Talk:Five Nights at Freddy's

Errors for the Sister Location section

The article says that you are Mike, when you aren't. There is no evidence of us being Mike. You see a sticker saying Mike on the keypad in the game, but that is most likely a reference to the first game's protagonist. It has been confirmed that you play as William Afton, co-creator of Fazbear's Pizza and the mysterious "Purple Guy". In fact, in the new update for the game it shows you turning into the Purple Guy. Therefore, you are William Afton. I think this needs to be updated, since there is no evidence of you being Mike what-so-ever. How Ithe Purple Guy even alive? He was smooshed in the springtrap suit in fnaf 3. Oh Yeah he's dead. Don't listen to what i say im just bored and editing stuff on wiki

--JonTronFan2016 ([[User KingGreenBean

Actually you are not Mike nor Afton. In a cut scene, you hear Afton's daughter talking to him about Baby. Mike(the keypad) was most likely made by Mike. You are a completely new character, seeing as Baby says " You are new here. I'm remember this.. scenario." Afton BUILT her, so she would remember him. So in all cases, you are a completely new character, unless there is some connection to 'Silver Eyes' the hit FNAF book, coming with the next FNAFSL book. I have not read the the books, so please inform me if I am missing any details. FnafFanGirl (talk) 00:15, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Factual inaccuracies

I'm removing the tag for factual inaccuracies, as none are indicated. If there is a specific issue, please raise it on this talk page.  czar 08:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

The Freddy Files

In addition to Five Night's at Freddy's: The Twisted Ones, there's another book by Scott coming out a month after called The Freddy Files which will be the first official guide to the franchise. According to Amazon.com, the description for the book is "In this first ever official guide to the bestselling horror video game Five Night at Freddy's, fans and gamers alike can immerse themselves in the characters, locations, game play, etc. and try to uncover the secrets and unlock the mysteries kept so hidden within the game itself. Authorized by Scott Cawthon, creator of the game, this book will also give you never before seen information and facts as well as a sneak peek at what comes next for Freddy's." A link for the series is right here https://www.amazon.com/Five-Nights-at-Freddys-Guidebook/dp/1338139347 and I was going to add this book to the page, but the page is locked so if someone could add this that would be appreciated. --TotalDrama0898 (talk) 23:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Genre

I do not really disagree to harshly on whether this game is a survival horror film, but it still needs a source. As genre is subjective, it requires a source per WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:SUBJECTIVE. Per WP:SUBJECTIVE, "Wikipedia articles about art and other creative topics (e.g., musicians, actors, books, etc.) have a tendency to become effusive. This is out of place in an encyclopedia. Aesthetic opinions are diverse and subjective—we might not all agree about who the world's greatest soprano is. However, it is appropriate to note how an artist or a work has been received by prominent experts and the general public. For instance, the article on Shakespeare should note that he is widely considered to be one of the greatest authors in the English language. Articles should provide an overview of the common interpretations of a creative work, preferably with citations to experts holding that interpretation. Verifiable public and scholarly critiques provide useful context for works of art." In short, even if it seems obvious to us, if its an interpretation, (which it is), it will require a source. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:27, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Andrzejbanas, does this source suffice?

https://blackshellmedia.com/2016/06/13/redefining-genre-secret-five-nights-freddys-success/

Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 14:45, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, it does not say survival horror in the article anywhere, just that it's a horror game, which to my knowledge, appears to be a thematic type genre instead of a gameplay genre. Andrzejbanas (talk) 09:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

It might not state survival, but it heavily implies it. You'll see what I mean. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 21:52, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

See that is where another problem lies. Per WP:STICKTOSOURCE, states "Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources." In other words, I do not disagree with you that the source says it's a horror game, but we can not jump to the point where we say the source says its a survival horror game, because it simply does not state that. It would be like saying "the game was released in early 2017" and we intepreted that as "they mean, April, I know it's april. i just can't find a specific source". If this game really belongs to the genre, it should not be tricky to find a source.Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

GA Review (REV. 1)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Five Nights at Freddy's (series)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Manfred von Karma (talk · contribs) 07:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I am Manfred von Karma. You should know me from the original Ace Attorney (I'm still dead, sadly). This is a review of the article Five Nights at Freddy's (series) vs. the Good Article promotion criteria. This being said, the criteria are relatively strict, thus so is this review. Also, being a von Karma means all good heart left in your soul is crushed with only thoughts of perfection, in this case every article on Wikipedia being perfect. Even still, my general lack of feelings only usually applies to reviews.

To clarify, I am reviewing the following revision: 02:07, April 13, 2017‎ WackyWikiWoo (talk | contribs)‎ . . (62,279 bytes) (-10)‎ . . (better wording- repeated "around" sounds weird)

Also, before I get into things, I'd like to thank WackyWikiWoo, Empoleonmaster23, Lemaroto and TheJoebro64 for major contribs to the article. Props to you guys.

Part 1: Immediate Failures Test

After analysation, I conclude that the article does not fall into the category of having an immediate failure. There is no evidence of ongoing edit wars, copyright infringing content or plagiarism.

Part 2: Well written?

If you ignore a couple sentence flow issues, this article is relatively well written. It is concise but not overly simple, and on the other side of things, doesn't go into full blinding detail of things. Great job. Criteria 1, in my books, is fulfilled.

Part 3: Well referenced?

This article has some extremely questionably sourced references. Some references that I don't deem satisfactory in quality control are:

• [34] User-generated content from fanfiction site Wattpad
• [24, 36] YouTube let's plays (unless they are longplays w/out commentary)
• [53, 57] Steam user forums

This would classify as a major referencing problem. Ba-bow.

Part 4: Covers all topics?

This article doesn't cover enough of the franchise to be considered GA. We are missing a proper description of the gameplay in Five Nights at Freddy's 3, a large chunk of information in the meat of the article -- the video games section -- as well as entire sections. Appreciated would be a Common elements and Music sections. For Common elements, editors could talk about things like the animatronics, being jump-scared to high hell, looking through cameras and the dirty locations like the pizzerias/factories/fright rides/whatever. For Music, the infamy of the "out of power" jingle in the original, the ambience, etc. A good reference article for this is the article Sonic the Hedgehog (series). It isn't a very good article in terms of the other sections, but the Common Elements section would serve as a good reference point. So, consider criteria numero tres unfulfilled.

Part 5: Neutral?

The article is neutral in its perspective. You would expect an article about Five Nights at Freddy's to be written by rabid fans who praise the game like it's the second coming of Zeus but the article is surprisingly neutral. This passes.

Part 6: Stable?

The fact that there's semi-protection on this article throws up more than one red flag. I usually wouldn't consider an article that needs physical protection against vandals to be 'stable', but from what I can see, the last incident that happened was ~four months ago, so this section gets an 'ehhh'.

Part 7: Images?

Image quality and quantity are both perfect here. The use of the Steam bundle artwork was a good idea. This criteria passes with flying colours.

Overall?

Overall, I don't think I see this article to be fit to be GA unless better references are supplied and some more information is injected into it.

As per usual, I will re-review the article in a week to see changes and pass down a verdict. If it does not change in a week, my verdict will be swift: "no". I will also encourage others to review the article. No hard feelings?

If anyone challenges my opinion or wants to start a discussion, see me after class on my talk page.

Manfred (talk) 07:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments

@WackyWikiWoo: just wanted to make a suggestion: the "Music" section you added is filled with tons of speculation and is sourced at unreliable sources, like IMDb. If you want to get this to GA, you haven't got much time... ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

GA Review (REV. 2)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Five Nights at Freddy's (series)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Manfred von Karma (talk · contribs) 07:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello all!

This article is looking a lot better! I do like the new sections. Yet, there still needs to be a lot more content. I would consider this almost GA. May I direct editors of this article's attention to the article Super Smash Bros.? It is a great reference point for making a small video game series article.

My final verdict here is: ON HOLD

I will leave this article on hold for 7 days. Yes, I'm doing this again because I really think this article amounts to a lot of content, and the article is **almost** there. I don't like putting an article on hold twice...

I can't stress enough: if the article isn't up to scratch within 7 days, I have to fail it. If that does happen, don't stress! You can re-nominate it once you think it's ready again. See denial as just a notification to make the article better and re-nominate it at a later date.

Remember, don't stress!

Manfred (talk) 12:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, I realised I forgot to update the article status talk page last time. I have done so now. Manfred (talk) 13:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

GA Review (REV. 3)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Five Nights at Freddy's (series)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Manfred von Karma (talk · contribs) 07:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello everyone!

Everything I asked for in the second revision of the review is now present in the article. I really like the Common elements section, and the new and improved Video games section. I have no choice now put to status this article as a Good Article!

I'll check back on this article every so often to see if it keeps its status. Also: this is an ongoing franchise, so some sections of this article should be expanded when the time comes that we have more information (see: The Freddy Files).

Congratulations everyone!

Should this page become the primary topic for "Five Nights at Freddy's"?

If we look at franchises like Grand Theft Auto and Sonic the Hedgehog, their primary, non-disambiguated pages are the series, not the individual video game. Maybe we should do the same, and move Five Nights at Freddy's to Five Nights at Freddy's (video game) and make this page solely Five Nights at Freddy's. Thoughts? WackyWikiWoo (talk) 07:21, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I was just about to start a move conversation about this exact issue. I agree. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 11:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Alright. I'll move it. If anyone has any objections, please reply to this message. WackyWikiWoo (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm a wee bit late here, but I support this movement of articles. Manfred (talk) 04:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Manfred+TheJoebro64, how would we fix the issues of links leading to "Five Nights at Freddy's", with the intention of leading to the first game? It may create confusion. WackyWikiWoo (talk) 07:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

@WackyWikiWoo: Isn't that already present in "This article is about the video game franchise. For the titular game, see Five Nights at Freddy's (video game)."? We should change "For the titular game" to "For the first game in the series". Manfred (talk) 09:01, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

@Manfred von Karma: What I mean are existing links that previously lead to the "Five Nights at Freddy's" page (ie. the first game's page), but are instead leading to the series due to the name change. For example, "Five Nights at Freddy's is the first game in the series." It wouldn't make much sense to lead to the page for the franchise...WackyWikiWoo (talk) 09:59, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

@WackyWikiWoo: Well if you look at other series pages, it's exactly what they do. (see: Super Smash Bros., Sonic the Hedgehog)

@Manfred von Karma: I'm not sure you're quite understanding my point. The 'Five Nights at Freddy's (video game)' page was previously named 'Five Nights at Freddy's'. So, if a link on a page is intended to lead to the first game's article, it would lead to the 'Five Nights at Freddy's' page. But now, the article for the series has this name. So people clicking on the link expecting to see the first game would be mislead, ie. the example I gave. Will we need to manually change every single one of those links to lead to 'Five Nights at Freddy's (video game)' rather than 'Five Nights at Freddy's'? WackyWikiWoo (talk) 10:07, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

@WackyWikiWoo: I see what you mean now. If oneself clicks a link to what oneself thought was leading to the Five Nights at Freddy's video game article because of its name, but it goes to Five Nights at Freddy's series article, oneself should be able to realise that they're on the wrong page, and they can navigate to the right page through the "Not to be confused with..." line. The dilemma created here is kind of non-existent. Manfred (talk) 10:18, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2017

A day after the recent edit of 9 July 2017 at 13:18, Scott Cawthon posted a Reddit post focusing on the community of the franchise but more on that. This is the link: https://www.reddit.com/r/fivenightsatfreddys/comments/6lwqgs/im_sorry/ If this is approved, please add some information about it onto the "4.3 Future games" section and maybe in Scott Cawthon's page. 71.3.25.175 (talk) 01:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Reddit posts aren't typically reliable sources, since Reddit is considered a forum of discussion and links are shared through the service. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Should there be an article about the FNaF novel series?

I thought it would be essential for there to be a page about the book series based on Five Nights at Freddy's. In this way, it will be easier to depict the context, illustrate the plot summaries, reception and background of all the novels at once. And maybe we could move the page for The Silver Eyes into the corresponding title for the novel series. Would that be a good idea? Cosecant57 (talk) 15:06, November 9, 2017 (UTC)

The novels are only shallowy depicted in reliable sources, any article on the entire book series would lack notability. Hence, the issuing on the franchise page (includes games and books) should suffice. Lordtobi (✉) 15:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Lordtobi, I see and understand your point. Cosecant57 (talk) 15:23, November 12, 2017 (UTC)

Freddy Fazbear's Pizza Simulator

I feel like the most recent game should be included with more detail. Maybe your working on it, I just want it to have more detail about the game.