Incident 023-27 / Discussion

This is the discussion related to the wiki page Incident 023-27.

Communism will win 13 Nov 2012 18:47

This doesn't really feel needed to me. The article works fine without it.

---

if your reading this your gay

Rokonuxa 13 May 2013 18:29

I have to say that this is good.
It explains sort of the mirror thing in a short page. The articles I read here are usually very long without saying that much. This is fact. what happened is listed.
D
O
N
E

toadking07 23 May 2013 20:11

This got right to the point and reinforced that messing with SCPs is a dangerous game that shows even the slightest alteration to can bring about a world of hurt.

As mysterious as references to incident logs that aren't real can be, nothing beats actually getting to read through it yourself, like you are a real researcher and you're digging deeper than you should.

StarDrek 25 May 2017 05:01

This doesn't really feel like it needs a page dedicated to itself — it could just be added as an addendum on the original 023 article.

Jazstar 19 Apr 2018 03:46

Such a short piece of text would work much better within the actual article.

ZG1906 24 Apr 2021 01:15

I understand and appreciate the implication here. This is a fair demonstration of the unpredictability of SCP's and justifies the Foundation's mission statement. I have to agree with the other comments here, though. This would serve the main-lister much better if it were put into some sort of drop-down instead of being its own page. It doesn't feel nearly long enough to justify linking out and doing so only makes things unnecessarily confusing to some.

I like it, but its a no-vote as I don't think it merits its own page.

EDIT: While trying to make sense of all of the linked pages, I also feel like there are a few to many redactions here. "[DATA EXPUNGED] gone." in particular felt like a bit much. I get there is supposed to be some gravitas to this supplement, but the phrasing here really just doesn't do it for me. I don't think it needs to be unexpunged, I just think that either the statement needs to be longer, or the word gone should just be outright removed. It just reads weird, in my opinion.

Last edited on 24 Apr 2021 01:34 by ZG1906 Show more

HarryBlank 10 Mar 2023 10:39

Horrible. That feels mean, but it… isn't. If this was a log in the article itself, it would be better off removed. As its own page it's just silly.