• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

The Backrooms shouldn't be allowed. (STAFF ONLY)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Last edited:
KatBoi69 said:
It is all of this...

How To Write An SCP - SCP Foundation

The SCP Foundation's 'top-secret' archives, declassified for your enjoyment.
scp-wiki.wikidot.com scp-wiki.wikidot.com


And these forums would give an idea of how that review plays out...

Forum Category - SCP Foundation Help: Ideas Critique

The SCP Foundation's 'top-secret' archives, declassified for your enjoyment.
scp-wiki.wikidot.com scp-wiki.wikidot.com
Click to expand...
Both are present within the Wikidot as well

Writing Tips - The Backrooms

backrooms-wiki.wikidot.com backrooms-wiki.wikidot.com

Forum Category - The Backrooms Help: Draft Critique

Documenting the levels, entities, objects and phenomena of the Backrooms. You've been here before.
backrooms-wiki.wikidot.com backrooms-wiki.wikidot.com

Also some stuff seems to be more strict on the Backrooms wiki : SCP's net rating for deletion is -10 (IIRC), while the Backrooms one is -5.

Liminal Archives has roughly the same rules but it's even more strict. For example, the net there is -3.
 
Ottavio_Merluzzo said:
Both are present within the Wikidot as well

Writing Tips - The Backrooms

backrooms-wiki.wikidot.com backrooms-wiki.wikidot.com

Forum Category - The Backrooms Help: Draft Critique

Documenting the levels, entities, objects and phenomena of the Backrooms. You've been here before.
backrooms-wiki.wikidot.com backrooms-wiki.wikidot.com

Also some stuff seems to be more strict on the Backrooms wiki : SCP's net rating for deletion is -10 (IIRC), while the Backrooms one is -5.

Liminal Archives has roughly the same rules but it's more strict. For example, the net there is -3.
Click to expand...
I'll add that it looks like they have a similar greenlighting process.

Greenlight Policy - The Backrooms

Documenting the levels, entities, objects and phenomena of the Backrooms. You've been here before.
backrooms-wiki.wikidot.com backrooms-wiki.wikidot.com
 
I personally agree with Moritzva's arguments above. The SCP verse is an unfortunate exception. It definitely shouldn't be the rule.

@Mr._Bambu

Yiu may be interested in this thread.
 
Antvasima said:
I personally agree with Moritzva's arguments above. The SCP verse is an unfortunate exception. It definitely shouldn't be the rule.

@Mr._Bambu

Yiu may be interested in this thread.
Click to expand...
At the expense of getting yelled at for posting so many times in a staff only thread...

If the general feeling really is, "no wikifiction ever again, except scp," is it worth making a page to codify that as an actual rule?

I'm thinking this would be useful for two reasons:

1). Having lots of unwritten rules on the wiki makes it hard for new members to interact with vsbw, and potentially exposes them to unenjoyable experiences of being "arbitrarily shot down" (I'm not saying it's actually arbitrary, but it could feel that way, and user experience does matter).

2). If this was written down somewhere, it would save everyone going through two or more threads of argumentation back and forth the next time a new wikifiction verse gains popularity, when the answer is just "we have a hard line on this regardless of what anyone says".
 
Last edited:
where was all this support when I was debating the Backrooms, huh

I still think certain exceptions may be had. If an individual has a noteworthy version of the backrooms (say, some YouTuber maintains his own version of the verse), then that doesn't run into the same problems as a community-driven thing like the wikidot and I think that's fine. I was (and now, seeing new arguments, am now again) against having the wikidot on the wiki. I'd been led to believe it matched SCP 1:1 in terms of quality control and such, if that's not the case then yeah, gun it down.
 
Mr._Bambu said:
where was all this support when I was debating the Backrooms, huh

I still think certain exceptions may be had. If an individual has a noteworthy version of the backrooms (say, some YouTuber maintains his own version of the verse), then that doesn't run into the same problems as a community-driven thing like the wikidot and I think that's fine. I was (and now, seeing new arguments, am now again) against having the wikidot on the wiki. I'd been led to believe it matched SCP 1:1 in terms of quality control and such, if that's not the case then yeah, gun it down.
Click to expand...
Oh I'm going to get screamed at, but...

If you look at both sites' rules and processes (posted up thread) they are, at least superficially, identical.
 
So after going through most of the arguments on the thread, talking about it a little on a discord and thinking about it, I have a few points to make note of:
  1. The Backrooms is a creepy-pasta. As far as I can tell, other creepypasta profiles on this wiki aren't actually based off the OG creepypasta; for example, the JTK and Slenderman pages are based off published novels and non-fanfiction videogames. Their pages make no reference to a random internet story with no inherent canon, and neither does anyone else's. The Backrooms verse, however, doesn't exist much beyond a vague creepypasta. There are a host of different wikis and interpretations, yes, but nothing remotely approaching an actual verse.
  2. It is much less centralized than the SCP Foundation. 100% of SCP content on this site comes from either the scp wiki, official derivatives of the SCP wiki or SCP games, and only the latter has it's own canon. SCP content is much more organized than Backrooms content, to the point where there are many things on the wiki that are actually ruled as non-canon because the wiki has an actual canon, a narrative to follow. Backrooms content is mostly unaffiliated wikis/solitary fanfictions (if you can call it that) with nothing approaching cohesiveness.
    1. Worth noting that I'm not calling the SCP verse incredibly consistent, but it is much more so than the backrooms. Again, any attempt at forming a proper Backrooms canon would fall flat. you would have to start citing Film Theory videos in vsbw pages and I think that's where the line is drawn
  3. There is less content moderation. This is an extension of the previous point, but nobody here can really go around and start ******* with the canon for, say, SCP-173 willy nilly, or start completely revamping pivotal tales, because those tales are better managed and organized. Backroom verse 'content' is a lot less organized and ergo has less moderation by default.
  4. The SCP Foundation is an exception and not a rule. It's important to note that using the SCP Foundation's existence as an argument for the backrooms in of itself is flawed; the scp foundation in no small part stays on the wiki because we thought it was so notable that it just barely qualifies. Emphasis on the word 'barely' because even now you could make a fantastic argument for the SCP wiki to be wiped from the VSBW. Seeing as the SCP Foundation is pretty much an inch away from hurtling off a cliff, anything closer should automatically fall over, and as I've proved above, the backrooms is certainly closer.
  5. It should not be impossible for The Backrooms to be added in the future. In spite of everything I've said, I couldn't come up with any inherent reason for the Backrooms to never be allowed. Does something as organized and consistent and moderated and established as the SCP Foundation exist now for the Backrooms? No. But could it exist in the future? Absolutely.
  6. We shouldn't ban wikifiction. I think it'd be sort of silly because it implies nothing like the SCP Foundation could ever exist in the future for some reason. It would be a rule effectively saying 'No wikifiction except for the one the moderators like'.
TL;DR The Backrooms in their current form should not be allowed, but I would not be surprised if this ruling was undone later (assuming we still allow SCP entries by then). Collaborative Writing is always a tricky thing to add to the VSBW and we should be very picky with what gets in.

I wholeheartedly agree with Moritzva's points.
 
Ayewale said:
So after going through most of the arguments on the thread, talking about it a little on a discord and thinking about it, I have a few points to make note of:
  1. The Backrooms is a creepy-pasta. As far as I can tell, other creepypasta profiles on this wiki aren't actually based off the OG creepypasta; for example, the JTK and Slenderman pages are based off published novels and non-fanfiction videogames. Their pages make no reference to a random internet story with no inherent canon, and neither does anyone else's. The Backrooms verse, however, doesn't exist much beyond a vague creepypasta. There are a host of different wikis and interpretations, yes, but nothing remotely approaching an actual verse.
  2. It is much less centralized than the SCP Foundation. 100% of SCP content on this site comes from either the scp wiki, official derivatives of the SCP wiki or SCP games, and only the latter has it's own canon. SCP content is much more organized than Backrooms content, to the point where there are many things on the wiki that are actually ruled as non-canon because the wiki has an actual canon, a narrative to follow. Backrooms content is mostly unaffiliated wikis/solitary fanfictions (if you can call it that) with nothing approaching cohesiveness.
    1. Worth noting that I'm not calling the SCP verse incredibly consistent, but it is much more so than the backrooms. Again, any attempt at forming a proper Backrooms canon would fall flat. you would have to start citing Film Theory videos in vsbw pages and I think that's where the line is drawn
  3. There is less content moderation. This is an extension of the previous point, but nobody here can really go around and start ******* with the canon for, say, SCP-173 willy nilly, or start completely revamping pivotal tales, because those tales are better managed and organized. Backroom verse 'content' is a lot less organized and ergo has less moderation by default.
  4. The SCP Foundation is an exception and not a rule. It's important to note that using the SCP Foundation's existence as an argument for the backrooms in of itself is flawed; the scp foundation in no small part stays on the wiki because we thought it was so notable that it just barely qualifies. Emphasis on the word 'barely' because even now you could make a fantastic argument for the SCP wiki to be wiped from the VSBW. Seeing as the SCP Foundation is pretty much an inch away from hurtling off a cliff, anything closer should automatically fall over, and as I've proved above, the backrooms is certainly closer.
  5. It should not be impossible for The Backrooms to be added in the future. In spite of everything I've said, I couldn't come up with any inherent reason for the Backrooms to never be allowed. Does something as organized and consistent and moderated and established as the SCP Foundation exist now for the Backrooms? No. But could it exist in the future? Absolutely.
  6. We shouldn't ban wikifiction. I think it'd be sort of silly because it implies nothing like the SCP Foundation could ever exist in the future for some reason. It would be a rule effectively saying 'No wikifiction except for the one the moderators like'.
TL;DR The Backrooms in their current form should not be allowed, but I would not be surprised if this ruling was undone later (assuming we still allow SCP entries by then). Collaborative Writing is always a tricky thing to add to the VSBW and we should be very picky with what gets in.

I wholeheartedly agree with Moritzva's points.
Click to expand...
I guess we should wait for a little longer and see which direction the wiki might end up in. If it remains consistent up to a certain duration of time, then we might as well attempt to add it.
 
Ayewale said:
So after going through most of the arguments on the thread, talking about it a little on a discord and thinking about it, I have a few points to make note of:
  1. The Backrooms is a creepy-pasta. As far as I can tell, other creepypasta profiles on this wiki aren't actually based off the OG creepypasta; for example, the JTK and Slenderman pages are based off published novels and non-fanfiction videogames. Their pages make no reference to a random internet story with no inherent canon, and neither does anyone else's. The Backrooms verse, however, doesn't exist much beyond a vague creepypasta. There are a host of different wikis and interpretations, yes, but nothing remotely approaching an actual verse.
  2. It is much less centralized than the SCP Foundation. 100% of SCP content on this site comes from either the scp wiki, official derivatives of the SCP wiki or SCP games, and only the latter has it's own canon. SCP content is much more organized than Backrooms content, to the point where there are many things on the wiki that are actually ruled as non-canon because the wiki has an actual canon, a narrative to follow. Backrooms content is mostly unaffiliated wikis/solitary fanfictions (if you can call it that) with nothing approaching cohesiveness.
    1. Worth noting that I'm not calling the SCP verse incredibly consistent, but it is much more so than the backrooms. Again, any attempt at forming a proper Backrooms canon would fall flat. you would have to start citing Film Theory videos in vsbw pages and I think that's where the line is drawn
  3. There is less content moderation. This is an extension of the previous point, but nobody here can really go around and start ******* with the canon for, say, SCP-173 willy nilly, or start completely revamping pivotal tales, because those tales are better managed and organized. Backroom verse 'content' is a lot less organized and ergo has less moderation by default.
  4. The SCP Foundation is an exception and not a rule. It's important to note that using the SCP Foundation's existence as an argument for the backrooms in of itself is flawed; the scp foundation in no small part stays on the wiki because we thought it was so notable that it just barely qualifies. Emphasis on the word 'barely' because even now you could make a fantastic argument for the SCP wiki to be wiped from the VSBW. Seeing as the SCP Foundation is pretty much an inch away from hurtling off a cliff, anything closer should automatically fall over, and as I've proved above, the backrooms is certainly closer.
  5. It should not be impossible for The Backrooms to be added in the future. In spite of everything I've said, I couldn't come up with any inherent reason for the Backrooms to never be allowed. Does something as organized and consistent and moderated and established as the SCP Foundation exist now for the Backrooms? No. But could it exist in the future? Absolutely.
  6. We shouldn't ban wikifiction. I think it'd be sort of silly because it implies nothing like the SCP Foundation could ever exist in the future for some reason. It would be a rule effectively saying 'No wikifiction except for the one the moderators like'.
TL;DR The Backrooms in their current form should not be allowed, but I would not be surprised if this ruling was undone later (assuming we still allow SCP entries by then). Collaborative Writing is always a tricky thing to add to the VSBW and we should be very picky with what gets in.

I wholeheartedly agree with Moritzva's points.
Click to expand...
Alright, so, before I talk about this post, I want to say that a combination of points 1, and some implications of 2 and 3 have convinced me that it probably is better to wait on indexing the backrooms wikidot.

1). This is a really good point, in the sense that I didn't realize that all of our creepypasta pages are from, let's call it, "more defined versions" of the original stories. Some people tried to tell me that the backrooms aren't a creepypasta, which I seriously don't buy, but if the precedent for indexing a creepypasta is currently, "it needs a significant work, separate from the original story, in a traditional fiction medium," which it seems to be, well, the backrooms wikidot isn't that.

2/3). I really hadn't thought of how having a significant, consistent, established canon provides implicit "auto-moderation" for a wikifiction project. Like, yeah, the fact that SCP's have big piles of consistent side stories means its harder to sneak in something like, "The alligator eats all of fiction", whereas The Backrooms, being a younger verse with less established lore, has a higher chance of spiraling in a wanky way.

4). I still haven't seen a good argument to remove SCP that doesn't boil down to taste or unsubstantiated fears. If this is really the way people want to treat wikifiction, then there should be a crt, and this should get codified. That's all a topic for another thread.

5/6). Agreed.
 
Ayewale said:
  1. ...
Click to expand...
1. I mean, Creepypasta by itself isn’t much of a problem, we have Creepypasta Collection here, for example. The main difference is that it is a published book and not collaborative writing on the wiki.
2. I just want to point out that SCP has it’s own variations, scattered around other wikis. No one talks about them since we are using the main site only. Basically, both the first and second points come down to which version of Backrooms we should use, and (since most people already settled on wikidot one it seems) whether it is up to our standards.
3. Wikidot is banned in my country, so I can’t check it myself, but if someone can list it here, not just the amount of votes it need, it would help.


Later points are given. Whatever the case may be, I just want for the end of this thread to be clear on what our stance is. If we wait, than for how long, etc.
Also, again, I would like for it to be clear that if wiki’s versions aren’t allowed, YouTube series should be, since it is a standalone work.
 
MrKerf said:
1. I mean, Creepypasta by itself isn’t much of a problem, we have Creepypasta Collection here, for example. The main difference is that it is a published book and not collaborative writing on the wiki.
2. I just want to point out that SCP has it’s own variations, scattered around other wikis. No one talks about them since we are using the main site only. Basically, both the first and second points come down to which version of Backrooms we should use, and (since most people already settled on wikidot one it seems) whether it is up to our standards.
3. Wikidot is banned in my country, so I can’t check it myself, but if someone can list it here, not just the amount of votes it need, it would help.


Later points are given. Whatever the case may be, I just want for the end of this thread to be clear on what our stance is. If we wait, than for how long, etc.
Also, again, I would like for it to be clear that if wiki’s versions aren’t allowed, YouTube series should be, since it is a standalone work.
Click to expand...
In response to the first point:
Ayewale said:
So after going through most of the arguments on the thread, talking about it a little on a discord and thinking about it, I have a few points to make note of:
  1. The Backrooms is a creepy-pasta. As far as I can tell, other creepypasta profiles on this wiki aren't actually based off the OG creepypasta; for example, the JTK and Slenderman pages are based off published novels...
Click to expand...
And I agree that SCPs do have other versions, but the SCP Foundation is agreed upon universally to be the 'main' one. Also, apologies for Wikidot being banned in your country. Here's an ip address for the website, if that helps: 107.20.139.176
 
Ayewale said:
In response to the first point:

And I agree that SCPs do have other versions, but the SCP Foundation is agreed upon universally to be the 'main' one. Also, apologies for Wikidot being banned in your country. Here's an ip address for the website, if that helps: 107.20.139.176
Click to expand...
Yeah, the main point I had is that in itself it doesn't matter what kind of story it is, we just need to create borders and follow them. So the first 2 points are technically doesn't matter as long as the site is good enough.

Thanks, but it's Wikidot itself who banned it, since I am in Russia, so it doesn't work usually for me.

Does any staff members want to call notable people from previous thread?
 
Can we please stop talking about non wiki content?

The reasons it can't be indexed are :

1- Kane Pixels's continuity and other video games stuff is non scalable (aside from one entity in the former)

2- Most non wiki content is based on wiki content (for example,the videogame "Enter The Backrooms").

The Wikidot is treated as the main canon across the Backrooms community, so most non wiki content (videogames, videos etc) usually depict the Wikidot version of the Backrooms
 
Last edited:
Ottavio_Merluzzo said:
Can we please stop talking about non wiki content?

The reasons it can't be indexed are :

1- Kane Pixels's continuity and other video games stuff is non scalable (aside from one entity in the former)

2- Most non wiki content is based on wiki content (for example,the videogame "Enter The Backrooms").

The Wikidot is treated as the main canon across the Backrooms community, so most non wiki content (videogames, videos etc) usually depict the Wikidot version of the Backrooms
Click to expand...
True
 
Anyway, i'm gonna ask if the Liminal Archives can be scaled here. My reasonings are :


• Evaluation forums and all that stuff are present within the Wiki. Basically, the process is akin to the one in the SCP Wiki.

• You need staff permission to join the site, otherwise you can't do much.

• You need to follow a certain set of rules when writing your stuff

• The pages are subjected to a stricter scrutiny,hence why there aren't many. It is easy to get your page deleted or de-canonized because of that.

• They're an enclosed group which deals with its own stuff (it doesn't have anything to do with the other Backrooms continuities, and taking stuff from other sites is forbidden). The Backrooms are just one of the Liminal Systems of the verse.

• Liminal Archives possess actual established Canon and Non Canon sections
 
Last edited:
Moritzva said:
We'd probably need more details on how strict those standards are.
Click to expand...
Guidelines and rules can be found here. If you prefer a summary, let me know.

Backrooms Writing Guide - Liminal Archives

Study the Archives, learn the unknown, and eventually, explore them yourself.
liminal-archives.wikidot.com liminal-archives.wikidot.com

Rules - Liminal Archives

Study the Archives, learn the unknown, and eventually, explore them yourself.
liminal-archives.wikidot.com liminal-archives.wikidot.com

Deletion Policy - Liminal Archives

Study the Archives, learn the unknown, and eventually, explore them yourself.
liminal-archives.wikidot.com liminal-archives.wikidot.com
 
Ayewale said:
So after going through most of the arguments on the thread, talking about it a little on a discord and thinking about it, I have a few points to make note of:
  1. The Backrooms is a creepy-pasta. As far as I can tell, other creepypasta profiles on this wiki aren't actually based off the OG creepypasta; for example, the JTK and Slenderman pages are based off published novels and non-fanfiction videogames. Their pages make no reference to a random internet story with no inherent canon, and neither does anyone else's. The Backrooms verse, however, doesn't exist much beyond a vague creepypasta. There are a host of different wikis and interpretations, yes, but nothing remotely approaching an actual verse.
  2. It is much less centralized than the SCP Foundation. 100% of SCP content on this site comes from either the scp wiki, official derivatives of the SCP wiki or SCP games, and only the latter has it's own canon. SCP content is much more organized than Backrooms content, to the point where there are many things on the wiki that are actually ruled as non-canon because the wiki has an actual canon, a narrative to follow. Backrooms content is mostly unaffiliated wikis/solitary fanfictions (if you can call it that) with nothing approaching cohesiveness.
    1. Worth noting that I'm not calling the SCP verse incredibly consistent, but it is much more so than the backrooms. Again, any attempt at forming a proper Backrooms canon would fall flat. you would have to start citing Film Theory videos in vsbw pages and I think that's where the line is drawn
  3. There is less content moderation. This is an extension of the previous point, but nobody here can really go around and start ******* with the canon for, say, SCP-173 willy nilly, or start completely revamping pivotal tales, because those tales are better managed and organized. Backroom verse 'content' is a lot less organized and ergo has less moderation by default.
  4. The SCP Foundation is an exception and not a rule. It's important to note that using the SCP Foundation's existence as an argument for the backrooms in of itself is flawed; the scp foundation in no small part stays on the wiki because we thought it was so notable that it just barely qualifies. Emphasis on the word 'barely' because even now you could make a fantastic argument for the SCP wiki to be wiped from the VSBW. Seeing as the SCP Foundation is pretty much an inch away from hurtling off a cliff, anything closer should automatically fall over, and as I've proved above, the backrooms is certainly closer.
  5. It should not be impossible for The Backrooms to be added in the future. In spite of everything I've said, I couldn't come up with any inherent reason for the Backrooms to never be allowed. Does something as organized and consistent and moderated and established as the SCP Foundation exist now for the Backrooms? No. But could it exist in the future? Absolutely.
  6. We shouldn't ban wikifiction. I think it'd be sort of silly because it implies nothing like the SCP Foundation could ever exist in the future for some reason. It would be a rule effectively saying 'No wikifiction except for the one the moderators like'.
TL;DR The Backrooms in their current form should not be allowed, but I would not be surprised if this ruling was undone later (assuming we still allow SCP entries by then). Collaborative Writing is always a tricky thing to add to the VSBW and we should be very picky with what gets in.

I wholeheartedly agree with Moritzva's points.
Click to expand...
These seem to be well-considered points.
 
KatBoi69 said:
At the expense of getting yelled at for posting so many times in a staff only thread...

If the general feeling really is, "no wikifiction ever again, except scp," is it worth making a page to codify that as an actual rule?

I'm thinking this would be useful for two reasons:

1). Having lots of unwritten rules on the wiki makes it hard for new members to interact with vsbw, and potentially exposes them to unenjoyable experiences of being "arbitrarily shot down" (I'm not saying it's actually arbitrary, but it could feel that way, and user experience does matter).

2). If this was written down somewhere, it would save everyone going through two or more threads of argumentation back and forth the next time a new wikifiction verse gains popularity, when the answer is just "we have a hard line on this regardless of what anyone says".
Click to expand...
I wouldn't mind an official rule against all fan-content except for SCP, and am not at all comfortable with featuring SCP either, partially because it is a fan-content patchwork continuity, and particularly given that our members can technically directly introduce upgrade-friendly concepts to be applied to the verse, and then upgrade it in our wiki based on that, and now we have 17 tier 0 SCP pages or somesuch. I am getting light Suggsverse wibes from this.
 
Antvasima said:
I wouldn't mind an official rule against all fan-content except for SCP, and am not at all comfortable with featuring SCP either, partially because it is a fan-content patchwork continuity, and particularly given that our members can technically directly introduce upgrade-friendly concepts to be applied to the verse, and then upgrade it in our wiki based on that, and now we have 17 tier 0 SCP pages or somesuch. I am getting light Suggsverse wibes from this.
Click to expand...
Overall still much more consistent than suggsverse.
 
Antvasima said:
I wouldn't mind an official rule against all fan-content except for SCP, and am not at all comfortable with featuring SCP either, partially because it is a fan-content patchwork continuity, and particularly given that our members can technically directly introduce upgrade-friendly concepts to be applied to the verse, and then upgrade it in our wiki based on that, and now we have 17 tier 0 SCP pages or somesuch. I am getting light Suggsverse wibes from this.
Click to expand...
Suggsverse was explicitly made for VS debating purposes. Those verses weren't.

I disagree with not indexing wikifiction if it's controlled enough, and i also think SCP shouldn't be an exception.

My take is: All or nothing. We either index those verses or we don't, SCP included.

Otherwise we fall into double standards.
 
Antvasima said:
I wouldn't mind an official rule against all fan-content except for SCP, and am not at all comfortable with featuring SCP either, partially because it is a fan-content patchwork continuity, and particularly given that our members can technically directly introduce upgrade-friendly concepts to be applied to the verse, and then upgrade it in our wiki based on that, and now we have 17 tier 0 SCP pages or somesuch. I am getting light Suggsverse wibes from this.
Click to expand...

Maybe I will make that CRT then, because I have lots of thoughts about this and other points made in this thread relevant to wikifiction and scp, but they aren't appropriate to discuss here.
 
Ottavio_Merluzzo said:
Anyway, i'm gonna ask if the Liminal Archives can be scaled here. My reasonings are :


• Evaluation forums and all that stuff are present within the Wiki. Basically, the process is akin to the one in the SCP Wiki.

• You need staff permission to join the site, otherwise you can't do much.

• You need to follow a certain set of rules when writing your stuff

• The pages are subjected to a stricter scrutiny,hence why there aren't many. It is easy to get your page deleted or de-canonized because of that.

• They're an enclosed group which deals with its own stuff (it doesn't have anything to do with the other Backrooms continuities, and taking stuff from other sites is forbidden). The Backrooms are just one of the Liminal Systems of the verse.

• Liminal Archives possess actual established Canon and Non Canon sections
Click to expand...
Honestly this doesn’t seem like a bad addition when compared to the SCP Foundation, but it’s a bit off-topic, no? Not exactly within the scope of this thread.
 
Ayewale said:
Honestly this doesn’t seem like a bad addition when compared to the SCP Foundation, but it’s a bit off-topic, no? Not exactly within the scope of this thread.
Click to expand...
I think it's being suggested because it's still backrooms wikifiction
 
I locked it. We already have this discussion thread that closely relates to the issue in question (this one), and are not ready to deal with what you suggest yet.
 
KatBoi69 said:
Oh I'm going to get screamed at, but...

If you look at both sites' rules and processes (posted up thread) they are, at least superficially, identical.
Click to expand...
Except in that they take in content from off-site, making their own precautions moot.
 
Quoting the OP
The Backrooms is a relatively disorganized, SCP-esque verse heavily reliant on community input and spread out across many mediums. Unlike SCP, there are many different avenues of creation, from Wikidot to Fandom and anywhere else. There exists no singular, concrete sense of canon, and only various different websites that put up their own vague rules.
Click to expand...
 
KatBoi69 said:
So you are saying we can discuss the issue of wikifiction broadly here?
Click to expand...
Well, I think that we should handle one step at a time at least, and then preferably wait for somebody like Moritzva or Bambu to post a follow-up staff forum thread.
 
Mr._Bambu said:
Quoting the OP
Click to expand...
I think this is referencing the fact that there are multiple Backrooms wikifiction verses, not that the specific continuities people are proposing we index (wikidot, liminal archives) automatically accept content from each other without review.
 
Antvasima said:
Well, I think that we should handle one step at a time at least, and then preferably wait for somebody like Moritzva or Bambu to post a follow-up staff forum thread.
Click to expand...
Oh, got it.

I kinda thought this thread was settled, since most people for backrooms being indexed have switched to waiting until it has a more established canon.

The only reason I posted the CRT in the first place was because nobody told me "no" when I suggested it.

Anyway, I'm fine to continue here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Sans2345
Question about Backrooms
Replies
1
Views
586
KingNanaya
KingNanaya
Shiedaisthepeak
The Master Off All Rooms...KEYMASTER!
Replies
13
Views
609
Mr. Bambu
Mr. Bambu
Sans2345
Should we really allow Backrooms ARGs? (Like Kane Pixels for example)
Replies
7
Views
2K
Iiliminal
Iiliminal
Sans2345
The Backrooms General Discussion Thread
Replies
15
Views
2K
Greatsage13th
Greatsage13th
H3110l12345I20
Gacha Life in the Backrooms (Marsh vs Bacteria (Kane Pixels))
Replies
0
Views
609
H3110l12345I20
H3110l12345I20
Back
Top