What's in a Name? | Code, Canon, and Wiki

Wiki Discussion
1

I'm 99.9% sure I am kicking a hornet's nest here, but I want to request that you:

  • Hear me out
  • Try not to get heated, I am too old for internet flame wars and have a life behind your screen. This is not worth flaming over, goodness no.
  • Don't treat me like an idiot. It happens to me a lot in this community and I'm not having it.

Take me as a "confused and lighthearted contributor" here. I cannae find anything concrete in wiki policy on this subject. What I want is clarity based on what I know, and for that clarity to be put in Contribution rules. That's it. We can have a fun little conversation with thoughts as we go. This game is fun to think and talk about, so let's act like it. Deal? Deal.

Where did this come from?

Let's first go over where this post came from.

When working on the pages for Original Game enemies (and broader minigame stuff), a consistent problem we ran into was what to actually name the enemies, and how much these names matter. As the game is a top-down RPG based on TLoZ, it deliberately excludes the enemy character's names, mimicking how ambiguous NES games are unless you read the manual. The only way to retrieve names for these characters is through the code. However, @HylianAngel points out that the game's filter makes the names a bit iffy as they may not reflect the colours accurately. I don't dispute that (as seen in the mainspacing I did earlier), and I couldn't confidently argue it given I am colourblind. There's just a little thing in that, and other conversations I've had with myriad users, that struck me as odd.

One key issue in that discussion was that the wiki seems to heavily discourage content derived from the code being used authoratatively, which is declared non-canon by more than a few users I've argued with. I see this as odd given how Deltarune as a product presents itself.

That is my problem: Why is it non-canon, what makes it non-canon, and is that notion so important as to sideline it, and when it has to be sidelined, when should that occur?

My understanding

Now, I want to talk about my understanding and where I am at as a "Contributor".

In the Contribution rules, there is nothing directly stating the code is non-canon.

Maintain a neutral point of view. Personal headcanons are not allowed on the wiki. The content you add should have strong basis in what is shown in the game, or in an otherwise canonical context.

This wiki documents the canonical game. Documenting the fandom, its interpretations, fan projects, AUs, and similar, is out of scope for this wiki.

Speculative content is allowed only when thoroughly backed by facts. If something seems far-fetched, don't add it to the wiki.

But there is a worse situation here: The rules also do not define what "canon" or "game" actually means, which I think caused much of the problems here. The MoS on the Undertale Wiki is similarly unhelpful. Given this, it seems that there is a Discussion either on these forums or in the Discord that clarified this and never put it where it matters most (HORRIBLE), everyone has read this rule differently (BWAAAH), or no one has read it and is acting based on how high-profile users edit (NOOOO!). Perhaps all of this is true!

When these rules say "canonical game," are we then using "game" to mean "the narrative as it presents itself to the player," or "the game as a complete product on your PC"? In the former case, code and the like being non-canon makes sense. In the latter case, then poking around inside is canon. At least from how I have interacted with the game, I have been going with the assumption of the latter, which seems to have brought me into conflict more than a few times. When I covered the Original Game, I would see the Green lizard named "Alt lizard" and go "ok, that's the name." and so on. I'd then see cold variants and the Aqua (Indigo) flower, and so on. But these names were not right, apparently! No siree, I was skewered! Alas, I do not taste good. I am full of lead and microplastics. Anyway, when I view those rules, it seems that those internal names could certainly be used, but the priorities aren't defined (internal > conjecture, or conjecture > internal?). Should the jumpy lizard be the aqua lizard if its internal name is "jumpylizard"? In a game where things want to be found, observed, and recognised, what does that name change do? Is there justification in moving away from a name that was given by the game and its creator, and giving it a new one? Should a wiki do that?

Where I have been working from

This next part will be my position.

Here's the thing, right? There is considerable evidence of things being placed in Deltarune's code that are intended for the player to find.

https://youtu.be/hAnC0AQDZL8?is=-AJJoHx20L-VOScl

Before you go "lol youtube" pleeeease don't, Soda Man works from the ground up in a way that is very useful for this discussion. He presents a very good case for a code-based narrative (as in, some form of abstract lore made using the code) with the "toriel" variable, which actively works against the game if viewed strictly from a performance perspective. You can remove it completely and you see the black deer sprite - so the deer sprite is intentionally placed there and taken away when that variable is switched on, which it always is. The common sense code solution would be to just put the Black monster sprite there. Even if the intent is to replace it immediately, this would not require a variable that is always set (just write a Create script that replaces the sprite after 1 frame). But the code for this event doesn't actually work properly even when the variable is switched off. Unless there's a scenario in a later chapter that has you send Toriel to the sun and that turns off the variable (with buggy code using it...) on a repeat playthrough, with the code resulting from the variable being switched off fixed, this entire block has no reason to exist.

This heavily implies, and I would go as far as to say confirms, a code-based narrative (again, some form of...quasi-lore?) being presented that is designed for players to find. This is not a developer being "bad at programming" by any stretch of the imagination. How can we confidently toss stuff like this aside when it clearly wishes to be viewed? If we view Deltarune as a game with an adversarial relationship with its own medium, would what happens underneath not be part of that narrative? Perhaps that's too idealistic...

The above situation makes it very hard for me to understand the notion of code-based content being declared non-canon. It seems as non-canon as the Spamton Sweepstakes are, which is received largely as canon information on the wiki and by the community, despite being declared non-canon, yet serving as a vehicle for an ARG teasing canon events.

*taps thighs* Anyway! I don't see the "DEVICE_" layer things as much different here. I understand the all-caps subject is a loaded one considering how often it is associated with Gaster...to me that's just vibes, but it is certainly interesting! You still have a narrative being made here, and people like to think about it, so it seems important enough for the wiki to take more stock in. It doesn't have to subscribe to any one theory, just...document what's there, and enable discussion where it is asked for. I saw a discussion (https://undertale.wiki/d/t/should-there-be-a-page-for-all-the-image-device-and-audio-files-in-the-game/6838) about listing these a la TCRF, which I think is a very strong idea and would love to see. I think TCRF does super well here and the wiki is at least a little behind. I guess the main problem would be that this draws in theory nuts who can only say GASTER! FRIEND! ERAM! NORMAL NPC! EGG MAN! in that order, over and over, but that's life.

Of course, some unused content is already covered, like the titular text, Weird Route stuff, and other bits that are also intended to be found. I think the wiki covers stuff quite well here, especially with "Creation and development" sections. So this isn't about a broad structural change.

In the Now

So that is where I am at as a "Contributor": You see my understanding. You can correct it, or perhaps I'm omnipotent(!) and am actually in the right here. Regardless, I want the Contribution rules to be amended with proper definitions of "canon" and "game," which would help me, my auDHD silly self, considerably, with being a Good Citizen. Nothing I say here is meant to really be about some broad "grrr burn things down" nor should it be taken as such.

I guess my questions beyond that request would be:

  • How do we, as individuals, define "canon" and "game" with respect to Deltarune? Is the Spamton Sweepstakes canon? Is code canon? Is there some strange semi-canon layer? Do we want that layer? Probably not.
  • Can we, then, confidently assert that code-related content is non-canon?
  • If we see code as canon, then to what extent should it be covered beyond what currently exists? Or is it ok?
  • How much stock should we put in code-based narratives and names for otherwise unnamed content? I think this is important. Do we prioritise it? I know HylianAngel made a good case for colour-based names, which I cannot confidently comment on due to being colour blind (Spamton NEO is blue to these eyes! Sorry!).
  • If we take code-related content as canon, how far-reaching is it? For example, Flowery replaces Ralsei's graphics as a party member. Do we therefore read this as a part of the story, or a mechanism for presentation? A fun thing for your brain, there!
  • Given characters like Dess (I think?) and FRIEND have their stories told chiefly through code, does any of this affect them specifically?
  • Should there be a label for non-canon sections on the wiki? Star Wars and Doctor Who have this super down-pat and it's really useful! They don't have to be large and invasive; I think Bulbapedia is a good demo for how to do them well.

Right! Let's talk!

2

how about you sort these into drop downs so we can try to read it

3

EXACTLY
one of the Deltarune's main mysteries (Friend) is told almost exclusively through code in fact, that's where their name comes from.
The code and fundamental game aspects being in universe is a key feature of primarily Undertale, however still but less so Deltarune
This just seems like a huge double standard, if the code is all we have, just use the code
:friend:

4

I have come to make an announcement

5

I don't believe there's a double standard so much as there's different editors working off different concepts of canon, and when and where internal names are employed. As FRIEND is a common name, I think the page was made and it stuck. Now there's editors who want emphasis placed on namelessness for things with only internal names (despite FRIEND having like three, including one that is literally just an underscore _). I'm not sure if that's the reality, but it is what it looks like. There's no harm in exceptions where important, I guess...

It really does feel like the contribution rules are read differently, which is why this discussion seems important.

6

holy moly
uhhh
my brain is exploding I did not expect to see something like this immediately when I opened this site

I will say, though, that you do make very good points. I don't think I saw those other threads you mentioned or seen anybody say that names in the code aren't canon, but I don't know what they're on about, since things being clearly named through variables, scripts, assets, etc. in the code with no name stated in-game probably means that's what we should call them.

7

Toby himself says only things "in the game itself" are "canon", and this was even specifically in the context of the Sweepstakes, so that's in "definitely non-canon" territory. It's documented on the wiki, but there's been a push to move everything from Spamton Sweepstakes to a subheader in "Outside of Deltarune".

Considering stuff like the aforementioned UNUSED scripts and snd_guitar_hit_03 being played at 0% volume, among others, there's no way that the code isn't intended to be read. The article naming policy deprioritizes code because names that readers will encounter through just playing the game is better.

Although names used in the code are generally the standard, I think there's reason to ignore them if there's a big enough mismatch with what they actually are in-game.

I haven't looked much into the code for the Sword Route enemies myself, so I can't confidently speak on the naming of any particular enemy, but if (for example) the yellow lizard's filename was actually lizard_green, it would be ridiculous to call it the "green lizard" when it's an entirely different color.

That's an implementation detail to not have to fully implement Flowery as a party member when he appears for one room. I guess that could be read as Flowery himself shoehorning his addition into the party, but the implications there aren't clear enough in my opinion to add.

A subsection of "Outside of Deltarune" named after where the subject appears outside of Deltarune (e.g., what's already being done with Spamton Sweepstakes). Code is inside of Deltarune and canonical--although its meaning is much harder to analyze than the typical contents of the game since its primary purpose is to be functional, implementing the outer appearance of the game.

8

Thank you for the serious answer! I think we broadly agree.

Just two eensy-weensy things:

The article naming policy deprioritizes code because names that readers will encounter through just playing the game is better.

This is common sense if there is something named in-game, but falls apart if there's only an internal name, because then you're left with that or conjecture, which everyone will have a different solution for.

but if (for example) the yellow lizard's filename was actually lizard_green, it would be ridiculous to call it the "green lizard" when it's an entirely different color.

There are cases where "Orange" and "Yellow" are used but the filter causes a different colour.

A big one was the "Indigo" flower. In the code, it is named "Aqua" flower, and the in-game one you see has a cold filter over it (latter half of the Desert Board), which is why it is interpreted as Indigo. There is an unused non-cold variant which is clearly the same colour as Aqua from Chapter 5. But because the unused "true" Aqua flower is never seen, we went with Indigo.

I agree that a broad mismatch should lead to a different name because we could be looking at a development artifact like the above.

Thank you for this!