# Talk:SCP Foundation

@AHI-3000 Introduced some WP:EL:s in the article-text, which @Jamie Eilat removed here. AHI-3000 then re-inserted them in ref-form, which I reverted twice, [1][2], IMO these are just clutter from the WP-perspective. Opinions, editors? Ping also to @DragonflySixtyseven and @ReaderofthePack. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:03, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
On the rest of the SCP_Foundation#Overview_of_the_SCP_universe, while some WP:MOSPLOT/WP:ABOUTSELF is reasonable, this is quite a lot of content based only on the SCP website. What is preferable from the WP-perspective is to summarize this based on secondary WP:RS. Which will very likely have less detail. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:10, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

WP:NOELBODY specifically states "With rare exceptions, external links should not be used in the body of an article." If someone desires more information about the specific creatures, they can navigate to the official website, which is present in both the infobox and external links section of the article. There's no need to include this in the body of the article. Linking like that within an article poses several issues. It looks wonky, becomes a maintenance nightmare if the site were to change up their URL format, and also makes it easy for people to sneak links to other websites and so on into the article - including spam. There's also a question of what info is really pertinent to add in the article - as others have said, Wikipedia is not meant to be an extension of an external website so we don't need to include links to every little thing. I love the passion here, but the ELs are just a bit too much. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:46, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

{{Edit semi-protected}}
I should note I have a conflict of interest so it's probably best I don't contribute directly to this page, but the Community section inaccurately implies that contests only happened every 1000 entries. I would suggest at minimum adding the bolded text, or something similar:
There have since been additional competitions for each increment of 1,000 articles[42], as well as additional writing contests. For example, in November 2014, the SCP Wiki held a "Dystopia Contest" in which its members were encouraged to submit writings about the Foundation set in a bleak or degraded world[43]. Jerdenizen (talk) 14:06, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

I tweaked that bit a little [3]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

I read this article solely to find out what the acronym stands for, and I still don't know. Why doesn't this article include that most basic piece of information? 119.15.74.11 (talk) 05:15, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

The first sentence has a little hyperlinked [c] at "The SCP Foundation[c] is a fictional organization...", check that in the article.
That said, it would be reasonable to add this in-text under SCP_Foundation#Overview. Possibly there are fans who disagree what acronym is "correct". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:10, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
it's "Secure, Contain, Protect"
I believe any other meanings you might find is the author doing a "thing" Skeletons are the axiom (talk) 18:18, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
According to https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/glossary-of-terms it's "Special Containment Procedures", but what do they know. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:11, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
as Gråbergs Gråa Sång said, according to the scp wiki glossary of terms, it stands for "special containment procedures", with "secure, contain, protect" being the motto, but as there is no canon, it is up to interpretation. however, in the context of this article, it would be useful to state the acronym as typically standing for special containment procedures. Tysdrawkcab (talk) 01:32, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
yeah ok that's fair (although I'm guessing it's more so what's where SCP came from in the OG 4chan then what most people using it to stand for?) but tbh I don't really think what I have said after  "yeah ok that's fair" really matters:P Skeletons are the axiom (talk) 14:39, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
yeah, i think most people look at it at a glance and assume it's secure contain protect and that's fine
sidenote wow you talk like exactly like me lmfao Tysdrawkcab (talk) 01:41, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

should we put the fact that scp--426's page on the scp- wiki is also written in first person? I think it would be a good example of some of the intentional format changes that some of the pages have and it's one of scp--426's main "claims to fame" (obs if there's no citeble evidence don't put it) Skeletons are the axiom (talk) 18:54, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

No. It follows from "SCP-426 is a toaster that can only be referred to in the first person." that in-universe fiction will be in the first person. Until someone invents an in-universe toaster-counter measure, of course. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:01, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
It's all in-universe?  what does this mean? I am not asking that the Wikipedia section about it be written in 1st person Skeletons are the axiom (talk) 12:42, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
It means that if there is a story (or if you will, a collection of stories) with a certain rule, that rule will be applied in that story. Until someone changes that rule. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:35, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Yes and I believe adding the unique format of scp-426 would be a good way to show this without adding too much Skeletons are the axiom (talk) 13:43, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
That's what "SCP-426 is a toaster that can only be referred to in the first person." already does. It means that in SCP-stories, the toaster is referred to in the first person. We don't have to say it twice. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:50, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
still I think it should be something like "SCP-426 is a toaster that can only be referred to in the first person (appropriately it's page on the scp wiki is entirely written in first person)" since as  of now it's possible to assume that the page simply rafters to it's effect and does not participate plus I think it deserves (could probably be made to shorter and better) Skeletons are the axiom (talk) 16:37, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
whether it's appropriate is an opinion. DS (talk) 12:41, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
yeah? that's why i'm sharing it on the talk page so it can be considered Skeletons are the axiom (talk) 13:31, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
I have to say the SCP-426 page is pretty funny. I haven't changed my mind, but consequently might work better. Now, let's make it meet SCP-729-J. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:02, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
It would be fun to have it more in-universe, but it's important to avoid that. Common complaints about the page are that it's very in-universe and as such, feels like it's being made into an extension of the SCP Wiki, as well as that the individual examples are kind of undersourced. If this is written too in-universe and sparks too much of a debate on how to refer to it, then someone could argue that the best course of action would be to remove it as an example since there is already a decent list on the page - and probably get a good consensus for that suggestion if it had to go to a wider amount of editors. So find whatever way you can to avoid writing in-universe. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:44, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
i wasn't suggesting that, only to refer to the SCP page (the one on the SCP wiki not this page here) is in first person Skeletons are the axiom (talk) 12:42, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
Ah, I see - honestly, I'm kind of undecided on that. The given source does mention the wiki but when it mentions this SCP it doesn't go into much detail other than what is in the article already. I suppose it wouldn't be OR or in-universe to add a few words stating that the article is in first person. At the same time I don't know that it's super necessary either. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:38, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
Given how a page like https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-426 is written (in-universe), saying something like "SCP-426 is a toaster that can only be referred to in the first person, so the SCP-story about it is written in the first person." doesn't make sense to me. "can only be" refers to the fictional universe, that is clear enough. Come to think of it, https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-055 is a little similar, it also has in-universe rules of writing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:10, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Ive seen this term online and wanted to know what it means so I came to the wiki page. Lots of good info on the phenomenon but doesnt explain anywhere what SCP stands for, which is the only part i was actually curious about. Maybe it is just an acronym with no meaning or its debated, but i feel like that should be explained somewhere for the uninitiated 2607:FEA8:FEC0:AFDB:846A:3644:DB5D:17B (talk) 21:18, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

See Talk:SCP_Foundation#What_does_SCP_stand_for?. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:23, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
I added it to the SCP_Foundation#Overview section, we'll see what happens. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:52, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
i was already there as [c] so we should probably remove one of those to reduce redundancy Skeletons are the axiom (talk) 16:51, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
The WP:LEAD is meant to be a summary of the rest of the article, so from that pov, if the lead is done right it's always redundant. I think the lead-note can stay, but if anything is to be removed, it's that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:57, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
@Jamie Eilat, feel free to participate in the discussion. I think the two IP:s have a point, it's resonable to "spell it out" in the article-body text. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:01, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

The very first SCP story, SCP-173, is so very obviously a version of the memorable Dr. Who baddie from the 9 June 2007 episode "Blink", a weeping angel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weeping_Angel (often reappearing in series from 2010 to 2021, and in other media). And that first SCP story was published later in June 2007 --- I'd very much expect a reference to this, let's call it borrowing (like it had the similarly borrowed image of a statue by Izumi Kato to go with it)? 2003:ED:AF20:DF00:C825:6F2:5491:50FD (talk) 10:28, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I can see this has been discussed in some places like [4][5]. One comment on Quora is
"With all of this in mind, it is probably safe to assume that SCP-173 was written and posted by someone who had not seen the Weeping Angels in Doctor Who, and the Weeping Angels were definitively written without any influence from SCP-173. These kinds of coincidences do happen in fiction. I don't know of any earlier similar creatures in fiction, but Steven Moffat (co-writer of Blink, and the person who thought up the Weeping Angels) certainly isn't the first person to look at a statue and think “wouldn't it be terrifying if it moved when no one was looking?”. The similarities between the Weeping Angels and SCP-173 also start and end at “statue that only moves when not observed”."
Anyway, in WP-verse we'd need a decent WP:RS who noticed this and commented on it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:46, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
"WP-verse" is funny icl Tysdrawkcab (talk) 01:37, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Fwiw, you inspired me to add a mention of Izumi Kato. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:46, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Link to Izumi_Kato is wrong (it goes to an athlete), please link to Izumi_Kato_(artist)#Untitled_2004 instead 2A00:6020:41F0:3600:DCD6:7DBE:93D2:7693 (talk) 14:33, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done jolielover♥talk 15:43, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

I've noticed that lately there's a fairly constant stream of people coming in to roleplay. I wanted to start up an official discussion about whether or not to semi-protect this talk page so that only registered users could post. I'm aware that not every non-registered user is detrimental and that there will be those who will create accounts to circumvent the protection, but I do feel bad that users have to consistently revert additions by people attempting to post nonsense and roleplay. 
I'm going to ping some of the common reverters: @Jamie Eilat, Babysharkboss2,  and Gråbergs Gråa Sång: What do you think? Should this get a temporary semi-protection? It seems like there has been an uptick in all of this. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:13, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

I see one of these in September and 4 so far this month. It's not as annoying as some talkpages I've seen (I've requested protection for talkpages myself on occasion), so I'm neutral atm. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:32, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
While the roleplayers and "I made this can we include it?" people can be irritating, its not worth locking down the talk page entirely from IPs who do suggest helpful things. Babysharkb☩ss2 I am Thou, Thou art I 12:45, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Maybe our next course of action is tantamount to applying pending changes, perhaps for a month or two as an experiment. (Not sure which other talk pages have ever had them...) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 21:56, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
My impression is that pending changes is only used very judiciously, as a lot of people don't like the idea on principle.  novov talk edits 01:07, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Yep - it tends to be kind of an all or nothing thing. Either you semi-protect so only accounts can access or you leave it open. The pending changes tends to only get regular use on article space and as you said, only when absolutely necessary. I think one of the reasons people are leery about it is the amount of time it can sometimes take for a pending change to get reviewed and accepted. I vaguely remember someone saying that it would take less time to review and revert a vandal or bad edit than it would to approve a pending change. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:28, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

I think we should expand the list a bit by introducing SCPs from newer series.
We could add SCPs like SCP-5830, SCP-6096 and SCP-7122. BaconAnim4te (talk) 00:13, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

We'll (maybe) add those SCP:s that independent WP:RS have noticed and bothered to write/say something about, that's what makes them interesting in the WP-context. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:06, 23 November 2025 (UTC)