# Talk:Five Nights at Freddy's

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)
I don't mean to stir up dust that has already settled, but I don't think it's quite fair to amount uncertainty to unreliability. We don't know FNaF's story definitively, but that doesn't mean we don't have sources (most of whose reliability themselves is up for interpretation, and I understand that) that discuss the most circulated ideas. I feel like what we have currently does a fair job at summarizing what the sources say we know, even if they will always be a bit outdated and wrong. Nub098765 (talk) 07:08, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Five Nights at Freddy's/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Nub098765 (talk · contribs) 07:27, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 09:19, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Will review soon. Jaguar (talk) 09:19, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Lead
"Cawthon created most of the games himself using Clickteam Fusion" - what is this? A game engine?
"with praise for its storytelling and atmosphere but criticism for its gameplay" - would be worth adding an adjective before the word gameplay. What is the key issue with it, is it monotonous? Lacklustre?
The lead summarises the article and is well-written, so no issues here
Body
"Players must last from midnight to 6 a.m. for five shifts" - would survive be a better choice?
with the PS4 version earning a Metacritic score of 80" - in this instance, write out PlayStation 4
The game mechanics of Five Nights at Freddy's have inspired" - this should be linked for those unfamiliar
Overall, this article is comprehensive, well-written, and properly sourced. It meets the GA criteria on all fronts, facilitating an outright pass. I don't believe the lists should be fleshed out more, unless you want to take it to FA, other it would more of a 'list' article. Well done.  Jaguar (talk) 14:24, 23 June 2025 (UTC)


### Sourcing and media
@Nub098765 and Jaguar: Excuse me digging this one up -- see the discussion at WT:GAN. I don't see any signs above that a media or source review were done before promoting, and these are both prerequisites to promotion, so I'll do one below. Jaguar -- I "did FNAF 3" by mistake: though the issues there stand, it wasn't the article under discussion.'' UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:30, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Media: two images. Logo is below the threshold of originality and correctly tagged as such. The image of cosplayers is released and tagged under CC: as it's an image of fashion, no copyright tag is needed for the clothes themselves. Whether something is needed because the characters are copyrighted is above my pay grade.
Sourcing: a long list of references. At first glance, all look to be reliable publications within their field, acknowledging that online video game journalism is going to be the bulk of what's available here. Metacritic is heavily cited but, per discussion on RSN, used correctly for aggregations of reviews only.
Spot checks:

Note 1: (The concept for Five Nights at Freddy's stemmed from the negative reception of Scott Cawthon's earlier game, Chipper & Sons Lumber Co., where players said that the main character resembled a "scary animatronic animal): does not check: the title of the game is not included there, only that it is "one of his previous games". It is explicitly named in note 2, so this could be easily fixed.
Note 2: (Initially discouraged by the criticism, Cawthon, who had predominantly created Christian-oriented games, leveraged this feedback to develop something intentionally frightening: this checks.
Note 5: (Following its success, the franchise expanded rapidly, earning a Guinness World Record for "most video game sequels in a single year" for the games released between August 2014 and June 2015.: this checks.
Note 10 (In 2021, following backlash regarding donations to members of the Republican Party, Cawthon announced his retirement from the franchise, stating that someone of his choosing would be "running the show" from then on: I would say this checks, although we imply a more explicit cause–effect relationship here: the source is careful to avoid directly saying that the backlash led to the retirement, though it certainly allows that conclusion.
Note 12 (game follows the security guard Mike Schmidt, as he tries to survive his shift at Freddy Fazbear's Pizza that lasts from midnight to 6:00 a.m. without being killed by the homicidal animatronic characters that wander the pizzeria at night): checks out.
Note 44: (Cawthon initially proposed recreating the original Five Nights at Freddy's in VR, but the game turned into an anthology of minigames based on the first five games in the series): checks out.
Note 59: ( FNaF World, the first spin-off game, was announced on September 15, 2015): the source does not explicitly say that this was the first spin-off game. Therefore, this does not fully check, though could be easily fixed.
Note 60: (Unlike the main series, the game is a role-playing video game using the first four games' animatronic characters. Using the characters, players must fight enemies and progress by unlocking perks and items: I see everything except the bolded part -- I can't see any reference to which games' characters are included. Therefore, this does not fully check, though could be easily fixed like the point above.
Note 113: (Afterwards, William's soul is trapped and tormented in a personalized hell with all animatronics he created): this does not check. The closest thing we have in the source is Before they all burn up, Henry suggests his "old friend" might be doomed to spend eternity in darkest pit of Hell for his murders., which is quite different.
Note 128: (maintained the franchise's core formula but updated its camera system; Petitte appreciated these improvements but felt the phantom animatronics fell short of their older counterparts): this checks.
Overall: there are some minor issues here, which in theory ought to have been spotted and fixed before GA promotion, though I acknowledge that spotchecking will only ever pick up a sample and the majority of references seem to check fine. @Nub098765: can I leave those with you? UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:00, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I believe I have rectified all these issues. Thank you very much for the spot-check! nub :) 21:21, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
@Nub098765 Great work! Quick point, WP:VG/S states that CBR is an unreliable source after 2016, so is there a better citation that can be used to replace Note 113? Aside from that, I think the article should be good enough for GA then and given the topic area, perhaps this could be the final component for a Good topic? Fathoms Below (talk) 21:35, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Oh dang, I just looked at the "Situational" bit. That's my bad. I looked at the writer's credentials rather than the date. I mean, otherwise, I can't find anything of use, so I think that sentence oughta be removed. And yes, it should be enough for the GT! nub :) 21:37, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

As a follow-up from some comments I raised here, I feel like the article isn't quite yet at GA status. While I won't be acting as a GA reviewer, I feel like there are some points that may need to be addressed somewhere to make sure that all of the criteria are met. Namely:

The article needs a spot check of at least 15 of the 150 sources cited.
I see why Clickteam is a usable source since I used it myself citing WP:ABOUTSELF when I FACed FNAF 1 a couple of years ago. However, WP:RSPTWITTER says that Twitter should only be cited if the user's identity is confirmed in some way. Since two of the sources are tweets, is there a good way to confirm that the account belongs to Steel Wool Studios? Or preferably, could those sources be replaced?
Source 87 for the second novel isn't an independent source, and it fails verification for saying that the novel was released in 2017.
In the article List of Five Nights at Freddy's media there is a long list of books under the section "Short story anthologies" yet none of them are mentioned in this article, when I would expect them to be mentioned under the "Novels" section at least. There is a video game called Five Nights at Freddy's: Into the Pit mentioned in the series article that is based on one of these anthologies, though this fact is not mentioned at all.
What makes The Numbers a reliable source?
Source 52 is cited to the Steel Wool Studios website. Is there a better alternative to that source that is reliable and secondary?
I've used Pocket Tactics as a source before but only because the author I was citing had written for reliable websites such as Electronic Gaming Monthly and Eurogamer. What makes this specific author reliable when the source itself is considered "Inconclusive" in regards to its reliability per WP:VG/S?
The Development section seems relatively short compared to other franchise articles such as Fire Emblem. Since I was able to find a limited amount of development information for FNAF 1 and FNAF VR, does this section cover all of the relevant information that is available online?
This is just my first round of comments, and I'll follow up with some more later. Fathoms Below (talk) 15:55, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Here are my responses to these points, respectively:
n/a
I've replaced both Twitter quotes.
Replaced it with an Entertainment Weekly article.
The only reason I opted out of mentioning them in the series article is that the sourcing is so sparse. I mean, the only publication I can find that verifies the existence of these short stories is Game Rant, which is somewhat questionable in its own right. I've rectified the omission, but I don't know how far we can stretch situationality.
The Numbers is reliable for films per WP:FILM/R.
I literally cannot find anything else. I found this, which looked promising, but said "date unknown" for Ruin, which is weird...considering this was made at the end of 2024, but I digress. Then I found this, but Ginx.tv is unreliable, as is this, attributed to GameFAQs. There is no other verification of this date that I can find.
Kayleigh Partleton has worked on Pocket Gamer's spin-off Pocketgamer.biz, and that's about all I can find on the front of reliability in regards to the writer. I think for a small, inoffensive claim, her words aren't unusable, but I may not be looking deeply enough.
Yeah, the development section is very small, but it's about the only information I find usable in the series development section. Sure, FNAF 1 and FNAF VR have developed development sections (ha!), but just about every game in between has nothing in regards to the actual development of the games. Simply put, the entirety of the "development" that can be found online for 2, 3, 4, and SL is "this is when the game on this console was released. this is when the game on that console was released." I can speak from experience. So I don't know how much more developed a section that is supposed to summarize it all can be, especially since Scott Cawthon has shared nothing in terms of actual development.
Nub098765 (talk) 18:35, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, more comments following soon Fathoms Below (talk) 18:12, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
Apologies for the long delay. I started a new job so I'm a bit slow in regards to comments, but my review of the next few sections is still forthcoming. Fathoms Below (talk) 19:22, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
Any updates? No rush, of course :) Nub098765 (talk) 23:49, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping @Nub098765. Here are a few more things that I hope are addressed:
In Development, a wikilink to YouTubers might be helpful, since we might have an older audience that isn't familiar with the term.
This isn't required, but can you check to make sure that all of the citations use either sentence case or title case?
All instances of Five Nights at Freddy's should be italicized in the sources. Same with every game and novel, such as for source 3 from IGN, which should say Five Nights at Freddy's 3 Arrives on Steam
There are a few missing wikilinks to the authors in each of the sources. If the source has an article on Wikipedia, it should be wiki linked i.e. IGN, GameZebo etc.
Mitch Vogel of Nintendo Life felt the difficulty was punishing and the jumpscares excessive. change to "Mitch Vogel of Nintendo Life found the difficulty punishing and the jumpscares excessive."
...maintained the franchise's core formula but updated its camera system inline citation needed.
Five Nights at Freddy's 4, with the series's lowest Metacritic score of 51, divided reviewers further. change to "Five Nights at Freddy's 4 earned the series's lowest Metacritic score of 51 and divided reviewers further...
Freddy Fazbear's Pizzeria Simulator and Ultimate Custom Night were well-received. Why were they considered "well-received" if they both don't have enough reviews on Metacritic to be given a score? It would probably be more appropriate just to state the opinions of the few critics then try to aggregate their scores on your own which might be considered original research.
Meanwhile, Into the Pit, based on the franchise's extended universe, was positively received for its storytelling and adherence to the tone of the original series. There is only one source cited for this statement. If possible, at least one more should be included there.
Sister Location attempted to revitalize the series by shifting its structure and tone citation needed.
However, critics like Angelo M. D'Argenio of GameCrate argued the difficulty was unbalanced, likening each night to its own tutorial Change Howver to "Other critics such as Angelo M. D'Argenio..."
while Rowen criticized night four as a frustrating roadblock maybe remove roadblock entirely or change that word to "obstacle"
More coming soon
Also, Jaguar, are you going to do the required spot check? If not, I think I'll have to raise this at WT:GA and potentially invalidate the review since as far as I know spot checks are required for GA reviews. Fathoms Below (talk) 17:08, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
Addressed most of them. However, "...maintained the franchise's core formula but updated its camera system" does not require a citation, AFAIK, because the review states it. Nub098765 (talk) 21:54, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
@Nub098765 apologies for the long delay, the summer keeps getting busy for me. I'm bringing up this GA review up on Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations since Jaguar has not done a follow-up on the spot checks for an entire month and has not replied here even after I pinged him a few times. Aside from that, I think this article is good enough for GA. Probably has a long ways to go for FA, but I think disregarding a few peer-reviewed sources that might need to be added, it looks like it meets the requirements. Fathoms Below (talk) 00:12, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
Alright, seems fair. Thank you for the extensive engagement! nub :) 00:15, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Secret of the Mimic launched a month ago now, and despite a page being drafted out with all available web sources, there's nothing to show for it. That draft page has since vanished, and I was wondering if anyone has any clue what happened, and why, for the third mainline release since Security Breach, this is happening again, where we don't have a Wikipedia page. There are smaller games with pages, why not us?
Could no one find reputable sources? AxhtonCole (talk) 20:30, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Very few reliable sources at this time actually discuss Secret of the Mimic in detail, and this is a symptom of many of the FNaF games, unfortunately. See SoTM's deletion discussion for more information. nub :) 21:43, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
@Nub098765,
It's a very frustrating reality. FNaF World has more reliable sources than Secret of the Mimic. The Living Tombstone's Five Nights at Freddy's (song) has more reliable sources. Unbelievably, even the movie's soundtrack has a page. The lack of media coverage is troubling...
Is there not some sort of loophole we can exploit? I've been editing on and off for two years now, but I know the rules well enough. I just wonder if there's so.etching we're missing? AxhtonCole (talk) 21:54, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
I think the best way to go about it is to just... wait. Perhaps with time, in-depth coverage will come, especially since it's been only a month since its release, but right now it is simply too soon. nub :) 21:59, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
@Nub098765,
But what in-depth coverage? The hype has come and gone, and while the fans are still buzzing about the game, the media outlets have moved on to other things. Unless Scott Cawthon himself sits down for an IGN interview discussing how the game was made, I think we may be out of luck.
Or maybe I'm just catastrophizing. We'll have to see, I suppose. AxhtonCole (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
I mean, I see where you're coming from. The video game scene moves very quickly. Perhaps GameSpot will provide an in-depth review and retrospective in 10 years' time. Only time will tell. nub :) 22:10, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
Perhaps the official release of The Joy of Creation next year will have the hype needed for some good coverage. Or maybe Five Laps at Freddy's, like FNaF World, will get a surprising amount of attention despite being a spin-off.
Any thoughts? AxhtonCole (talk) 18:49, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
I think in-depth coverage of Five Nights at Freddy's has been waning for a while now. Hell, Ultimate Custom Night and Freddy Fazbear's Pizzeria Simulator got little to no attention despite being mainline games. FNaF as a culture has been thriving, but very few journalists actually sit down and review the games. I don't know. I'd hold on to hope, but I certainly wouldn't bet my kidney on any new game becoming notable anytime soon. nub :) 20:16, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
You actually just reminded me that Pizza Sim and UCN also lack pages. I doubt there'll be any kind of high profile retrospective on them, either. Mind you, those two were the two that Cawthon hardly teased at all, so a lack of coverage in their case is kind of understandable. AxhtonCole (talk) 20:22, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Because the merch licensing deal Scott Cawthon made with Jazwares was of such significance, to the point where his partnership with Funko has been mostly compromised in favour of this new one, it's imperative that this information not be left out, especially with reliable sources covering the deal in the summer of last year. Funko's involvement with FNaF is essentially over, but for isolated waves of Pop! figures going forwards. AxhtonCole (talk) 19:41, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

I couldn't actually find any reliable sources mentioning this partnership. Could you provide a link to one? nub :) 20:02, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
@Nub098765 ,
Not at this time, I'm afraid, as I'm quite busy.. But there was one by the Toybox, I think? AxhtonCole (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

is there a fnaf lore specific article, i personally am obsessed with fnaf especially the lore and i was wondering if there is a page for just lore and theories, if anyone knows please reply, I'm making a fan game with tons of lore and i only know up to security breach(not even ruin) so i wanted to find some lore i agree to for it. if anyone knows, please let me know.
thanks, Coy. CoyLAGGed (talk) 14:57, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wikipedia isn't the place for specific FNaF lore. Perhaps you could search the FNaF Wiki? nub :) 20:47, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Change the dates. Lions00219 (talk) 15:28, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. - FlightTime (open channel) 15:34, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

In other media, the Dead By Daylight x FNAF Chapter has not been put in which could confuse people on the authenticity of the Chapter itself unless they've played the game 169.244.158.146 (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. meamemg (talk) 17:28, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

add fnaf world Amobamoamo1 (talk) 22:27, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Fathoms Below (talk) 22:32, 18 November 2025 (UTC)