Talk:Undertale Yellow

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by the indie task force.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Jackpot World (0 participants)
Bejeweled Stars (5 participants)
Melee (game terminology) (2 participants)
Solo leveling: Unlimited (3 participants; relisted)
Godzilla 2: War of the Monsters (4 participants; relisted)
Godzilla: Monster of Monsters (4 participants; relisted)
Araya (video game) (3 participants; relisted)
Chao (Sonic the Hedgehog) (8 participants; relisted)
Crazy Bus (11 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Copyright disputes

Are the copyright disputes involving Materia Music Publishing and its CEO against gameplay videos of Undertale Yellow notable? 74.75.27.58 (talk) 00:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I saw the same YouTube video you did, and unless it's covered by a reliable, independent source (which does not include WP:UGC from YouTube), then yes. If it's just the video, however, then no. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 00:27, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

@24.225.11.240: I won't remove the banner again because I don't plan on doing anything to this article again, as I believe it's already gone way past what I attempted to do (make an article on a fan-game that isn't pure cruft). However, I want to make it clear that this article does infact narrowly meets the WP:GNG guidelines, and a general recommendation (though definitely not a policy, since it's an essay) requires WP:THREE sources of discussion.

Reliable sources from WP:VG/S that discussed this game include PCGamesN, Kotaku (pre-ai), GameStar, and Igromania. Furthermore, while not an entire article on it, it also got two paragraphs of decent coverage from RPS. Furthermore, I think merging this article into the main Undertale article is a bad idea as the two, while connected obviously , are separate things.

With that being said, this article is already a clusterfuck of cruft that doesn't follow any sort of guidelines on what an encyclopedic article should be and it definitely needs to be rewritten. I tried to make sure this article would avoid that, but oh well, I'll just let the fanbase run its course. Enough of that though, that's besides the point. λ NegativeMP1 08:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article still doesn't meet WP:GNG, though? The article has had a much-needed cleanup, but the subject of the articl itself is still not really generally notable? Per WP:NSUSTAINED, the articles need to be more than just "this is a fan project that has released" which kind of disqualifies the sources mentioned. The phrase "around 350,000 downloads" from the article points to the project not being notable enough for its own article. - 24.225.11.240 (talk) 03:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sale numbers have nothing to do with notability, and more coverage happened since I first made this post due to the soundtrack controversy. There's also more than "this is a fan project that has released" because of that. I would also argue SUSTAINED is met narrowly since some coverage of it existed as early as 2018 (see the sources I list below in "Moving to mainspace"). If you disagree, you can nominate the article for deletion, but I personally think notability is met with decent coverage over a few years. λ NegativeMP1 03:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the pretty much the reason why Wikipedia doesn't have games like Sun Haven (video game), Dinkum (video game), Gorilla Tag, Supermarket Simulator Even though these games are more popular than Fae Farm and Roots of Pacha. In fact, I tried to make Sun Haven but despite its popularity, little to none sources reliable in WP:VG/S or should I say, reliable sources. Same can be said for other games because they have little or no professional reviews from Metacritic. I am taking a pause from it until at least it gets onto the Switch. In fact, I can only find a reliable source pcgamesn.com review for Sun Haven. In short, I consider these games to be reliable but Wikipedia says otherwise.

I even had a conversation with NinjaRobotPirate about it saying that it is very odd to see games with as little as ~1000 Steam reviews having a wp page and Supermarket Simulator (with ~20k steam reviews and ~30k active concurrent players at time of writing) not having one.

Another thing is that it is common for many YouTubers to not have a Wikipedia. For example, https://www.youtube.com/@CharlieBarley (a Stardew Valley/cosy game YouTuber) and https://www.youtube.com/@JackSucksAtLife both do not have a Wikipedia. They have 240k and 4,41m subs respectively although Jack has a bunch of other channels. There is an article about Charlie Barley, but is not about the Charlie Barley (YouTuber).

In short, being popular does not mean something will end up in wp. JuniperChill (talk) 19:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that something just barely "narrowly" meeting criteria in one editor's eyes is a strong point in favor of the article? It's perfectly fine to like the subject matter, but outside of the Undertale fan scene it's an unknown. That's not to say that it's bad! To name a few highly popular older projects from the fandoms I follow, I LOVE Sonic Megamix and Super Demo World: The Legend Continues, but neither one belongs on Wikipedia. - 24.225.11.240 (talk) 06:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add [1] as a more recent coverage of the game, aside from the ones NegativeMP1 mentioned.

I'm not seeing what kind of criteria isn't met here, though. You have seven independent sources covering the topic in 2018, 2022, 2023 and 2024. The example mentioned above had one source, and the example you're talking about has about two that I can find that aren't passing mentions. I'm not sure what kind of notability are you expecting. Do you have any examples of articles with an equal amount of coverage that have been deleted?

KockaAdmiralac (talk) 10:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia image policy weirdness

This talkpage requests that appropriate identifying art and screenshots are added to the article. The identifying art and screenshot were already added several days ago, but were removed in #1192963526 due to WP:NFCC#9, and the relevant images are now subject to deletion until January 10. What are editors to this draft supposed to do now? Is there an exemption procedure for this? KockaAdmiralac (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The talkpage request does not override Wikipedia legal policy. Editors should add free images to the draft if available and appropriate; otherwise, they should wait until it is moved to mainspace. jlwoodwa (talk) 06:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to mainspace

I think the subject clearly meets WP:GNG and should be moved to mainspace. Thoughts? Skyshiftertalk 20:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the original creator of this article, I agree that it can probably be moved back into mainspace even if a reception section would be fairly short. The subject is notable by a slight margin I would argue, with these sources demonstrating that: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. The main reason I brought it up to possibly be moved to draftspace a while back was because WP:GAMECRUFT bombed the fuck out of this article, now I think the game has died down enough to get its article back. λ NegativeMP1 04:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]