Talk:SCP – Containment Breach/Archive 1

Inofficial prequels/sequels and fangames

Would they be noteworthy in this article? There are those SCP "games" with staircases (which are rather tech demos with a shocker at the end) and parodies of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.94.242.105 (talk) 12:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

SCP-087 and SCP-087-B have no association with SCP: Containment Breach, apart from the fact they are all based on the stories of the SCP Foundation. They probably don't belong on this article.ClaymoreOverkill (talk) 21:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Notability

Heading added by czar · · 17:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

As noted by Hellknowz, there are quality sources. I don't know why Czar hates this article so much. No longer than yesterday, Day[9], a very famous gamer, played this game on stream. I think there is no question about the notoriety of the title now, so I removed the tag. 88.184.45.244 (talk) 13:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:AGF please. There are two sources (RPS is brief, and Edge is an interview)—I'd like to see more to establish notability. Day[9]'s live stream does not establish notability, but maybe some RS will appear now that he has played it. czar · · 17:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

If this article is deleted, then we should also delete the article on Slender: The Eight Pages. Both are indie horror games with the same amount of popularity as each-other: In fact, I'd say SCP-CB is actually more notable. -- Another n00b (talk) 17:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Link to the SCP Foundation wiki

I feel that an explicit link to the site that this game was based on (http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com or http://scp-wiki.net) is warranted, as the article currently does not explicitly state that its creator based it on the work of a different group of people entirely. The site is only mentioned at all in the second reference. I personally feel that the SCP Foundation wiki deserves its own article too, but that's not strictly relevant to the discussion at hand. 174.53.240.164 (talk) 01:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• I'm going to put it on article. Currently, the article say it's based on SCP Foundation, then offer wall of plot text without tell the reader what it is. L-Zwei (talk) 12:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Disrespectful to the SCP Foundation

Now, I think people making games based off of the SCP Foundation is really cool. But the fact that Wikipedia has a page on a fanwork but not the original work is completely and totally ridiculous. Why don't we have a page on the SCP Foundation in general? This is the same way I feel about Slender: The Eight Pages having a page but not The Slender Man Mythos - disrespectful to the original works behind the silly fangames. -50.197.67.105 (talk) 17:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia's article inclusion criteria is the notability guideline, which has very specific criteria -- significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Within certain variation, we judge all out articles on these terms. It has nothing to do with disrespect or otherwise on Wikipedia's part; having definite objective criteria is the most neutral we can be. In anything, it is reliable sources that are biased in their coverage of topics. Sorry you feel that way, but it is sometimes the case. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't the fact that a fanproject based on the original has several reliable sources give the original notability? Slender: the Eight Pages should count as a part of the Slenderman Mythos, and this game should count as a part of the SCP Foundation. That's like having a page about the pope but not about Catholicism. ~anon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.21.249.104 (talk) 23:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe that the SCP Foundation deserves its own page on this wiki that replaces this, noting that a large amount of the actual foundation community expresses distaste towards games being made without the permission of the writers. 67.170.244.85 (talk) 02:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Vote for removal/merge with a SCP wiki page

Plain and simple, we make a page based on the actual SCP wiki. From there we can put a section about fanwork and include this game in it. The reasoning is this: the members of the community have noted severe dislike towards games based on the foundation, namely due to the developers apparently not asking the authors of the SCPs for permission to use said SCPs. 67.170.244.5 (talk) 02:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think "the members of the community have noted severe dislike towards games based on the foundation" is valid reason for merging. Although I would like to note that when "fan work is consider notable, but the source which the fan work is based on is not", something illogical is going on. Still, Wikipedia is about source, and thank to Rock, Paper, Shotgun for comparing it with Warehouse 13 (despite SCP actually predate that show), it point out to sad nature of human to prefer watching TV rather than reading text. L-Zwei (talk) 04:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • This game isn't all that notable, though. It's as notable as the other games that are based off the foundation(I can list several off the top of my head, several SCP-087 games, SCP_432, SCP-079, SCP wander, SCP the fear, SCP Six Eight Two, SCP-015 and SCP-610) The fact that THIS has it's own page at all is sad, even moreso when you realize that the Foundation doesn't have a page. 67.170.244.5 (talk) 05:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
    • When I said notable, I mean that's the reason it has article here. And please don't try to deny that, it may get this article deleted, but that doesn't mean there will be article for SCP Foundation. L-Zwei (talk) 06:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
      • "The fact that THIS has it's own page at all is sad, even moreso when you realize that the Foundation doesn't have a page." Well, if you're so annoyed by this, then go make the page yourself. We (being the members of the SCP CB Community) built this page because we believed it deserved its own page. Now, the SCP Wiki obviously thought their own wiki was enough, and i agree on this. They're wiki is massive. They don't require a page here. But if you feel they need one, go ahead. But this page? It stays, and there is no present reason to remove it.

TheCab (talk) 00:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Eetu?

Who is this "Eetu Rosenqvist" mentioned in the infobox? --Puujäbä (talk) 22:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)