Talk:Balatro

Wiki Education assignment: Intro to Technical Writing

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 October 2024 and 23 October 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Grpera16 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Grpera16 (talk) 21:27, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

The meaning and origin of the name 'Balatro' should be included.

Here In ancient Rome, a balatro (/ˈbɑːlɑːtroʊ/ BAH-lah-troh) was a professional jester or buffoon.[4] Balatrones were paid for their jests, and the tables of the wealthy were generally open to them for the sake of the amusement they afforded.[5 Kaukênteo (talk) 12:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

WP is not a dictionary, it is only sufficient to point out that LocalThunk chose a word related to jesters for the game. Masem (t) 12:58, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 23 January 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: page moved. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:07, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

---

Balatro (video game) → Balatro – There is a possibility this is primary topic versus the term Balatro, by pageviews (although the pageviews are an uneven comparison, the game dwarfs the pageviews for the page Jester.) Since the other item at Balatro is just a redirect for a non-english term for the better-recognized "Jester", I feel the game may occupy the primary topic, but as usual, I am not 100% certain and would like to seek input instead. We could delete Balatro and leave a hatnote at the top directing readers to Jester ASUKITE 16:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Middle Ages, WikiProject Comedy, and WikiProject Video games have been notified of this discussion. ASUKITE 16:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support. I find the rationale compelling, especially since the term is a redirect to Jester. The fact that the disambig page is 10x the view count of jester itself says a lot. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 17:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support Generally I don't like to see popular contemporary works displace more historical /academic terms, but the Roman meaning here is sufficiently obscure thst the rename and hat note would be reasonable. Masem (t) 17:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support You have a point that WP:USEENGLISH is compelling here. Since "Balatro" simply means "jester" in English, unless there is a massive difference, the video game is what the word most likely refers to in English. Obviously, a hatnote should be there pointing to jester. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support per above (with a hatnote for the other article). This is definitely the primary topic. Minikiwigeek2 (talk) 20:09, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support per above. Definitely primary topic and widely known Lankyant (talk) 00:18, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support as the Roman Balatro does not have its own page, therefore Balatro the game is a unique page and doesn't require disambiguation except with a line at the top of the game article saying "For the Roman profession, see "Balatro (Jester)", or words to that effect. gbrading (ταlκ) 15:50, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support as Google Trends data strongly suggests that this is the primary topic. There are very distinct search spikes after the game's announcement and release; usage is negligible prior to both.

Anerdw (talk) 19:27, 27 January 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.

Official Timeline of the production released

Local Thunk released the full timeline of the production of Balatro.I think it is a useful source, especially for the "Production" section.

https://localthunk.com/blog/balatro-timeline-3aarh Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 22:53, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

See the refideas, and there has been lots of third party RSes that have commented on the timeline. I plan to try to add it in over weekend. Masem (t) 23:07, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Have you added this yet? I Forgot Tbh (talk) 04:44, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

"Local" is Lua, not Löve.

The current version of the article contains the following excerpt:

"Balatro was programmed in Lua with the Löve game framework. LocalThunk's pseudonym derives from Löve's way of declaring variables, "Local", and a common variable name in his partner's projects, "Thunk"."

This lists a source to an interview by the GQ magazine, which contains the following excerpt:

"Where does the pseudonym come from?

A few years ago my partner was learning this statistical language called R, and she was asking me about variable names. She said, ‘Hey, how do you name your variables?’ I have a computer science degree and I started oversharing. She interrupted me and was like, ‘I like to call my variables Thunk.’ And I thought that was just the funniest thing. The language I wrote the game in is called Löve, and the way you declare a variable in Löve is with the word ‘Local’. So, LocalThunk. It’s in my code in some places as well."

Here, LocalThunk is seen deliberately oversimplifying a concept; "Löve" is not a programing language, its a framework for Lua. The "local" syntax is part of Lua, and is therefore also used in Löve, and it is responsible for declaring that a variable is local as opposed to a default global variable. LocalThunk did not explain this in the aforementioned interview because none of it mattered as for the reason behind the pseudonym, but I do believe this misconception should not also be mentioned in this article. My attempt to rectify this error was reverted, so rather than beginning an edit war, i figured it was more prudent to post it here and have the concept debated. I'm new to all this wiki thing. ThaNook (talk) 01:13, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

This is all original research, from the stance of where LocalThunk pulled the name. It may be 100% true that its really from Lua, but the sources don't represent it like that, so we should not be inserting our expertise to make this a different claim. Masem (t) 01:24, 18 April 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:Balatro/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Lankyant (talk · contribs) 22:25, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Tarlby (talk · contribs) 16:35, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Tarlby

I am quick-failing this as a drive-by nomination. @User:Lankyant is ranked 7th by authorship and has written less than 10% of the article without posting a notice on the talk page. Per WP:GAN/I#N1, I can immediately fail this. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 16:35, 25 April 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.

Headers

@Masem The rest of your removals are fair but it looks quite messy to me without headers, maybe we could replace Tarot and Spectral cards and Planet cards with just one Consumable cards header? actualcreature (talk) 13:55, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

When you only have one paragraph for each header, that's likely a good sign you don't need the headers (see MOS:OVERSECTION). We're already getting into too much detail on the gameplay section Masem (t) 14:15, 1 June 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:Balatro/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Lankyant (talk · contribs) 17:41, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Monathephantom (talk · contribs) 02:32, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, grammar, and understandability): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   c:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

Hello! This is my first time reviewing a GA nom! I'll begin reviewing it now. Monathephantom (talk) 02:32, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

Passes. Every nonfree image has been tagged with a vaild nonfree rationale, and one is completely free on Wikimedia Commons. Monathephantom (talk) 02:40, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

It is stable

Passes, Aside from a tiny edit war in March, this article is stable. No merge or any other templates found. Monathephantom (talk) 02:48, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

It follows the neutral point of view policy

Reviewed the article, and it feels pretty unbiased and neutral, so pass. Monathephantom (talk) 03:00, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

It is reasonably well written.

Passes as well! Everything follows MoS, and it is a very well written article. Monathephantom (talk) 11:11, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

It is broad in its coverage.

Everything, including the gameplay and reception is elaborated on very well, so this passes. Monathephantom (talk) 11:15, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

Lets do this one by one; Everything in this article is backed up by reliable sources, and I couldnt find any original research or copyvios and plagarism wheen using Earwig's Copyvio Detector, and i don't have any issues with this part of the article, everything is verified very well. So, pass. Monathephantom (talk) 11:27, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

GA Review

In general, Balatro passes. Lankyant, good job with this one article! Monathephantom (talk) 11:27, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Suggestions

Usually on Wikipedia, it's common for video game articles to start with "X is a {Year} {Genre} video game", so i think changing the lead to "Balatro is a 2024 poker-themed roguelike deck-building game.." and adding the year would be better and more consistent with the other articles. Monathephantom (talk) 02:53, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not putting this in the actual review as it isnt big enough for me to fail the ga or put it on hold. But i think this would just make it more consistent with video game articles Monathephantom (talk) 02:55, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Done Lankyant (talk) 07:42, 6 June 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

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. Track your hook after promotion. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected, closed by Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:02, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the mobile version of the 2024 video game Balatro was predicted to reduce humankind's activity by 25%?

• Source:

• • ALT1: ... that the 2024 video game Balatro is possibly the most addictive thing ever created? Source:
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Lynn Arnold
  • Comment:

Improved to Good Article status by Lankyant (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 8 past nominations.

Lankyant (talk) 22:13, 6 June 2026 (UTC).

• General eligibility:
• New enough:
• Long enough:
• Other problems:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
• Other problems:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting: - n
• Other problems: - n

QPQ: Done.

Overall: @Lankyant: Article was promoted to GA status today and QPQ is met. A brief look over the article shows no major issues. However, I cannot approve either of the hooks. The first one is a line from Charlie Brooker, a screenwriter and not a research, so it would be misleading. The second one is not too interesting. I would offer a new hook for you, but reviewers can't do that. The development section does have several sentences that would work as great hooks. Jon698 (talk) 04:42, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Jon698 + The article shouldn't be promoted to GA since it was reviewed poorly and the article does not look good in shape. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 08:05, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

@Boneless Pizza!: Thanks for catching that. The user who reviewed this article basically auto-approved it and only has around 200 edits too. Jon698 (talk) 08:10, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

• Placing on hold pending the outcome of this article's GA reassessment. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:08, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
• GAR was closed as delist; marking for closure Zzz plant (talk) 02:00, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

References

GA Reassessment

Balatro

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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Nominator promised since june 7 but no update. Die to overwhelming consensus, delisting now. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 21:48, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Multiple citation needed templates, errors in reference formatting such as Reference 34, and material not verified in sourcing like References 31 and 91 Jon698 (talk) 09:19, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Pulling from Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations section Jon698 (talk) 09:20, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I looked at some of the sources reference 31 claims that the soundtrack was released in March 2023. However, it does not state that in the March 2023 section nor can I find that in any other section. Jon698 (talk) 09:20, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

There are also errors in the references themselves. Reference 34 says that it is the Wall Street Journal, but clicking on it takes you to Bloomberg. Jon698 (talk) 09:20, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Reference 91 does support "Within eight hours of release, the game had made over US$1 million in gross revenue" and instead states that the game sold over one million copies across a month instead. Jon698 (talk) 09:20, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I blindly clicked on ten links in the References section and found two major errors and one formatting error. Jon698 (talk) 09:23, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

To be honest, this was my first time reviewing a GAN so all of these issues went over my head Monathephantom (talk) 12:03, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

There are also cases of refbombing, usage of unreliable sources, and the entire reception section has to be rewritten. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:29, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

In that case, delist. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 10:37, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I'd suggest we wait a bit for the user who brought the article to GA status to respond. If no changes are made to the article, then we can talk about delisting. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:52, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

will look into them later today. Cheers all Lankyant (talk) 15:46, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

If Balatro is delisted you can nominate it for GA again and I will personally be the GA reviewer. I will give you a full and well-done review that will go over the entire article with a fine-tooth comb. Just notify me when you do nominate it again. Jon698 (talk) 01:52, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Delist. This was a checkmark review by a first-time reviewer whose account is three weeks old. The review missed several things that should have resulted failure, including the existence of maintenance tags that warrant a quickfail. The review is useless and basically needs to be completely redone. As a result, the article should be delisted and can be reviewed again once the nominator has a chance to fix the issues. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:42, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Delist per Dclemens. The review was not adequate, and it is better worth our time to delist now so that the nominator can fix these issues and bring it back to the queue. toby ^{in solidarity} 20:28, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Delist - not an adequate review and there are clearly issues with the article still. -- ZooBlazer 03:03, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

There is normally a two-week window for a GAR to remain open for input, unless the response is so overwhelming as to justify closing early (WP:SNOWCLOSE). Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:09, 9 June 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.

Gameplay Section too In Depth?

The gameplay section reads a bit too much like a walkthrough/gameplay guide at the moment, with a few too many headers, imo. Is there any opposition to trimming it down some, and consolidating a few sections, or do we prefer it to stay this in-depth? Farkas-Skyrim (talk) 17:38, 6 July 2026 (UTC)