Talk:A Hat in Time

Contested deletion
This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... (your reason here) --84.106.16.31 (talk) 09:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC) It is an upcomming game by popular game designers. The game itself is already popular. Would any article about an upcoming game be unambiguously promotional?

Contested deletion
This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... it has been mentioned by several notable video game press websites 1 2 3 4 5, and has garnered the attention of renowned video game composer Grant Kirkhope (link). In its current state A Hat in Time has achieved a notable status due to the significant press coverage of the game from reliable sources, thus making its existence on Wikipedia necessary.

It could be re-written so as not to include the fact that the Kickstarter is still on-going, thus not enabling the reader to become aware of the fact that they could donate to it if they wanted to. The intent of the article is not to promote the game but simply inform the reader of its existence, which is the case for hundreds of upcoming video games that are to be released in the future. 1 2 --Chiefmartinez (talk) 15:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Deleting Tweets
The article cites the A Hat in Time official twitter account in a few places, but they seem to have a habit of deleting old tweets, so some of these links are now broken. I don't know if it's possible to recover any of these lost tweets with internet archiving magic, but we should try to archive the ones that haven't been deleted yet and/or replace tweets with secondary sources (if they are available). CurlyWi (talk) 21:46, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * They should have all been replaced with third-party sources anyway, this is just an example of why social media/first-party sources should only be used as a last resort for citing. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:48, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've replaced the ones that were replaceable, but for sales information, the tweets are all we have. Low profile indie games like this one don't usually get RS articles talking about how well they've sold. CurlyWi (talk) 06:21, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Right, in that case, social media would be the only usable option. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:24, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Jontron's comments
I'm not really sure the info about Jontron belongs at all, but if we're going to include it, we should do a proper job of it.

The consensus on Talk:Yooka-Laylee has been to use simple language and describes Jontron's comments as racist. His comments supported the blatantly racist, and false, white genocide conspiracy theory, and he also claimed that wealthy black people are more criminal than poor white people. This were, in simple language, racist things to say.

"Controversial" doesn't explain what the problem was, and also implies that there was a dispute about his comments (a controversion, or debate to get pedantic). Yes, it's a controversy, but that's not enough information. No reliable sources I've seen debate the substance of what he said. The controversy is not whether or not he said these things, nor is it even whether or not those things were offensive. Everyone seems to more or less agree that they were. The controversy was figuring out what should've happened afterward. "Racially suggestive" is in some ways worse, since it is a euphemism that implies that he may or may not have even been correct. He was not correct, and Wikipedia doesn't subtly condone fringe white nationalist conspiracy theories like this. It doesn't matter whether or not he knew this was a white nationalist theory, because it was wrong and racist regardless of where he picked it up.

As an encyclopedia, we should provide this information in direct terms. Wikipedia works to reflect reliable sources, and many reliable sources, including the one used to mention him here in this article, simply describe his comments as racist. We should therefore follow the consensus from Talk:Yooka-Laylee, and simply describe his statements as racist. We should not say that he is a racist, we should follow sources and explain why his role in this game is controversial. Again, if we're even going to bother at all, that is. Grayfell (talk) 07:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't even see why we have to mention his controversy from another entirely separate game here. I also vote to get rid of the entire section, maybe just keep the sentence about him doing a voice in the game. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 09:58, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

"Your contract has expired" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Your contract has expired and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 9 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Motion sickness
Are any of these sources WP:RELIABLE enough to add that some critics experienced symptoms of motion sickness?

--2001:1C06:19CA:D600:94A3:EA1F:E089:3B87 (talk) 07:33, 28 May 2023 (UTC)