Five Nights at Freddy's Updating and Clean Up Effort

The pages for the first six games are not consistent with eachother in terms of in-game information. Most have entries that've either been disproven within themselves- both from late-game or hidden information- or the other games. They are also riddled with fandom-based assuptions that have no basis within the given information, often conflicting with what was actually given in-game. The particular issues- that I have spotted- are as follows, along with my reasoning as to why these should be re-written (appologies if this ends up extremely long):

1. The identity of the nightguard

Although it is not concrete that Michael Afton is the nightgaurd, the additional information given from the guidebooks and FNAF 6 implies that this is true.

The multiple names that have been used to identify the nightguard are combinations of his name and the names of the children from the initial set of murders. The guidebook itself is a version of the worker's handbook in universe- and though not dated, depicts the main four animatronics in thier FNAF 1 state- and doodles of Nightmare Fredbear, and retorhical questions seemingly directed towards his late brother appear within his notes and commentary therein.

2. William's supposed kill count

Because of the episodic nature of the series, the number of children William is known to have killed is inconsistent from game to game. On top of this, many people neglect to factor in information that has been given, but remains unaddressed or is out of order. All of the known main antagonists are haunted.

The 8-bit styled minigames within FNAF 2 show us that five children were killed at once, and went on to haunt Freddy, Chica, Bonnie, Golden Freddy/ Fredbear and Foxy. This happened well before they were to be scrapped, as Phone Guy remarks that they stunk of rot well before in his introductory phone calls, and the other minigames and early week nights before anything happens show them behaving of thier own accord. Withered Chica's voicelines in Ultimate Custom Night may also point to this being the case, as it implies that Susie's soul had been a part of Chica for some time.

In addition to this, the 'GO! GO! GO!' FNAF 2 minigame shows Foxy finding more dead bodies, and Phone Guys calls also dictate that something extremely distressing happened with the remaining free suit- known later to be the hidden Spring Bonnie suit- that caused immediate closure. The FNAF 3 minigames also show the FNAF 2 Toys helping the souls from the initial incident, which could imply that these 'extra' bodies ended up within them.

The Puppet is known to be haunted, as is shown within FNAF 2 and FNAF 6 minigames.

Funtime Foxy, Ballora and Funtime Freddy are also haunted. The blueprints that can be found within FNAF 6 note that they- as Ennard- are holding remnant, and that the 'Scooping Room's' function was to experiment with said substance, meaning they had it within them during FNAF 5. The promotional materials for Sister Location note that black, opaque bags were taken out of Circus Baby's Pizza during one night before it opened to the public, but after children were invited to 'test' it out. Along with this, Elizabeth notes that at least four other individuals were there on the day she died.

3. FNAF 4

While there is nothing concrete, as was stated before, the guidebooks imply that it was Michael that was the player character during the night-segments of FNAF 4, being the only time he could have possibly seen Nightmare Fredbear.

While nobody knows what it means within the context of the series, FNAF 5 shows us that the events of FNAF 4, in some form or fashion, were real and happened. The location and correspondence of the box markers on the diagram of the house in FNAF 5 may imply that the Nightmares are tangible, but not to what ends. It is not explicitly canon that illusion discs exist in this universe, and as we know William was experimenting with paranormal elements on purpose at this time, may be markers for things of that nature.

4. Speculation on the Models

The pages for certain animatronics note that they are similarly designed, and as such, may have a connection to eachother. This seems unnecessary by itself, with no further information. It's known that Scott resuses models for no apparent reason- Bonnie and Freddy are the same, Golden Freddy and Freddy are the same, the Phantoms are just slightly edited versions of the Withereds- and so, notes like these should be fleshed out, if possible.

5. Unnecessary Negativity

Many of the entries are written with a snarky, sarcastic or otherwise negative tone, especially those about aspects of the games that were lacking in known information at the original time of writing. These should be rewritten to match the standard of objectivity.

6. The Bite of '87

Neither the culprit nor the victim of said bite is known. However, 'Jeremy' is implied to also be an alias of Michael, as it is one of the names on the tombstones at the end of FNAF 6, and as such, would disqualify him from being the victim.

In short; If it's not explicit within the work itself, it should be notated as such and either cut, or if plausible have it's language revised to not sound like fact. (Even everything above in this post.) If it's Word of God, it should be moved to a Trivia Page, and preferably dated in some way, since Scott likes to be a 'trolling creator'. If it is anything else, it should be cut, no matter how popular. I am asking for help in this particular circumstance because I'm short on freetime, despite wanting to see this through.

EDIT: The sandbox for this effort is now live here: Five Nights at Freddy's Cleanup

EDIT 2: In an effort to streamline and better coordinate this effort, a tier list has been created. This tier list ranks the supposed canonicity and relevancy of any given statement or theory, and what should be done to further evaluate it's place on the wiki.

S Tier: The content in question is explicitly referred to as canon within the games themselves. Things in this tier should never be cut.

A Tier: The content in question was given in suplimentary material, and is also implied to be true within the games themselves, but is not explicitly stated to be true. This tier includes information from the Guidebook, merchandising descriptions, and promotional materials. Things in this tier should not be cut.

B Tier: The content in question is an inferrence made on behalf of A-Tier or S-Tier content, but is not explicitly touched upon within canon itself. Things in this tier should not be cut without discussion.

C Tier: The information was originally presented as S-Tier or A-Tier information, but was seemingly redacted or otherwise displaced. Or, the content in question is a theory based upon said displaced content. Things on this tier may need to be moved off of the main tropes page, but should not be cut entirely if it can be helped.

D Tier: The content in question is referenced within the alternate universe books, but has no basis within the games themselves. Or, the content in question is a theory based upon said content. Things in this tier need to be discussed and evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and may be cut if needed, but should not be immediately cut.

F Tier: The content in question has no basis within any merchandising and is a completely fanon-born idea. Or, this information is known to be incorrect. Cut immediately.

Unknown Tier: The content in question needs futher evaluation before being tiered. Or, something within the claim may be S-Tier or A-Tier, but is seemingly poorly documented, and therefore the validity of such information is in question.

Edited by G1-Fizzy on Jul 14th 2022 at 11:22:16 AM

I will suggest cutting down on the Too Dumb to Live for the guards, now that it's been suggested, it is Michael and the trope doesn't really apply anymore. Plus the Too Dumb to Live entries were too negative, in my opinion.

Too Dumb to Live should stay. Unless they played 6 before everything else, it's not like anyone would know we're playing as the purple zombie trying to fix Willy's mess.

All right. But I do agree that the fandom stuff should be cut down because of the fact the character page outright says some of the info can be a tad speculative. Not to mention, the lack of clarification for quite some time and the fact that later games are even bigger Mind Screws.

If we keep the Too Dumb to Live entries, I do think they should be edited to be less negative at the very least.

On the one hand, yeah this information doesn't come up until six- and the first 3 games were not made with this in mind- but I feel like it should still be acknowledged somehow on those entries, because it does render them null.

Is it possible to add a point under them that says they've been jossed by FNAF 6, or is that too clunky?

I feel like a lot of entries (e.g. the Night Guards, Fazbear's Fright management) are way too negative and come across as artifacts from before 6, back when we didn't know too much about the games. We can keep the entries but I would tone them down majorly.

Would it be worth it to make a sandbox where we post examples of dubious quality for the first six games and explain what's wrong with them? Doing that, along with removing examples from the sandbox as they're improved, has worked well with other cleanups I've worked on.

I think so. If you could go ahead and create the sandbox, Vandagyre, that'd be much appreciated. I'll add the link to my original post as soon as I can, as well as another note to the to-do list regarding improper tone.

Edited by G1-Fizzy on Jun 13th 2022 at 3:02:53 AM

Alright, the work sandbox is up at Five Nights at Freddy's Cleanup. Links to works have been placed in their respective folders for convenience, and feel free to revise and add onto the list of identified general issues.

Edited by Vandagyre on Jun 13th 2022 at 4:34:30 AM

My idea (that I have no clue how to add due to being YMMV) is on Five Nights at Freddy's, the last thing on the pink slip is Odor which is hyperlinked to Bring My Brown Pants. Now that it's implied the night guard was Michael, it's implied it's because he's a rotting corpse which is what the Video Games folder on Cerebus Retcon states too, I think that might have to be changed. Also, the except 4 under the Video games folder for Cerebus Retcon may have to be deleted too.

You could start with cutting the entry from the Funny page and instead making one under the general YMMV page- I don't want to suggest Call-Forward because that's factually not true, but something of that ilk- stating your reasoning, like this perhaps: 'FNAF 5 and 6 imply that the nightgaurd in FNAF 1/this game is Michael Schmidt- a rotting member of the undead- who would have most definitely smelled terrible enough to the rest of the staff to dock his paycheck.'

I've made a note in FNAF 6's sandbox section to come back and visit the Cerebus Retcon's page addition, since in mentions that game specifically, and am currently going through FNAF 4's main page.

Edited by G1-Fizzy on Jun 13th 2022 at 8:17:24 AM

Thanks, dude *salutes, then faints*

Edited by FirstAidRules on Jun 13th 2022 at 11:11:50 AM

There is something of a fandom wide issue, but its also said Jeremy is 'implied to certainly not be Michael' unlike the other guards, when I have yet to find anything specifically keeping him from being Michael, and there are similar hints to him being Michael as the other guards. I feel like the notion Jeremy could not be another alias is just because people wanted to zero on him being the bite of 87 victim thanks to lacking tons of other canonical candidates, when it could just be we have never met the actual victim.

Yeah, in the final screenshot of Pizzeria Simulator's True Ending, there's a grave obscured by grass and I always thought that was Jeremy's grave and Michael was just using his identity in 2. Maybe we could put in a thing that explains that people think that Jeremy was the victim of the bite of '87 even though there's no real canon evidence.

I'll put a note under the first bullet explicitly stating that there's nothing concrete about the identity of the Bite victim, contrary to popular belief.

Now that you say it, it might also be wise to add that we don't actually know who did it either...

(To be honest I always thought 'Jeremy' was Mike and also the victim, and that's why the Bite wasn't the thing that shut them down that week. Mike wouldn't have needed medical help or anything, and presumably, the spirits would hate him enough to attack during the day...

Admittedly, I just really want to justify why they'd do that once and apparently never again.)

This is what is listed on the Characters page for Five Nights at Freddy's: Don't take everything here at face value. Because of a lack of proper information surrounding some of these characters and the vagueness of some of the information we do have, some of these tropes can be a tad speculative.

Plus, there's this under Michael's section: Even in Security Breach, it has been speculated that Glamrock Freddy, who was trying to protect Gregory, was possessed by Michael to make him more sentient and save him more easily, which may explain or enforce Glamrock Freddy's protective and fatherly attitude towards Gregory.

Besides being speculative, it conflicts with this from the Funny page: As horrific as he is and as satisfying as it is to stop him, Burntrap's situation here is pretty funny when you think about it. Afton is finally back in the (admittedly decayed) flesh, ready to kill and satiate his bloodlust, and continue his immortality...and then he's burned to a crisp by a kid and dragged back by his own, amalgamated petard. The man barely lasts an hour in his new form before everything goes to hell and one has to wonder what he's thinking during all of this. He has Gregory cornered and it still ends badly for him. Whether he's truly dead or not, somewhere out there, his son Michael is laughing and he doesn't know why.

Apologies if it's too long, but I'm bringing these up as examples.

Don't worry about the length, like you said, it's an entry you're relaying here, and as for the actual entries, I'd go ahead and cut both, honestly.

We're going to have to change that footnote too... Is it in good form to leave a warning of some kind so this effort doesn't have to happen again in the future? Something like; 'Due to the nature of the series, concrete information is sparse. Please remember that Speculative Troping is not allowed on this site.'

(Speaking of entries, I reallize there's no way to quantify something like Love to Hate, but was Michael really hated when FNAF 4 came out? All I remember is people incorrectly attributing the appology after Night 6 to him, and insisting that he was just some poor kid. DA Games even made a song to that tune (no pun intended)... I don't think I've ever come in contact with someone who even had a mildly negative opinion of him...)

Edited by G1-Fizzy on Jun 14th 2022 at 7:37:49 AM

I think the old footnote is fine, given the nature of the series, I think the entry on Funny is fine too.

I feel like we should maybe make some sort of tier list for things on how 'speculative' they are.

A: Thing that is basically confirmed but not quite stated outright in the games(Crying child and Foxybro being Afton's, Michael being Mike Schmidt)

B: Thing that is hinted at, with other possibilities hinted at as well. With these, they could be listed but it would have to be careful and would have to note these are simply possibilities.

C: Cases that are more 'some people theorized X' without concrete or striking evidence this was the intention in game. These can be stricken for being too speculative. Stuff like Glammike would fit under here.

Edited by Snoketrope on Jun 14th 2022 at 7:12:26 AM

I mean, I've been going about this with the intention to get rid of anything that's not based in the games/book itself, getting rid of as much speculation of all kinds as possible on all fronts.

We'd also have to quantify what is ligitamently being 'hinted at' and what 'hinted at' even means in this context. What was actually intentional and what's just a loose end/plot hole/ad lib/completely-fan-born-concept that was then used in another game.

Scott just says and retracts- and deletes from the games and promotional materials- whatever he feels like on such a regular basis that I really don't want to keep things just because he says so. (Or at least, not on the main page.)

However, that's just my opinion, of course-

I mean to say: I like the idea of a scale itself but not all the proposed qualifiers. Sorry if that was not clear.

Personally speaking I do not quite agree with that? This is a very vagueness and speculation fueled series where things having different potential answers is one of the basic building blocks of the franchise, the old footnote is fine as is to me. I think the cleanup should just be used for handling things like fandom assumptions with little basis being cleaned up, like a few I intend to bring up later

Thankyou for that clarification

My point is that I think the old footnote is a fine, and the most logical policy when dealing with a franchise like this, we just need to clean some things like what I brought up.

This bit on William Afton's Ambiguous Situation entry

"** Did he really love his daughter, or was he planning on making her his successor? He is a sociopath, after all, and Pizzeria Simulator's cartoon cutscenes imply that he has problems in forming a genuine smile, so he might not actually feel anything. Baby's motive in PS doesn't exactly help his case. Not to mention that he's aware Elizabeth is possessing Baby and he lets his employees shock her."

And under his novel counterpart's Adaptational Jerkass entry

"** In the games, the (possible) genuine love he had for his daughter, Elizabeth, was his only redeeming quality, as he warned her never to approach Baby (who he knew would kill her) and he sent Micheal to free her after her death (though it's possible he just wanted her alive so she could become a killer just like him). In the novels, he is outright abusive towards her, hitting her in the face when she tries to show him a drawing she made."

There is ambiguity as to whether he loved Liz, but the idea he wanted to corrupt her or make her an apprentice is never implied in game. People speculated Springtrap corrupted her, hence her Daddy's Little Villain attitude in the 6th game, but Baby's entire reason for being here is thinking that William opened the Pizzeria; meaning she never discovered he was springtrap. And even with having her shocked, he sent Michael there to 'free' her. The ambiguity parts should instead focus on the 6th game, where he never interacts or takes the chance to reunite with her, or warn her sense he knows this is a trap of some sort.

Edited by Snoketrope on Jun 14th 2022 at 8:11:38 AM

I do agree that the vaugeness is a core part of the franchise itself, and I do understand where your coming from. I just feel like that shouldn't be relevant to this site, as it is an informational wiki. However, y'know, I also realise that's probably just me- I do have the slightly ulterior motive of hating that facet of the franchise, I won't lie. If your idea is the focus everyone else agrees with, then I wouldn't complain.

(To that end, I will leave the aftormentioned note and such alone until, everyone else says their piece on that, of course.)

Edited by G1-Fizzy on Jun 14th 2022 at 8:13:51 AM

(Sorry for posting twice in a row twice in a row, also...-)

I've never read the novels, so unfortunately I can't offer any thing to that end. Still, I'd agree to that rewrite idea.

Is there enough information to expand the Ambiguous Situation entry to cover all his children as well, or do you think it should just pertain to Elizabeth?

I understand that mindset perfectly. My argument was that precisely because it is an informative wiki, if we're listing things from the franchise objectively, then I feel like its kind of needed because, that is just how the franchise is. I feel like changing that would require not removing a note as much as rewriting the games to be less like that XD.

I think it should focus on Liz sense she is the one who William actually has shown the most signs of loving. Though, I would like to ask what 'tier' of canon would we consider William being the Fredbear plush?

I don't mean to be rude, but that's explicity the kind of 'in conflict with given information' thing I mentioned wanting to get rid of in the very first post... I'd like to ask that perhaps, you wait to see if the other two tropers working on this want to switch directions before moving forwards further.

Even if they do, they'd need to help come up with an agreed upon tier list, because I really don't know anything about the way the fandom latches on to these things. I didn't even know that was a popular enough concept to even question keeping until you asked just now.

I don't interact with the fandom at large, and I don't watch Game Theory or Dawko- I actively dislike them both, a lot- so I can't really come up with such a judgement on my own.