Talk:Five Nights at Freddy's

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. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by Vaticidalprophet talk 22:53, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that William Afton has been called "one of the most evil characters to exist in video game history"? Source: https://wegotthiscovered.com/gaming/who-is-william-afton-five-nights-at-freddys-lore-explained/
  • ALT1: ... that William Afton is "roastable"? Source: https://www.cbr.com/roastable-video-game-villains/
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Teacher Li Is Not Your Teacher (Twitter account)
  • Comment: I am aware that We Got This Covered is considered unreliable, but I think since in this case I'm simply attributing a quote to a reviewer, it should be fine. I'm hoping to get this DYK featured on October 31st if there is room to add to the Halloween DYK set. I am open to suggestions for alt hooks.

Created by Di (they-them) (talk). Self-nominated at 15:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/William Afton; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• I think my main concern with the first one is that, indeed, it's not a reliable source. I would recommend finding a reliable source that can be used for the DYK. The ALT's issue for me is twofold: one, CBR isn't a great source, and two, the ALT is a bit confusing. I don't really know what roastable means at first glance; I assume that it means he is easy to insult, but I feel like this detail tells us very little about the character. It may also not translate to someone who doesn't understand what roasting even means. I would recommend either finding a source that delves into the overall reception behind the character or an interesting tidbit about his creation. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Cukie Gherkin: Thanks for the feedback. How do these alts sound?

  • ALT2: ... that William Afton's narrative role has been compared to that of Jigsaw? source: https://www.slashfilm.com/1392790/fights-nights-freddys-movies-william-afton-jigsaw/
  • ALT3: ... that William Afton has been described as the only Five Nights at Freddy's character with no redeeming qualities? source: https://www.pockettactics.com/fnaf/william-afton

Di (they-them) (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Article has been redirected at AfD, so ths nomination needs to be closed. Vaticidalprophet 22:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Into the Pit

Fnaf into the pit is a mainline fnaf game, not a spinoff which would make there be 11 mainline fnaf games, this mistake might be because into the pit is incredible new, but hope this is updated soon. 50.236.54.42 (talk) 17:08, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

It is not a mainline game. λ NegativeMP1 17:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@50.236.54.42:

It hasn't been changed. AxhtonCole (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Secret of the Mimic should have its own Wikipedia page

Secret of the Mimic should have its own Wikipedia page breaking everything about the game down when it releases. It shouldn't be like Into the Pit or Help Wanted 2 which both lack their own pages, making it impossible to properly explain their gameplay and narrative threads in a short and concise way. If anyone can apply for a new page via Wikipedia:Article wizard, please do so! AxhtonCole (talk) 23:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello @AxhtonCole. Please see WP:EYNTK. Whether an article exists or not depends on whether it is notable (WP:N) based on multiple reliable sources. (WP:RS) Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 23:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

It should have its own Wikipedia page 64.203.142.126 (talk) 14:15, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

It won't get it's own page until it is considered notable by Wikipedia standards. And since the coverage of FNAF games has slowly dwindled over time, there's a good chance Secrets of the Mimic might never get one. I hope it does get enough coverage, though. λ NegativeMP1 19:13, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Page in desperate need of overhaul.

Hi all,

This page is rife with speculation & conjecture, particularly in the "Story overview" section. Fan theories reaching consensus amongst online fandoms do not make them suitable for this website, no matter how obvious it may be. It's best to avoid detailing anything relating to the story & lore of FNaF on the page entirely. User:Weirdarpeggi (talk) 17:51, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Everything in the "Story overview" section is backed up by reliable sources (except for the tiniest last bit, which I've just removed) and specifically only covers the absolute essential events, and I do not believe it involves any fandom speculation. And the section basically has to exist because of the story's relevance to the series and the amount of redirects that go to this page needing some sort of target section. If there is anything in that section that is not backed up by the sources provided then I will remove it. I agree with your comments in regards to the rest of the page though, it definitely needs a rewrite, I've just been putting off that rewrite for over a year now. λ NegativeMP1 18:03, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

A citation including a RS doesn't automatically make it appropriate. All of the citations used seem to be from opinion pieces. It's important to present information from an objective point of view. See WP:RSBLOG for more info. User:Weirdarpeggi (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Maybe the section could be trimmed to only about a paragraph covering the series setting only and not try to make a plot summary of the whole series, but claiming that the sources are blogs is false. They are sources that have been subject to editor analysis and determined to be among the most reliable sources for writing about video games, per WP:VG/S. Also, "opinion pieces" (which the sources aren't, but whatever) can still contain facts or cover pretty obvious information, or else most video game articles would be, by your logic, not neutral or "objective" because of how most gameplay sections are typically cited to critic reviews of the game. λ NegativeMP1 20:59, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

"Maybe the section could be trimmed to only about a paragraph covering the series setting only and not try to make a plot summary of the whole series."

Yeah, I think this is the best course of action. There is a lot of uncertainty about plot details, and consensus seems to shift to varying degrees with each release. Articles that cover FNaF tend to include unconfirmed, outdated and misleading theories. One of them even cited MatPat, who is known to make completely false assertions. This is especially true when we're talking about the order of events. There's only one game in the series with a confirmed date that it takes place in (FNaF 2), everything else is based on estimations. Arpeggio (talk) 17:36, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions on what should or shouldn't be covered? I haven't done anything yet because I'm not sure where to start. λ NegativeMP1 17:15, 5 March 2025 (UTC)