Talk:SCP Foundation

What does SCP stand for?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Both terms are correct, the "SCP" in "SCP foundation" stands for "Secure. Contain. Protect" ~2025-41036-80 (talk) 07:47, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

no, it is OFFICIALLY the special containment procedure foundation. "secure, contain, protect." is their motto. Tysdrawkcab (talk) 08:13, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

I think officially it's just SCP foundation (in universe) but there's no actual official thing in terms o canon because that's not how the wiki work (although I think irl the name "the SCP foundation" is just from the anomalies being labeled SCP-[blank] which does come special containment procedures it seems) but like that doesn't really matter for the article Skeletons are the axiom (talk) 14:41, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

this i do agree with, but if there's a style guide list that says it stands for special containment procedures on the website, that's probably what we should add Tysdrawkcab (talk) 14:43, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

now that I think about it isn't it like non proper Wikipedia-ing to cite something from the wiki the article is taking about shouldn't we use/wait for a secondary source that's not just from a wiki? (sorry if i'm wrong) Skeletons are the axiom (talk) 14:49, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

let me look for an rs that mentions it

i think we should leave it in still because it's just useful Tysdrawkcab (talk) 14:52, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

it is, that's self reference, buuut it'd be more useful in than out. Tysdrawkcab (talk) 14:59, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF has some use. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:05, 16 December 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)

Scp 9500 un monstruo pálido con garras afiladas corre a grandes velocidades si te lo encontras te destripara puede saltar y está en los edificios abandonados suele apareces por la noche y el no tiene piedad te matara todo lo que se mueva lo matara. ~2026-10283-14 (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

this is wikipedia-en not wiki-es Tysdrawkcab (talk) 00:41, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I Google translated this comment for the translation I got may not be correct but this seems to be rp which you can't do in Wikipedia talk space (if there's a "WP:" page about not doing that I will link it for ~2026-10283-14 to read. Skeletons are the axiom (talk) 15:53, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

scp stands for secure control and protect ~2026-22804-57 (talk) 21:13, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

scp stands for secure control and protect ~2026-22804-57 (talk) 21:13, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

คุณพูดมาเพื่ออะไร ~2026-28544-48 (talk) 13:54, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

SCP_Foundation#cite_note-32

IMO, too WP:FANCRUFT, and I'd like to remove it. Opinions, Wikipedians? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:08, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Archon and explained could go, but the vast, vast majority of SCP entries follow the other 6 classes. The object classes themselves play a large enough role in SCP writing that I think warrants keeping them in the article. Also, if we removed the entire list of classes we also couldn't mention the Euclid class where it is in the article, because there'd be no context to the word. Shawtybaespade (talk) 12:40, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

We could remove the (e.g. Euclid) parenthesis, IMO it doesn't add much, or expand it to something like (these classes have names like Euclid, Thaumiel etc). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:18, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

I think we could remove (e.g. Euclid) and instead move the footnote to the "containment class" part. Something like:

In a typical article, an SCP object is assigned a unique identification number (e.g. "SCP-173") and a "containment class"^(footnote) based on the difficulty of containing it.

and the list of containment classes in the note could be reduced to just the four SEKT classes Shawtybaespade (talk) 13:37, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm ok with that, it's improvement. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:02, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Btw, "Primary classes" at https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/object-classes lists 4 classes, we could cut the list to these 4, and use that page as cite. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:23, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

I was actually the one who originally wrote the language on the object classes. Back in 2015, the language was limited to the SEK classes and supported by a citation to the Daily Dot; the number of object classes has vastly, vastly expanded with time. As of 2026, I think that the object classes are pretty iconic and that some language describing them is justified.However, I don’t object to efforts to make this much more succinct; I approve of the recent edits to limit the number of DoD summarizwd object classes. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:32, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm ok with the current version. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:05, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Podcast

Information about the podcast has been removed due to the use of a primary source (we need a secondary source). If anybody wants to add, they can use this source (SCP Archive) . 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 04:09, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Addition to "Examples of SCPs"

Requesting addition of SCP-049 to the examples. Draft would go something like this:

"SCP-049 is a humanoid bearing the resemblance of a medieval plague doctor. Although it is generally friendly, it will become agitated and lethally aggressive to those it deems to be afflicted by "the pestilence". It is capable of reanimating the corpses of subjects it kills into SCP-049-2: hostile zombie-like creatures."

This SCP is highly popular within the community (one of the highest rated entries), is already mentioned in source 5, and (as I would argue) can be expanded through the SCP wikidot page, per WP:ABOUTSELF, as the entry is about SCP-049 and provides crucial details about its activities not mentioned in source 5 and would serve as a primary source.

How about it? Cambam3291 (talk) 21:11, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

"highly popular within the community" (IMO it's not bad) doesn't matter, mentioned in sources like does. The description I left (could have been a little longer and mentioned killing and re-animating) stuck to what the ScreenRant thought interesting, and that's how we should do it to keep the WP:FANCRUFT out. I'm ok adding 049 to the list per source. WP:SCREENRANT isn't great, but good enough in context. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:21, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

My suggestion:

"SCP-049, "The Plague Doctor", is a humanoid being, worried about the spread of "pestilence". Though generally compliant, it can kill those it thinks have the pestilence, and re-animate their corpses. ScreenRant's writer called it the perfect entry for SCP-beginners." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:32, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I'd change the first sentence:

"SCP-049 is a humanoid bearing the resemblance of a medieval plague doctor. Though generally friendly, it will kill those it believes have "the pestilence", and re-animate their corpses. ScreenRant's writer called it the perfect entry for SCP-beginners."

Keeps the SCP fitted with a description and not a name. SCP-096 is also mentioned and is not called "The Shy Guy" in the example. Also, i'd change compliant to friendly. Cambam3291 (talk) 04:37, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I picked compliant as a synonym to docile. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:45, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

ah Cambam3291 (talk) 04:48, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

SCP-426

The description of SCP-426 on the "examples of SCPs" list is vague and doesn't cover the entire SCP.

The original description goes something like:

• SCP-426 is a toaster that can only be referred to in the first person.

When I added extra context to it's full effects:

SCP-426 is an identity-replacing toaster that can only be referred to in the first person. Prolonged exposure causes subjects to fatally attempt to perform standard toaster functions themselves.

it was removed and replaced, with the message:

It can to some extent, but this article has an entire section of WP:ABOUTSELF already. IMO you're adding WP:FANCRUFT/out of WP:PROPORTION-stuff, not improvement.

Now, SCP-426 is a identity-imposing toaster. It's main effect IS only being referred to in the first person, but it's whole article is detailing that this is only part of the eventual delusion that subjects are indeed toasters. An addendum detailing recovery is in the article detailing said delusion. This isn't in any way fancruft or disproportional. It's a major aspect of the SCP that is being left out.

Thoughts? Cambam3291 (talk) 04:33, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that's the internal story, but all the usable independent sources I've seen that bothers to mention it like don't bother with the details (and as a watcher of this article, the main concern from new arrivals on this entry has been to make the article in-universe compliant), so we shouldn't either. We link https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/ as a WP:EL, and people can get whatever details there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:06, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

pretty sure source 5 mentions it's a killer toaster. it would be nice if it was expanded upon to give context Cambam3291 (talk) 05:12, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

sorry the screenrant source

i forgot which one that was Cambam3291 (talk) 05:13, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

It's not on ScreenRant's best 15 if that's what you're thinking of. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:21, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

no wait what source is on scp-426

it says it's a "killer toaster" mb Cambam3291 (talk) 05:25, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Depending on the source we might be able to include information but it would need to be a good, strong source. We should generally try to avoid giving more details than is necessary, in order to avoid becoming too fancrufty. The page isn't meant to be an extension of the SCP Wiki, so we don't need super in-depth details in order to get the gist across. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:51, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Fair but the issue is that the effects of 426 aren't just it's ability to be only referred to in the first person. It's an active cognitohazard, with it's primary effect only briefly explained in the document (along with being written in the first person), but a large majority of the article is about it's delusion-inducing properties. Not trying to fancruft but it is a large portion of the SCP's lore. Cambam3291 (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

This is not the SCP Wiki. It's a Wikipedia article about the SCP Wiki. Many details are omitted. DS (talk) 00:41, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

True but if we were gonna explain an SCP example wouldn't it be clear and comprehensive to explain it's major effect? it's not even a detail, it's the entire SCP. Cambam3291 (talk) 00:42, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

If the independent sources, such as they are, ignore what you consider the major effect, then that major effect is a detail from the WP-pov. But based on the current sources, we could just remove the toaster, the mentions are very brief. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:39, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2026

Change (Special Containment Procedures) to (Secure Contain Protect) in its first appearance within the article ~2026-38792-69 (talk) 01:46, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

No. SCP stands for Special Containment Procedures. The long form of the name is the Special Containment Procedures Foundation. Secure, Contain, Protect is a motto. Shawtybaespade (talk) 03:36, 8 July 2026 (UTC)