Talk:Weighted Companion Cube

Example of queer romance?

Why is this listed as an example of "queer romance"? This seems inaccurate - no citation and this is not a mainstream view of the franchise or game etc. should be removed. 2603:6010:E700:D06:30D0:A04D:E607:93A8 (talk) 18:46, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

+1 Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 18:51, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Well there is still the sentences The fact that the Cube is obviously depicted by Rattman's graffiti in a feminine, sexualized way has led to interpretations of the relationship between Chell and the Cube, or between them and GLaDOS, as queer in nature, and evidence the game operates from a female rather than male perspective. which does list a source although it is very strange. ―Panamitsu (talk) 21:02, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Keavon has removed the sentence in question. Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 22:52, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

The statement about "uncited fringe headcanon interpretations" is blatantly false, the citations are shown within the article itself in the Critical reception section. I am curious about how User:Keavon would call that a "headcanon" when they have been published. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:39, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

The sentence in the lede had no citations. The game's source material makes no reference to those concepts, so fan interpretations would fall under the definition of headcanon and aren't likely to be appropriate for inclusion in the lede, especially considering that they aren't widely accepted fan theories and fall into the category of fringe theories. The sole citation mentioned later in one of the body sections seems to be a book by an author looking to collect examples to argue a thesis, which would necessarily be a less reliable source than an author describing theories about a subject matter directly (in, say, a book about many Portal fan theories which gives that as one interpretation amongst others). The lack of other reliable sources citing this same claim brings into question whether that deserves mention at all in the article, but the vague and uncited claims in the lede certainly do not belong there. If it were to stay, it would need to be relevant and cited by reliable sources (likely multiple), and neither are presently the case. Keavon (talk) 00:12, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Chiming in here, but the lead doesn't need citations, as it's a summary of the article's contents. While it's definitely a unique take, given it takes up a full paragraph of the article to explain in full it's entirely valid for some mention in the article's lead. If it was taking up multiple sentences in the lead I would agree, but it's not; it's a single summary of it at the end of another sentence.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:48, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Quick question

i am user Boeing747Pilot but i am signed out, but why does this page exist. I just don't find it important ~2025-33541-02 (talk) 05:10, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

As a major gaming mascot with fame and popularity, it was talked about enough by sources to merit an article. Given that people are still talking about it mere days ago, it's hard to argue that it's unimportant. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:46, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok good to know. It just seemed to me that it was not very important Boeing747Pilot (Discuss with me) (Help) (MY LORD) 20:16, 14 November 2025 (UTC)