Talk:FitGirl Repacks

Move to FitGirl Repacks
During recent AfD discussion at Articles_for_deletion/FitGirl multiple people suggested to move FitGirl to FitGirl Repacks. Since AfD closed with Keep, we can now discuss this move.

I'm inviting participants in AfD discussion to vote on the move here:, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Than you for your time.Anton.bersh (talk) 09:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I was the first to suggest that move, I support it. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 09:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If it's going to be moved to FitGirl Repacks, it needs to be rewritten so that it's about the blog of that name: so, 'FitGirl Repacks is a website...' As far as I'm aware, there isn't an organisation/business called 'FitGirl Repacks' that we could reasonably describe as a 'distributor'. Rather, there's a person who goes by the online pseudonym 'FitGirl', who runs a blog called FitGirl Repacks. If the article is going to be about this person, FitGirl is the right title; if it's about the blog, FitGirl Repacks is better. There's not much about the website in these sources, but one could probably write an acceptable stub about it. Girth Summit  (blether)  10:36, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course I'll clarify this right after the move. Anton.bersh (talk) 17:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * fine by me either way. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 17:55, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with the move and having the wording tweaked. Oaktree b (talk) 22:50, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Since it has been 3 days since proposal and no one objected, I'll carry out the move now. Anton.bersh (talk) 16:46, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Please do not add impersonation social media accounts
Please do not add links to Twitter account called fitgirl_repacks because it is most likely an impersonation account. Because:
 * 1. fitgirl-repacks.site is an official site and is supported by two sources (official site is in the links).


 * 2. fitgirl-repacks.site front page has a "Special note about impostors" which states:
 * This site, fitgirl-repacks.site is THE ONLY official site of my repacks. Every single FG repack installer has a link inside, which leads here.
 * ALL other "mirrors" (...) are fakes, made to infect you with malware, show you tons of ads and get your money as donations. Don’t fall for them during your google sessions, just bookmark (CTRL+D) this site and come here directly.
 * 3. The contact page of fitgirl-repacks.site lists multiple accounts on forums operated by that project and none of them are on Twitter
 * 4. The Twitter account in question seemingly exists only to advertise links to an unofficial mirror.

Based on this information, I believe this article should not include links to Twitter accounts operated by "impostors", as FitGirl describes them. Anton.bersh (talk) 07:21, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Courtesy ping for . Anton.bersh (talk) 07:30, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Recent edits
Hi, IP and SenorMcChum, I reverted a number of edits without substantial edit summaries you authored. Here are the reasons for this revert:
 * - article claimed that project was "founded in 2012". Where does this info come from? The domain Whois record indicates domain was registered in 2016. Since this appears to be the original domain used from the very start, this might be considered the "foundation" date. One source stated that 2012 might have been the year project founder created the first archive for personal use, but that can hardly be considered a repack.
 * - lead contained broken sentences.
 * - "Website" section contained no sources, no third-party commentary and overall seemed more like a product pitch than an encyclopedia article.
 * - There was a screenshot of the site, which I removed because it did not seem to provide any useful commentary about the subject. In other words, it did not add anything to the article. If you steel believe it might be useful, feel free to add it back. Please also at least try to incorporate it into the article somehow.

Anton.bersh (talk) 17:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

About the link
In many countries piracy is illegal, and putting a link about a website created solely for pirating can have very different consequences. I request a deletion of the link in the infobox. FizzoXD (talk) 04:23, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTCENSORED applies here, simply visiting this site is not illegal either. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 04:26, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for the assurance. FizzoXD (talk) 04:33, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Is Fitgirl not an individual?
This page seems to imply that the Fitgirl page is ran by a group, but there has been interviews with ‘Fitgirl’ and social media posts by ‘Fitgirl’ and such that imply a female individual is behind it. I couldn’t find any information on a team or group running Fitgirl Repacks, and the Fitgirl Reddit account has denied that there is a group. https://www.reddit.com/r/CrackWatch/comments/aiua85/mass_effect_2_digital_deluxe_edition_v102_dlc/eeqwqqo/

I know these are not reliable sources and don’t fall under the Wikipedia guidelines, but I think the wording should be changed considering there’s no evidence that it is ran by multiple people either. Parzival2101 (talk) 17:44, 23 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Looking into the edit history, the History section initially used the singular they pronoun for FitGirl, which someone "helpfully" edited at a later date for clarity and legibility to "the group", presumably mistaking it for the plural they and thus referring to a group.
 * Checking the source link for the section, I'm going to change it to she, as that's the pronoun used in the article, which was an interview with FitGirl, and presumably is in line with her preferences. Hedge89 (talk) 17:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Self-published information reliability
Given the criminal nature of the site and its owner, should we take at face value claims such as the country of origin without corroborating sources? I know people are usually against using "claims" in articles but I feel it would be appropriate here, given again the inherent deception required to operate a site such as this. XeCyranium (talk) 03:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Top ten lists
Do top ten lists compiled by a blog really meet standards of notability for the lead? Well that's a rhetorical question, obviously I think they don't but I'd love to hear other editors weigh in on why they do. user:Waxworker XeCyranium (talk) 02:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)


 * - Torrentfreak is a reliable source per WP:RSP - I think the articles noting Fitgirl as one of the most popular torrent sites are worth keeping. The rankings are based on traffic metrics rather than the opinion of the author, which I think sets them apart from 'top ten x' churnalism lists that impart no real information. Waxworker (talk) 00:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Merge into Video game piracy?
Good sources here but more about "repacking" games then about the piracy website. IgelRM (talk) 16:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support - I still personally don't think the page is standalone notable, but if it is not removed it should definitely be merged into a more fitting page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - WP:NOTMERGE#3. -- Wiki Linuz  ( talk ) 18:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * My comment here was low effort, but I had questioned if it is possible to write an article using these sources on the website with reader value. I don't think NOTMERGE#3 ("even if short") applies because there is not sufficient encyclopedic information. The lead appears mostly about the concept of "repacking" and trivia like top 10 lists and a mascot. The History section in biography style doesn't appear to pass WP:BIO and may be summed up in one sentence. IgelRM (talk) 23:02, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Article meets WP:GNG, agreed that WP:NOTMERGE #3 applies here. Waxworker (talk) 21:45, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not trying to again debate GNG, replied above about not NOTMERGE#3. IgelRM (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Waxworker. Urbanracer34 (talk) 21:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)