Talk:Undyne

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Article reads fine, may be good to go over it just once to make it as encyclopaedic as possible though. Also, I spot checked one of the sources for a quote specifically, "being heroically punched in the face". The source from Polygon does not contain this quote. I would ask to recheck the sources you have used in instances such as this so the article can pass verifiability. I have removed the numerous tags that were in the appearances as they made the section look messy, and the top banner highlights the issue. I am going to uphold this banner as the section could do with some more sources to verify what has been written. This is a good article, it just needs polishing for mainspace. Once these things are done I will mark the article as reviewed at WP:NPP. Thank you!

11WB (talk) 17:54, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

"You messed up the beautiful images in this article!!!"

This article is about Undyne, a character in a video game. The former infobox image was of a figurine which, because it does not match Undyne's original pixilated design, does not assist in the visual identification of the character. That character, the figurine and photo of it are each covered by copyright, and the figurine is also trademarked. Because of all this, that photo doesn't meet Wikipedia's strict fair-use guideline for using copyrighted and tradmarked material.

Temmie's drawing is beautiful. Wikipedia fair-use policy dictates one of two size limits: either under a million megapixels or small enough to be commercially unviable (so that some guy can't steal that gorgeous image and sell it on stickers, magnets, phone cases, etc in his sketchy kiosk.) I reduced it enough that it can't be used for that. That's why some images on Wikipedia look terrible: copyrighted image have to look meh. Public domain ones should be stellar! Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 23:44, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

There's been a significant bit of discussion regarding the figures, and that they're the best representations of the characters as they help illustrate what they look like fully not solely in heavily stylized sprites (see related articles, particularly Flowey and Toriel). Additionally... nobody's done an infobox like that, and I don't feel the "cop" appearance in Deltarune has retained enough discussion to warrant needing to be in the infobox, and splitting Deltarune into chapters, let alone including in the infobox is also... weird?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:47, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

This has a lot to do with copyright and what's out there is out there. Mr. Fox made the decision to create a pixilated game with pixilated characters. That's what's in the games. I can understand a desire to use high-quality depictions of the game characters, but Wikipedia can't be a fan site. It just can't do justice do the article's subject that way. It just doesn't work. The best solution is to direct readers to sites that truly do the game and its characters and the game devs' genius justice.Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 00:46, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't think you understand how trademark or copyright actually work. The renders for those characters were approved by him. Nor does it make wikipedia a "fan site' to use them over the stylized worldmap items. You're trying to wikilawyer, while at the same time uploading two fair use images and claiming them as one.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:53, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

In order for Wikipedia to be able to use the photo of the figure, the photo either has to be small enough or blurry enough that it can't be commercially reproduced or Mr. Fox has to contact Wikimedia Foundation himself and tell them he releases all rights to the image under a CC BY-SA 4.0 license. Then it is copied over to Wikimedia Commons. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 01:11, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

But it's not a photo, it's a render of the 3D model, which he approved. You'd know that if you checked first.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:13, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether the figurine is beautiful or approved by the developer; it is about WP:NFCC #8 (Contextual Significance) and WP:NFCC #2 (Respect for commercial opportunities).

• Accuracy over Aesthetics (NFCC #8): Undyne is a 2D pixel-art character. The figurine is a secondary, transformative interpretation of that design. Using a toy to represent a video game character is not 'encyclopedic' when an official game asset (the 2D sprite/screenshot) is available.
• Commercial Harm (NFCC #2): The figurine is a retail product currently for sale on Fangamer. Using high-quality marketing photos of commercial merchandise as the primary article image competes with the copyright holder's market. Wikipedia policy explicitly prefers screenshots of the source material over photos of for-sale products. Lawyers can come after the Wikimedia Foundation for that.
• Consensus: Some, including me, prefer the 'high-quality' look, but Wikipedia is not a gallery for merchandise. The primary goal is to show the character as they appear in the work being discussed (Undertale).

I have tagged the figurine image for Speedy Deletion (Criterion F9) because it is a direct rip from a retail site, which is a clear copyright violation for our purposes. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 01:16, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

That's not how that words either. You're trying to abuse copyright policies without, again, understanding them. Cortana (Halo) uses a 3D render of her character, as do several other articles. A 3D render is not a photograph. Additionally the render is more accurate to illustrate the character as it shows them in color, with the correct proportions, and more detailed than the simple sprites. There's also consensus to use these renders in most cases.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:22, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Since we're stalemated over the infobox image, Im requesting a third opinion to resolve the dispute over WP:NFCC #2 (Commercial Opportunity) and WP:NFCC #8 (Contextual Significance). The core of the dispute is whether a 3D commercial figurine (merchandise) or a 2D in-game screenshot (official source material) is the more encyclopedic choice for a pixel-art character. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 01:41, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

There's literally two other people chiming in to say you're dead wrong here. Like, right down below my reply.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:48, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

I've removed the tag for reasons in my edit summary along with points raised here. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 01:38, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

How does using a 3d render of a figure compete with a store selling actual figures? Are you suggesting people are able to pirate copies of or steal the figures from fangamer through an infobox image? Also please show me this policy where screenshots are preferred, because as far as I can tell every video game character on here that has official artwork from outside of the game uses that as the infobox image instead of their sprite or model from the game. If you're arguing that needs to change, that's going to affect a lot of articles for characters from Mario, Final Fantasy, Pokemon, etc. Ringtail Raider (talk) 02:41, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Everything you said was wrong. I invite you to seek consensus on changing the image at WT:VG. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 01:26, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

I concur with my fellow editors here that the image currently used (the 3d render) does a far better job at representing what the article describes overall and that this would apply as fair use, not to mention it isn't even an image of the figurine. I'm not even sure I fully understand what is being argued here. CaptainGalaxy 02:01, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Since we are unable to reach a consensus here, I repeat that I have requested a third opinion to provide an outside perspective on the fair use and encyclopedic value of the current image. Additionally, I have listed the file at Wikipedia:Files for discussion to ensure the copyright and policy concerns are fully vetted by the community. I suggest we pause further changes to the infobox until those processes conclude. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 03:20, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

"Unable"

Dawg, there are four users who disagree with you (five counting NegativeMP1 on the FfD). We are perfectly able to reach a consensus. How many people need to disagree with you for you to believe a consensus can be formed? Cukie Gherkin (talk) 03:36, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

• Response from 3O: The 3O process is reserved for disputes with 2 participants. While allowances can be made for discussions where others have added procedural or other non-dispute information, in this case there has already been a 3rd opinion rendered. Moritoriko (talk) 05:19, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Chiming into this debate formally. I request everyone read what my vote at the FfD discussion was . I obviously oppose changing the infobox image and I strongly oppose changing it to the garbage alternative being proposed.

I'm mainly here to highlight this comment that the discussion creator left at the file talk page for the Undyne concept art . What? Is this whole debate coming from concern, or a desire to troll for April Fools? Because, from citing a policy at FfD that does not exist, to the almost incomprehensible messaging of these original messages and that File talk post, and the infobox image alternative almost feeling like it was chosen with specific intent to look like a joke, that is the vibe being given off. I want to assume good faith here, but I can't help but see this as a complete waste of time. λ NegativeMP1 17:10, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, I'm all down for a little tongue-in-cheek (hell I'm pals with Consarn) but given these were controversial changes, they really should have approached it with a more professional demeanor. Especially given stuff like the concept art change made even less sense; it was entirely within Wikipedia's limits prior, with no reason to reduce it further.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:50, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

isn't consarn that wonk from rfd? who would ever want to be friends with a guy like that? consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 17:54, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

i ended up just closing that ffd on partially procedural grounds, as none of the reasons for any of the discussions apply, and the alternatives suggested(?) and comment in file talk:undyne-2.png suggests that this could be active trolling or botched wikilawyering, on top of actually violating the exact fair use criteria the renders don't violate (ironically enough, it's partially because they're already here), and the deltarune sprite being stretched for no reason (where i come from, that's a war crime!!)

i guess this is to say that i agree that no valid reason has been given for getting rid of the render, regardless of whether or not i even support its use consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 18:31, 1 April 2026 (UTC)