Template:Did you know nominations/Overwatch (video game)
- 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. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Allen3 talk 20:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Overwatch (video game)
editALT1:... that according to Blizzard's Chris Metzen, Overwatch was designed to promote teamwork and not feel as "cruel" as other first-person shooters?ALT2:... that the characters of Overwatch are designed to provide diverse representations of gender?- ALT3: ... that Overwatch contains elements from Blizzard's cancelled MMORPG, Titan, but is otherwise unrelated?
Created by Andrei Anghelov (talk), ViperSnake151 (talk). Nominated by ViperSnake151 (talk) at 21:36, 8 November 2014 (UTC).
New (7th), long enough, neutral, no copyvio found via spot check (though the article does have excessive quoting and needs more paraphrase), QPQ needed as a significant contributor to the article (complete restructure/rewrite) with five+ previous noms. Struck the second hook, which comes from a quoted allusion and not a statement. Also striking ALT2 as not confirmed within the source text (should be noted if it's hidden somewhere in the promo videos). MAIN preferred over ALT3. Please ping me if I don't respond. czar ⨹ 18:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- Changes made. ViperSnake151 Talk 23:00, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- @ViperSnake151, (ping was mainly for the QPQ, but) re: "was stated as being intended to portray diverse"—where was that in the source? czar ⨹ 00:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- Fixed again. Also, the wording of the QPQ rule does not imply this. Its use of "expanded" refers to 5x expansion scenarios, and this article was not created by me. ViperSnake151 Talk 03:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
You had at least one substantial cleanup edit, but I'll leave the call on the QPQ requirement to the closer. I don't think it's a big deal and this nom was clearly intended as a non-self-nom czar ⨹ 04:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- Fixed again. Also, the wording of the QPQ rule does not imply this. Its use of "expanded" refers to 5x expansion scenarios, and this article was not created by me. ViperSnake151 Talk 03:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- @ViperSnake151, (ping was mainly for the QPQ, but) re: "was stated as being intended to portray diverse"—where was that in the source? czar ⨹ 00:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I've credited ViperSnake151 because the article did resemble a press release prior to their expansion. That said a QPQ is required to finish up since more than five noms have been made. Fuebaey (talk) 21:35, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- Template:Did you know nominations/Marsh Run. ViperSnake151 Talk 00:17, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- QPQ done, gtg. I'd keep QPQ page on your watchlist as closers usually ask for specific mention of which criteria the nom meets, especially vis-à-vis close paraphrasing checks. czar ⨹ 10:11, 26 December 2014 (UTC)