Talk:EarthBound Halloween Hack

Requested move 17 December 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. All opposed and the oppositions use the necessary policies (WP:COMMONNAME) to prove appropriate opposition. (closed by non-admin page mover) – LuniZunie_(talk) 00:35, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

---

EarthBound Halloween Hack → Radiation's Halloween HackRadiation's Halloween Hack

The official title for the thing is Radiation's Halloween Hack, per Toby Fox, while it was called the Radiation Halloween Hack on its initial release on starmen.net. It is the author's title for it, and books and magazines, albeit one from China, also use it.

The EarthBound Halloween Hack title seems to be an unofficial one. Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:15, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Personally i think per WP:COMMONNAME there are more articles calling it the "earthbound halloween hack" than any other names:

• https://nichegamer.com/reviews/undertale-review/
• https://www.svg.com/273335/retro-games-you-should-play-if-you-loved-undertale/
• https://www.gamesradar.com/games/rpg/17-years-after-it-was-released-im-tracing-undertale-and-deltarunes-origins-back-to-toby-foxs-spooky-earthbound-mod/
• https://retrododo.com/best-rom-hacks/
• https://www.dexerto.com/gaming/undertale-creator-references-infamous-game-theory-in-farewell-to-matpat-2468658/ (this one might not be reliable though)

Htmlelephant123 (talk) 00:25, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

SVG and Niche aren't reliable there either. And I'll be honest I think the GamesRadar article is more calling it Halloween Hack, with Earthbound being the game it was done for. Retrododo's not even being consistent here as it has a colon in the title. It's a bit of a mess to try and apply COMMONNAME to this one. Citogenesis due to the wikia may also be a factor to consider.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:30, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

what makes you say those aren't reliable? i'd also argue that the gamesradar+ article is just calling it the halloween hack for short Htmlelephant123 (talk) 00:47, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Discussions on WP:VG/S, if you check both are listed as unreliable, while RetroDodo I believe should be listed as reliable soon according to the talk page.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:55, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose It's not about official names, but common names. "EarthBound Halloween Hack" seems like a fairly common name for it, and if we're renaming it to "Radiation Halloween Hack" it will start another debate about Radiation vs. Radiation's. In order to not open up a can of worms, it should likely remain at the status quo. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:11, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

• Note - I added the titles to the template above to ensure clarity and hopefully get this out of the malformed section. ASUKITE 19:47, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Orphan tag

The article was originally accepted by the AfC reviewer with the orphan tag. Since the tag was later removed without any content improvements, I restored it once to reflect the accepted version. As the AfC reviewer has now commented and removed the tag, the final decision and responsibility remain with them. -- Vodnir (talk) 15:01, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Vodnir, the orphan tag is just placed on any articles that aren't linked to from any others. This one is, so the tag is inappropriate...it's somewhat unique among maintenance tags that no content improvements are needed, merely a link from at least one other article; it's not some sort of dire situation to wash your hands of. This is a really odd statement to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:47, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Deacon Vorbis, I hope you are doing well,

I restored the tag only to respect the AfC reviewer’s original decision. The submitter later removed it without content improvements, so I restored it once, then undid my edit after the reviewer objected. The final decision and responsibility remain with the AfC reviewer. This follows WP:Orphan and principles of WP:AGF, assuming good faith and avoiding unnecessary edit conflicts. Best, -- Vodnir (talk) 18:10, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:EarthBound Halloween Hack/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: 1timeuse75 (talk · contribs) 14:45, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Mir Novov (talk · contribs) 17:08, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I intend to start this review within a week.  novov talk edits 17:08, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Multiple sections

• The article seems to have no major edit wars or disputes, so no problems in that regard.
• The majority of sources appear to refer to the game in the definitive, so it should probably be written that way, i.e. The EarthBound Halloween Hack.
  •  Done
• The prose in the lead and reception makes it sound like the reviews were contemporaneous to the game's release, but they aren't, since the game was not notable until Fox later gained fame with Undertale. For the latter, something like Retrospectively, the EarthBound Halloween Hack has been subject to mixed reception by journalists... is a better way to portray it.
  •  Done
• Although the copyvio detector returns a low score of 21.9%, there's a few phrases that are too close to the sources my liking; the low score despite this seems to be due to their short length (use Cmd/Ctrl-F to find these in the article).

• EarthBound Halloween Hack plays much the same as in the original EarthBound
• new enemies including tentacle-faced dogs, reanimated Starmen corpses and zombies
• the assumption that his actions during... killed his son Jeff and his friends
• place in an alternate timeline several months after the end of EarthBound, where Ness
  •  Done

Lead

• Gameplay takes much of the same is not grammatically correct.
  •  Done
• EarthBound Halloween Hack has been described as a prototype of Fox's 2015 game, Undertale, featuring similarities in themes and writing is too strong a claim given that the Hardcore Gamer review only says it is almost a prototype, and that is just one review. I'd just say something like The EarthBound Halloween Hack features similarities in themes and writing to Fox's later game Undertale.
  •  Done
• His early work included using RPG Maker with his three brothers to create role-playing games is useful background in the development section but not really directly connected enough to the topic of the article to go in the lead. Remember that the lead is supposed to only summarize the most important points of the article.
  •  Done
• Again, the fact that "Megalovania" spawned various memes and remixes to the degree of being named its own subgenre on YouTube may be worth noting in the Legacy section of the article, but isn't really relevant enough for the lead, given the remixes etc. weren't due to its usage in the Halloween Hack. It is enough to say it later became popular.
  •  Done

Gameplay and plot

• featuring many traditional role-playing game elements is not supported by the cited Hardcore Gamer review.
  •  Done
• visuals has a darker tone is grammatically incorrect.
  •  Done
• I personally think the image of the SNES control pad is somewhat extraneous. It doesn't really illustrate any relevant aspect of the gameplay; yes, the B button is relevant enough to appear in the alternate title, but its appearance and position as specifically shown by this image is hardly particularly noteworthy (criterion 6b). However this is very much my personal opinion so if you think it's relevant I'm open to hearing that argument.
  •  Done, I originally added the image after seeing a similar example in this article. You can tell with the very similarly worded image captions. No need for an argument, I’ve removed image.

• More detail on what distinguishes the Halloween Hack tonally from conventional Earthbound would be ideal; it seems like that is an important aspect which is not really covered that much (criterion 3a). The GamesRadar+ article could be used to source another sentence or two on this, though be careful not to describe anything subjective as concrete fact.
  • Uhh, can you give me an example of how I can give more detail?
    • Looking at the source again, there's not really a whole lot can that can be added that you haven't included, sorry for saying otherwise. It is disappointing that there is not more in-depth sourcing about the Halloween Hack though.
• is hired by ex-mayor B. H. Pirkle. Hired to do what? If it is to enter the lab, that isn't made clear.
  •  Done
• soon enters the lab the "soon" is unnecessary and sounds kinda unprofessional; every event presumably happens shortly after that mentioned beforehand unless otherwise stated.
  •  Done
• To those that have not played Earthbound, it isn't clear what Magicant is.
  •  Done
    • The GamesRadar source seems to imply this is Andonuts' subconscious, not the player's one. Unless they are wrong, the wording should probably reflect that.
      •  Done, one of these days, I'll learn how to read.
• Are there any important plot events in between pressing the B button and the final boss battle?
  • Not really anything plot-wise. There is a boss you fight between the events; however, it’s not mentioned in any of the sources, so it’s probably not that important.

Development

• Although Total Apex Entertainment is not listed at WP:VG/S, it does not seem like a particularly reliable source to me. I cannot seem to find any editorial policy, and it appears to cover a vast array of heterogenous topics with little rhyme or reason, seemingly to maximise SEO. What I can find about the site elsewhere on the Internet seems to confirm that suspicion: . I think it was erroneous that Toby Fox passed GA while including this, especially as everything within that article should be easily citable elsewhere.
  •  Done, also thanks for replacing the source in the Toby Fox article!

Reception

• Why is some of the prose in the present tense? That seems incorrect to me as reviewers' opinions are not guaranteed to stay the same after they write the review.
  •  Done
    • You missed some, but I've fixed them.
• mechanics as more "difficult than the original game" is grammatically incorrect.
  •  Done
• There's not really any evidence presented for any journalist praising its mechanics, let alone multiple that would be required for it to be in the summary sentence like that. Neither GamesRadar, Bloody Disgusting or Hardcore Gaming 101 seem to back up this claim.
  •  Done
• However, all of these mention the game's difficulty, which IMO deserves more mention than just the one quote. Although less important here given the low amount of coverage, often it's a good idea to consider common elements across reviews and try to link them together, i.e. the combat paragraph in In Stars and Time § Reception, to toot my own horn.
  • I've added a section about the game's difficulty is that good enough?
    • I would say that's good.
• EarthBound Halloween Hack's writing was divided among critics is also grammatically incorrect; it implies that the prose itself is being doled out in chunks to the critics, as opposed to their opinions being divided.
  •  Done

Legacy

• The Deltarune ROM hack isn't really related to the topic of the article aside from it being a ROM hack associated with Toby Fox. It should be omitted.
  •  Done

Overall

There are quite a few issues that prevent this from reaching GA level. However, I feel they are fixable within the standard 7-day timespan.  novov talk edits 08:58, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

@Mir Novov Okay, I think I've addressed almost everything. I’m awaiting any comments! 1timeuse75 (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Should be mostly good now; there is just one comment left for you to address. I also think it's worth pointing out that even in the revised version there were still quite a few grammar mistakes and some imprecise wording — I've went ahead and fixed this, but it is probably a good area to work on for future articles, especially as GA reviews are quite variable.  novov talk edits 09:02, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Comment addressed. As for my grammar, I presume it’s something that will slowly improve over time. I mean, take a look at this article section from eight months ago before the copyedit pass, it’s embarrassing. Anyway, congrats on your second successful GA review! 1timeuse75 (talk) 12:00, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

All done, good work.  novov talk edits 16:19, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Toby Fox described the development of his 2008 ROM hack as excavating ancient ruins made of crumbly graham crackers while your hands are made of atom bombs?

• Source: http://radiation.fobby.net/halloween/

• • ALT1: ... that the only way to access the second half of Toby Fox's 2008 ROM hack is to do as the title says and Press the B Button? Source: https://www.gamesradar.com/games/rpg/17-years-after-it-was-released-im-tracing-undertale-and-deltarunes-origins-back-to-toby-foxs-spooky-earthbound-mod/
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Solon Barnett

Improved to Good Article status by 1timeuse75 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 6 past nominations.

1timeuse75 (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2026 (UTC).

• 1timeuse75 I really how the first one is structured. Would you prefer ALT or ALT1 if you had to choose one? - RTSthestardust (talk) 21:52, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

• RTSthestardust I think you missed a word. Personally, I'm leaning on ALT0.
  • 1timeuse75 Okay, I'll fully agree on ALT0. - RTSthestardust (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: RTSthestardust

Note: this was approved by RTSthestardust at 01:03, 10 May 2026. I have reopened it today as it was closed in error. TSventon (talk) 22:35, 21 May 2026 (UTC)