From Overwatch Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Deletion of Page[edit source]

If we delete this page, we should also delete the Warcraft and Heroes of the Storm. (Hearthstone and StarCraft are known to exist in-world.)

I don't see a reason to delete it in the first place. --Krupam (talk)--
I'm putting this here as to not incite a revert war. I'm going to put the deletion template back because its still under debate and contains the reasoning. -LastTalon (talk) • (contribs) 18:57, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
It seems to only exist as a symmetrical link to face those where it is linked as trivia on other articles. Its currently marked as a stub, but I'm fairly sure adding additional information about the game is beyond the scope of this wiki. Typically a user following through a link wants to find additional information about the subject of the link, which this article doesn't provide. I think we either need to decide the scope of this wiki should entail providing further information about accessory games, or decide that that should be left to other wiki's articles on those subjects. -LastTalon (talk) • (contribs) 18:57, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
I think you make some good points. The two listed above by Fuzzlepuzzle are the only ones worth keeping, but the list of references on these pages could be better suited for the Easter eggs page, which already has a lot of the references anyway. - TheModster (talk) 19:20, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree (did not know about the easter eggs page, thanks). I think the important part of this discussion though is deciding what criteria to use, because otherwise the wiki will end up with a lot of stub articles that are near-orphans outside of this wiki's scope. -LastTalon (talk) • (contribs) 19:30, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
What do you suggest our criteria should be, as an example? I agree with deleting this page, Warcraft, and likely Heroes of the Storm (though I can see the argument for HotS, especially if we had a wiki editor who plays it). Are there any thoughts on whether we should replace the current links with links to an external site, and where to link if so? I like the idea of linking to a dedicated wiki, though determining which wiki to link to might be difficult in some cases. We could also link to the easter egg page. --Fuzzlepuzzle (talk) 22:25, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
As for possible criteria we could use something like, if it has significance in the game world possibly, sort of a how much is there to talk about type of thing. For instance, Hearthstone can be seen as an actual game that appears to be very popular in the world of Overwatch, seen on tablets and such in spawn rooms, I think I've even seen it in video materials. This could give potential material to talk about in an article as opposed to more easter egg style references such as the Diablo, or Dark Souls references. I know that's kind of convoluted. I don't think I really have a clear-cut determining factor, but I think it should have to do with whether the article content, assuming it would move beyond a stub, would relate to Overwatch itself, rather than trying to mirror another encyclopedic type article another wiki would be much better suited for. As for how to link I think its kind of context sensitive. This case typically meets guidelines for using external links, on both fronts, so I don't think that's an issue. It either meets the criteria of linking to an official related site (in the case we wanted to link directly to Diablo 3's official game page for instance), or it meets the criteria for an external, neutral, encyclopedic article on the subject. Although I personally think it would be neat to link to another dedicated wiki on the subject, I think, as you point out, there are issues of our article's neutrality being compromised if we do so. Possibly the best course of action is to link to the official website in these cases. What does everyone else think? -LastTalon (talk) • (contribs) 22:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC) Edit: I would not be opposed to linking to our own easter egg page either. I do think that would be a good place to link as well. -LastTalon (talk) • (contribs) 22:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm new here. Thought I would lend a hand while not working on the Binding Of Isaac wiki, and I may have a solution to offer. The way we do it at our wiki, if it has to do with something outside of the game, it doesn't need a page all its own. Just reference it in all the appropriate pages. For example, these Diablo references would be found in Trivia sections of the Eichenwalde, Dorado, and Player Icons pages. Diablo may be another game by Blizzard, but this is not a Blizzard wiki, this is an Overwatch wiki. --JokerPixel (talk) 20:20, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Welcome. Thanks for the insight. This is basically the idea behind my original flagging of the page for deletion. Trying to have an entire article for Diablo that isn't a stub seems like it would simply be out of the scope of Overwatch. (Just as a tip or reminder, don't forget to sign your posts in talk pages with ~~~~) -LastTalon (talk) • (contribs) 20:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
I'd prefer to keep the article. The Easter eggs page, by its nature, is a repeat of information that would be given on other pages regardless. Even leaving aside that other Blizzard wikis tend to have articles for "the big three/four," and focusing on this one, a centralized article for references of a particular nature is far more intuitive than lumping them together on the Easter eggs page. It also gives more of a framework for the references themselves.
That said, even if Diablo and Warcraft go, I'd still keep the HotS one, given that Overwatch elements in HotS can't be considered easter eggs per se, but actual aspects of the game itself.--Hawki (talk) 11:47, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
There's definitely merit to this. There is conceivably valuable information with HotS to talk about in regard to the cross-game nature that it should get its own page. -LastTalon (talk) • (contribs) 22:20, 16 September 2016 (UTC)