Talk:SCP Foundation

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)

How can I post my own scp

how? ~2026-42882-22 (talk) 15:03, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Check https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/, there's probably instructions there somewhere. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/contribute

read here. theres alot of rules and standards. Shawtybaespade (talk) 22:35, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

A24 V/H/S Film Announcement

I have a COI on this article, but would like to make editors aware of some recent mainstream reporting of interest:

• https://deadline.com/2026/09/scp-foundation-movie-a24-theaters-2027-1237099512/
• https://www.avclub.com/a24-scp-vhs-movie-without-scp-foundation
• https://kotaku.com/scp-foundation-pushes-back-on-backrooms-studios-new-v-h-s-scp-movie-a24-does-not-and-cannot-have-any-exclusive-rights-2000733756
• https://gizmodo.com/the-v-h-s-scp-movie-doesnt-involve-the-actual-scp-foundation-2000810864

aismallard (talk) 02:57, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, I have added a section about the situation under Legal Disputes. Do keep us posted :) Shawtybaespade (talk) 19:24, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Removed. Shawtybaespade, you added unreliable sources. I decided to remove two sources that was suggested above already. You can use now use all the sources that was pinned above. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 20:53, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

The only source used from this list was the link to deadline.com, unless citing the scp wiki on their own statement or citing the creative commons website on their own licenses is wrong too? Tubefilter and Dexerto weren't used. Shawtybaespade (talk) 21:04, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

We need to cite secondary source not the scp wiki itself or creative commons for that claim. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 21:13, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

The current revision should reflect all material with a reliable source attributed, but I'm going to readd the citation to the SCP wiki for the sake of direct quotation, as per WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD where the information included is simply repeating what was said and not trying to substantiate a claim. Shawtybaespade (talk) 21:34, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

I won't share every new news report on this matter, but this article by The Verge is pretty significant: https://www.theverge.com/entertainment/997853/a24-scp-movie-creative-commons-license. It includes a statement from Creative Commons, as well as comments from a law professor. aismallard (talk) 05:04, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

paywalled, unfortunately Shawtybaespade (talk) 20:59, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Wayback Machine has that article archived here or here, there is also the calendar page.

Depending on which archive you view, you can get stuck with a paywall. The two I linked should be fine but the calendar should list all of the archived versions.

Chrisblammo123 (talk) 08:54, 30 September 2026 (UTC)