The bulk update request #6059 is pending approval.

create implication undertale_yellow (925) -> alternate_universe (4012)
create implication undertale_yellow (925) -> undertale (43377)

Reason: Undertale_yellow is an alternate universe of undertale, in the same vain as other alternate universes derived from undertale such as underswap or underfell. I was looking around the the Undertale Yellow wiki entry and didn’t see the same type of implications.

draccius said:
The bulk update request #6059 is pending approval.

create implication undertale_yellow (925) -> alternate_universe (4012)
create implication undertale_yellow (925) -> undertale (43377)

Reason: Undertale_yellow is an alternate universe of undertale, in the same vain as other alternate universes derived from undertale such as underswap or underfell. I was looking around the the Undertale Yellow wiki entry and didn’t see the same type of implications.

Undertale Yellow is a prequel, not an alternate universe. It explicitly takes place in the same universe as the original Undertale. The gamejolt page explicitly states this.

temp7 said:
Undertale Yellow is a prequel, not an alternate universe. It explicitly takes place in the same universe as the original Undertale. The gamejolt page explicitly states this.

It’s a fan game for one and while it says that it’s a prequel, the game itself has a couple things that at least debatably runs counter to UT’s canon (like the close proximity of when the children fell into the underground, despite Toriel in UT saying no human fell into the Ruins for a long time).

werideatdawn said:
It’s a fan game for one and while it says that it’s a prequel, the game itself has a couple things that at least debatably runs counter to UT’s canon (like the close proximity of when the children fell into the underground, despite Toriel in UT saying no human fell into the Ruins for a long time).

The existence of arguable potholes and/or retcons doesn't change the game's plot from being a prequel into something else.

The Star Wars prequels absolutely changed Obi-Wan's statement that the Republic has stood for a thousand generations in the original movie, to a thousand years in Attack of the Clones, yet it's still a prequel series, not an alternate universe.

temp7 said:
The existence of arguable potholes and/or retcons doesn't change the game's plot from being a prequel into something else.

The Star Wars prequels absolutely changed Obi-Wan's statement that the Republic has stood for a thousand generations in the original movie, to a thousand years in Attack of the Clones, yet it's still a prequel series, not an alternate universe.

Attack of the Clones is a prequel because it's an official story set before the events of a previously released story, which included some retcons or inconsistencies. But Undertale Yellow is a fan story and not official, it's not a real prequel and is an alternate/fan take on events prior to the official story.

watsit said:
Attack of the Clones is a prequel because it's an official story set before the events of a previously released story, which included some retcons or inconsistencies. But Undertale Yellow is a fan story and not official, it's not a real prequel and is an alternate/fan take on events prior to the official story.

So by saying that it's a prequel, I'm somehow implying that it's not fanmade? I don't see your logic: it's a fanmade prequel, as it says on it's gamejolt page. It's certainly not an 'alternate take' on events prior to the story, because those events are not firmly established outside of a few background events, most of which are extremely vague.

Saying that it's an AU would be absolutely misleading, as it explicitly takes place in Undertale's world. Nothing at all like Underswap or Underfell, both of which drastically change the world's history and characters.

temp7 said:
So by saying that it's a prequel, I'm somehow implying that it's not fanmade? I don't see your logic: it's a fanmade prequel, as it says on it's gamejolt page. It's certainly not an 'alternate take' on events prior to the story, because those events are not firmly established outside of a few background events, most of which are extremely vague.

Saying "it's a prequel" without qualifiers does give an air of canonicity to it. I'd at least preface it by saying "unofficial prequel" to indicate it's not an official/canon depiction of events.

temp7 said:
Saying that it's an AU would be absolutely misleading, as it explicitly takes place in Undertale's world. Nothing at all like Underswap or Underfell, both of which drastically change the world's history and characters.

It doesn't have to drastically change anything to be considered an alternate universe, it only needs to be an alternate/unofficial take on events. Unless Toby Fox declares the game to be the official or canon depiction of events, it is an alternate take on whatever the canon ends up being. Just because the canon lore is vague and not firm on details doesn't mean an unofficial fanwork that fills in for those unspecified details is an accurate depiction of it. What would you call it if one day Toby filled out the previously-unspecified events and details that are vastly different to what Undertale Yellow came up with? Would that not make UY an Alternate Universe to the canon setting? I don't think it would be accurate to say a fanmade take on events is not an Alternate Universe just because we don't currently know what the canon events are or will be.

temp7 said:
So by saying that it's a prequel, I'm somehow implying that it's not fanmade? I don't see your logic: it's a fanmade prequel, as it says on it's gamejolt page. It's certainly not an 'alternate take' on events prior to the story, because those events are not firmly established outside of a few background events, most of which are extremely vague.

Saying that it's an AU would be absolutely misleading, as it explicitly takes place in Undertale's world. Nothing at all like Underswap or Underfell, both of which drastically change the world's history and characters.

Changes don't need to be drastic for something to be AU. Even one subtle tweak, even if it otherwise adheres to canon plot points, can be enough for something to qualify as an AU.

Take Integrity, for example. When you pick up their items in UT, the only description is that the Tutu was dusty and the shoes made Frisk feel dangerous. In UTY, it assumes that Integrity was dangerously violent to the point of attacking Kanako, which is integral to the plot, especially in the Pacifist route. The game also assumes new areas that aren't alluded to in UT like the Dunes and Steamworks and it changes how Clover/Integrity canonically dies (if you take Toby's tweet about it as canon, that is.)

watsit said:
Saying "it's a prequel" without qualifiers does give an air of canonicity to it. I'd at least preface it by saying "unofficial prequel" to indicate it's not an official/canon depiction of events.

"Fanmade". That's the qualifier you're looking for, and it's on the download page.

watsit said:
It doesn't have to drastically change anything to be considered an alternate universe, it only needs to be an alternate/unofficial take on events. Unless Toby Fox declares the game to be the official or canon depiction of events, it is an alternate take on whatever the canon ends up being.

There is a definitive reason most fan content across all media are NOT called AUs. An AU doesn't just have a few contradictions or retcons: an AU goes out of it's way to deliberately alter the original characters and universe, with the specific goal of creating a vastly different experience than the original product.

Using the given examples: Underswap deliberately changes the places the characters occupy in the narrative, while Underfell changed the characters into "evil" versions of themselves. Both result in a completely different world than Undertale.

Undertale Yellow does not do this. It simply takes place before the events shown in Undertale. In fact, it makes a concerted effort to not change or trample on Undertale's narrative. Whether they succeed or not is a different issue: either way, Undertale Yellow is not an AU.

TL;DR: fanmade =\= AU. Not necessarily.

werideatdawn said:
Take Integrity, for example. When you pick up their items in UT, the only description is that the Tutu was dusty and the shoes made Frisk feel dangerous. In UTY, it assumes that Integrity was dangerously violent to the point of attacking Kanako, which is integral to the plot, especially in the Pacifist route. The game also assumes new areas that aren't alluded to in UT like the Dunes and Steamworks and it changes how Clover/Integrity canonically dies (if you take Toby's tweet about it as canon, that is.)

Integrity did not attack Kanako. Integrity attacked ''the monster Kanako was with'' Said monster (Dalv) explicitly survived, and admitted to attacking first. In any case, we've now entered the realm of arguing plot points and the canonicity of deleted tweets, which is irrelevant to this discussion.

Edit: lots of editing, using smartphone. 😖

werideatdawn said:
Changes don't need to be drastic for something to be AU. Even one subtle tweak, even if it otherwise adheres to canon plot points, can be enough for something to qualify as an AU.

From that very source:

Fanlore Wiki said:
AU fanworks cover a great deal of broadly defined creative territory with many subtropes. Under the broad umbrella of "alternate universe", one can find both fanworks that only diverge from their source canons in a single, specific way (for example, a Star Wars AU in which the first Death Star is not destroyed) and fanworks that have changed things so significantly the characters are almost unrecognizable without their names (which is sometimes when an author will file off the serial numbers).

That's not what Undertale Yellow is doing. This is what Undertale Yellow is doing.

Fanlore Wiki said:
Canon Compliant is a term used to describe a fanfic's relationship to canon. It is applied to fanfics that are not set in an alternate universe, and is usually an indication that the fan writer made an effort to at least not contradict known canon details, plot developments, character back story, etc. However, in practice, canon compliance is more of a sliding scale and less of an absolute in fanfic, except perhaps for Canon Nazis.

temp7 said:
Undertale Yellow does not do this. It simply takes place before the events shown in Undertale. In fact, it makes a concerted effort to not change or trample on Undertale's narrative. Whether they succeed or not is a different issue: either way, Undertale Yellow is not an AU.

Integrity did not attack Kanako. Integrity attacked ''the monster Kanako was with'' Said monster (Dalv) explicitly survived, and admitted to attacking first. In any case, we've now entered the realm of arguing plot points and the canonicity of deleted tweets, which is irrelevant to this discussion.

Edit: lots of editing, using smartphone. 😖

My fault for getting the Kanako part wrong, but I was bringing it up more as an example of the game assuming Integrity's actions. There's apparently other details like Flowey even existing by the time UTY starts and the save file numbers, although the latter is too "in the weeds" for me.

temp7 said:
From that very source:

That's not what Undertale Yellow is doing. This is what Undertale Yellow is doing.

Also from the source:

"Canon AU" has two common definitions:

an AU that originates within the commercial source work itself.
a fanwork AU that diverges relatively narrowly from that of its source work.

Like I said, UTY adds stuff that weren't alluded to in canon and changes the fates of the two characters. Even in the Canon Compliant section you linked, it basically says that it's YMMV on what is/isn't accepted as compliant and can vary even within fandoms. I'd argue that 99% of fanfiction and fan works based in canon universes are inherently AU, even if they're trying to be "compliant" and not advertising themselves as AU. They're making an effort not to contradict the source material, but let's be real, it canonically didn't happen no matter how much people want it to be.

I do think that there should be a "fan game" tag, however.

temp7 said:
From that very source:

Fanlore Wiki said:
AU fanworks cover a great deal of broadly defined creative territory with many subtropes. Under the broad umbrella of "alternate universe", one can find both fanworks that only diverge from their source canons in a single, specific way (for example, a Star Wars AU in which the first Death Star is not destroyed) and fanworks that have changed things so significantly the characters are almost unrecognizable without their names (which is sometimes when an author will file off the serial numbers).

That's not what Undertale Yellow is doing.

Only because it touches on things that haven't been brought up in canon (yet). "fanworks that only diverge from their source canons in a single, specific way". It may be aiming for canon compliance by not contradicting known canon, but it's still making up details that aren't in canon, and is thus divergent from canon. The Elder Scrolls fandom liked doing this often, creating stories and delving into stuff in a "canon compliant" way, only for some official story, expansion, or game later to contradict details of their story (and subsequently complain that Bethesda broke lore, and/or they bent over backwards with CHIM and godhead nonsense to say it could still technically fit despite the contradictions).

watsit said:
Only because it touches on things that haven't been brought up in canon (yet). "fanworks that only diverge from their source canons in a single, specific way". It may be aiming for canon compliance by not contradicting known canon, but it's still making up details that aren't in canon, and is thus divergent from canon. (...)

By that logic, every fan made story is automatically an AU: after all, they all touch on events that aren't directly depicted in the main series. That's simply not how an AU is defined.

The very definition you gave there: "fanworks that only diverge from their source canons in a single, specific way" is explicitly about changing existing events and details: not adding new ones that don't contradict the existing narrative.

Edit: fixed formatting

Ignoring the arguments over whether it's an AU... The vast majority of the images under this tag really shouldn't be tagged with undertale.

post #4665919 post #4546044 post #4481452

^ What, exactly, do these images have to do with Undertale? Just because Undertale Yellow is an Undertale fan game doesn't mean every image of its original characters with no indication of the actual franchise should get the Undertale tag.

werideatdawn said:
My fault for getting the Kanako part wrong, but I was bringing it up more as an example of the game assuming Integrity's actions. There's apparently other details like Flowey even existing by the time UTY starts and the save file numbers, although the latter is too "in the weeds" for me.

(...)

Like I said, UTY adds stuff that weren't alluded to in canon and changes the fates of the two characters. Even in the Canon Compliant section you linked, it basically says that it's YMMV on what is/isn't accepted as compliant and can vary even within fandoms. I'd argue that 99% of fanfiction and fan works based in canon universes are inherently AU, even if they're trying to be "compliant" and not advertising themselves as AU. They're making an effort not to contradict the source material, but let's be real, it canonically didn't happen no matter how much people want it to be.

Like I said before, you're arguing minor plot deviations, and - no offense - it's evident that you don't even know all the plot points you're trying to argue in the first place. This isn't about minor contradictions or retcons.

Trying to find enough minor contradictions in a fangame to de-canonize it comes across to me as pedantic, not to mention pointless: fans can argue minor points in circles forever, and no one believes fanfiction is canon anyway: if that's what you're doing, you're fighting a battle that was won before you began.

Undertale Yellow is a fan-made prequel. Everyone knows fan-made = unofficial. You do not need to go farther by declaring it to be an AU.

werideatdawn said:
I do think that there should be a "fan game" tag, however.

We already identify them as fan characters from a fan game on the wiki pages. No one is going to look at a fanart on this site and start using e621 as a platform to overwrite Undertale's lore.

nimphia said:
Ignoring the arguments over whether it's an AU... The vast majority of the images under this tag really shouldn't be tagged with undertale.

post #4665919 post #4546044 post #4481452

^ What, exactly, do these images have to do with Undertale? Just because Undertale Yellow is an Undertale fan game doesn't mean every image of its original characters with no indication of the actual franchise should get the Undertale tag.

That should probably be addressed in it's own thread. Or simply remove the "Undertale" tags.

temp7 said:
That should probably be addressed in it's own thread. Or simply remove the "Undertale" tags.

I mentioned it here because the original BUR includes an implication to Undertale.

nimphia said:
I mentioned it here because the original BUR includes an implication to Undertale.

Ah, I get you. Also, looking at it, a lot of actual Undertale AUs implicate to Undertale

temp7 said:
By that logic, every fan made story is automatically an AU: after all, they all touch on events that aren't directly depicted in the main series. That's simply not how an AU is defined.

Yes, by nature, they are. Even if a fan story is "compliant," they are, or will, inevitably going to differ from canon in some way, shape, or form. Even if it's something as simple as adding details that weren't present.

temp7 said:
Like I said before, you're arguing minor plot deviations, and - no offense - it's evident that you don't even know all the plot points you're trying to argue in the first place. This isn't about minor contradictions or retcons.

Trying to find enough minor contradictions in a fangame to de-canonize it comes across to me as pedantic, not to mention pointless: fans can argue minor points in circles forever, and no one believes fanfiction is canon anyway: if that's what you're doing, you're fighting a battle that was won before you began.

Undertale Yellow is a fan-made prequel. Everyone knows fan-made = unofficial. You do not need to go farther by declaring it to be an AU.

"De-canonize?" Now you're just badly putting words in my mouth when I was just trying to bring up examples of how UTY is an AU. Pretty funny how you call me pedantic when you're the one griping about how an AU absolutely must be major deviations, no ifs ands or buts, when AUs have a broad usage already. Even the wiki entry has a broad definition and was only added by a random, deactivated user.

Fan creations are by their very nature AUs of the canon material. No matter how much they stick to the canon, fanworks still add details that aren't canon. Even if those details do fit canon, unless the canon acknowledges them, they aren't canon. As they aren't canon, they aren't a part of the canon universe, thus making that fanwork an AU. Even when the fanwork doesn't technically contradict canon.

Unless and until the content creators/copyright holders/official guys making the Undertale series say otherwise (or the fans end up running the asylum, ie. become those official guys saying otherwise), any fan take on the official universe must be an alternate take, that is to say an AU.

One benefit of having the undertale AUs imply undertale is that you can search for the undertale AUs by using undertale alternate_universe. Though I agree that this benefit doesn't outweigh the downside of having non-undertale characters pop up in the search.

clawstripe said:
Fan creations are by their very nature AUs of the canon material. No matter how much they stick to the canon, fanworks still add details that aren't canon. Even if those details do fit canon, unless the canon acknowledges them, they aren't canon. As they aren't canon, they aren't a part of the canon universe, thus making that fanwork an AU. Even when the fanwork doesn't technically contradict canon.

Unless and until the content creators/copyright holders/official guys making the Undertale series say otherwise (or the fans end up running the asylum, ie. become those official guys saying otherwise), any fan take on the official universe must be an alternate take, that is to say an AU.

If fan creation means AU, then by calling anything an AU, we're just being redundant, since it's already known as a fan creation. That also means every single fan creation on this site has to be labeled as an AU.

The bulk update request #7162 is active.

remove implication altertale (59) -> undertale (43377)
remove implication angeltale (13) -> undertale (43377)
remove implication dancetale (4) -> undertale (43377)
remove implication fairytale_(undertale) (1) -> undertale (43377)
remove implication fantasytale (9) -> undertale (43377)
remove implication gztale (1) -> undertale (43377)
remove implication heaventale (1) -> undertale (43377)
remove implication horrortale (67) -> undertale (43377)
remove implication humantale (1) -> undertale (43377)
remove implication katanatale (1) -> undertale (43377)
remove implication littletale (64) -> undertale (43377)
remove implication negatale (1) -> undertale (43377)
remove implication oceantale (3) -> undertale (43377)
remove implication outertale (23) -> undertale (43377)
remove implication reapertale (4) -> undertale (43377)
remove implication storyshift (18) -> undertale (43377)
remove implication underfell (352) -> undertale (43377)
remove implication underkeep (5) -> undertale (43377)

Reason: Unimplying the AUs to undertale
People searching for undertale may not want to see characters unrelated to

EDIT: The bulk update request #7162 (forum #396391) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

The bulk update request #7163 is active.

remove implication undermafia (30) -> undertale (43377)
remove implication underswap (249) -> undertale (43377)
remove implication undynetale (3) -> undertale (43377)
remove implication wartale (1) -> undertale (43377)
remove implication zephyrtale (1) -> undertale (43377)
remove implication underworld_(undertale) (1) -> undertale (43377)
remove implication dreemurr_reborn (73) -> undertale (43377)
remove implication under(her)tail (459) -> undertale (43377)
remove implication joseontale (13) -> undertale (43377)
remove implication apocalypse_au_(undertale) (8) -> undertale (43377)
remove implication poketale (11) -> undertale (43377)

Reason: Part 2

EDIT: The bulk update request #7163 (forum #396392) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

snpthecat said:
People searching for undertale may not want to see characters unrelated to

Should fallout_equestria not imply my_little_pony?

Though I can't help but notice how alternate_universe is only implied by a vast number of Undertale AUs, and nothing from other series that I know exist here (the aforementioned fallout_equestria for one).

watsit said:
Should fallout_equestria not imply my_little_pony?

Though I can't help but notice how alternate_universe is only implied by a vast number of Undertale AUs, and nothing from other series that I know exist here (the aforementioned fallout_equestria for one).

well, it's certainly odd that it implies that but not fallout, at least.

This is no different from fakemon versus pokemon. Keep them apart, except for characters that look near-identical.

Fallout Equestria's implication to MLP should be fine. It is visually recognizable as MLP. Whereas it is rarely visually Fallout, so no implication there — unless the post happens to contain actual Fallout elements on case by case basis. Nobody wants to search for Fallout and get a bunch of random MLP characters instead.

Placing AU versions of the canon characters under the canon tag should be fine too: Toriel is still Toriel regardless of setting, etc.
But completely fanon characters like Martlet do not belong in Undertale, unless there's other elements present that warrant the tag.

As for the existing Undertale AU implications? Most of those seem fine, since it's just the same cast in another universe, instead of entirely new characters who don't look anything like the original. Though there's some that probably shouldn't have been implicated. In AUs with mixed fanon and canon characters, it's best to leave them unimplicated and rely on the existing character implications to properly add the Undertale tag where needed.

I would like to bump this up not for the BUR itself but just because undertale_(series) undertale_yellow could still use cleanup to remove Undertale from posts with visually unrelated fanon characters only, like Martlet and the Ketsukanes.

nimphia said:
I would like to bump this up not for the BUR itself but just because undertale_(series) undertale_yellow could still use cleanup to remove Undertale from posts with visually unrelated fanon characters only, like Martlet and the Ketsukanes.

Interesting that Undertale implicated to a massive amount of AU tags, while Undertale_(series) isn't. I'd expect it to be the other way around.

Also, Undertale automatically implicates Undertale_(series). With how these tags are set up, Undertale Yellow should count, since all those different AUs apparently do.

EDIT: got it backwards.

temp7 said:
Interesting that Undertale implicated to a massive amount of AU tags, while Undertale_(series) isn't. I'd expect it to be the other way around.

Also, Undertale automatically implicates Undertale_(series). With how these tags are set up, Undertale Yellow should count, since all those different AUs apparently do.

EDIT: got it backwards.

Those AUs imply Undertale because they use Undertale characters. Toriel is Toriel regardless. But Clover and the Ketsukanes, for example, aren't from Undertale.

It's the same reason we don't tag posts with only Snoot Game-specific characters as Goodbye Volcano High.

nimphia said:
Those AUs imply Undertale because they use Undertale characters. Toriel is Toriel regardless. But Clover and the Ketsukanes, for example, aren't from Undertale.

It's the same reason we don't tag posts with only Snoot Game-specific characters as Goodbye Volcano High.

Then it should implicate characters, not entire AUs. AUs often have different characters in them that aren't from the original game.

temp7 said:
Then it should implicate characters, not entire AUs. AUs often have different characters in them that aren't from the original game.

I'm not arguing against that, TBH, I'd agree with you in that regard.

The bulk update request #7162 (forum #396391) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

The bulk update request #7163 (forum #396392) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

Sense this is clearly not popular with must people, I made this.

The tag implication #64953 undertale_yellow -> undertale_(series) has been rejected.

I thought this would allow people to vote on it. I have no idea how people embedd burs in burs.

snpthecat said:
The bulk update request #7162 is active.

remove implication altertale (59) -> undertale (43377)
remove implication angeltale (13) -> undertale (43377)
remove implication dancetale (4) -> undertale (43377)
remove implication fairytale_(undertale) (1) -> undertale (43377)
remove implication fantasytale (9) -> undertale (43377)
remove implication gztale (1) -> undertale (43377)
remove implication heaventale (1) -> undertale (43377)
remove implication horrortale (67) -> undertale (43377)
remove implication humantale (1) -> undertale (43377)
remove implication katanatale (1) -> undertale (43377)
remove implication littletale (64) -> undertale (43377)
remove implication negatale (1) -> undertale (43377)
remove implication oceantale (3) -> undertale (43377)
remove implication outertale (23) -> undertale (43377)
remove implication reapertale (4) -> undertale (43377)
remove implication storyshift (18) -> undertale (43377)
remove implication underfell (352) -> undertale (43377)
remove implication underkeep (5) -> undertale (43377)

Reason: Unimplying the AUs to undertale
People searching for undertale may not want to see characters unrelated to

EDIT: The bulk update request #7162 (forum #396391) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

I've seen you do this many times. How do I do this? I am using mobile.

1eyed-rosd said:
I've seen you do this many times. How do I do this? I am using mobile.

If you go to the Request a BUR page, you can fill it in as normal, then add this forum topic number (41877) to the Forum Topic field to add it as a post in this thread.

quenir said:
If you go to the Request a BUR page, you can fill it in as normal, then add this forum topic number (41877) to the Forum Topic field to add it as a post in this thread.

So that's what that's for. Thank you very much.

1eyed-rosd said:
So that's what that's for. Thank you very much.

If you putting the BUR into an existing thread, you don't need to fill in the Title either.