Talk:Wrecking Ball (Overwatch)

Notability

Does this article really need to exist? The entirety of the sourcing is just that it was announced, which shouldn't be the only measure of notability. This is gamecruft 101. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:53, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I would argee that it's probably too soon, but there's at least more info to support this than Brigette. (I tried to add more particularly from development). I'd at least wait to see when hammond enters the main game to see if more comes along. At least the merge is easy to do if possible. --Masem (t) 22:05, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

• It easily has significant coverage from multiple reliable, independent sources, and not just pertaining to the details of the announcement. In the unlikely event that the well of hot takes somehow dries up and we're only left with what currently stands in the article, I wouldn't be opposed to a merger. czar 22:11, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't significant coverage mean that the topics written about the subject vary? Right now, it's mainly just "a new hero was announced, check it out" and "check out this OP/funny ability". No reason to have it as an independent article right now (if ever), and I'd argue the same for most of the other ones, like Sombra (Overwatch), Doomfist, and Brigitte (Overwatch). If we are just going to automatically create a page for every new Overwatch hero on the day they are announced, then I highly disagree with this approach. We have a Characters of Overwatch page for a reason. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:50, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Did you look at Doomfist before mentioning it? I consider it among the best sourced and written fictional character articles on WP. (Indeed that's why I wrote it: as a model.) Haven't really looked into the others, but if you feel they should be merged, you can propose on their talk pages. As for this topic, it's not the paragon of sourcing but there are still multiple types of articles discussing aspects of the character's description, development, lore, impact. Overwatch is a character-driven franchise and the fact that a new character announcement has garnered all this cited commentary in the last 48 hours is a testament to its independent newsworthiness. As I said, I have no problem with a merge if this article goes stale, but I see no current issue with it as a summary style expansion of its Characters of Overwatch section, with cited expansion of material that wouldn't fit into said section. czar 04:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Trivia

re: [1] @SMcCandlish, what "trivia" do you see here that should be further generalized? czar 10:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Compare the list entry version with this version, then reduce this version to a half-way point between them (or smaller), and we'll be getting somewhere. And we'd be getting back to "merge". It's not a matter of "generalizing", but of removing excessive detail of interest to no one but players. I'm not hostile to game lore – at game wikis. I'm a TES player, and there's more lore in that set of games than in any other franchise (damned near more than all other games put together). Yet we do just fine with utterly key characters and places like Vivec, Dagoth Ur, and Almalexia redirecting to The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind. We could probably do with a character summary article, but there's no encyclopedic need to create per-character articles dwelling on the exact WP:NOT#GAMEGUIDE in-game details of these things, or the trivia of their development (encyclopedic development coverage is about entire works), or their in-universe fictional back-story material, beyond just enough for readers unfamiliar with the game to get a general idea. Game-specific non-WMF wikis exists at Wikia, Gamepedia, etc. for a reason. Overwatch already has one (https://overwatch.gamepedia.com/Overwatch_Wiki).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:02, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Besides a general reduction, which I believe I already did in my initial draft, do you have specific concerns about trivia in the current version? Even one or two+ specific sentences? czar 13:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Development information is never trivia. That's core and should be essential to a character article, alongside the reception of the character. In this case, understanding that the reception right now is tied to gameplay and backstory details, that justifies the need to explain those sections. I agree that this does need to be re-evaluate when the character is out for a while, but I've seen other articles on other topics have far less than this and be judged to have passed the GNG at AFD. --Masem (t) 13:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Road to GA

@Masem, did you have any other expansion planned for this article or any ideas on what else this might need towards the GA criteria? Looks mostly there apart from some cleanup and minor expansion czar 12:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

As the character hasn't hit comp yet, I'd rather make sure to get some post-release discussion about him before saying we're at a GA stance. --Masem (t) 15:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• https://kotaku.com/hammond-debuts-in-overwatch-pro-scene-with-mixed-resul-1828236755
• https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2018/08/11/competitive-overwatch-rebuilds-around-wrecking-ball/

czar 17:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Yup, just saw the RPS, and knew of the Kotaku before. Also just found a Variety article on the sound development for WB. --Masem (t) 17:29, 11 August 2018 (UTC)