Talk:Toby Fox

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interview[edit]

I found an interview with Toby Fox but I don't know how to site a source. If anyone would like to use it I'll provide the link here. Vexthesmol (talk) 03:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. I have seen the interview before, though it's not particularly useful. As the interviewer says, Fox is pretty tight-lipped in the interview (gotta hate how the answer to one question is just some vague "..." and the interviewer just continues with the next question :s). It's also all really about Undertale and not much else. I would love to actually have some biographical information about the guy, though there's just very little around... ~Mable (chat) 05:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ok. I'll look for biographical information. Maybe the interview would be more useful on undertale page if it hasn't been used. Mable Vexthesmol (talk) 05:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it has already been used in some way, but you could read the article and see if something that is mentioned in the interview is missing. I'll be happy to help with adding the information to the article, though I don't think this is a particularly useful source compared to some other interviews with him ^_^; ~Mable (chat) 05:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I did find two more articles. One about a Wii U port for Undertale though I'm not sure of the credibility. And another one that doesn't have a ton of information as he skips over a lot of questions but does reveal a bit about how he made the game. Although the veritibility of both of these sources is slightly questionable.Mable Vexthesmol (talk) 05:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You have to love his answer to the last question: "... but I hate answering interview questions." So we noticed. Anyway, I don't actually know either of these sources, and neither of them are listed in our list of previously discussed sources. I have no idea how reliable they are. I recommend bringing them up at the talk page of the Undertale article, though - maybe it will be of more use there. It doesn't really have much value to put a lot of information about Undertale in the Toby Fox article, as people should be able to read all about it in the Undertale article. I don't think the sources are particularly useful here. Something like a "personal life" section would be really great for this article, but I have no idea where we would get those kinds of sources (outside of primary sources, which we prefer to steer away from). ~Mable (chat) 06:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I will go bring up the articles in the Undertale talk section. I also do agree with you that a personal life section would be great. Although I do wonder of we could use primary sources for facts like his birthday which haven't been stated in the article. Even though it is better to steer away from them.Mable Vexthesmol (talk) 14:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
His birthday is actually in the infobox, so that's fine. The article doesn't even say what country he's from, though, but we'll be able to do some good stuff at some point, I'm sure :) ~Mable (chat) 14:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! The date of birth is there. Sorry, I must have missed it, but I'll be sure to look for the country he's from. Mable Vexthesmol (talk) 14:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have seen an interview with Toby Fox by Fangamer that seemed to be filmed before he even released the game but the video was published in late 2018 sometime after Deltarune came out. I'm not sure if the video is still on Youtube but that interview had Toby Fox himself in person.--DeliSample (talk) 18:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested merge[edit]

In my opinion, it would be appropriate to merge this article with Undertale. This is because Toby Fox's notability can generally only be attributed to Undertale, and to a lesser extent, his music for Homestuck. Readers would almost certainly know about Undertale if they were reading an article about Toby Fox. As a result, it seems that Toby Fox isn't notable enough to warrant his own article yet considering how his success almost entirely derives from Undertale.

Furthermore, there is very little biographical information about Toby Fox himself, which means this article will most likely remain a stub until he decides to release more information about himself.

--81.131.145.110 (talk) 22:22, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's a reason why I never created this article. Feel free to boldly redirect it: I'm pretty sure that there is nothing in here that isn't already in those two articles (which I suppose is the main reason to redirect it). I find it too bad that we can't find any sources about Fox' life and stuff like that... but let's be real here, he's young and has only been part of a few large-scale projects. The redirecting can always be undone when he gets a larger portfolio. ~Mable (chat) 08:50, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are sufficient references for the article despite the fact that he doesn't talk about his personal life, so I re-created it. A large number of game journos wrote articles specifically about him or interviewed him, or analyzed his blog/twitter posts. Notch is mainly popular because of Minecraft, and never created much else of note, does he not get an article?ZXCVBNM (TALK) 08:26, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly this entire article is present in the Undertale article, the only exception I see is the first paragraph in the Career section. For this reason alone I agree with the suggestion to merge. Derek M (talk) 22:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Under this premise, we should also merge Harper Lee with To Kill a Mockingbird. 69.162.231.237 (talk) 06:33, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
69.162.231.237, this a section from 5 years ago. Nobody is currently suggesting merging this article. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 11:20, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, although Toby is not somewhat notable enough, but put his bio into Undertale will somewhat make that page lost the main content. Also, maybe the Undertale could increase his notablity. (But the annoying dog is one of the popular Internet meme in China) Mariogoods (talk) 08:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image request[edit]

Toby Fox recently requested that a picture of him covered in foam sent out on April 1 2023 become his image on Wikipedia; making this so might constitute fair use, as per his request. (Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/Undertale/comments/128wlm6/toby_fox_covered_infoam/)

Discography?[edit]

Might need sources, but the main problem would be the fact that some of his music is hard to find or lost even. ML Dream (talk) 15:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, a discography would only include "published" works. What that means exactly could vary, but I imagine it would only include music he did for Homestuck and video games, and nothing else. Not sure if it's worth having. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:44, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is Deltarune the followup to Undertale?[edit]

If I am not mistaken fox said that Deltarune isn't the followup to Undertale, perhaps it should be changed in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GameMenu (talk • contribs) 07:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I'm dumb. sorry for wasting your time.
GameMenu (talk) 07:12, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting works by games and music[edit]

Considering how Toby keeps working on little things, it's slowly adding up and the single block in the Works section is becoming bloated. I suggest splitting his contributions by Games, Music, and Others. Though I'm not sure what to do with the entries that'd fall in both Games and Music--more specifically the ROM Hacks, Undertale, Deltarune. I guess they're few enough that they could appear in both sections? But having them only under Games might be fine. Others would include Hobonichi Mother Project and Hammerhead Shark Song. Denpakei (talk) 00:41, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was also thinking that Games would only include the ones he's done anything for other than composing. Stuff like OMORI, Hiveswap, and Wandersong would be under Music. So rather than Games and Music, maybe it'd be better split as Game Development and Music? Denpakei (talk) 00:50, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image profile[edit]

Toby Fox specifically requested an image of him taking a shower to be his picture - "Also, someone make one of the pictures my picture on Wikipedia". Is this allowed? I'm making it the image until someone says it's not allowed. Thanks :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethan thisguy (talk • contribs) 19:38, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's April's fools, you can expect Jokes from everywhere, Wikipedia is not an exception Balfring (talk) 20:20, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
please do 24.136.58.19 (talk) 20:20, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Toby Fox foam bath[edit]

Toby specifically asked for the foam bath picture to be added 2.29.138.189 (talk) 20:26, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why does Wikipedia leak my ip address if I don't reply. Also yes he did I don't get why they are not following his demands it is his page after all 2A02:C7D:5BD7:DF00:3CB6:2675:224E:FEB9 (talk) 05:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Your replying to a thread from over a month ago. The situation has now changed as the image is now properly licenced which is wasn't when 2.29.138.189 was requesting.
  2. The image is already in the article just not in the lead. This has been discussed bellow in the #Image permission section. I would recommend you read that discussion and try engage with those arguments, particularly MOS:LEADIMAGE.
  3. Wikipedia articles are not controlled by the people they are about but by editors in line with existing policies. So he can demand all he likes put if it's counter to WP:PAGS it's not happening.
  4. And finally your IP address is visible because your editing without an account (Wikipedia:IP users). If you don't like that your welcome to make an account.
Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 06:48, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Foam bath picture[edit]

Someone freaking add the picture back, he specifically requested it, until I hear otherwise from him it needs to be the image. 2603:6080:BC02:E8AC:9531:1FF6:4ECE:73FD (talk) 20:38, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopedia, not anybody's personal playground. Let him use the image on his own website. Schazjmd (talk) 20:39, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see why that should disqualify the image from use. It’s as good a picture as anything else. It isn’t as if he’s naked in the image. If he wants it as the image on the page, what’s the harm? Sure, you don’t HAVE to honor his wish, but making it so that nobody can is a little silly when there’s no practical reason not to. 2600:1700:48E0:58C0:CD89:4541:2D3A:FB1E (talk) 21:11, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please see MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. Schazjmd (talk) 21:17, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would gladly argue that the foam image is very illustrative and informative on the sort of person Toby Fox is and the sort of stuff he does. It is relevant because it provides an accurate depiction of who Toby Fox is as a person. Like “oh no, how dare we let a little silliness onto the wikipedia page of one of the goofiest people on the internet.” 2600:1700:48E0:58C0:CD89:4541:2D3A:FB1E (talk) 21:20, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i'd say it could potentially be in the article if all of the following are met:
Sobsz (talk) 22:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This incident is representative of Tobias' online persona, it is relevant to his article because it was featured in an event related to the seasonal Undertale/Deltarune newsletter, a newsletter which is not solely comedic - With no intent at encouraging the vandalization of Wikipedia - and has also featured interviews with the creator of Yume Nikki, Kikiyama, and the artist Temmie Chang. The fact that Toby Fox himself requested the addition of it to Wikipedia as part of a public newsletter also adds relevancy and merit to its addition to the article in question. As a creator who values privacy his openness in showing this picture also warrants even more deliberation as it is a break from his more confidential persona. Pewdino (talk) 22:37, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I dont see how that defies the use of that image whatsoever. Even though that image does hide his face, which therefore you could argue makes it less relevant to the topic, it is factually him. And like 2600:1700:48E0:58C0:CD89:4541:2D3A:FB1E said, it does represent Toby Fox's online persona quite accurately. Not to mention the fact that he is a pretty private person which barely shows his face online nowadays, so using an image where his face is hidden feels rather appropriate. And while the fact that Toby Fox requested to have this image be on his Wikipedia article does not at all means it should be, I fail to see what's the harm in adding it. Foam enjoyer (talk) 22:02, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see what's the harm in adding it. The problem is that, at a minimum, the image does not comply with our policies and guidelines. The responses below explain it better, but we are trying to avoid copyright violations.
I do want to address something here though that you mentioned. Not to mention the fact that he is a pretty private person which barely shows his face online nowadays, so using an image where his face is hidden feels rather appropriate. This is actually not a problem in Toby's case. If you look at articles of other notable people who don't normally show their face, Marshmello, Daft Punk, The Stig, Rey Mysterio, The Great Sasuke, etc., then you would see that we are okay with having the picture of a person in the infobox not show that person's face. Toby could take a selfie of himself with his Annoying Dog avatar in front of his face and we would be able to use it with the proper licensing. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:59, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This image, it should be noted, is one that is explicitly allowed to be used on Wikipedia. I presume the reason why there hasn't been one added beforehand is the lack of a publicly available image. The controversy on adding it gives it extra relevancy. Perhaps not as the main image, but under a section describing his general personality or something along those lines? It does serve to help demonstrate the sort of person Toby Fox is 68.42.146.77 (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia does not accept material that claims 'this can be used in Wikipedia, but not anywhere else or in derivative works.'"
do feel free to ask him to explicitly license it, though even then idk if it'll be accepted Sobsz (talk) 22:23, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize he wants the picture ON the Wikipedia page itself
“ This is now been remedied and I will never take a shower again. Also, someone make one of the pictures my picture on Wikipedia” Beastwyd (talk) 22:46, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even so, if it isn't licensed properly, then it cannot be used anywhere within the project, regardless of what they want or not. (Honestly, the most likely route for an image to be added to the article would be a proper license of an image of the Annoying Dog.) --Super Goku V (talk) 23:16, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The number one rule of thumb, as per Rules for Fools:
“New editors who are unfamiliar with April Fools' Day on Wikipedia may see these jokes as vandalism, while other editors may find the jokes (no matter how innocent) unwanted if placed in areas such as their userpage. It is a good idea to find out whether the recipient of a joke is open to this type of humor before playing the prank. In general, editors should avoid reverting jokes that comply with the above rules and are made in the spirit of April Fools' Day.”
It’s extremely obvious that Toby would have no problem with this image being freely used. Just allow it. Picnicsandstars (talk) 00:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:Copyright violations, media which is not available under a suitable free license and which does not meet the non-free content criteria, should be assumed to be unacceptable. We don't know who took the photo and, in addition, said photos did not have the proper licensing. See Commons:Licensing which is what one of the images was deleted for violating. In short, it doesn't matter what Toby wants if the image isn't licensed properly. (And even then, we likely would not use it and it would be easier for Toby to properly license the Annoying Dog if an image is wanted in the infobox.) --Super Goku V (talk) 01:30, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are being intentionally obtuse for the sake of promoting misery. 50.105.118.80 (talk) 02:00, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I object to both being called obtuse and the claim that I am promoting misery. I get that I am being annoying to some of the users here because I am trying to abide by the rules, but I am trying to help explain the problem and a potential solution to it so that everyone can at least be somewhat satisfied. I am doing my best to be considerate. With that said, we cannot bend the rules here. We are trying to avoid trouble down the line. If Toby is willing to help us, then we can work with him. The way it is being done via the newsletter and with users from social media groups like Reddit and Discord is causing us some issues with getting things into compliance with Wikipedia's Manual of Style and with our legal policies. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
>i object to being wrong and the claim that i am wrong and i get that i'm being annoying because my point is right
that's what you said, fancy language or not Indianaliam1 (talk) 12:35, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"We don't know who took the photo"
Toby Fox literally said it was him and he specifically requested it
" it doesn't matter what Toby wants if the image isn't licensed properly"
licensed or not he still requested it and he most likley took it himself and by him asking for his fans to upload it he is giving permission LittleMAHER1 (talk) 03:59, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's just not how things work. It's really simple: we can't host an unlicensed image on Wikipedia, and this image is unlicensed. If and when that issue is sorted, then we can talk about if it's notable enough for inclusion to begin with. PopoDameron ⁠talk 04:04, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the above, Toby obviously could not have taken it assuming Toby is the one in the photo. Someone else who have had to taken the photo for Toby. Thus, that person owns the copyright to the photo. Toby would need to take steps to make it clear that whoever took the photo is willing to properly have the photo be license in a way that we could use and mentioned above at Commons:Licensing. If it isn't clear that the photographer is alright with this, then we cannot use it. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:22, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just put it in honestly, it's just silly to think that Toby would go through the process of licensing the picture or getting the person who took it to license it to us for a goofy picture of himself covered in foam lmao. We literally have direct permission from him, why are y'all so scared of if we don't have the license for the picture. I think we can make an exception. I don't even think that rule is valid for direct permission from the creator Tad Gomer (talk) 04:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What others may think as silly is us doing due diligence. To quote from WP:COPYOTHERS, Never use materials that infringe the copyrights of others. This could create legal liabilities and seriously hurt Wikipedia. If in doubt, write the content yourself, thereby creating a new copyrighted work which can be included in Wikipedia without trouble. We don't want to get into any future trouble due to said goofy picture and that is why we have our policies. A discussion similar to this is currently at the Media copyright questions noticeboard. A user there wants to add images to Commons to be able to use them in an article about a notable artist, however they are not the photographer and do not own the rights to the image, which is why they are told that they need both the person's permission and a free license to reuse the image from the photographer. In any case, for Toby it would be a simple process to license the picture. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:25, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how any legal problems can occur when we have direct permission Tad Gomer (talk) 05:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have a free license from the photographer? --Super Goku V (talk) 05:52, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Idk maybe he used a tripod or something. Maybe the mysterious photographer was just Toby all along lol. Even if it was another person who took the picture it's probably just a friend of Toby and I doubt they would have a problem with it, like, why would they? If anybody would have a problem with it, it would be Toby. If the person who took the picture for some reason wants the picture out of the wiki they we will remove it. And how do you even get in contact with the photographer, they haven't Copyrighted the picture and we don't know who it was. Also who can even put in the picture in the wiki? Tad Gomer (talk) 06:13, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And how do you even get in contact with the photographer, they haven't Copyrighted the picture... Copyright is automatic in the US, Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. (Italics added to differentiate.) That is why it is difficult to get such permission when the photographer is only known to a select few individuals, which is the case at the moment. In any case, Toby can take the additional steps needed if he so chooses. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:25, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No level of cooless that Toby Fox has can make his page above the rules of Wikipedia Littleboyblue12341 (talk) 06:28, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Too bad, would have been funny. At least the picture was up for a bit Tad Gomer (talk) 07:02, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Guys c'mon he's made the image public domain and personally requested it there is quite literally no reason to not use it. Feels like the mods are making excuses at this point. TheAdvertisement (talk) 05:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TheAdvertisement, It is used, just not in lead (did you not try scrolling down the page for 2 seconds). The message your responding to is from ~3 months ago, before it was CC'd. The actual discussion about image placement is at the bottom of this page, in the #Image permission section (again taking time to read the actual content your responding to would be prudent before jumping in to discussions, in future). Feel free to open a new section, after reading the given arguments against using in the lead. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 07:03, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2023[edit]

Add the following image to the Toby Fox page, as per his request:

File:ShowerToby.jpg
A Picture of Toby Fox's Annoying Dog Avatar in the Shower

Shanedmanning (talk) 22:42, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: he can ask for its inclusion himself once he familiarized himself with WP:COI. M.Bitton (talk) 00:30, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction[edit]

The introduction seems to be worded pretty confusingly. --HiccupJul (talk) 22:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't check which edit(s) fixed it and when, but seems fine now. --HiccupJul (talk) 00:58, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add recent work to works list: "The Greatest Living Show"[edit]


  • What I think should be changed:

Toby's recent 2023 work, "The Greatest Living Show", should be added to his works list, with him credited as Composer/Writer.

  • Why it should be changed:

This is a recent work from Toby, so it should be a part of his works list, similar to his previous collaborative work "Skies Forever Blue" in the works list.

  • References supporting the possible change:

The work with his credit in the description can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFow8LkHtlU

64.189.202.217 (talk) 11:24, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Have any secondary sources like newspapers reported on this? Actualcpscm (talk) 12:53, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Actualcpscm: I found this source: THE GREATEST LIVING SHOW, A MUSIC COLLABORATION FT. ITOKI HANA & TOBY FOX on KeenGamer. Theres also an official website with credits at the bottom. Luk3 (talk) 15:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're an autoconfirmed user, so you could have added this yourself. PopoDameron ⁠talk 20:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image replacement[edit]

The subject of the article suggested the image that was taken down.

The subject of the article has been releasing newsletters.

Am I to believe the mods are not getting them? Everytime information pops up, it is regarded as 'vandalism'. So much so you just locked this. If you are not getting the newsletters, may I request the moderation for this page goes to someone who is? I am not attempting to be rude, but this has happened numerous times now.

A Sneakycrown (talk) 13:27, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sneakycrown, Have you read any of the above talk page sections. The image can't be used because a) it wouldn't do a good job of identifying the subject or relating to it per MOS:IRELEV; and b) (even more important) The image hasn't been licenced under a free licence (COM:Licensing) and so can't be added to any Wikimedia project. The the moderation for this page doesn't belong to any "mod" or anybody else. Your free to make any improvements, so long as they follow the WP:Policies and guidelines. If you have anything from WP:Reliable sources that isn't in the article, for example, feel free to add. (but also be prepared to defend such additions through discussion) Cakelot1 (talk) 19:07, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i think perhaps wikipedia needs to have a discussion on out parameters. This happens repeatedly, not just on this article but on a lot of them. Please point to me where I can have THAT discussion on changing wikipedia's guidelines, or at least suggesting it. Sneakycrown (talk) 20:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sneakycrown, If you a looking for a discussion on Non-free content rules, Wikipedia talk:Non-free content is the place to go. For general image guidelines then perhaps Wikipedia talk:Image use policy or Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images. But for such long-standing and widely supported policies to be changed you'd probably want to go through Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). (However, I would make sure you understand the current WP:PAGs before you jump in to trying to change them, and particularly note WP:5P3 is a fundamental principle) Cakelot1 (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2023[edit]

Please put a picture of Toby fox in foam as per his request. From his newsletter and I quote - 

“Dear members in the "Truck Freak" tier:

We apologize again. It seems that those in the Foam Shower tier continued to receive various images unintentionally. This is now been remedied and I will never take a shower again. Also, someone make one of the pictures my picture on Wikipedia.” This is recalling to a previous email- “Dear members in the "Truck Freak" tier:

Due to a glitch in our mailing system, it appears that around 1,000 of you have been erroneously subscribed to the "Foam Shower" tier. Affected subscribers were sent a photo of Toby Fox in swim trunks covered in a large amount of foam.

We apologize and are working on a solution now.”

From Miniiguy. 149.62.206.211 (talk) 18:57, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: As has been repeatedly explained on this page, the image in question has not been released under a Free license which would allow it to be used. We don't allow non-free images of living people (WP:NFC). Cakelot1 (talk) 19:12, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
how do we get it a free license? 2601:681:C80:6280:52B:41E8:E468:67 (talk) 06:03, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You ask the copyright owner to release it under such a Free Licence. The easiest way for them to do that is send an email to the VRT. (See Commons:Email templates for details). Cakelot1 (talk) 09:34, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Toby_Fox_foam_shower.png
This has been done. 147.160.61.198 (talk) 00:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm aware, I already posted about this below (#Image permission). While it now can be used without copyright issues there is still MOS:IRELEV/MOS:LEADIMAGE to overcome to include it here. Cakelot1 (talk) 06:23, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of IRELEV - this image represents this person quite perfectly. For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pricasso does not have photo from his gov. ID, because his scenical appearances is the reason why article about him exists in the first place. As for LEADIMAGE, the one with foam is basically the only one of Toby's good quality photos existing, for which he seems to have given clear permission to use here. And there is not much of them exists, most of them are low quality screenshots from random videos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.135.199.167 (talk) 12:52, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yoko Taro might actually be a better example for this sort of auteur identity, and there we have a Polygon article describing the situation. We don't have any such reliable source discussing this photograph as a common way to identify Fox. Personally, I would best recognize Fox through his pixel-art dog avatar. I don't know if he ever used this picture to represent himself outside of Wikipedia. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable source for personal life section[edit]

I noticed the main source of the information in the "Personal Life" section (including birth name and location) is an article from the New Hampshire Union Leader (currently [8]). The article includes a lot of strangely-specific personal information seemingly sourced from random childhood friends, former school teachers, and the daughter of a pastor of a church that he once went to as a child(???), while explicitly stating that Fox himself has refused to talk to them.

While I am not very familiar with Wikipedia's BLP policies, this seems fishy at best in-context - is this really appropriate to include so prominently on Wikipedia, especially given how tight-lipped Fox tends to be about his personal life? 2A09:5E40:10C1:41D0:2562:EAD9:9FA9:E249 (talk) 22:52, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image permission[edit]

 Comment: Just so everybody who's watching this page is aware the April Fools "Foam" image has now been properly released by Toby Fox (File:Toby Fox foam shower.png) through VRT, with this release being confirmed here. This doesn't, in my view, mean it should now be the lead image but it now means it would be possible to include it somewhere in the article if it was decided it was relevant. Cakelot1 (talk) 12:15, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why exactly shouldn't it be the main picture? As discussed before, this picture is 1. a picture of Toby Fox, 2. representative of his persona, 3. doesn't show his face, in line with his private tendencies. It's also the most up to date picture of him. A conscious effort to release the picture under a free license shows that it's a relevant picture. Adding to that, i point to the Rules for Fools quoted by User:Picnicsandstars. 89.155.106.133 (talk) 13:19, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how WP:FOOLR applies here. a) It's not April fools; and b) to quote that very page: All jokes and pranks must be kept out of the "article", "help", "talk", and "help talk" namespaces.
My opinion here is mainly informed by MOS:LEADIMAGE which says in part "avoid lead images that readers would not expect to see there", "Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic". It, to me, does a poor job identifying him and if you, like most people, didn't see the April fools joke through the email list or on twitter, you would find it extremely confusing and unhelpful in the lead. I think if there was some section discussing his online persona that would be a good place to put it, but I can't really find any sources that one would write such a section with. Cakelot1 (talk) 13:54, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's weird but I think this would be fine for the Personal life section. It represents his goofiness and it's an image Fox feels comfortable representing himself with. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:54, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a fine compromise, so that's what I went with. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:03, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My only reservation is that there is nothing in the text talking about his "online persona", per MOS:IRELEV, which is what I was talking about above. I think the caption "Fox wearing swim trunks while covered in a large amount of foam.", is great example of how out of place and unrelated to the text it is. It explains nothing about why it's here or how it relates to the text. There is no relevance in the text. Cakelot1 (talk) 06:47, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. Frustratingly, I can't seem to find any sources that directly mention Fox' personality or persona at all. I'm not sure how helpful the image is in the current state of the article. It does still represent the subject, but in a way that we can't explain... ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:39, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cakelot1: We could just mention it was taken on April Fools then. Would that help? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It might help the caption, but I was more commenting on the general lack of MOS:IRELEV. It would be ideal if we had some sourced text that the image could illustrate, but as Maplestrip/Mable says there isn't much that sources say about Fox' online persona. Cakelot1 (talk) 16:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that the image lacks any real MOS:PERTINENCE. Also, that could be anyone in the image — we have no way to WP:VERIFY. Charcoal feather (talk) 09:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Skyshifter VRT is unpublished private correspondence and not considered reliable. Charcoal feather (talk) 02:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I consider it a primary source, as we're talking about a Commons image. For me, the VRT confirms that Fox is in the image. Unless you're saying Fox is lying, which I don't know why assume bad faith. Skyshifter talk 02:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is a primary source, but an unpublished one. While we know Fox (probably) is in the image, we appear to have no way to prove that with published reliable sources. Verifiability, not truth. As this is a BLP, unsourced claims can be removed with impunity. This is in addition to the MOS:PERTINENCE concerns raised above. Charcoal feather (talk) 02:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section[edit]

He is known for developing the role-playing video games Undertale and Deltarune for which the former garnered acclaim ...

I'd argue that both Undertale and Deltarune have garnered critical acclaim but I'm not too sure about other people's opinions on the matter. Dawnbails (talk) 21:57, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deltarune got generally really good reviews but hasn't quite got the same bevy of award nominations as the former game. And it's not even halfway finished, so talking about its critical reception seems a bit premature to me. ― novov t c 05:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2023[edit]

Adding Toby Fox collaboration with Camellia's Album [U.U.F.O] song [Myths You Forgot] into "Other Credits" Section

Song link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aM5Exmbfr60 Fury72888hshu (talk) 20:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ― novov t c 02:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Work on Pokemon Scarlet[edit]

In the end credits for Pokemon the Indigo Disk Toby Fox's name was seen for creating a remix of Ed Shearan's "Celestial". If this information could be added that would be fantastic. PS this is a hastily writen comment that I have not researched much please fact check this before making revisions. 47.155.10.223 (talk) 06:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did Toby Fox actually graduate from Northeastern University?[edit]

This is a valid question to ask given this page lists it as his alma mater with no brackets to indicate if he dropped out or not. How do we know that he did graduate if it all or if he dropped out? Wouldn't a reliable source be needed for that? The only source cited says (and I quote) that he "studied" there, no actual info of if he graduated or not. There is a year-book photo shown as well, but this is from 2010.

Again most Wikipedia articles about people (living, dead or otherwise) would either use brackets to indicate whether or not the person dropped out or didn't graduate from their alma mater, no brackets usually means they did graduate. 2A00:A040:1A3:AECA:CDD2:4D3C:B2A8:DADF (talk) 17:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The oddity of "Robert F. Fox" and whether or not it is in fact Fox's name.[edit]

Several sources list Fox's actual name as simply "Robert Fox", Such as for instance this source cited in the personal life section which shows a yearbook photo of Toby from 2010 where it simply says "Robert Fox". Also the same source that lists Toby's name as Robert F. Fox mentioned a company called ROYAL SCIENCES LLC, this website lists the company as a New Hampshire based company, furthermore it appears Fox listed himself twice as there is "Robert F. Fox" and then "Robert Fox F", these to me indicate the "F." in "Robert F. Fox" is like the "S." in Ulysses S. Grant, it doesn't actually stand for anything, and could very well be a typing mistake and not an actual part of Fox's name. As for the other person listed, looking them up leads to "Robert L. Best", a business lawyer, and his name is listed with the surname first whereas the other two people listed (again very much likely to be Fox) are not listed this way at all. Of course there is the possibility that (for whatever reason) Fox listed his middle name initial last, if not for the obvious fact that there is no way anyone on this planet has ever listed their name that way at all in the history of the English language (apologies to anyone who sees this as a bit impolite) and there's no decimal/dot at the end of the F like there is in "Robert F. Fox".

NOTE: I have checked the source citing Fox's name in its current state which still says "Robert F. Fox" although other listings of Undertale on the same site use both "Robert F. Fox" and "Toby Fox" as well as "Toby Fox (pseudonym)", it is possible the other website I cited is wrong (given the source with "Robert F. Fox" is a .gov domain) but I digress. 2A00:A040:1A3:B754:A812:A386:657:99B4 (talk) 16:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Toby_Fox&oldid=1218911272"