Talk:SCP-173

Request and question.

I saw quite a few other sources that would be worth taking a look at, but I couldn't access them due to them being paywalled and neither having the funds nor academic place to access them. Can people with the ability to access them add them on? (assuming they add any new information or are additional sources for existing ones.)

BTW, would it be required as an author of the SCP wiki (admittedly one that only has a single tale, surrounding an irrelevant character) that I disclose this as a COI? The page for that is rather ambiguous as to whether users of creative spaces would qualify as a COI or SME, so I'm just asking in advance for clarification. ThyCheshireCat (talk) 19:59, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Replying to clarify that the sources have been obtained, though the other question remains. ThyCheshireCat (talk) 07:24, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi @ThyCheshireCat! I don't think being a minor author on the site gives you a COI any more than watching a TV series or writing fan fic about it gives you a COI for articles about that TV series. You obviously shouldn't write about your own writing, but the SCP wiki is so big I don't think this is an issue at all. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest rules are mostly aimed at businesses promoting themselves - I had no idea how big a problem this is until I started reviewing Articles for Creation and doing New Page Review. Please don't write an article about yourself or your best friend or the company you just started. Or if you must, submit it here as an AfC draft for review. Also, I'm glad you found the sources! Thanks for contributing! Lijil (talk) 15:15, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

I see. There's not much to worry about in that case then, unless by some miracle one of my works becomes the next 3008 lol. If I make a game or start a Youtube channel then things would be different though I assume. (Though I assume in the former case, it could be argued that only the game itself and/or the specific elements from the medium that it's inspired by would qualify?)

Thanks for clarifying! ThyCheshireCat (talk) 20:33, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

I think you're safe to keep contributing to Wikipedia articles about SCP, just don't write about things you actually made yourself! And listen to your gut, if things start to feel a bit iffy maybe they are. But being an expert on a topic certainly doesn't count as WP:COI - we love experts here :) Lijil (talk) 10:09, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Change image in video game section.

I can understand using a different image that is actually able to show 173, but the replacement has it take up only a miniscule portion of the image itself, and there's no sources for SCP Unity in the article, which could lead to people being confused. (Albeit this could easily be fixed by finding sources to create a section on the Unity game.)

I'd suggest cropping the image, or taking a different one, so that the anomaly is easily visible. (Oh, also, I said this on the talk for the image itself but the original filesize for the Untitled 2004 on the article is way too large to be a low resolution copy, and probably doesn't meet WP:NFCCP. Probably best replaced or removed.) ThyCheshireCat (talk) 12:01, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. Track your hook after promotion. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by TarnishedPath (talk) 10:18, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that SCP-173 no longer looks like a peanut?

• Source: "SCP-173 Given New Life, The Head-Turning History of an Icon". DREAD XP. 2022-02-07. Archived from the original on 26 September 2023. Retrieved 2023-09-26.

• • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Xiao (Genshin Impact)
  • Comment: QPQ 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Bull Believer

Moved to mainspace by ThyCheshireCat (talk) and Lijil (talk). Number of QPQs required: 2. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 42 past nominations.

ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 21:42, 4 March 2026 (UTC).

• Not a review, but my citation highlighting scripts are picking up one Sportskeeda, which is designated as generally unreliable. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:54, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  @TechnoSquirrel69: Thanks for catching that, I've removed the Sportskeeda source. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 03:06, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Article was nominated for DYK within 7 days of moving into mainspace. Article is more than 1,500 words in length, sourced, and neutral. Hook is interesting and sourced. Earwig picked up an unlikely copyright violation of 2.9%, which is mostly attributed a line about the chamber being needed to clean on a bi-weekly basis. The line is sourced, though. 2 QPQs are done. Currently, this DYK looks great aside from some sources I have questions about. Namely, what makes DreadXP a reliable source? lullabying (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

• @Lullabying: Dread XP is considered reliable as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Subject/Genre-specific. It's the fourth listed alphabetically. (Also I'm not sure if this was actually intended to notify me. I started the 173 article, but I wasn't the one to actually nominate it. Either way though I'm still more than willing to clarify on whatever needs to be... also first time commenting on a DYK nomination, so I hope this is formatted correctly.) ThyCheshireCat (talk) 00:26, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

  • Wow! That's my bad for not looking too clearly. Good to go, then! lullabying (talk) 00:36, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
    • Not seeing the hook fact im the article ArtemisiaGentileschiFan? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:51, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

      @AirshipJungleman29: The article states that the former depiction of the statue, based on Untitled 2004, was affectionately called "Peanut" for its appearance, and that that depiction is no longer used. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• I am not promoting this at this time. @ArtemisiaGentileschiFan, AirshipJungleman29, Lullabying, and ThyCheshireCat: I do not consider this to comply with WP:DYKINT since the reader is left wondering what this code-like string "SCP-173" is. The hook should be augmented with a common noun phrase (the statue? the sculpture?) before "SCP-173".--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:38, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

  Then how about Alt 1: ... that the fictional statue SCP-173 no longer looks like a peanut? ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 05:26, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

  I think the reader still would be confused because fictional entities are not usually thought of as evolving in real time, hence the present tense doesn't make sense. It'll be better to pinpoint a specific time at which it changed from being a peanut shape, or say that it originally looked like one but evolved to not by a certain year.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:03, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

  @Jasper Deng: I disagree with your opinion on that. I think the ambiguity of why/how it no longer looks like a peanut makes the hook more interesting and enticing to read further. I really don't think there's any need to elaborate any further in the hook itself. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 01:17, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

  @ArtemisiaGentileschiFan: It is very important that fictional entities not be discussed as being in-universe, though. I would discuss this at WT:DYK but I stand by my position.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

  @Jasper Deng: The alt hook I provided already states that the statue is fictional. The change of appearance (no longer looking like a peanut) is not in-universe. It's a fact about its real-world development. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 20:05, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

  @ArtemisiaGentileschi: I would still be more comfortable if a specific time (can even just be the year) is provided; it still seems too in-universe otherwise. It can't be real-world development if it does not actually exist.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:14, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

  @Jasper Deng: The statue did not change its appearance in-universe. Its appearance only changed in real life because the SCP wiki stopped using its previous appearance due to copyright concerns. I don't see how it can "seem too in-universe" if there is no in-universe fact stated. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 20:42, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

  Coming from WT:DYK, both hooks seem fine. Nothing in-universe about it, just talking about real-world design choices. To ameliorate the specific time concerns, perhaps "used to" instead of "no longer", but I think it's fine regardless. 1brianm7 (talk) 21:26, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

  I agree with Jasper Deng. The hook doesn't seem to make much sense at face value. Readers will wonder why this fictional statue might change from resembling a peanut to not resembling a peanut. Being borderline WP:DYKFICTION I think we should focus on some other aspect of this, or at least spell out more clearly what is meant in the hook.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:39, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

  From reading the article, I believe SCP-173 used to look like a peanut and currently looks like nothing. Readers will wonder why this fictional statue might change from resembling a peanut to not resembling a peanut We would be telling them that it used to look like a peanut, and if they wish to know more we would be educating them on copyright law. 1brianm7 (talk) 21:51, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

  I don't see why we can't use a hook like "...that the fictional statue SCP-173 had to be redesigned to look less peanut-like due to a copyright dispute?". That's a real-world fact.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:09, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

  Piping the link would get away from the obscure name of the subject: "... that because of a copyright dispute, a fictional statue had to be redesigned to be less peanut-like? Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:12, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

  It's not true for one, the statue wasn't redesigned at the request of the original creator. It is left to the reader's imagination on what it looks like. That it used to look like a peanut is also a real-world fact, and this is a more verbose restatement of it. 1brianm7 (talk) 22:15, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

  Here's an alternative suggestion. ALT2: ... that a fictional statue no longer looks like a peanut due to a copyright dispute? ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 22:28, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

While I think ALT2 should solve the DYKFICTION concerns, just in case the peanut angle falls through, would you be open to proposing a different angle altogether, like a different hook fact? It would be a shame to lose the peanut angle but these things don't always work out. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:02, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: How about this: ALT3: ... that fans of a fictional moving statue have affectionately nicknamed it "Peanut"? ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 00:20, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

• Commented at DKYT. I think the hook and article are fairly inscrutable and the article has in-universe issues. I wouldn't promote this as written. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:09, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

procedurally adding this mark given there are questions about this being interesting. TarnishedPath^talk 12:11, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I have suggested multiple alt hooks. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 18:49, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Alt hooks need fresh review, along with the in-universe issues identified about the article's earlier state. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:58, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

• Assuming there are no more issues with the article, I'm ready to approve ALT3. @Dclemens1971 and TarnishedPath: Do you have any objections to it? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:39, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5:, my only action regarding this nomination was to add the maybe symbol after it was pulled, because I'd noticed it hadn't been added by whowever pulled it. Feel free to proceed with approvel if there are no further concerns from others. TarnishedPath^talk 05:44, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed recently but no objections if Naruto has approved a hook. I only commented earlier because the nominator solicited second opinions at DYKT. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:17, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

ALT3 is verified in the source and cited inline in the article, so approving it only. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:53, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Putting it on the record that ALT3 is much better and I also approve of it.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:27, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

@ArtemisiaGentileschiFan and Narutolovehinata5:, the source which supports the material in the article states "The more ominous title fans have used is “The Sculpture” while they also refer to it iconically as “The Peanut” as its meek top-heavy curves share a likeness with the bulbous snack". Where is the 'affectionately' bit coming from? TarnishedPath^talk 09:05, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath: I thought that a fan-made nickname being "affectionate" was implicit, but I have removed it from the article text since you brought it up. Here's the same hook with the word removed: ALT4: ... that fans of a fictional moving statue have nicknamed it "Peanut"? ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 22:29, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: are you good with the new hook (ALT4)? TarnishedPath^talk 23:11, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

That works. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:38, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

20 years of SCP in 2027 and 25 years in 2032

Who's gonna celebrate, and how? Alexaaaaaaaaaaaa (talk) 10:16, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, I would celebrate, but I have to tell you that Wikipedia is not a forum. Please see WP:NOTFORUM for more info. Soviet Pepega (talk) 06:37, 11 May 2026 (UTC)