User Talk: IceWelder

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

{{Archive box|
: Archive 1 — 2015 ↗
: Archive 2 — 2016 ↗
: Archive 3 — 2017 ↗
: Archive 4 — 2018 ↗
: Archive 5 — 2019 ↗
: Archive 6 — 2020 ↗
: Archive 7 — 2021 ↗
: Archive 8 — 2022 ↗
: Archive 9 — 2023 ↗
: Archive 10 — 2024 ↗
: Archive 11 — 2025 ↗
: Archive 12 — 2026 ↗
}}

Your nomination of Serious Sam II ↗ is under review

Your good article nomination ↗ of the article Serious Sam II ↗ is 20px|alt=|link= ↗ '''under review'''. See '''Talk:Serious Sam II/GA2{{!}}the review page ↗''' for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have.  Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Nub098765 -- Nub098765 (talk) 00:34, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of Serious Sam II ↗ is on hold

Your good article nomination ↗ of the article Serious Sam II ↗ has been placed 20px|alt=|link= ↗ '''on hold''', as the article needs some changes. See '''Talk:Serious Sam II/GA2{{!}}the review page ↗''' for more information. If these are addressed within 7 days, the nomination will pass; otherwise, it may fail.  Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Nub098765 -- Nub098765 (talk) 08:34, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of Serious Sam II ↗ has passed

Your good article nomination ↗ of the article Serious Sam II ↗ has 20px|alt=|link= ↗ '''passed'''; congratulations! See '''Talk:Serious Sam II/GA2{{!}}the review page ↗''' for more information. If the article is eligible to appear ↗ in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it ↗ within the next seven days. Please also consider reviewing ↗ somebody else's nomination to help keep the backlog down.  Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Nub098765 -- Nub098765 (talk) 23:34, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Question

Hi! :) I found this Start magazine article on Wayne Gretzky Hockey. https://web.archive.org/web/20020920213100/https://www.atarimagazines.com/startv4n11/gretzkey.html ↗

I think this bit means Doug Carpenter ↗ was involved in the original like the sequel?

"Weaver also is grateful to Doug Carpenter, who currently coaches the Toronto Maple Leafs. Carpenter led a team of three NHL coaches who rated the skills of real-life hockey players So that they could be programmed into Wayne Gretzky Hockey." Timur9008 (talk) 16:14, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

:I'd interpret it that way as well, since the review appears to talk about the Atari ST port. IceWelder [✉] 16:42, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi IceWelder. Thank you for your work on Daniel Žižka ↗. Another editor, Mariamnei, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol ↗ and left the following comment:

{{Bq|1=Nice start!}}

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{code|<nowiki>{{Re|</nowiki>Mariamnei<nowiki>}}</nowiki>}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation ↗ tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Mariamnei (talk) 06:38, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

DYK for Serious Sam II

{{ivmbox
|image = Updated DYK query.svg
|imagesize=40px
|image class=skin-invert
|text = On 3 April 2026 ↗, '''Did you know ↗''' was updated with a fact from the article '''''Serious Sam II ↗''''', which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ''... that the publisher of '''''Serious Sam II ↗''''' petitioned ''Guinness World Records ↗'' to recognise it for the most enemies simultaneously displayed in a video game?'' The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Serious Sam II ↗. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Serious Sam II ↗), and the hook may be added to the statistics page ↗ after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it ↗.
}} '''Hurricane''''''Zeta'''C ↗ 12:03, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Sources for MacHome Journal

Hi! :) Do you see any more sources for MacHome Journal ↗? (brought this up on the main talk page but received no reply)

This is all I found.

https://web.archive.org/web/20000816093159/http://www.marketingcomputers.com/news/9709/04_04.asp

https://web.archive.org/web/20210621020512/https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1998-08-10-1998222070-story.html

https://www.newspapers.com/article/edmonton-journal/190772965/

https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-philadelphia-inquirer/190773130/

https://www.newspapers.com/article/anchorage-daily-news/190773619/

Timur9008 (talk) 06:55, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

:Sourcing seems scarce here. I could only find
:* https://www.macworld.com/article/153067/bigbadjim.html
:* https://www.cnet.com/tech/computing/mac-home-journal-web-site-additions/
:* https://web.archive.org/web/20260428210905/https://www.courant.com/1997/10/18/bulldogs-bite-back-for-macs/
:but nothing of any real substance. Sorry! IceWelder [✉] 21:12, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
::Thanks for checking! :) Timur9008 (talk) 15:37, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

New pages patrol May 2026 Backlog drive

{| style="border: 2px solid #36c; border-radius: 4px; background: linear-gradient(to right, #ffffff, #eaf3ff); padding: 10px; color: #000;"
| style="vertical-align: middle; font-size: 130%" | May 2026 Backlog Drive ↗ | '''New pages patrol ↗''' 
| rowspan=3 | right|100px ↗
|-
|

On 1 May 2026, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.

Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled.

Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.

Each review will earn 1 point.

Interested in taking part? '''Sign up here ↗'''.

|-
|colspan=2 style="font-size:85%; padding-top:15px;"|You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. ↗
|}
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:23, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of Volition (company) ↗ is on hold

Your good article nomination ↗ of the article Volition (company) ↗ has been placed 20px|alt=|link= ↗ '''on hold''', as the article needs some changes. See '''Talk:Volition (company)/GA1{{!}}the review page ↗''' for more information. If these are addressed within 7 days, the nomination will pass; otherwise, it may fail.  Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of PresN -- PresN (talk) 20:26, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Canadian Toy Testing Council logo

Hi! :) Can you add the logo for Canadian Toy Testing Council ↗? And do you think article can be considered start class. Timur9008 (talk) 16:32, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

:I'm not on my home PC at the moment, perhaps you can have a stab it! For your second question, see WP:STUBLENGTH ↗ (tl;dr >300 words = likely not a stub). IceWelder [✉] 19:02, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of Volition (company) ↗ has passed

Your good article nomination ↗ of the article Volition (company) ↗ has 20px|alt=|link= ↗ '''passed'''; congratulations! See '''Talk:Volition (company)/GA1{{!}}the review page ↗''' for more information. If the article is eligible to appear ↗ in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it ↗ within the next seven days. Please also consider reviewing ↗ somebody else's nomination to help keep the backlog down.  Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of PresN -- PresN (talk) 13:26, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

New Page Patrol Newsletter - May 2026

<div style="border:2px solid #90C0FF; background:#F0F0FF; width:99%; padding:4px">

Hello {{BASEPAGENAME}},

thumb|400px|New Page Review queue November 2025 - May 2026 ↗

'''Backlog update'''

At the time of this message, there are 15,282 articles and 32,951 redirects awaiting review.

After the January–February drive the article backlog was reduced to 15,179 articles and the redirect backlog to 19,053 respectively. Great job! However, both queues are growing rapidly and any additional reviews are highly appreciated.

'''2024 and 2025 NPP Awards'''

74px|left ↗{{no ping|JTtheOG}} was selected as the NPP reviewer of the year for both 2024 and 2025, for reviewing the most articles amongst all reviewers.
{{no ping|Hey man im josh}} and {{no ping|MPGuy2824}} won the Redirect Ninja Master Award for 2024 and 2025 respectively, for reviewing the most redirects.

Overall in 2024, one Platinum, two Gold, eight Silver, 12 Bronze and 45 Iron Barnstars were awarded. Additionally, 66 reviewers got the NPP barnstar for doing more than 100 reviews through the year. In 2025, one Platinum, ten Silver, 13 Bronze and 38 Iron Barnstars were awarded. Additionally, 38 reviewers got the NPP barnstar for doing more than 100 reviews through the year.

{{no ping|BoyTheKingCanDance}}, {{no ping|Rosiestep}}, {{no ping|SunDawn}}, and {{no ping|Vanderwaalforces}} were inducted into the NPP Hall of Fame ↗ for having two separate years of 2,000+ article reviews.

'''January–February backlog drive'''

The experimental two-month long backlog drive concluded with 183 reviewers patrolling over 27,761 articles and 35,309 redirects, earning over 36,836 points. Congratulations to {{no ping|JTtheOG}}, who achieved first place with 6,484.6 points in this drive.

'''May backlog drive'''

An article-only backlog drive is currently underway. We are hoping to make a big dent in the backlog. You can read more about it or join at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/May 2026 ↗.

'''PageTriage'''

An attempt was made to get the New Pages Feed ↗ to sort by date marked as reviewed instead of date created. However we had to revert it due to bugs. We may try again in the future. You can subscribe to the Phabricator ticket ↗ if you're interested in following along.

{{refbegin}}
'''Reminders:'''

You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord ↗.

Consider adding the project discussion page ↗ to your watchlist.

To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here ↗.

{{refend}}
</div>

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:37, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of Typhoon Studios ↗ is on hold

Your good article nomination ↗ of the article Typhoon Studios ↗ has been placed 20px|alt=|link= ↗ '''on hold''', as the article needs some changes. See '''Talk:Typhoon Studios/GA1{{!}}the review page ↗''' for more information. If these are addressed within 7 days, the nomination will pass; otherwise, it may fail.  Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of PresN -- PresN (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of Typhoon Studios ↗ has passed

Your good article nomination ↗ of the article Typhoon Studios ↗ has 20px|alt=|link= ↗ '''passed'''; congratulations! See '''Talk:Typhoon Studios/GA1{{!}}the review page ↗''' for more information. If the article is eligible to appear ↗ in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it ↗ within the next seven days. Please also consider reviewing ↗ somebody else's nomination to help keep the backlog down.  Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of PresN -- PresN (talk) 17:05, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Free Lives.jpg

35px|text-top|left|⚠|link= ↗ Thanks for uploading ''':File:Free Lives.jpg ↗'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use ↗. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media ↗).

Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion ↗. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:26, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

June 2026 GAN Backlog Drive

{| style="border: 5px solid #ABCDEF ; background-color: #FFF; padding:10px 15px 0; color: black"
|style="padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em; font-size:130%" |'''Good article nominations ↗ |''' June 2026 Backlog Drive
|rowspan=3|right|75px ↗
|-
|'''June 2026 Backlog Drive:'''
Do you want to become more experienced in the GA process?

On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin.

Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles reviewed.

Mentors are available, and new reviewers (<6 reviews) get bonus points!

Interested in taking part? You can '''sign up here ↗'''.
|-
|colspan=2|'''Other ways to participate:'''

Join the conversations on our talk page ↗.

|-
|colspan=2 style="font-size:85%; padding-top:15px;"|You're receiving this message because you have participated in a good article review this year or participated in the previous backlog drive.
|}

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Fixes to Penn & Teller's Smoke and Mirrors

Since you found my citation for Gary Stockdale as composer to be an unreliable wiki, I used the game manual as citation instead. You mention that the manual is not accurate; however it was already being used 4 other places in the article; so if it's not reliable then you'll need to remove all 5 places.

Or maybe it's better to insert "[better reference needed]"?

You also mentioned that the manual omits mention of Schofield; however, no citation for Schofield was ever given. So I noted that Schofield is mentioned in one of the other citations already used, and re-used it for him. Dr.bobbs (talk) 20:38, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

:I argued that the credits in the manual are potentially unreliable because they are incomplete, and I think that's a problem. The rest of the manual describes the game's state as shipped to reviewers; it's not the best source but definitely sufficient for what it cites (simple gameplay info). To add unsourced information is never a good practice, with or without a tag, especially on an existing GA/FA article. That said, your edits still added unsourced details around the exact involvement of Stockdale; the manual only says "Composer". Schofield was already sourced with the very next citation after his mention. IceWelder [✉] 20:48, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Volition (company)

26x26px ↗ Hello! Your submission of Volition (company) ↗ at the Did You Know nominations page ↗ has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at '''your nomination's entry ↗''' and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!  -- Zoo'''Blazer''' 06:04, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Typhoon Studios

25px ↗ Hello! Your submission of Typhoon Studios ↗ at the Did You Know nominations page ↗ has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at '''your nomination's entry ↗''' and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:28, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Ubisoft/Gameloft

Hello,I am open to discussing the sources regarding the relationship between Gameloft and Ubisoft, but I must remind you that if you remove this content again, you may be violating Wikipedia's rules against edit warring (after three reverts against another contributor).Please start a discussion on the talk page and see whether other editors share your view or mine. So far, I have listened to your concerns, strengthened the sourcing, and I am willing to improve it further if necessary.Just because you are unfamiliar with the subject matter (which is quite apparent) does not mean you can dismiss it as false, especially when the information is explicitly stated in the sources and is factually verifiable.The separation of two companies after nearly 20 years of collaboration and dozens of co-published games is a significant event, particularly given that they were sister companies founded by the same person. As such, it deserves coverage on both the Ubisoft page and the Gameloft page. Royge 12 (talk) 17:38, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

:It is true that Gameloft and Ubisoft separated, but no source seems to describe this as a world-changing event. The sourced you added either talk about how Ubisoft did not want to be bought by Vivendi, others how Gameloft released certain games completely unrelated to Ubisoft. You did not add one source that supported to core statement of the content you added. Moreover, your content went on to mention certain games that may be notable on their own but have nothing to do with Ubisoft. They are mentioned without any kind of context except as a demonstration of Gameloft being successful. Ubisoft was not impacted by these releases. That is nothing we need in an article about a different company. IceWelder [✉] 17:44, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
::What I’m saying is fully supported by sources, and of course Ubisoft was impacted by this collaboration (and I'll prove it with sources), since they had to replace Gameloft for their mobile games. These sources show Ubisoft's reaction in investing heavily in mobile, or in creating partnerships with other studios instead of Gameloft for mobile :
::https://www.pocketgamer.biz/ubisoft-announces-assassins-creed-rebellion/
::https://www.gamespot.com/articles/ubisoft-makes-major-move-in-mobile-with-2048-devel/1100-6443985/ ↗
::https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2016/09/27/1785493/0/en/ubisoft-entertainment-ubisoft-acquires-mobile-publisher-ketchapp.html ↗
::https://news.ubisoft.com/en-au/article/2xWaMgJcJBXYmGEFqi8XeY/ubisoft-acquires-mobile-game-studio-kolibri-games
::https://www.pocketgamer.biz/ubisoft-soft-launches-hungry-dragon/
::In summary: Ubisoft and Gameloft worked closely on mobile adaptations of Ubisoft franchises.
::Gameloft developed numerous titles such as Assassin’s Creed, Prince of Persia, and Splinter Cell, resulting in dozens of mobile games over a period of roughly 15 years.Following Vivendi’s acquisition of Gameloft, Ubisoft quickly increased its direct involvement in mobile game development and publishing in order to reduce its reliance on Gameloft (and conversely, Gameloft began developing its own PC and console projects without going through Ubisoft).
::in reality, this topic deserves far more than a single paragraph. Ubisoft’s Wikipedia coverage largely overlooks the company’s mobile strategy and presence between 2005 and the present, despite the existence of dozens of Ubisoft–Gameloft mobile titles and a substantial number of Ubisoft’s own mobile releases since around 2016. This represents a significant part of Ubisoft’s history that warrants much more extensive coverage. Royge 12 (talk) 19:04, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
:::{{talkquote|Ubisoft and Gameloft worked closely on mobile adaptations of Ubisoft franchises.}}
:::This is correct.
:::{{talkquote|These sources show Ubisoft's reaction in investing heavily in mobile}}
:::Except that ''none'' of the source given mention Gameloft in any way. That's not to say that two dedicated studios, Ubisoft Barcelona Mobile and Ubisoft Paris Mobile, were established in 2013, before Vivendi even came into the picture.
:::{{talkquote|and conversely, Gameloft began developing its own PC and console projects}}
:::This would be true if we ignored that Gameloft had been publishing console games for years prior to it being acquired, including ''TV Show King ↗'' (2008), ''TV Show King Party ↗'' (2008), ''Earthworm Jim HD ↗'' (2010), ''Modern Combat: Domination ↗'' (2011), and ''Dungeon Hunter: Alliance ↗'' (2011). These are cherrypicked, sure, but it would be untrue to say that Gameloft ''began'' working on console games ''because'' it separated from Ubisoft. This isn't support by any given source either.
:::The major problem here is that you came to conclusions yourself and, irrespective of their correctness, tried to source it with arbitrary mobile-related sources that do not actually confirm your conclusions. That's classic original research ↗ and just should not be in any article. IceWelder [✉] 19:26, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
::::Dungeon Hunter: Alliance was published by Ubisoft, not by Gameloft. Here are sources showing that Gameloft later expanded massively into PC and console development; in 2025, half of Gameloft’s revenue comes from PC and console games. However, you are right, I was not precise enough. But you will agree, I think, that the core point remains valid: it is legitimate to discuss the Gameloft–Ubisoft relationship on Ubisoft’s page, given how significant this collaboration is (and this is not a personal interpretation, we are talking about dozens and dozens of games over 15 years, including some of Ubisoft’s most important franchises as shown above).
::::However, at the moment, there is NO mention of Ubisoft’s presence on mobile during the 2005–2015 period. I suggest that we agree together on a more appropriate way to present this topic. Royge 12 (talk) 19:54, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::https://www.vivendi.com/nos-actifs/gameloft/
:::::https://www.lefigaro.fr/medias/jeux-video-gameloft-reussit-son-virage-vers-la-console-20221103
:::::https://www.gamekult.com/actualite/avec-son-premier-studio-francais-gameloft-confirme-son-interet-pour-les-jeux-consoles-et-pc-3050849257.html Royge 12 (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::The links are only meant to support my previous message.
::::::We could consider adding a section on the evolution of Ubisoft’s presence in mobile gaming, starting with its early reliance on Gameloft to adapt its games (often by significantly reworking them, for example Gameloft creating 2D versions of Assassin’s Creed based on 3D titles), then moving to a later phase where Ubisoft began developing its own mobile games internally and no longer relied on Gameloft. Alternatively, this could be integrated as two or three separate paragraphs distributed within the History section, or do you have another possible approach in mind ? Royge 12 (talk) 20:00, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::I do not even doubt that Gameloft expanded in the console/PC space in recent years, but no sources say that the Ubisoft split was the driving factor, so we should not be saying anything in that direction. Describing the two companies' relation wouldn't be a problem, of course, but it would necessarily be built on top of sources that describe it, not the other way around. IceWelder [✉] 20:04, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::If this is acceptable, I would suggest structuring the content into two paragraphs based strictly on what the sources show.
:::::::The first paragraph would state that, in the context of mobile gaming, many Ubisoft titles were adapted or ported to mobile by Gameloft, with several notable examples (Prince of Persia HD ↗, Assassin's Creed II ↗, Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood ↗, Assassin's Creed: Revelations ↗, Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Shadow Vanguard ↗, The Aventure of Tintin ↗, ect). It would also mention that Ubisoft published a small number of Gameloft titles on PC and consoles (Dungeons Hunter Alliances ↗, Prince of Persia Classic ↗ )
:::::::The second, much shorter paragraph would explain that Ubisoft ceased its collaboration with Gameloft following Gameloft’s acquisition by Vivendi, while continuing to maintain a presence in the mobile gaming market through internal development, acquisitions, and investments, as shown by the sources discussed above. (And No mention such as Asphalt or Disney Dreamlight Valley would be included, as they are not relevant to the scope of the Ubisoft page.
:::::::I am open to any suggestions or adjustments to reach a suitable final version. Royge 12 (talk) 20:22, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::Concretely, this would make it possible to show that Ubisoft was heavily present on mobile from the very early days of the platform (Gameloft was the world’s number one mobile publisher starting in 2007 and for several years afterward, so Ubisoft’s licenses had massive visibility on mobile), especially since these games were 2D remakes (for Java ↗), so it wasn't just a simple port but a real part of Ubisoft's history Royge 12 (talk) 20:33, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::Source leader mobile from 2007, official Gameloft press release to the stock exchange (at the time):https://www.numerama.com/pop-culture/6081-le-francais-gameloft-numero-1-mondial-du-jeu-sur-mobile.htmlRoyge 12 (talk) 20:38, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::Hello, I'm following up with you, do you agree with the above proposal? Royge 12 (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::We can mention Ubisoft's direct involvement with Gameloft and the the effects of their partnership if and only if sources talk about that precisely in that manner. For example, why would we mention that Gameloft described itself as the market leader if this had absolutely no effect on Ubisoft? The source doesn't mention Ubisoft either apart from having formerly owned Gameloft. Another user has raised similar concerns on the Ubisoft article talk page. Perhaps it's best to continue the drafting there to have a wider forum. IceWelder [✉] 14:55, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Acclaim

This has already been written by others here before, but the so-called “Wikipedia moderators” keep insisting on their own interpretation of things. Are you being paid by these people or something? The people currently using the PlayAcclaim brand are not a company. There are no trademark registrations for this name on WIPO or EUIPO. They are making news everywhere by essentially “buying coverage” and claiming they purchased the Acclaim brand, but all rights to this brand actually passed to Playdom when it acquired Acclaim Games. In platforms like Wikipedia, referencing such sources and presenting them as reliable is disgraceful. You can buy backlinks and SEO-based publicity on almost any site, but the sources being used here are not verified or reliable. Roventur45 (talk) 21:43, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

:According to USPTO, all but one trademark around the old Acclaim are expired. Playdom has been defunct for 10 years anyway. The only trademark that remains, apparently registered in 2015, was transferred from CollectorVision to Moxio, Inc. in 2025 and then to Acclaim, Inc. (same address as Moxio, Inc.) in 2026.https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/search/trademark/abstract%3FserialNumber%3D86794747 ↗ "PlayAcclaim" may not be a registered trademark, but it's not used as one as far as I can see. The coverage in the article can be improved, sure, but where actually is the problem? That the CollectorVision "acquisition" was apparently not a financial transaction? Whether this tracks legally is not really ours to judge. IceWelder [✉] 22:05, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
::The issue isn’t that rebranding happens in the gaming industry — it does all the time. The problem is that presenting this kind of activity as if it were a verified, established fact on a corporate platform like Wikipedia is misleading and inappropriate.
::For example, if I were to register a domain under the name “Westwood Studios” and open a publisher account on Steam, and then add that as a reference on the Wikipedia page for that company, would that be accepted as a legitimate source? Of course not. That’s exactly the problem we are raising here. Roventur45 (talk) 22:10, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
:::The section on the new company contains references to GameSpot, Shacknews, Game Developer, VGC, and Nintendo Life, all considered reliable per WP:VG/S ↗. They reported that a new company using an old name exists, so the section does just that. If the company is notable enough to be covered by several reliable outlets (even if not quite enough for a separate article), mentioning it on the original entity's article seems logical. It's not claimed to be a (legal) successor, just a new company that reused an old trademark. Acclaim Games did the same, albeit with a different trademark registration, back in 2006. IceWelder [✉] 22:22, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Empire Interactive / Airtight Games

Why are you changing the pages and making modifications on your own without informing us?

https://uk.linkedin.com/company/empireinteractive

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/empireinteractive_we-are-looking-for-a-game-developer-for-our-activity-7467002445299113984-TPgm

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/empireinteractive_today-we-are-excited-to-introduce-simoria-activity-7472825322002878464-QDek Dearttg (talk) 23:07, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

:I do not know how to add references. If I provide the sources, could you please add the references for me? Dearttg (talk) 23:08, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
::Merely opening up a LinkedIn page doesn't qualify for any kind of recognition. The timing of your edits makes this appear as a clear hoax. IceWelder [✉] 23:16, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
:::The company page has over 10,000 followers and has posted a job listing for Simoria. In the job description, they explicitly state that the game was developed by Airtight Games. Choosing to ignore a corporate platform like LinkedIn and instead relying on paid articles from obscure gaming blogs as references is quite ridiculous, sir. Dearttg (talk) 23:20, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
::::LinkedIn is not a reliable source, with or without 10,000 bought followers. Mainstream media publications are. IceWelder [✉] 23:23, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::I only made the correction because I saw the job posting, and I don't agree with your view.
:::::The news articles on mainstream sites that you trust are often written by ordinary editors, and nowadays it's a well-known fact that outlets like IGN, GameSpot, and GameDeveloper publish sponsored articles for payment. If your assumption were correct, buying news coverage wouldn't be difficult at all. Dearttg (talk) 23:43, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::The company’s primary domain, empireinteractive.com, has been registered since 1999. In addition, the .net version of the domain was also an older domain owned and used by Empire. This can be verified through historical records available in the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine, which contains archived snapshots of the website over the years. Dearttg (talk) 23:44, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

DYK for Volition (company)

{{ivmbox
|image = Updated DYK query.svg
|imagesize=40px
|image class=skin-invert
|text = On 24 June 2026 ↗, '''Did you know ↗''' was updated with a fact from the article '''''Volition (company) ↗''''', which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ''... that the video game developer '''Volition ↗''' was named after a lexical definition?'' The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Volition (company) ↗. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Volition (company) ↗), and the hook may be added to the statistics page ↗ after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it ↗.
}} Cielquiparle (talk) 00:03, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

DYK for Typhoon Studios

{{ivmbox
|image = Updated DYK query.svg
|imagesize=40px
|image class=skin-invert
|text = On 2 July 2026 ↗, '''Did you know ↗''' was updated with a fact from the article '''''Typhoon Studios ↗''''', which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ''... that the closure of '''Typhoon Studios ↗''' left its game on Google's platform with a game-breaking bug?'' The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Typhoon Studios ↗. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Typhoon Studios ↗), and the hook may be added to the statistics page ↗ after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it ↗.
}} ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:03, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Empire Interactive

https://empireinteractive.com I think you should at least take down the domain; it occasionally redirects to betting and scam sites. The domain isn't currently pointing to its intended destination. ~2026-37732-38 ↗ (talk) 17:48, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Empire Interactive and The 3DO Company

Hello,
I believe the 2026 section under the Empire Interactive and The 3DO Company article should be reviewed and rewritten to better reflect a neutral and objective point of view.
As it currently stands, the wording appears one-sided and does not accurately represent the situation as documented by available sources. The individual mentioned in the article legally reacquired the Empire Interactive and The 3DO Companytrademarks, rebranded the companies, established a new corporate entity, and is widely recognized within the industry and by available sources as the legitimate legal owner of those trademarks. Despite this, the article repeatedly uses language such as "claimed," which implies uncertainty where there appears to be none regarding ownership of those specific trademarks.
At the same time, the article presents Throwback 3DO as though it were the sole legitimate rights holder, while multiple sources indicate that there are competing claims involving different rights and assets. Statements made by Throwback and Mr. Josh are presented as established facts rather than as the positions of one of the parties involved in an ongoing dispute.
Furthermore, the article suggests that the project was abandoned because the individual backed away from or feared legal action. However, the available information indicates that the project was suspended because multiple parties asserted rights relating to the 3DO brand, software catalog, and console-related intellectual property. Presenting this as a unilateral retreat does not accurately reflect the complexity of the legal situation.
It is also important to distinguish between The 3DO Company and 3DO. These are not the same subject. Ownership of The 3DO Companytrademark appears to be well established and generally undisputed, whereas the disputes concern the 3DO brand, game rights, and console-related intellectual property. This important distinction is not clearly made in the current article. Even Wikipedia treats The 3DO Company and 3DO as separate topics with separate articles.
Finally, I also believe that Mr. Jodh comments have been presented in a way that changes their original meaning. As I understand it, he did not state that the ownership was definitively illegitimate. Rather, he expressed the view that there are unresolved legal issues and competing claims that remain open to dispute. However, the article conveys this as though he explicitly stated that the ownership was "not legitimate," which is a significantly stronger and materially different assertion. If his comments are included, they should accurately reflect what he actually said and should be clearly attributed as his opinion rather than presented as an established fact.
For these reasons, I respectfully request that the 2026 section be reviewed against the available reliable sources and rewritten in a more balanced, neutral, and objective manner in accordance with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. Where different parties have expressed competing positions, those positions should be attributed accordingly rather than presented as established facts. ~2026-38190-37 ↗ (talk) 15:14, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

:The wording currently heavily borrows from the existing coverage in reliable secondary sources, which do present it with high degree of uncertainty, not least because of the conflicting claims made within mere days. The statements from Throwback Entertainment and Josh Fairhurst are included under the resepctive attribution because they're given the same weight in the referenced articles. Fairhurst's statement in particular is a direct quote from:
:{{talkquote|I have talked to the owner of the 3DO trademark, and he has not sold or transferred those rights. Additionally, I know many of the owners of The 3DO Company's more iconic software titles and none of those rights has changed hands either. (...) I'm currently of the opinion that this is not legitimate or will be highly contested, at the very least.}}
:The inclusion of a quick summary was necessitated by the constant spam to both articles, even though involved persons should not have been editing here in the first place. As a side note, please review our COI guidelines ↗. For the discussion aspect only, it would be wise to address a grander forum, such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games ↗, to obtain a wider range of opinions. IceWelder [✉] 09:23, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
::Hello. I understand your point, but there are several inconsistencies regarding Throwback's claims.
::While Throwback has stated that it owns all the rights and has never sold any of them, new information has emerged over the past two days that appears to contradict those statements.
::In reality, the 3DO trademark had been inactive since 2010. After the trademark rights expired, Piko Interactive filed a new application in 2020 and obtained rights only for console manufacturing and hardware-related categories.
::In addition, after Empire Interactive brought renewed attention to the 3DO situation, it became apparent that Throwback Entertainment did not have an existing trademark registration for the 3DO name. Instead, Throwback filed its first trademark applications on June 2, 2026, and there was no previous registration under Throwback's name in the trademark database. Furthermore, another company, Prism Entertainment Inc., also filed a new application for the 3DO trademark on June 30, 2026.
::These facts appear to conflict with Throwback's public statements. Throwback Entertainment and Limited Run Games have also worked together for years, so it is difficult to view Josh's comments as coming from a completely independent perspective.
::Another important detail is that Throwback declared 2024 as its first commercial use of the 3DO trademark. This does not appear to demonstrate continuous trademark ownership or use dating back to the original era of the brand.
::Although retro gaming news websites did not report these later developments, I have been following this story closely. Based on the available information, I do not believe the coverage has been fully objective or balanced, as it has largely reflected only one side of the story.
::Trademark registrations for the 3DO brand covering the last 30 years: https://www.trademarkelite.com/trademark/trademark-registration/search.aspx?sw=3DO&hline=&light=1
::In 2020, Pico Interactive registered the brand from scratch, acquiring it solely for console production: https://www.trademarkelite.com/trademark/trademark-detail/87408482/3DO
::When 3DO came back into the spotlight, Prism Entertainment Inc.—a company unrelated to the events—filed an application on June 30th in an attempt to acquire the brand: https://www.trademarkelite.com/trademark/trademark-detail/99913865/3DO
::As for Throwback Entertainment, it filed its initial trademark applications on June 2, 2026, and declared 2024 as the date of first use:
::https://www.trademarkelite.com/trademark/trademark-detail/99920168/3DO
::https://www.trademarkelite.com/trademark/trademark-detail/99920175/3DO Vord45 (talk) 17:57, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
:::Wikipedia aggregates information from reliable sources, not make its own conclusions. I can view these registrations and verify that Throwback Entertainment indeed has a "3DO" trademark, in both word and image, whereas Empire Interactive does not. However, I cannot judge, without employing original research ↗, how these trademark registrations interact or whether any agreements are active behind the scenes. It is not my place to judge whether Josh Fairhurst and Throwback Entertainment collude either. Again, the wording is largely based on the reporting from three separate outlets, with ''Time Extension'' obviously weighed the heighest because it was in contact with all involved parties. Should there be more reporting the issue in reliable sources, that reporting could be worked into the articles. IceWelder [✉] 18:19, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
::::Hello, yes, there does seem to be a situation here. At the moment, Throwback Entertainment does not officially own the rights to the 3DO trademark. Their trademark application was filed on June 2, but according to the current timeline, it is not expected to be approved until at least 2027.
::::In addition, before Throwback filed its application, Prism Entertainment Inc. submitted its own 3DO trademark application in the same category on June 30. Because of this, it's possible that Prism will ultimately secure the trademark registrations in the United States.
::::This situation likely arose because Throwback withdrew from the Empire project. Going forward, the dispute may end up being primarily between Throwback and Prism.
::::Since trademark registrations and intellectual property rights vary from country to country, and trademark protection is territorial rather than worldwide, it's difficult to draw firm conclusions based solely on these public records. After all, we don't know what agreements or legal arrangements exist behind the scenes.
::::For example, even though many Electronic Arts studios have been shut down, you often cannot register their trademarks yourself. Even if some trademark registrations expire, EA still continues to use those studio names and logos in its games. Because of that, I think what ultimately matters is not just the trademark registration itself, but who legally owns the underlying rights on paper.
::::Empire Interactive has already stated that it acquired The 3DO Company (the game company, not the 3DO console platform). At the moment, it seems to be following a business model somewhat similar to THQ Nordic's. The key difference is that, instead of acquiring the intellectual property (IP) rights to games, it is only acquiring the trademarks and logos of defunct game companies on paper. It's hard to say what their long-term plans are with these assets. We may see more of these kinds of acquisitions and trademark-related moves involving classic game companies in the future. Vord45 (talk) 18:31, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::Again, it is not for me or anyone here to decide what timeline is right or wrong based solely on dates on trademark registrations, irrespective of any unregistered trademark ↗s. All a layman can see is four active trademarks, of which none by the claiming entity (be it "The 3DO Company" or just "3DO"). If there is a high degree of uncertainty to the situation, and sources report it as such, it only makes sense to report it in the same way here. IceWelder [✉] 18:48, 6 July 2026 (UTC)