster.

SCP-426 can only be referred to in the first person. I would like someone with the permissions to updade the line as such, with an example given below.

I am a toaster, SCP-426, that can only be referred to in the first person.

Please update to first person. --BepisBoi69 (talk) 13:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

It may be that in the SCP Foundation the toaster can be referred to only in the first person, but Wikipedia doesn't have to follow that rule. Many Wikipedia articles refer to their subjects in ways differing much more substantially than that from how those subjects prefer. JBW (talk) 13:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

No per MOS:REALWORLD. For previous comments on this, ctrl-f toaster at Talk:SCP_Foundation/Archive_1. Oh, and there's a banner near the top of this talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

SCP-682?

I think SCP-682 should probably be mentioned on the list of SCPs. It's one of the most famous SCPs, it's on the Heritage Collection, and it's been in two games: Containment Breach and SCP-682.

Here's some secondary sources that talk about it in order to abide by WP:RS: https://www.pastemagazine.com/games/control/control-scp-foundation/ https://bloody-disgusting.com/news/3556274/scp-archives-podcast-must-be-destroyed-as-soon-as-possible/

--ShinyDialga777 (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

While I don't really have time right now to properly consider whether its addition to the list is warranted, it's important to note that they've examples of contained SCPs that require sourcing to show a minimum of importance, not a list of the most important SCPs.

We also have quite a few early-day SCPs (to be fair, they are more well-known) and not a lot of newer ones. Because the later articles differ somewhat in style, increasing this imbalance could be mislead readers as to what kind of content to expect. - Axisixa T C 05:11, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, Paste looks like a reasonable source in context. Perhaps the article should include that Bloody Disgusting does SCP-podcasts. [8]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I can see the argument for adding 682 since it and 173 are probably the two best-known SCPs (and one a non-SCP fan is likely to look up). If we add 682, we should probably remove a series I since we already have too many as it is. Also, the Paste Article was brought up before (see post 36 in the archive) and it was determined to be unreliable due to its numerous egregious errors such as stating that the first person toaster was an arsonist toaster. There are undoubtedly reliable sources discussing 682, but Paste Magazine is not one of them. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Secure Contain Protect

I feel like the article should state what SCP stands for at some point, and it never does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.209.96.75 (talk) 02:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Check "note 3" in the first sentence. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Scp 2979

Scp 2979 is a rank 5 scp scp 2979 when you look at it or think of scp 2979 the people I will call d-class 63672 when a test in January 18 1999 Dr.bright told d-class 63672 was killed in the test Dr.bright stop the test fared test with scp 2979 is not going to be test for fared Noticed noticed scp 2979 was Discovered discovered in 1800 the SCP Foundation was trying to get scp 2979. Ashpeak1203 (talk) 21:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

If you want to add an SCP to the list, you will need to find coverage from a news source (online is fine). If you want to write your own SCP, then I would recommend doing so on the SCP Foundation website. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 21:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Mentioning secondary classes

In the recent SCP writing and development community, other than the primary object class (Safe, Euclid, Keter, Thaumiel, Explained, Neutralized). There is a new format for SCPs, named ESOTERIC/NARRATIVE CLASS: This class holds up to many subclass and designations (Apollyon, Cernnunos, Archon, Damballah, Declassified, Decommissioned, Dependent, Drygioni, Ein Sof, more info here). And then there is the NARRATIVE part, this is like a more descriptive way to define an anomaly (risk class, danger level, etc.)

And they are worth mentioning

125.167.115.222 (talk) 06:29, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

hi scp foundation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.0.234.59 (talk) 14:39, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

When writing this article, Wikipedia's requirement for summary style has often run up against the vast nuances of the SCP universe; basically, we need to summarize without going into too much detail. I think the object class list footnote does a good job at doing this while acknowledging that there is more to the classifications than can be feasibly listed on Wikipedia. It notes at the bottom that hundreds of classes use classifications beyond those needed to show difficulty. The list itself states it lists "frequently used" classes. In other words, it acknowledges that there are more rarely used classes in addition to the ones actually listed. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

New source

Tor.com did an article on the Foundation, and listed several more SCPs. DS (talk) 07:00, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Good find! I've I've added a bit to the article and will see if there are any SCPs to add. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Logo Adobe clipart?

In the video SCP Legal Case Problems at 3:07 we see what is effectively the current SCP logo with a yellow background from 2007 Adobe Illustrator Suite's clip art. So does this logo actually belong to Adobe? Or would it be considered a variation of the old ESD Label (This symbol uses three arrows and a black circle. Created originally as part of a military standard, it has been superseded officially by the reach-reach in symbol.)

--174.99.238.22 (talk) 02:05, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism on URL

URL at the info box redirects to a League of Legends page. I'm unable to fix this as the article is protected KVSCHRODINGER (talk) 23:26, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure which template was at fault, but a dummy edit cleared it out. Thanks. DS (talk) 00:38, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Specification for SCP-1609

currently it says that it teleports into the lungs of those with uniforms, which implies that it does so to anybody wearing any uniform, but it only does so to those wearing the uniform of the GOC — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheStudent646 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I've fixed it. - Axisixa T C 22:45, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2021

I want to add that it is on wikidot.-----

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jack Frost (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, the article already covers this in the "Community" section. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 21:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Can someone please add a "Trademark dispute" section?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.194.239.21 (talk) 16:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

We discussed adding language on the trademark dispute awhile ago, but decided to wait until it was resolved to start adding in language. The available sourcing on the matter really isn't good enough for a live legal controversy. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2021

Add the game: SCP Escape Together (https://store.steampowered.com/app/1394270/SCP_Escape_Together/) to the list of SCP related video games, in the line "Other video games include SCP-3008 (a planned multiplayer game set in SCP-3008), and SCP-087 (a horror game about walking down SCP-087).". Bogi2323 (talk) 14:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: That is a WP:PRIMARY source. If it has its own Wikipedia article, then maybe yes, but otherwise there is no reason to add this without a proper WP:SECONDARY source. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2021

Broken link: Burkart, Gregory (29 October 2015). "Creepypasta: The Story Behind "The SCP Foundation"". Blumhouse Productions. Retrieved 10 October 2016.

Suggested fix: Burkart, Gregory (29 October 2015). "Creepypasta: The Story Behind "The SCP Foundation"". Blumhouse Productions. Archived from the original on 6 November 2017. Retrieved 10 October 2016.

- Mafiew2 (talk) 18:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Volteer1 (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Secure Contain Protect [S.C.P.] - Ghost

is there a scp that is a ghost? If so then would this whole thing be real? And if this were real would shy guy (scp096) be real? Would that not be dangerous? (Souljack222 (talk) 17:46, 8 February 2021 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Souljack222 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

This would be a better question for the SCP Foundation subreddit; these talk pages are for Wikipedia editors to work on the article. (Also, I'm pretty sure there is a ghost SCP or two, but I don't have the foggiest clue as to the number). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2021

98.169.172.42 (talk) 14:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure if its real about that's nonfictional

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2021

NovyFox (talk) 01:28, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm thinking if SCP is real means its nonfictional.

 Not done. SCP is definitely not real. There is no Site-5. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 01:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Should the russian trademark issue be mentioned in the article?

To those who do not know, someone in Russia trademarked the SCP foundation and used it to take down Russian SCP artists and even the Russian wiki itself. I think that is should be mentioned in the community section. 169.244.116.71 (talk) 15:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any WP:RS that noticed this and bothered to write something about it? WP:NOENG sources can be used. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

A little over a year ago, we had a discussion about the RUssian trademark case and agreed to hold off until the case reaches its conclusion. While consensus can certainly change, I personally think the sourcing so far has been pretty low-grade for an ongoing court case. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Wrong URL

The URL referenced in the summary box (http://www.scpwiki-wikidot.com/) is parked/defunct. The current URLs to access the site are http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/ and http://www.scpwiki.com/. 47.208.96.73 (talk) 04:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out - it was being caused by incorrect information on Wikidata. I've fixed it over there. - Novov T C 07:02, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2021

Will amy of hou lease add 096 to the examples of SCP it is kinda a big figure in the foundation 77.167.21.103 (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Its unlikely. We have limited space to give to the SCP list, and we already have to many Series I SCPs as it is. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 21:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2021

Changing the colon in "On the SCP Foundation wiki, the majority of works consist of "special containment procedures": structured internal documentation that describes an SCP object and the means of keeping it contained" to a comma. The clause acts as an appositive, which uses a comma and not a colon. Deadly Neurotoxin (talk) 02:37, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done Some people would most likely dispute you, but even if both are valid, it's best to go with the one that satisfies the largest amount. - Novov T C 07:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2021

This is more like a discussion, rather than an edit request, but I don't know what should I put, an edit request? Or a central discussion?

Anyways, could anyone try to add that SCP Foundation's way to knowing what SCP-055's properties in terms of what it's not is called deduction? Or should we leave that alone? 139.192.197.186 (talk) 13:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Edit requests are specifically for requesting an actual edit. You don't need to use the edit request template for discussion. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Alright! Thanks, relisted the discussion to be not an edit request - Mark 139.192.197.186 (talk) 02:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Deduction of SCP-055

So, should we include that the method used by the Foundation to identify 055's properties is called Deduction? Or should we just leave it be? - Mark 139.192.197.186 (talk) 02:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

We already kind of do this with the language about how it is only describable in terms of what it is not. We do need to keep the SCP list section at a reasonable size and I'm hoping to eventually add some SCPs from Series V and VI, so I'm hesitant to expand existing entries. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:48, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

How about linking it like this: [[Deduction|except in terms of what it is not]] or something like that, not the actual description of what deduction is - Mark 139.192.197.186 (talk) 03:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not thrilled by that notion. Part of the point of 055 is that you can't describe what it is even by deducing it. Readers can figure things out, but in-story, the Foundation has a list of negative statements whose meaning cannot be retained for more than a few minutes. DS (talk) 00:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

What would happen if a content creator. Such as a youtuber does not give proper credit or attribution to the SCP foundation?

Scoutstheman (talk) 19:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

This talk page is for improving the article, not general discussion. I believe that the forums on the SCP Foundation site have active members who are involved in matters like this; you could ask them. - Novov T C 01:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi! A random, anon, and luckily a license expert and SCP fan here!
It's not much of a trouble unless someone claimed the work, other than that, it usually goes unnoticed and be still there. But if you found one, contact the maker of the work or the licensor, they'll take care of it. 36.83.142.192 (talk) 23:26, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2021

Thesmoothestsmoothiesspeed (talk) 04:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Please Let me edit this i know more info on the SCPs so i can add it. ok well that was dumb.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. EN-Jungwon 04:29, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2021

Hello! I'm just asking if one more SCP perhaps one of the most infamous could be added to the examples section. I'm referring to SCP 096, also known as Shy Guy. He's a Humanoid creature with a distorted body and if you look at his face no matter from where on the world he will come and rip you limb from limb. I won't be providing any pictures here as I don't feel it necessary enough. If you need any further information onto 096 A good place to look would be the official SCP wiki or some of the more Informative videos on youtube. That is all! If you read this and add it thank you :) - Exl101 - Exl101 (talk) 17:15, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello Exl101, and welcome to Wikipedia. Per the nature of WP, this section will only include SCP:s that have been noticed by reliable sources (WP:RS) independent of scp-wiki.wikidot.com and whatever. This excludes blogs, wikis, etc etc. Check the cititions in that section and you'll see examples. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

SCP-001

Provided that it can be sourced with reliable sources, I feel that it would be quite pertinent to include an entry on the list of Notable SCPs section of this article for SCP-001, including maybe two of the different proposals - Gate Guardian and When Day Breaks are my personal recommendations. Any thoughts?--BrayLockBoy (talk) 00:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

If we were to include information on the SCP-001s, it should be in the writing style section. Explaining the SCP-001s is going to take a paragraph which is a bit much for the Overview section. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC) Retracting as I was way off base with this comment. I have no issue with including SCP-001 amongst the general overview section assuming reliable sources can be found. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 15:38, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

"There is no single 'SCP-001'; rather, individual contributors can make '001 proposals', which are intended to represent a fundamental aspect of the Foundation in some way." DS (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good to me - 001 is a special case, and its prominence among the other entries and uniqueness among the others means the above makes sense--BrayLockBoy (talk) 20:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Great. Now find independent coverage of the existence of 001 proposals. DS (talk) 02:00, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

New article?

The SCP Foundation's Universe is massive and is not limited to just the SCP Foundation. So I was thinking, should we add more stuff? Perhaps create a central article known as the "SCP Universe" or something? For instance, Foundation "Groups of Interest" such as the UNGOC (United Nations Global Occult Coalition), the Wanderer's Library and by extension the Serpent's Hand, parallel Foundations and others, could potentially be created into their own articles under the umbrella article "SCP Universe". I really like the Foundation's writing and literature, but I am trying to keep a neutral perspective in saying this:

Basically, should we create a network of articles based on the SCP Universe sort of like, say, the Star Trek one? Or just fill this article with as much information as needed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robotikon (talk • contribs)

To add information to Wikipedia, it must be verifiable, and individual articles must be on a notable subject. This means that you'll have to find non-biased and reputable third-party coverage of whatever you want to add.

Since there's not nearly the wealth of sources that exist for Star Trek, one article should more than suffice. Readers interested in more detailed information on the SCP Wiki's various minutiae can always visit the wiki itself, just as one would visit a Trek fan wiki for minor trivia that they couldn't find on Wikipedia. - Novov T C 07:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

If these things don't exist on the SCP-wiki already, consider Fandom (website). On WP you will run into problems with WP:FANCRUFT and WP:FICTION. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:16, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Add more SCPs?

Personally, I think the section of the Wikipedia page which describes several notable SCPs is pretty lackluster. Not only is it missing several popular SCPs (such as 682, 049, 1471, etc. etc.) but it's mostly just Series I SCPs. As a big fan of the SCP wiki, I don't think this page does it justice. It wouldn't hurt to update the list a little bit, and include more SCPs, including some of the more recent, yet still popular SCPs, here a few suggestions:

SCP-3166 (by Tanhony)

SCP-993 (by Tanhony)

SCP-2030 (by PeppersGhost)

SCP-3078 (by UsernameAlias)

SCP-5031 (by PeppersGhost)

SCP-3000 (by Djkaktus)

SCP-2137 (by Max Landis)

SCP-049 (by Madison Sheppard)

Additionally, the page convenientally contains no mentions of Groups of Interest, or even the O5 Council. In a section of the page describing SCP-1609, they could've easily mentioned the GOC, but it was left out.

Like, come on here, this page doesn't do a good enclycopaedic job at explaining what the SCP Foundaition is. It just gives the briefest and most barebones description, and frankly I feel that it could do better.

I disagree this is needed, as the SCP Wiki itself is the place to go if you want a list of SCP articles. Additionally, any other SCP articles that could be added to this page would have to have been referenced in a notable third-party source. CoconutOctopus talk 16:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

What CoconutOctopus said. A WP-article is supposed to summarize independent WP:RS. In-universe and WP:ABOUTSELF stuff mostly don't belong. The list of SCP:s are those that someone outside scp-wiki.wikidot.com bothered to notice, that's WP-style. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Delirium49839, if you think the SCP list is barebone then I invite you to find sources for additional SCPs (particularly those in series 3 and 5+) and post them here for approval. I've actually been meaning to do this myself, although real life concerns keep getting in the way. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 16:50, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

IP 63.208.139.106, one rule on wp-talkpages (WP:TPO/WP:TALK#REVISE) is that you don't change other people's edits, or your own after they have been replied to. This:[9] is fairly harmless, but please don't edit like that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:28, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I liked SCP-3166, but there's other wikis for that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

More SCP suggestions

I agree with what Delirium49839 has suggested. The current list of example SCPs is a bit, well, lacking. Personally, I think it should be more reflective of the more famous and popular SCPs, at least ones which are commonly discussed even outside of the SCP Wiki.

Now before anyone else points this out to me, yes I fully understand that we need links to reliable sources establishing real-world notability in order to justify including them on Wikipedia. Now if we can find such reliable sources, then I propose we add some of the following SCPs, and remove more obscure SCPs from the list:

• SCP-2521 (ranked #2 in popularity after SCP-173, its unusual format may be worth noting)
• SCP-049 (ranked #4 in popularity, was featured in SCP – Containment Breach)
• SCP-096 (ranked #7, also featured in SCP:CB, almost as iconic as 173 and 682)
• SCP-682 (ranked #8, arguably tied with 173 and 096 for the most notable SCPs to people with even a casual knowledge of the SCP Wiki)
• SCP-106 (ranked #10, also appeared in the aforementioned video game)
• SCP-914 (ranked #12, can provide an example of an SCP that's anomalous technology)
• SCP-999 (ranked #15, the most well-known example of a completely docile and harmless SCP)
• SCP-2137 (This SCP holds a lot of real-world notability, because the Hollywood screenwriter Max Landis created it. In fact, I think SCP-2137 is actually mentioned and sourced in Landis' article, so I don't know why the hell this one isn't already listed in the SCP article.)

And those are just a few of the more notorious SCPs, which I can think of off the top of my head. Now let me repeat this again, I already know that we need reliable sources and some level of real-world notability to add more SCPs to the list. But anyways, once we can find any such links to reliable sources on other sites, I think we should prioritize at least a few of these aforementioned SCPs over the more obscure ones. - AHI-3000 (talk) 03:25, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

on the author of 173

The article mentions that SCP-173 was written by an anonymous user on 4chan, and while this is 100% true by nature of 4chan being entirely anomalous users, the SCP Foundation itself cites the author of SCP-173 as "Moto42", and that citation appears to have some basis in fact, although trudging through Wikidot to find it is breaking my brain. Someone should probably find some sources for that. casualdejekyll (talk) 16:03, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Here, he identifies himself as Wesley Williams, aka "Moto42". In replies to that post, the SCP Wiki's admins state that they have confirmed Williams' claim. DS (talk) 20:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Their source is literally "dark magicks and darker science" so.... casualdejekyll (talk) 20:22, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Are you taking that literally? DS (talk) 01:18, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

SCP's been rubbing off on me - just realized I wrote "anomalous" instead of "anonymous." And yeah, I did take that literally - because it suggests there's not an actual source beyond "this is the official answer" casualdejekyll (talk) 19:06, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

SCP-245

The SCP RPG, created/written by Doctor Cimmerian is a playable game that exists both in reality and in-universe as an anomalous object. The question is, should it be under the Games heading, or alongside all the other SCPs? G Rich 02 (talk) 11:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

What sources do you have that supports it should be in the article at all? See the article sections you mentioned for inspiration. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:24, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Add SCP 49

SCP 49 has been a center of attention since the COVID19 pandemic. it has also been a meme. it could get a mention. Sincerely, Adigabrek^Talk 21:46, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Source? DS (talk) 02:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Phthonus

Hi! On Talk:Phthonus, I have started a discussion about whether or not to mention SCP-5167 on the Phthonus article, since that's been the subject of infrequent dispute over about a year. I figure anyone who's watching the SCP Foundation talk page would probably be interested in this discussion. casualdejekyll (talk) 16:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

As an update, it seems the consensus in Talk:Phthonus was to decline the edit. aismallard (talk) 06:15, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I would like a job here

I know alot about scps and stuff I would be really use ful 2600:1017:B100:BD6B:A1F7:D1EA:E161:AE93 (talk) 18:27, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

This is the talk page for the Wikipedia article, which is out-of-universe, and not an appropriate venue for roleplaying. aismallard (talk) 22:31, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Let me join

Let me join the scp foundation the reason is that I want to be a friend of all scp you can take that how ever you want I will give my life for the foundation just let me join 2600:6C58:607F:4F2:F4AA:EE49:6B2D:58E6 (talk) 03:27, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

This is for discussion of the SCP Wikipedia article by its editors; we don't control who can join the SCP Wiki. If you have issues with them not letting you in, take it up with them - we can't help you. If you would like to join the organisation, it is fictional, so you cannot do that. ― novov t c 09:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

SCP - 84654|| The pretty Wolf

SCP- 84654 is a pretty white she-wolf with pure blue eyes. It is contained in site 19 with a — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8F8:1869:519F:7158:97A0:855C:D793 (talk) 14:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

This page is for discussion on making improvements to the Wikipedia article about the SCP Foundation, and is not the place to share your OC's or roleplay. casualdejekyll (talk) 21:22, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Scp 5000 the inanimate suit

What site is SCP 5000 at? 2600:2B00:8B12:4300:40E:69B1:D1AC:3BAE (talk) 04:27, 14 January 2022 (UTC) btw how many scp are there

As it says at the top of this talkpage, "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the SCP Foundation article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Alagadda and the Lord's

this is merely my au please do not be mad at my au, please and thank u. it will contain the fanon au stuff and personalities of the scp's and will contain the fanon and my au Alagadda. enjoy. Scp place (talk) 14:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

This page is for discussion on making improvements to the Wikipedia article about the SCP Foundation, and is not the place to share your AU. casualdejekyll (talk) 21:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

New international branch

The Vietnamese branch was recently officialized, it can be seen at the bottom of the main page, or on the international wiki (branch list).
Disclosure: I am an SCP Wiki administrator.
- aismallard (talk) 06:08, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Aismallard, I've added in the Vietnamese wiki and updated the number of non-English SCP wikis. I'm sorry this took so long. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:13, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Appreciated. aismallard (talk) 01:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Listing the Founder?

In revision 1054072988, the infobox is edited to add "Aaron Siegel" as the founder. I have two issues with this:

1. It is easy for someone to confuse this as referring to a real person and not a fictional character. There is a real life person who originally created the SCP Wiki Wikidot site; their name is not Siegel.
2. While there are common articles and notions of lore, the official policy is "no canon", meaning that alternate interpretations of the Foundation in site writing is valid. While Aaron Siegel is the founder in several notable works (such as djkaktus's Ouroboros series), there are other tellings where Siegel does not exist. If Siegel was listed on an official page such as About the SCP Foundation, then I think this inclusion would be permissible (as long as it was clearly designated that this is the fictional founder of the organization).

On a similar note, I'm not sure "Secret Organization" is the best descriptor for what is pretty clearly a writing website. aismallard (talk) 01:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe that should be "The SCP Foundation is a collaborative writing wiki project..." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

SCP

is it real? idk if it is real 2.106.54.76 (talk) 10:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

First sentence of article: "The SCP Foundation is a fictional secret organization documented by the collaborative writing wiki project of the same name." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

So scp is not real

Based on the comment I got in my other device it seems that SCP is not real in our universe 2.106.54.76 (talk) 18:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Yep, and the comment should be possible to see regardless of device. Here's a non-WP source: [10] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:05, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Abnormal creatures

so they are not real too right? 2.106.54.76 (talk) 20:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

This page is for discussion on making improvements to the Wikipedia article about the SCP Foundation. Your question might be better suited to the Wikipedia:Reference desk, or perhaps Google. casualdejekyll 21:13, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

scott

it is real bru 82.112.137.77 (talk) 07:40, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

As you can see from all the previous responses, as well as the first line of the article ("The SCP Foundation is a fictional secret organization documented by the collaborative writing wiki project of the same name."), it is not real, and is instead a website for works of fiction. aismallard (talk) 08:19, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi

So I like scp but but they need to made a cool mtf 91.140.58.83 (talk) 14:44, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

This page is for discussion on making improvements to the Wikipedia article about the SCP Foundation. This is not a forum for discussion of the article's topic. (I can't believe RFPP said no on semi-protecting this...) casualdejekyll 18:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:RFPP might decline to protect since the volume, despite being continuous, isn't a deluge. I think it could make sense to add a WP:EDITNOTICE on the talk page and hopefully dissuade some of the "scp reel??" content here. aismallard (talk) 00:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2021

change is to im in the scp 426 sentece to make more sense 136.228.52.12 (talk) 14:11, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Wikipedia is not part of the SCP fiction. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

the link in the references to 055 links to 025 instead, someone made a typo

2607:FEA8:D841:E00:1E6:39AC:FDB5:B702 (talk) 20:54, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for noticing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:16, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

BTW, I noticed that someone has been adding primary refs to all the SCPs. Is this just to get the "authornames" into WP? They have no real function. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I no what u are

I no what you guys are u don't have to believe me nobody no about what I'm saying but I no what you guys are locations spc doucuments document on the people that was killed throughout the years I'm in los Angeles the first letter of my name is a E 172.58.107.78 (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

This page is for discussion on making improvements to the Wikipedia article about the SCP Foundation. The SCP Foundation is a fictional organization, and thus has not killed anybody. (Neither has the Shark Punching Center, for that matter.) casualdejekyll 19:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

ER: Explained Object Class footnote

• What I think should be changed: In the footnotes, modify the line for Explained: SCPs which were thought to be anomalous, but are now fully explainable by conventional science.
• Why it should be changed: The current description for Explained is: SCPs with pseudo-anomalous effects fully explainable by conventional science. I'm not sure what "psuedo-anomalous" is meant to imply; the Explained SCPs hub clarifies that the items listed here were thought to be SCP items (i.e. anomalous), but were discovered not to be. That is, the items listed are mundane, and with some exceptions (such as in SCP-8900-EX where the Overseers redefine what normalcy is), are items that could exist in the real world. For instance, SCP-3000-EX features a regular, not paranormal serial killer who was only thought to be anomalous due to his bizarre behavior.
  I think the line should be modified to clarify that these objects are considered to be not anomalous, rather than its current ambiguous language.
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

aismallard (talk) 06:07, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

References

 Done Source cited in footnote does not mention "pseudo-anomalous" anywhere when describing the Explained and instead says that their effects are now explainable by mainstream science or phenomena that have been debunked or falsely mistaken as an anomaly. Description is consistent with the suggested edit.

〜 ‍ ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ ^{💬reach out to me!・📝see my work!} 09:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Informational: Site URLs

I see some recent edits have already fixed most of the links on the page to be HTTPS, which I appreciate. Given how unintuitive the current setup is, I think it's worth noting here so others can see. This only discusses the English (EN) branch of the SCP Wiki.

The SCP Wiki has a number of different domains which refer to its same content:

• http://scp-wiki.net/ — Formerly the official domain, now deprecated. Supports HTTP only.
• https://scpwiki.com/ — The official domain, as of August 1, 2020.
• https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/ — The effective domain, as hosted by Wikidot. Both of the above domains redirect here because Wikidot does not support HTTPS on custom domains.

It's a bit of a nuisance, I understand, unfortunately things are in this state due to various legacy issues and technical limitations.

So in summary, https://scpwiki.com/ is preferred as it is official, but https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/ is fine to use for links. http://scp-wiki.net/ is legacy and should not be used.

(There are also a number of mirrors such as https://the-scp.foundation/ which are run by unaffiliated third parties, these should also not be used as sources)

References

-- aismallard (talk) 00:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Fun scp games for mobile

I already have the containment breach one but I’m looking for more cool ones 2603:8001:C503:7956:100F:3E1:8926:CAC1 (talk) 00:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

This is the talk page for improving the SCP Foundation article, and, as stated at the top of the page, is not a forum for general discussion of the article's topic. casualdejekyll 13:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

"There Is No Antimemetics Division" novel mention?

Should the novel There Is No Antimemetics Division be mentioned here?

It began as an SCP Foundation project but it was later published as a book. There's an interview with the author.

Thoughts?

(MMStinks was here. You can come yell at me for this if you'd like, or check my work) 00:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Only if reliable sources are talking about it. casualdejekyll 01:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better described as series (one which is also published as a book)?
Regardless, if you can find WP:RS then I don't see any reason it can't be included. aismallard (talk) 04:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2022

Change (short for "Special Containment Procedures") to (short for "Special Containment Procedures" when referring to the files on the SCP wiki, and short for "Secure. Contain. Protect." when referring to the SCP foundation, which is also their motto) 2600:1700:B0D3:F5F0:6CCF:FA4B:862A:6ECC (talk) 04:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

The note on the first paragraph (designated [note 3]) clarifies the two meanings of the "SCP" backronym; I don't see the point in duplicating this information in the second paragraph as well.

I think there's an argument for cleaning up the mention in the second paragraph, but I will obviously leave any specifics for non-COI editors to determine.

-- aismallard (talk) 07:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done - I agree with Aismallard, it's already mentioned in the note. Plus, in context, the passage of text is talking about SCP files – where only that meaning is applicable – in context of the rest of the paragraph which covers the various types of content on the wiki. Changing the topic temporarily to mention the other use of the acronym would introduce a non-sequitur. ― novov t c 08:28, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Mention to add scp 999 to show diversity of scps.

All the scps referenced in this article are either dangerous/creepy. Scp 999 is an animate orange blob with a face and arms, that smells whatever is most comforting to each person, induces happiness when around and can help with depression and PTSD, therefore somewhat being used by the scp foundation as a tool. Cleverjoseph (talk) 12:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

All the SCP:s in the example list has a reference to a WP:RS independent of scp-wiki.wikidot.com, the list is limited to those with independent WP:RS coverage. So, do you have any on 999? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Found one https://screenrant.com/scp-foundation-best-stories/ but i dont know if it’s considered a “reliable source” as it is a listicle. Cleverjoseph (talk) 11:55, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Seems good enough in context to me. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Screen Rant. It's more than a passing mention. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok, i have added it. Cleverjoseph (talk) 12:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I would suggest changing "safe class" to "Safe-class", as the name of the object class is capitalized, same with "Euclid", "Keter", "Explained", etc. I would also recommend capitalizing the "foundation" in "SCP Foundation", as it is a proper noun. aismallard (talk) 03:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

ER: SCP-999 wording

• What I think should be changed: For the line starting "SCP-999 is a safe class orange slime ...", change "safe class" to "Safe-class", and change "SCP foundation" to "SCP Foundation". Then change "It has a friendly and playful personality and is known to induce happiness upon contact and can relieve depression and PTSD" to "It has a friendly personality and is known to induce happiness on contact".
• Why it should be changed: Object classes are proper nouns and should be capitalized, and when denoted, a dash is used. (For instance, "Keter-class"). Likewise, "SCP Foundation" is a proper noun and should be capitalized, even when the "SCP" prefix is excluded (i.e. "the Foundation"). For the second change, I feel that the current form the sentence takes is too wordy, and that the mentions of particular disorders are extraneous detail.
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

References

aismallard (talk) 08:36, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done casualdejekyll 15:22, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Notes #4-7

IMO this has now bloated far beyond what is good per WP:ABOUTSELF/WP:FANCRUFT. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I have taken an axe to the notes. The lists were just way too detailed and implied a level of officiality for the additional classifications that simply does not exist. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:59, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Edit Notice + FAQ

Just noting in case anyone hasn't noticed - I added a FAQ section a while ago and just recently got an editnotice approved, which should reduce unproductive postings since pp was declined. casualdejekyll 21:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, it's very much appreciated. ― novov t c 02:58, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Looks ok. As with all such talkpage things, they're not easily seen unless you're on a laptop/in desktop mode, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Should we have a Groups of Interest section within the article?

I believe that having summaries related to the various G.O.I. formats would help garner interest into the site and would lead people to check out those parts of the wiki as well as the rest of the site itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by S10342488 (talk • contribs) 03:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

There is a paragraph on them, which seems WP:PROPORTIONal to me, but it depends on what sources you have. If they have coverage in WP:RS, they may deserve some more space, but I see no reason to add a lot of in-universe stuff based on the fiction itself. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:42, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Furthermore, the goal of this article is not to drive traffic to the SCP Wiki. It is to document the SCP Wiki. DS (talk) 18:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Which is wonderfully ironic, considering what the SCP wiki IS casualdejekyll 23:17, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I may have used some wrong words, though I do mean to just document that element of the site using simple summaries.

As for Reliable Sources, there are a few links for certain articles to use as sources. S10342488 (talk) 19:20, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Edit Notice Reevaluation

Since the Edit Notice and FAQ were added, this, and this have happened. This is about the same rate as it was before this addition. Is there anything else we can do? Maybe make the red box a little more red? casualdejekyll 14:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Both listed edits were on mobile, where edit notices and talk page banners do not appear. What do high-interest pages elsewhere on Wikipedia to combat this kind of spam? aismallard (talk) 18:57, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Editors at Talk:Adam's Bridge started a general "remove on sight" habit, Talk:Adam's_Bridge/Archive_7#Dealing_with_"Change_Adam's_Bridge_to_Ram_Setu". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:50, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

is there some kind of template or something that detects mobile users? if there is, we could probably set up some kind of thingy that says to mobile users something equivalent to the banners. IHaveAVest talk 22:45, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

MOS:INSTITUTIONS

WikiEditor50, in your edit 1109447483, you went and changed all the "Foundation"s to "foundation"s to be in line with MOS:INSTITUTIONS.

While this is normally a fairly normal edit to make, in this case it is a proper noun and should be retained (i.e. "SCP foundation" would be incorrect). For instance, it is very common in written works for the site to refer to the entity as the Foundation (as opposed to any other foundation). For that reason I feel the changes here should be reverted, and for this article the uppercase should be retained. aismallard (talk) 22:31, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with @Aismallard. I think that this may fall under the same exception noted for the City of London being shortened to City, where the Foundation is a shortened proper name, but even if it technically doesn't, the Foundation is preferable over the foundation. Legowerewolf (talk) 23:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi, many organizations tend to capitalize "shortened" versions of their names, which MOS:INSTITUTIONS discourages (Such as here, where "university" is capitalized but is not similarly capitalized in the university's wiki page). That being said, if the capitalized form is indeed more appropriate... I have reversed the changes. WikiEditor50 (talk) 06:46, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Russian attack?

Right now, wikidot, where the official SCP Foundation is placed, is down due to a Russian hackers attack since May 19th, 2022. Should it be added to this page? Hedleypanama (talk) 12:45, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Until reliable sources write about it, the answer is no. aismallard (talk) 14:27, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

The hacking was written about on Fossbytes. It was also tweeted about by the Wikidot twitter account, which I believe falls under the Wikipedia policy on twitter as a reliable source. KomradeKalashnikov (talk) 12:08, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

That would be an appropriate source for an article on Wikidot (assuming FOSSbytes meets WP:RS, which I haven't checked). It doesn't mention the SCP Foundation. Since this didn't end Wikidot, it's not significant enough for a mention in the article about the SCP Foundation. DS (talk) 19:03, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Notably, Wikidot was deleted due to lack of notability. There were some prior attempts to revive it, but it seems RS just don't write much about it I guess. aismallard (talk) 17:58, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Shortfilm

@Catalyzzt, I've never heard of flatland, but based on their aboutpage [11] I'd say they're good enough. Btw, WP:NOTE wasn't the issue, more WP:NPOV via WP:PROPORTION. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:34, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång, I hadn't heard of them either, but based on their affiliation with PBS as well as the three other sources that just provided statistical information, I felt it sufficient. Thank you for educating me on these policies! Catalyzzt (talk) 20:52, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

SCP abbreviation

Everywhere online it says SCP stands for Secure Contain Protect. Not "Special Containment Procedures" as alleged on the first line of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.17.70.26 (talk) 02:04, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Not everywhere online:[12]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:34, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

@203.17.70.26 yes that is true 181.177.218.69 (talk) 16:26, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

SCP Can stand for both “SPECIAL CONTAINMENT PROCEDURES” & “SECURE, CONTAIN, PROTECT”. With the former being used to display how to contain and protect the entity. The latter being used for reasons that are not on containing an entity, such as the motto, legal documents & others. E.G: “SCP FOUNDATION: SECURE, CONTAIN, PROTECT”. ImpostEr73787 (talk) 07:31, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2022

Change the listing for SCP-426 to be referred to in the first person, potentially like "I, SCP-426, am a toaster that may only be referred to in the first person" 205.221.92.9 (talk) 13:39, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

No. See "Frequently asked questions (FAQ)" above on this talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:50, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

i agrea Bobthebobzila (talk) 16:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2022

SCP sands for Secure Contain Protect and not for Special Containment Procedures Bobthebobzila (talk) 16:49, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Depends on who you ask. Would you consider [13] a believable source? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:49, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Josie

Given that we've had to implement restrictions on which SCPs get mentioned in the article, I felt I should raise this point here rather than acting unilaterally.

There is currently no explanation as to why the logo for the original EditThis site (shown in the "Community" section) was a half-cat.

The caption is currently "The SCP Wiki's original logo while on EditThis". I suggest changing it to "The SCP Wiki's original logo on EditThis, based on SCP-529: the front half of a cat, which is still alive and animate." DS (talk) 02:26, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Sounds a bit Template:Overly detailed as caption to me. I guess I wouldn't mind it as an Explanatory note. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:15, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

my scp that was here yesterday

whare did it go? 151.188.97.170 (talk) 13:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

it was scp foot fetish i worked really hard on that but good thing i copyied it before it damit it was somthing else but whoever got rid of it please put it back 151.188.97.170 (talk) 13:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for your fiction. Try the SCP website, or start a blog. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

im asking if you can undo it 151.188.97.170 (talk) 20:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

We can. We will not. If you want the content back, it's accessible via this page's history. DS (talk) 21:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

thank you 151.188.97.170 (talk) 12:53, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

whare do i post it on here then ? 151.188.97.170 (talk) 12:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, nowhere. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Here's the writing guide on the SCP Wiki to post SCPs on the SCP Wiki. Note that 1) SCP-7095 is a taken number (considering the downvotes, though, it might not be for long) and 2) that will definitely not get accepted as is. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 10:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

well im supprised none have deleted this yet 151.188.97.170 (talk) 14:46, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

It will be securely contained and protected in the archive at some point. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:45, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

More information about Moto42

Moto42 is also known as S S Walrus on 4chan, and has not expected this huge growth. Additionally, Moto42’s real name is Wesley Williams. Src: http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-77831/wow-i-never-expected-this#post-230929 http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-173/comments/show#post-1879587 172.117.237.102 (talk) 00:55, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2023

Under Video Games: Please change SCP: Pandemic to SCP: 5K. New name after a rebrand in November 2022

source: https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/872670/view/3399681947506679293 Qdwach (talk) 09:26, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done Actualcpscm (talk) 12:38, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

SCP Dollhouse

Evan Royalty also posted SCP: Dollhouse a year prior to Overlord. It too was directed by Stephen Hancock and written by Evan Muir https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVx2jyDPinw 216.249.49.8 (talk) 03:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello I was wondering how I submit scps

Can anyone please tell me! 74.141.152.176 (talk) 19:38, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

You're on the wrong website, try https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:50, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

"Alexylva University" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Alexylva University has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 1 § Alexylva University until a consensus is reached. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:11, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

"Prometheus Labs, Inc." listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Prometheus Labs, Inc. has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 1 § Prometheus Labs, Inc. until a consensus is reached. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:13, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

"Manna Charitable Foundation" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Manna Charitable Foundation has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 1 § Manna Charitable Foundation until a consensus is reached. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:14, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

"Herman Fuller's Circus of the Disquieting" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Herman Fuller's Circus of the Disquieting has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 1 § Herman Fuller's Circus of the Disquieting until a consensus is reached. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:14, 1 May 2023 (UTC)