Talk:Chucklefish

Witchbrook
Just noting that some of the sources that reported on it used "Witchbrook" (1, 2), so due to that inconsistency, I think that it probably should be moved per MOS:TM, which states to "choose the style that most closely resembles standard English – regardless of the preference of the trademark owner". ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Checking with their official channels, it also seems to be low-capped. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 20:10, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Wayward Tide listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wayward Tide. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk) 17:44, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Unpaid allegations
Shouldn't the recent allegations of unpaid employees be mentioned in the article? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:03, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , I believe they were contributors for Starbound specifically -- not employees. It should probably be mentioned in some form here but has the most relevance on Starbound. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 20:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Right, but they were still subject of the allegations. Employees being contracted or fulltime doesn't really change anything, in my opinion. At least, a single sentence or two could be added, with the more in depth details going on Starbound's article. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:03, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds adequate. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 21:28, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This article overall could use some sort of history section, even as a stub. Right now it's just a list of games they have developed/published. I'll get around to it eventually if you or somebody else doesn't. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The current framing leads readers to believe this occurred in 2019, not several years earlier as reports have stated. InkOfBean (talk) 10:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Previously published games/platforms
I stated that adding notes for "former platforms" was uncommon since the status quo on pretty much every article was to list all platforms that a publisher was originally responsible for. Vice versa, game article list all publishers that were originally responsible for each platform. It is not irregular for a publishing contract (be it for a single platform or all of a game) to run out without the developer extending it. I went through Chucklefish's other releases and it appears that it was also dropped as publisher by Interstellaria (January 2019) and Treasure Adventure World (October 2020). No secondary source reported on this, obviously. Any idea of how we should represent this in the table? IceWelder &#91; &#9993; &#93; 20:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , publishers eventually stop publishing games yes, but allowing another group/person to take over while the game is still active is rare. We should mention the fact they only publish the mobile versions (and have for a while) somewhere in this article, footnote or not. For games that they no longer publish at all on any platform, we can make another table or simply remove them. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 20:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Since the table documents all games the company published originally, just removing games should absolutely not be an option. I feel the same way about Stardew Valley's platforms; Chucklefish published (past tense) all of them. That they no longer publish most of them is ultimately not something we would want to maintain (and need to cite in any case). IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 21:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)