Talk:SCP Foundation

May I help translate this page to Estonian?

I was wondering if I could translate this page for my fellow Estonian speakers, who aren't fluent in English. MisterFromEstonia (talk) 15:45, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

@MisterFromEstonia, welcome to Wikipedia! Almost certainly yes (unless Estonian WP has some rule against it, which seems unlikely), but as with everything else around here, there are rules etc. Start with reading Wikipedia:Translate us and take it from there. Since you intend to edit Estonian WP, you have to seek advice and guidance there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:31, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

SCP-096

SCP-096 is also a well known SCP. Add it to the page. Villager3222 (talk) 09:32, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Per WP-philosophy like WP:PROPORTION, the Examples of SCP section will only include SCP:s that independent (of https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/, author, publisher etc) WP:RS has bothered to notice and write something about, you can see examples of references in that section. No blogs, wikis, social media, etc, etc etc. So, what have you got? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:46, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm curious, why can't the source be https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/? I mean, that's literally where the SCP Foundation and all the SCPs are written. That's the most reliable source in this case. Germanater09 (talk) 00:20, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Because we're largely here to summarize independent WP:RS. If no independent WP:RS bothered to write about SCP-096, WP won't either. The reason there is a WP-article about the SCP Foundation is that independent WP:RS did bother to write about it (WP:GNG).

But the internet is vast, and there are other places to write about SCP-096. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:39, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Primary refs in the Examples of SCPs section

I see someone has again added primary refs, scp-wiki.wikidot.com/, to all the items in the Examples of SCPs section. These are unnecessary per the WP-pov, edges into WP:FANCRUFT and just clutter in the ref-section, article already links to the scp website. Any objection to removing them? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:53, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Removed them. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:22, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

That's not fancruft. That's like saying the content of a book is fancruft, in the article dedicated to that book. scp-wiki.wikidot.com is where all of those SCPs are written and originate from. Germanater09 (talk) 00:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

And in a WP-article on a book, that book is rarely used as source, outside MOS:PLOTSOURCE. Here, they're just slightly promo-ish clutter. The reason these examples are here is that there is a decent independent ref to use. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:03, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Update on the Confinement situation

the animated series "Confinement" mentioned in the article has been voluntarily canceled due to a scandal with its creator. Instead of the eight episode, its creator published a pornographic animation of the main character and subsequently deleted all episodes. 109.118.91.179 (talk) 19:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I decided to keep the mention to a simple "was" (an animated series), as I felt diving into or even mentioning the bizarre and complicated controversies involved with Confinement is irrelevant for most people, and should probably be kept to Reddit and YouTube. Thankfully there were multiple YouTube accounts who archived the series before deletion, so people can check out the original content in the first reference (SCP Confinement Archive). Silverleaf81 (talk) 14:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Not allowing the use of scp-wiki.wikidot.com is honestly ridiculous.

scp-wiki.wikidot.com is the official SCP site, where all of the SCPs, tales, GoIs, etc. are written, greenlit, and published. It is as reliable of a source about the SCP Foundation as you can get. Germanater09 (talk) 00:27, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

It's not a question of reliability here ('factual accuracy' isn't relevant here as this is all made up) but of notability, which is a function of external attention. There's tons of stuff about GAW and Ambrose Restaurants on the Wikidot site, but where is there anything to support real-world interest? DS (talk) 04:10, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

In WP-lingo, the question falls more under WP:NPOV than WP:N, in the sense that notability is about if there should be an article at all. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:01, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

In WP-land, it's a WP:SPS WP:ABOUTSELF source, with very limited use beyond WP:EL. The point of a WP-article is to try to summarize independent WP:RS. If you want to read scp-wiki.wikidot.com, read scp-wiki.wikidot.com. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:07, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2023

Change "SCP-087 (2012) is a (...)" to "SCP-087-B (2012) is a (...)" under "Video games" subheading (incorrect name, see: https://www.scpcbgame.com/scp-087-b.html) Drewskiac (talk) 07:29, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done, but I used this citation instead because it contained the 2012 release date.

References

Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 11:27, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Phrasing question

In the phrase "new articles are frequently written by contributors," what is the intended meaning? Compare: 1. new articles are frequently written by contributors. 2. new articles are written frequently by contributors.

The latter, I think, indicates that articles happen frequently, and that they are (all) written by contributors. The former (and current phrasing) feels more like it's claiming something about the authorship: the new articles are most frequently written by contributors, but some are written by people who aren't contributors.

As the latter concept makes no sense to me (but might be the case; I'm not heavily involved with the site), it seems like it should be rephrased to "written frequently," but I don't want to take that step myself in case I'm simply out of touch with the way the terms relate to that site. Kilyle (talk) 00:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

You are correct. It's not possible that only some of the articles are written by contributors, as by publishing an article the author is contributing. I'll make the change. -- KomradeKalashnikov (talk) 14:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I prefer the new phrasing, but if we want to get real technical about it, people who have been banned from contributing would probably not be considered contributors anymore. For example, Max Landis wrote an SCP once, but then got banned over... well, I guess I'll have to describe it as "allegations". Does he count as a contributor? (Note: the article in question is widely considered to be a low quality relic of a time on the site when the standards were lower... does that change your answer?)

Food for thought. casualdejekyll 14:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I would disagree, people who have been banned cannot contribute new works or edits, but they are still considered contributors because their work is still hosted on the site, and their names are maintained in attribution records. aismallard (talk) 14:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2023

please I have an idea to add 197.184.181.83 (talk) 14:51, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

 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. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Also, if you want to write SCP-fiction, you're on the wrong website. Try https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/. Or your blog. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:34, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Remove SCP-108?

I do not think that the inclusion of SCP-108 in the list of "Examples of SCPs" is appropriate. I have a COI, or else I would boldly remove it myself, but I figure this list is controversial enough that a Talk page discussion is probably worth it anyway.

My reasoning is as follows:

1. It does not seem to provide any information to the reader that is useful for an encyclopedia article.
   • What purpose does including it serve? It's not an especially famous SCP, there's already an over-abundance of Series I SCPs in the list, and I don't know what information the reader gains about the SCP Foundation as a whole that isn't covered by the inclusion of the other SCPs on the list, all of which are either vastly more popular or in some way educational to mention to the reader.
   • More broadly, and this is probably too complex an issue to be covered here: do we even need the list in the first place? Would it make more sense to include specific SCP examples in the prose when they are illustrative of specific facts/claims?
     • If the list was removed, SCP-108 wouldn't be useful to mention, I don't think. Which is, somewhat paradoxically, a reason it should not be included in the list, in my opinion.
2. It is mentioned briefly in one sentence of one cited source
   • The entire mention consists of the sentence "There's the woman with a full Nazi German war bunker somehow contained within her nose." It isn't even called SCP-108 in the source, that designation is included in the article per WP:SKYISBLUE.
3. SCP-008, SCP-033, SCP-049, SCP-053, SCP-093, SCP-096, SCP-106, SCP-131, SCP-145, SCP-231, SCP-370, SCP-701, SCP-1730, SCP-1733, SCP-1756, SCP-1981, SCP-2316, SCP-3001, S. D. Locke's SCP-001, and SCP-329-J all have mentions in sources cited on this article that are equivalent to or more detailed than the mention of SCP-108, but are not in the list on this article.
   • Do you think all of these should be included? I think maybe some of them should, but DEFINITELY not all of them.
   • And if SCP-108 was part of that big list of "SCPs mentioned in sources that we cite, but aren't listed in our article", would you support including it?

I am not advocating for the addition of any of the SCPs I listed above to the list, but can see value in adding some of them to the list. I do not see value in having SCP-108 in the list and would like your opinion. (Alternatively, this may justify a stand-alone list, but I don't think it does.) casualdejekyll 21:38, 18 September 2023 (UTC)