Talk:Toby Fox

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. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:39, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the creator of Undertale called his game an "8/10, niche RPG game"?

• Source: https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/undertale-launched-a-year-ago-today

• • ALT1: ... that the 2015 video game Undertale, by Toby Fox was given to Pope Francis? Source: https://www.polygon.com/2016/7/6/12105428/pope-undertale-youtuber/
  • ALT2: ... that Toby Fox made Undertale? Source: https://www.pcgamer.com/the-making-of-undertale/
  • Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by 1timeuse75 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

1timeuse75 (talk) 11:29, 30 January 2026 (UTC).

• Suggestion Another potential hook option:

• ALT3: ... that Toby Fox programs his games using speech-to-text software due to wrist pain? Source: https://www.eurogamer.net/toby-fox-making-healthy-progress-on-deltarune-chapter-2

I'd be happy with any of the above. asex twin^{talk · contribs.} 08:32, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

From the Undertale article: ALT4: ... that a multi-million selling game compiled almost entirely by Toby Fox was inspired by a single Wikipedia article? Source: https://www.pcgamer.com/the-making-of-undertale/--Launchballer 10:22, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

• ALT5: ... that the 2015 Undertale character Sans by Toby Fox is a costume for the Smash Ultimate mii gunner? Source: https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/09/05/fans-lost-it-over-sans-being-announced-as-a-smash-ultimate-mii-fighter KrispyBlueJays (talk) 05:07, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

ALT5 would really only appeal to video game fans. ALT3 and ALT4 are probably the better options here, with a slight preference for ALT3 since ALT4 could be perceived as navel-gazing. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:18, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: Ok, how about: ALT6: ... that a multi-million selling game compiled almost entirely by Toby Fox was inspired after he read an article about arrays? Source: https://www.pcgamer.com/the-making-of-undertale/ 1timeuse75 (talk) 16:52, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: this reminds me, I really need to play Undertale sometime. Anyhow, article is neutral, long enough, this was nominated right after it was promoted, and spotchecks check out. No qpq required and no copyvio to be seen. Shame there is no image of him :). Hook-wise, I find ALT0, ALT1, and ALT3 interesting. ALT4 is also interesting, but the navel-gazing concerns are valid and also it doesn’t cite to this article, so possibly disqualifying. If the promoter goes with ALT1, I’d recommend ALT1a: "... that Toby Fox's video game Undertale was given to Pope Francis? (Taking a closer look, I’m not entirely sure ALT1 verifies) 1brianm7 (talk) 05:50, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

@1brianm7: just to clarify, is alt1 (and alt1a) approved or not? your last sentence indicates some doubt. ltbdl (love) 17:23, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Looking again, I'd say they are approved. The Polygon article takes the claim from Matpat into its own voice, so it verifies. 1brianm7 (talk) 18:01, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Where Fox was raised

@1timeuse75 @Gfollower

I saw there was recently a dispute for the inclusion of "raised in Boston" for the lead. The reason the article says raised in Boston in the lead is, I believe, due to this comment from Toby Fox in a 2018 interview: 生まれてから今まで、ずっとボストンに住んでいます." (I've lived in Boston my entire life, from birth until now.) I'm assuming this since the line it cites in personal life is the only other Boston-related line. Though, this does contrast New Hampshire Union Leader since it says he graduated High School from Manchester Central High School, and even directly says "born and raised in Manchester" for Fox. Furthermore, it goes on to say "Many websites associate Fox with Boston, but he assuredly grew up here."

So, what should we do? I find Fox's 2018 quote kind of strange considering the "birth" part, maybe there's a mistranslation with what I'm using, I don't speak JP.
TheSilksongPikmin (talk | contribs) 10:42, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Pinging @Travis Mulch, since he was the one who expanded the lead. 1timeuse75 (talk) 10:52, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

the union leader paper is correct, it also includes an interview with his mother which does give it legitimacy (its also more recent). my best guess for the 2018 quote is that toby was trying to avoid sharing info related to his hometown.

so i guess its up to you guys whether we keep it or not Gfollower (talk) 11:12, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Yeah that's probably a likely reason he said that. I'll wait for Travis Mulch to respond since they're the one who did the expansion.

In my opinion it probably should say "born and raised in Manchester" since we have a source that verbatim says this. And considering he graduated High School from Manchester, it is sort of weird to say raised in Boston since those years are normally considered the raising period. TheSilksongPikmin (talk | contribs) 11:23, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

@1timeuse75 @Gfollower@TheSilksongPikmin @Monathephantom I'm really cautious about using the Union Leader citation for anything other than the most basic details due to WP:BLPPRIVACY concerns. The birthplace is fine because it'd conflict his own reliably sourced statements otherwise (he never said he was born in Boston, just that he's from there), he has older brothers and saying the subject's birth order is house style, but that's it.

Details about Manchester are exclusively sourced to Union Leader, where any additional use can seem predatory and bordering on doxxing, considering it wasn't that long ago that the Wikipedia article openly named his parents (we shouldn't do that!) At a featured article level, we need to worry far less about the comprehensiveness of details and far more about whether or not they're a legitimate privacy risk. I've already reduced the Union Leader article's use to the bare minimum and that's where it should stay. Remember, WP:BLPs are highly regulated and we should remember that Toby Fox is still a public figure. Travis Mulch (talk) 15:18, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Fair on BLP concerns,but I'm still not the biggest fan of saying "raised in Boston" when we have a source directly stating "raised in Manchester".

Would altering the lead to simply say "Born in Manchester, New Hampshire", excluding the "raised" part be a fine compromise with you? It'd avoid the conflicting a source bit without also adding info that borders on doxxing. TheSilksongPikmin (talk | contribs) 16:05, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Remember that this is the interview where Fox's own mom both would not let Toby be interviewed and Mark even explicitly says "She asked that I not disclose the city where her son lives." There's basically no room for debate, we have to go off of what Toby says. Birthplace is inherently due information, the birth order is due because of Toby's regular mentions of his brothers, but basically nothing else is. Travis Mulch (talk) 16:17, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Alright, yeah it can be kept. But it's not the most important info for the lead so I do still think excluding the raised part entirely and just saying "Born in Manchester, New Hampshire" can work for the lead. But, if we want raising location in the lead then Boston works per your reasoning. TheSilksongPikmin (talk | contribs) 16:21, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

I think Boston should be at least mentioned since he's pretty closely tied to Boston. This is probably something we should seek a WP:3O about. Travis Mulch (talk) 16:24, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

A possible alternative could be noting in the lead that Northeastern is in Boston, so it would say "Born in Manchester, New Hampshire" only in paragraph 2, but then paragraph 3 would say "During his time at Northeastern University in Boston" or something of the sort, so both cities still get mentioned in the lead. But that's just my opinion, a third opinion would be preferred. For now, I think it's fine to leave it untouched, you've explained why well. TheSilksongPikmin (talk | contribs) 16:31, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Still a bit cautious about the phrasing, because, whatever's undue for Union Leader should be comparatively due if Toby says something himself. I'll go with whatever the 3O says and won't object further. Travis Mulch (talk) 16:35, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

if toby's privacy is our utmost priority for this page then ideally we would have to omit any mention of manchester (in favor of boston) and/or remove the union leader citation entirely, otherwise we could say "born and raised in manchester" or just "born in manchester" and leave the rest ambiguous.

to me, it makes no sense to go half and half (born in manchester, raised in boston) when we're already "lying" about him being raised in boston (pre 2010) despite the existence of sources that say otherwise.

regardless of what we do, that entire sentence just doesnt contribute much to the article anyway. two paragraphs down in the early life section, its already stated that he was born in manchester, minus the raised part. intentionally leaving it ambiguous protects his family, and allows that entire section to avoid any mention of what his life in manchester was like, since its main focus is on what games inspired him as a kid and what he was doing to hone his skills. Gfollower (talk) 23:45, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

@Gfollower I'd suggest you read the policies covering "Privacy of personal information and using primary sources" and "Use of names" before attempting to continue this conversation. There's an ongoing third opinion request to resolve this matter. Please don't interfere. Travis Mulch (talk) 23:49, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

thanks travis Gfollower (talk) 23:53, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

It's actually not a mistranslation. I just checked, and it's probably the most direct statement "Tricky Tony" Fox has ever made. Monathephantom (talk) 11:16, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

@TheSilksongPikmin Here's what I'm proposing:

1) "Born in Manchester" (Lead, paragraph 2)

2) "(Northeastern University) in (Boston), where Fox continued to reside." (Lead, paragraph 3)

3) "As of 2018, Fox resided in Boston, Massachusetts." (Personal life)

Do you think this would work and we could disregard the 3O? The lead has to be rewritten after we finish up the main text anyway. Travis Mulch (talk) 01:21, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Personally I think this is perfect. I like the As of 2018 addition as well. TheSilksongPikmin (talk | contribs) 05:46, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Retracting 3O and making the mentioned edits. Travis Mulch (talk) 05:59, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Signature inclusion/removal

Per @SnowFire's edit here (which I've chosen to revert, but want to further discuss), and the "Signatures of living persons" essay, I'd just like to talk about the choice to remove the signature. The essay's nutshell is that there's "no consensus on inclusion/removal, secondary reproduction should be prioritized, and there are questions of whether reproduction enables identity theft."

Let me say off the bat that absolutely nobody's gonna steal Toby's identity with a simplified "T" & "F". But, I also understand how removal can relate to Toby's (not really well-established, on his part) want for privacy. Toby's signature has stayed roughly the same. I don't think this should be an isolated removal, personally. These past few years, Toby's been actively signing things, and stuff with his signature gets posted online.

If an argument's "identity theft" or misuse, see the Beatles. The most widely forged signatures in history that have plagued collectors for 60 years. Yet all four members openly have them on their pages. Celebrities like Dwayne Johnson probably have a market for signed memorabilia, but Wikipedia isn't there to be a signature authenticator for verification. Unless there's a legitimate, present risk of including someone's signature, I don't feel it should be removed. But I'm welcome to hearing more about it. Travis Mulch (talk) 01:48, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to the talk page. My reasoning has nothing to do with identity theft. Nor even Toby's preferences. Wikipedia doesn't really care too deeply about a subject's desire for privacy. The problem for me is just relevance, but it's a big problem. The Infobox is not for every single true fact, and not every field needs to be filled out. See MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE; it's meant to be a compact guide to "key" facts. The signature isn't important enough to be "key", he's not known for his signature. And even "facts" is not trivial here, we're ideally looking for a signature (adjective) signature (noun), not just a random signature he once made. I'm not sure if such a thing exists, and if it does it might need a source.

Basically, less is more. This rule is unfortunately mostly honored in the breach. Grab a phone and go to the 2026 Iran war article and see just how many screens of infobox you have to scroll past in the mobile view. This article's infobox isn't as badly off, but being disciplined about just the relevant stuff is how it stays that way. (And from a sheer matter of screen real estate, signatures take up even more room than the usual text trivia.) I don't think the signature is relevant enough here. (But hey, people who click on the Commons Category link or the Wikidata item can still find the signatures?) SnowFire (talk) 02:15, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't say purpose weighs the same between family/children & what's pretty much an ornament. The signature's importance to the subject shouldn't apply to people who don't have a market for their signature's historical & monetary value. Given that, applying it selectively, and not broadly, calls into question that value in other signatures which don't have it. But, we can verify he often signs like that: (1) (2) (3) Travis Mulch (talk) 02:40, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

I also wanna add that if we're defining signature viability based on signature notability, a majority of celebrities immediately fail. Travis Mulch (talk) 02:44, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I think signatures should not be included on articles on random celebrities too, barring the exceptionally rare cases of people whose signature itself is famous somehow and this fact is sourced (John Hancock the most famous example). The fact that some other articles include a signature of questionable relevance simply means the problem isn't restricted to just here. I made the adjustment here because you posted in the WP Discord asking for peer review & feedback, and I think that removing this signature will make the article better, setting aside "other stuff". I'm not going to edit war it in, but I do hope to convince you that it's not a good inclusion on the merits. Set aside the other articles, ignore them - do you think that the signature is "paying its weight" in screen real estate? That Fox's signature is relevant in this specific article? Imagine if the tyrant chief editor of Wikipedia said that to keep the signature, we had to remove one sentence from the lede. Would you say yup, we should pay that price, the signature is that important? If so, then maybe keep it. (I am not actually saying to do this of course, it's just a thought exercise.) SnowFire (talk) 03:01, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

For screen real estate merit, it's already set to 100px. It used to be larger. I agree with the idea that Toby's is tall. Most signatures are wide & long, Toby's is basically square. But also, if you think removal here's better, then you should think about (and I'd agree with) the fact there should be stronger consensus/discussion about random signature placement in articles.

The way I see it, for someone like Toby, who's done two big things and a lot of small things, there isn't disproportionate weight between his "Other names" or his signature, and a lead sentence about specific Early life details, or him composing a couple tracks for some indie games. I'd trade minor details in a lead for a stronger infobox.

I get what you're saying, but I'm gonna go with a middle ground on this one: resize it, 100px -> 60px. Small enough so it's still legible (it's a simple signature, anyway), but I do consider it worth keeping until there's a wider consensus. Travis Mulch (talk) 03:25, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Can we pls replace Toby's face to foam Toby Fox?

It would be funny but we can still include the public face of what Toby Fox looks like in Career so its less confusing. Im pretty sure its the "up to date version" or at least the latest one unless that goes against wikipedia's rules not to have unserious or funny images.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Undertale/s/fd49aQyBoK ~2026-51681-72 (talk) 10:36, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

see the discussions on the archives for why an image that obscures tobias vulpes' face isn't particularly useful for knowing what he looks like consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 11:20, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

The current use in "Personal life" is perfectly relevant & compliant with policy. It's literally the bottom-most section. The first thing you see is the only quality photo we've managed to license through Creative Commons. There's no rule against Wikipedia "not to have unserious or funny images", so I don't know what you're talking about. Travis Mulch (talk) 14:11, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Suggestion

It is expected that before nominating an article for FAC that the subject is well-researched, therefore I suggest looking for academic sources that discuss Toby Fox. They might be useful, or they might not. Nevertheless, this should be done before nominating it for FAC. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 09:44, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

@Vacant0 I can attest through previous research that basically everything that's autobiographically relevant to Toby's article, that isn't a WP:RS or WP:BLPPRIVACY risk, will be found in a reliable web article. There have been books/journals written about Toby's work, but actual research into Toby as a person is either non-existent or really badly sourced.

The Undertale Anomaly, the closest thing to a book about Toby, is completely unusable due to how it sources basically all its facts to information stolen from Wikipedia and random social media posts from throughout the years. It's basically one of those "Toby Fox Net Worth Age Wife Children in 2026" clickbait-type articles, in book form.

Journal articles aren't much better. They're far more about analysis of Toby's work that's relevant to Undertale and Deltarune's own articles, rather than Toby himself. I've looked for some journal articles with biographical information and found very little, and the rest of it was unreliably sourced and/or already covered by a reliable source. Note that I wasn't extensive in doing this, but an analysis-type section would be really undue for Toby's BLP given the subject matter that analysis covers. Travis Mulch (talk) 00:06, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Okay, good to hear. Yes, academic sources can more commonly be found for video games, rather than their developers. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:53, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Inclusion of Deltarune Chapter 7B in Notable works > Video games

This is something that I believe should be decided via. consensus, and I will explain why briefly for those who are not knowledgeable about Deltarune.

Deltarune Chapter 7B is a standalone chapter marked separate from Deltarune Chapter 7, teased during the ending of the 'weird route' (also commonly referred to as Snowgrave or Side B route) of Deltarune Chapter 5. Highlighting text on the a secret page on Deltarune's website, https://deltarune.com/7b/, will show the development progress for Deltarune Chapter 7B, along with its release date, stating "Same time as 7."

This brings me to my main query: Should 7B's inclusion (or existence) be noted below Deltarune Chapter 7 or in the same box as a release? It is so specific and purposely hidden by Toby for story purposes, but it is also an important gameplay release for Deltarune.

Honestly, I believed it shouldn't be there, and I still partially stand by that, but I thought it is a topic worth bringing up. Ashburnlillian (talk) 17:01, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

@Ashburnlillian We don't know the full scope and categorization of Chapter 7's Weird Route. Yes, it does seem to be heavily distinct from the main route. However, while the development progress implies it's heavily distinct, this does not in itself imply it is a seperate release. It can be interpreted as just meaning the Chapter's Weird Route is very, very, different from the normal route, which is what is most plausible. So I currently oppose such a change. TheSilksongPikmin (talk | contribs) 19:35, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

I have to admit that I'm not even a fan of us including all separate Deltarune chapter releases as separate "Notable works" considering they're all part of the same game. Ditto for "Hiveswap". Travis Mulch (talk) 15:46, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Never really thought about it, but yeah, this is true.

Probably could do it similarly to Homestuck and do 2018-present (DR) and 2017-present (HS). TheSilksongPikmin (talk | contribs) 16:02, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

We now have a fix: not including chapters at all. Travis Mulch (talk) 22:16, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

@Travis Mulch With this new formatting, should Scarlet and Violet be 2022-2023? Because of the DLC track? TheSilksongPikmin (talk | contribs) 22:34, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Nah. Major DLC/expansion packs usually have standalone entries, like The Last of Us: Left Behind and Cyberpunk 2077: Phantom Liberty, for example. Travis Mulch (talk) 22:37, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Actually, on that note, add The Indigo Disk in his Guest composer works. Travis Mulch (talk) 22:39, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Done. TheSilksongPikmin (talk | contribs) 22:41, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Request for comment on Toby Fox's foam shower in "Personal life"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should Toby Fox's foam shower image be kept in, or removed from, the "Personal life" section? Are primary sources due enough to be cited in the image's caption?

1. Keep the image without changing the caption.
2. Keep the image, but remove the primary sources.
3. Remove the image from the article entirely.

Travis Mulch (talk) 18:49, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Comment - There seems to be a consensus to remove, with a weak minority to keep without the caption. I feel it doesn't work nearly as well without the caption, so I'll go with the majority here. Given the article's undergoing an image review at FAC, I invite anyone to close the discussion. Travis Mulch (talk) 09:05, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Fox often hides his face, using the Annoying Dog (face left) as a self-insert. In 2023, he requested that a photo of himself entirely covered in foam (right) be used as his Wikipedia article's image.

Please read the "How not to provide a picture of you" essay for context. Currently, the "Personal life" section in Toby Fox's article uses a small, cropped version of an image provided by Fox through Fangamer in 2023 (on his behalf; the two are closely linked), which was VRT-approved.

This led to an online debacle after editors repeatedly attempted to add this image to the infobox, based on a technicality, because there hadn't been a CC image of Fox since the article's creation in 2016. We only acquired CC-licensed images this year. (1, July) (2, October)

I re-added this image into a "Personal life" multi-image after multiple discussions with editors on-site and in the Wikipedia Discord, given the following reasons:

• The image is small, reduced in size, and tucked away in "Personal life", where Fox hiding his face and seeking privacy is detailed.
• The image isn't mentioned in the body, and is instead kept in a multi-image caption cited to primary sources.
• There's confirmation that the image is, in fact, him, and not someone else pretending to be him covered in foam, provided by those sources.

Initial discussion supported the image's inclusion. Later, as the article was being worked on for Featured article status, concerns about navel gazing (essay) arose. The closest policy about this is WP:SUBJECT, where it states mention of Wikipedia by a notable person is unlikely to justify a mention in their Wikipedia article. Travis Mulch (talk) 18:55, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Option A. Szxq (talk) 19:37, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Prefer Option A, with the second best choice being Option B, altering the caption to focus on the fact that it's an image of him with his face covered instead of focusing on the release ("Fox in 2023, covered entirely in foam; he often hides his face [...]") I do prefer the current caption though. Oppose Option C. TheSilksongPikmin (talk | contribs) 22:20, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Comment: To avoid any conflict of interest, it should also be noted that I wrote part of the foam-caption, feel free to critique it. TheSilksongPikmin (talk | contribs) 22:22, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Option C Neither of those images portrays the subject of the article. I favor including high quality, properly licensed portraits provided by an article subject. But not joke or bizarre images. It reminds me of Elon Musk's efforts to change "business magnate" to "business magnet" in his biography. Cullen328 (talk) 01:56, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Option B, I believe if it's only really worth mentioning if a secondary source discusses it. Yes I am a nerd -XCBRO172 (How could you tell?) 02:08, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Trust me, I looked. Really hard. Travis Mulch (talk) 02:18, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

As initiator, Option B by simply removing the Wikipedia mention is probably best. I feel the modern internet just being weird ("weird = unsuitable") and the image's use case should be taken into account separately. It's not like the image's shoehorned in, the paragraph right beside it provides the reason multiple times. Obviously something like the 30 Under 30 photo would be ideal, but we don't have that privilege. Travis Mulch (talk) 02:39, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Option C – See WP:SUBJECT. It would take extraordinary media coverage for this to be considered a noteworthy part of his career. asex twin^{talk · contribs.} 06:27, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Option C Neither of those images portrays the subject of the article.. If there were extensive independent coverage, such as to make this incident noteworthy, the position might be different but as is, this is simply an attempt by the subject tp cultivate an eccentric media presence.Pincrete (talk) 07:31, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Only one image is a part of this RfC. Travis Mulch (talk) 17:58, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Option C - I do think it's a pretty funny joke, but I don't think that's a good reason to keep it unless there's some good RS coverage discussing the joke/picture.Alexandra^IDV 08:24, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Option C - per WP:SUBJECT and the arguments laid out at the essay written about this. There is no strong argument based on policy as to why this image justifies inclusion and I think it was only added just for the sake of adding it. Reliable sources do not discuss it and it is not important to covering the subject, therefore it should be removed. λ NegativeMP1 18:55, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

• Option C – Relevancy of this image needs to be proven with reliable secondary sources, which do not exist at this time. Skyshiftertalk 21:00, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
• Option C per my comments at FAC. I am fine with option B if someone can show that the image has encyclopedic value, but as a minimum the caption about Wikipedia should go. --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 18:16, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
• Option C - just because the BLP subject said they wanted something used in their Wikipedia article doesn't mean we must abide by their request. The foam image adds no value to the article. Some1 (talk) 03:19, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
• conditional option c. the condition being "so long as the only source warranting the image is primary". if coverage among reliable sources can be found, i'd support adding it back consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 15:35, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

  (It's currently been removed already, but): What are your thoughts on just no sources at all, with the caption excluding the Wikipedia mention?

  So just mentioning that it's him in 2023 covered in foam, which in itself is arguably relevant to personal life as it's a photo of his face covered. I feel like at this stage RS isn't really needed, just like how we don't have a citation supporting "Fox in July 2015" as it's simply an illustrative image. TheSilksongPikmin (talk | contribs) 15:38, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

  a source to know what he hides or wants his face hidden with seems a little necessary. without it, the article could say he uses so sorry, and a reader who doesn't know what the h*ck an undertable is wouldn't know better consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 15:47, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

  But the text (with quality RS) already says he hides his face, that's why I considered that. TheSilksongPikmin (talk | contribs) 15:51, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

  yeah, but it's used for the claim of using the annoying dog as his avatar. it says nothing about the picture of him practicing bodily care consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 16:00, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

  I was thinking about "Fox is "a very private person, hiding his face from the internet." " which is in the personal life section cited to game informer. Thus, imo, something like "Fox in 2023 covered entirely in foam with his face covered" has relevance. TheSilksongPikmin (talk | contribs) 16:08, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

  relevance that needs to be proved 'round these parts consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 16:12, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

  Fair enough, consensus is for it to be removed anyways. Hopefuly a source pops up eventually... TheSilksongPikmin (talk | contribs) 16:14, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

  This is a good point, consensus can always be revisited if a good enough source is found. --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 17:00, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

  Why hasn't this discussion been closed? I asked for it to be closed. travis mulch 20:48, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

  You can close it yourself. Just remove the RfC tag. ⚙ Crash >> Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 20:57, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

  Will do. travis mulch 20:59, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GIF inclusion

@Travis Mulch: Your revert (1380026025) did not address the problems mentioned in my edit summary. The trimmed version of the video clip created by TheSilksongPikmin (talk · contribs) is still forty times larger than the PNG file. The animation is not significant enough to justify such a large file and the potential for performance issues, nor does it improve the article. asex twin^{talk · contribs.} 21:22, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

I addressed the "Not exceed a duration of five seconds" violation (from MOS:ANIMATION, which was cited). Personally, I feel the GIF is superior to the png in the sense that seeing someone actually play the piano further illustrates them musicially instead of just a still shot. TheSilksongPikmin (talk | contribs) 21:25, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

This is, quite literally, all arbitrary. Travis Mulch (talk) 21:28, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

What's the alternative? Do you not accept the premise until I point you to a written guideline that says large, unnecessary files should be removed? If you want to talk about "arbitrary", why do we need to include a dark, blurry, decade-old video of Fox in the first place? asex twin^{talk · contribs.} 21:35, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

It's notable for inclusion because, for one, we have minimal free images of Fox; no need to further decrease the amount. Beyond that, though, the image is from a relevant time period (2012 and it's in early life), and is placed next to a paragraph almost entirely about Fox playing the piano. TheSilksongPikmin (talk | contribs) 21:38, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

The number of free images of Fox is irrelevant because one, we do not need to include any images; two, the image being discussed contains little educational value (the fact Fox plays piano can be described in a single sentence); and three, the discussion surrounds the substitution of the video with a static frame, not with the inclusion of the video in the first place. asex twin^{talk · contribs.} 21:59, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

You don't see the problem?

• "Here's the issue."
• "I've fixed the issue."
• "This is still an issue."

Said guideline was followed. Your explanation is wrong.

Also, I looked into the matter. I really don't see a world where a 5-second, < 360p .gif is going to cripple someone's browser... Travis Mulch (talk) 21:39, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

I definitely did not say a GIF file would "cripple someone's browser". It does, indisputably, lead to longer load times and more strain on the page. Not every reader is graced with high-speed internet or adequate computers at all times. As I noted in the original post, your revision ignored the first three out of four points made in the edit summary, instead centering on the single guideline I mentioned for a separate issue. asex twin^{talk · contribs.} 21:55, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses lazy loading. Travis Mulch (talk) 22:02, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that a 100 KB PNG loads faster and runs smoother than 4 MB GIF, both of which depict the exact same thing. asex twin^{talk · contribs.} 22:04, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Lazy loading means it doesn't load until it's loaded. How's a guy staring at a piano more enyclopedically pertinent than him playing it? Travis Mulch (talk) 22:10, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Ignoring the fact that virtually every reader on Earth would be competent enough to understand that an image of a man with his fingers on a piano depicts him playing it, the animation is still unnecessary because the fact Fox plays piano is already demonstrated in the image caption and adjacent text. asex twin^{talk · contribs.} 22:20, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

The followed guideline refers to W3 limits, not content. Travis Mulch (talk) 22:25, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

I've already explained the issue extends beyond the one guideline I alluded to. Yes, that rule was followed, and that single issue was solved. The broader problem with the GIF is still not accounted for. asex twin^{talk · contribs.} 22:31, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm not understanding. Remove because you say it's irrelevant, when it isn't per guidelines, and because it's too big, which isn't a guideline? They're "best practices". If everyone can understand the concept of someone playing piano, they should be allowed to see it. Why arbitrarily censor it because you don't like that it's big? Travis Mulch (talk) 22:48, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

I have not said the image is irrelevant. I said the animated image should be replaced with a static frame because its simplicity makes the article more accessible at no cost to educational value; earlier, I brought up the question of the image's importance to demonstrate the very little need for complexity. I am not "censoring" the image by substituting it, nor am I doing so because I don't like it. Regardless of whether you agree, I thought I'd made it clear my rationale is anything but arbitrary. asex twin^{talk · contribs.} 23:01, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

...I've gotta be real with you, I'm not spending another 20 messages arguing about if a .gif is too big when guidelines already cover everything else. Travis Mulch (talk) 00:10, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

The GIF is perfectly fine. Skyshiftertalk 00:23, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

For you, perhaps. This doesn't address my points about stability and necessity. asex twin^{talk · contribs.} 00:25, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

It is my opinion that it is perfectly fine, and it is your opinion that there are problems with stability and necessity. Skyshiftertalk 00:30, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

It is not my opinion that the animated version is forty times larger than the static one. I'm not too sure what you are adding to the discussion. asex twin^{talk · contribs.} 00:33, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't know what you're adding by responding to me. In my opinion, it is perfectly fine, and I wanted to state that. Skyshiftertalk 00:34, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Your personal taste is unhelpful in this discussion. It's one thing to have your own opinion, but it's another thing to shut down my concerns as simply subjective. asex twin^{talk · contribs.} 00:41, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

I have to be fully honest with you, @Asex Twin: if you care so much, go find something better yourself. We're arguing about format constraints that have literally nothing to do with the availability of content & the difficulty of acquiring it, and it seems you're much more interested in winning a bureaucratic argument than improving the article. It's not that deep. Travis Mulch (talk) 00:40, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm trying to build a consensus to improve the article, which inherently involves argumentation. Just because I disagree with you does not mean I'm conjuring a conspiracy to prove you wrong. Your comments dismissing my concerns and assuming I'm arguing in bad faith are frankly hurtful. asex twin^{talk · contribs.} 00:59, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Reminder we're talking about 4MB rather than the previous literal decade where no images whatsoever were available, as well as our ongoing difficulty to find more, which isn't made better by arguing consensus over something which isn't even grounded in guidelines to begin with. travis mulch 01:03, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Images are not the sine qua non of an article. In many cases, having no image is better than having a low-quality one. As a reminder, I'm not arguing for the image's removal, but its substitution. asex twin^{talk · contribs.} 01:07, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Then go find one, if the attempted consensus finds your opinion in the minority. travis mulch 01:08, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

What are you asking me to find? If you're talking about the substitute, it's the version from the edit you reverted to begin with. My argument is that we should keep the same image in a smaller form. asex twin^{talk · contribs.} 01:13, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Go find something which doesn't necessitate arguing over. We are 30 comments deep into a nothingburger. travis mulch 01:15, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

This "argument" (I'd prefer to call it a civil discussion) only lasts as long as there are reasonable points on either side. If you continue to minimize my claims about accessibility and make rash personal claims about me, I don't see how you have the right to end it prematurely. asex twin^{talk · contribs.} 01:21, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

This is ragebait. I'm not replying. travis mulch 01:26, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Based on the arguments here, I don't see why it's an issue to just use the PNG image, or remove the GIF... it's fine. It doesn't give a whole lot of detail already and if size is an issue it can be easily fixed. Perhaps. ⚙ Crash >> Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 01:56, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

The problem is this is an annoyingly minor detail to have to talk so much about when the time can be better spent just improving the article. travis mulch 01:58, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

The time would be spent anyway. The fact that it is a small detail does not matter, no? ⚙ Crash >> Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 01:59, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

The time would be better spent expanding the text & adding reliable sources for content rather than a 36-message back-and-forth about a file's format. travis mulch 02:03, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

The time would be spent anyway. ⚙ Crash >> Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 03:50, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

What on earth is this mess? Just use the PNG image and end this "debate". We can then spend the rest of the time improving the article. 1timeuse75 (talk) 11:34, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

The Wikipedia tactic of arguing unarguable principles and calling the other person a meanie until you win. travis mulch 15:21, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

@Travis Mulch, no one is forcing you to engage in this conversation except yourself. Rather than producing substantial counterarguments, you have perpetually minimized my viewpoint, reiterated questions already answered, and made comments about me and the discussion itself, ignoring your own responsibility in its extension. I'm commenting in the hopes you realize this is not how civil conversations go, and that you do not continue to make personal arguments in discussions you admit are minor. asex twin^{talk · contribs.} 17:04, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Spamming someone with overly large/technical/Latin words doesn't enhance the quality of an argument, which has already ceased given the image has been replaced. travis mulch 18:08, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

In case it wasn't clear from the beginning, if you have no objections to the image's substitution, more word no need say. asex twin^{talk · contribs.} 18:34, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Have you considered the fact we're trying to pass a Featured article, and, the size of an image is quite literally the least of the editors' concerns? All of this persistence to not even have done > 63 bytes of work. Contribute to the article's text if you're so inclined and motivated to "improve" in these ways. No further discussion required. You have gotten your way. travis mulch 20:12, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Agree with 1timeuse75. Let's just use the PGN, the size tradeoff is not worth the marginal decorative value of seeing Fox play the piano. @Travis Mulch, I'd also recommend being a bit more compassionate to your fellow editors here. We all want to see the page made better, and the only one hurling "meanie" comments here is you. Yojo98 (talk) 16:25, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

I love PGN files /j. On a related note, I want to apologize for creating the gif version in the first place. I was not exacting a 40 comment long discussion about it. 1timeuse75 (talk) 16:30, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

No need to apologize, personally, I think it's better than png since it shows him actually playing the piano. You picked a good segment as well. But it's not such a big deal that it getting replaced would be bad, whatever consensus wants should be done. TheSilksongPikmin (talk | contribs) 16:49, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Again, I would much, much rather discuss reliable sources and source-to-text accuracy in the context of a Featured article nomination than menial discussions about file formats. travis mulch 16:38, 14 October 2026 (UTC)