Talk:Kiriko (Overwatch)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

notability[edit]

this non released character has her own article? while characters like roadhog whove been in the game since 2016 dont? i dont think she should have an article honestly just merge her into the character page.. 2600:1702:BE0:6500:BDF4:1FC1:8511:916B (talk) 19:10, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A page on Roadhog can probably sustain on its own. But the amount of time the character has existed has nothing to do with whether or not an article should or should not exist. I think some factors behind her notability is derived behind 1) her being the first Overwatch 2 character and 2) her being the first character in the franchise to be made available behind a battle pass. There are other things too, but those are big factors driving her coverage by reliable outlets pre-release. I actually think a good amount of the OW roster can sustain their own articles. More of a "go make those ones" issue than a "delete or merge this one" issue. Soulbust (talk) 02:27, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 01:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Converted from a redirect by Soulbust (talk). Self-nominated at 04:30, 19 September 2022 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.
Overall: @Soulbust reviewing this nomination to make it up for my nomination of Consumption of Tide Pods. The article is well done, hook is good, no pictures to review, and your QPQ is done. So I'm approving the nomination. Good Job! Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:25, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Superhero classification[edit]

Here are some sources that describe Overwatch as within the superhero genre:
  • Waters, Lowenna (January 8, 2019). "Blizzard confirms that another Overwatch superhero is LGBT+". Indy 100.
  • Olivetti, J. (November 7, 2014). "BlizzCon 2014: Blizzard takes on superheroes with Overwatch". Engadget.
  • Smith, Dave (November 9, 2014). "Meet The Wildly Outlandish Superheroes Of 'Overwatch,' The Latest Game From The Makers Of 'World Of Warcraft'". Business Insider.
I also think lore-wise, there are mentions of "supers". For example, in regard to Solider: 76 and Reaper, similar to how Captain America is a superhero via being an enhanced soldier. Referencing for that:
Obviously there's some non-superhero playable characters like Junkrat for example. But I think Kiriko should be classified as one, if for no other reason than explicit dialogue in her animated short referring to her as such:
Idk, I feel like this is enough to warrant listing Overwatch as superhero media, even if it feels more implicit than explicit. What do you think, @Ferret:? Soulbust (talk) 17:02, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With cats like "video game superheoes", it should be very clear that the character is associated with being a superhero, and not just a handful if references that say they are. Otherwise we diffuse those categories with all sorts of random characters that aren't broadly considered superheroes. Masem (t) 17:17, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem: Hmm. I get that as far as the association aspect of it. But I don't think it's a stretch at all to be honest, especially considering there's plenty of sourcing for this (more than I listed exists out there, I just didn't wanna be super exhaustive with it). I think it also passes the eye test. Like, pretty clearly Soldier: 76, Reaper, Tracer, and Kiriko do fit that superhero stock character description of having powers beyond those of regular humans (even before taking into account any weapons/equipment as that would apply to almost every playable character in OW). I wont revert again obviously but I do feel like superheroes as a genre and description is broad enough to safely and comfortably include Overwatch canon (I mean Sonic the Hedgehog is a superhero). I'll say that it's at least probably more than debatable, given that ample sourcing would be there. Soulbust (talk) 17:46, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe Overwatch is overall seen as a "superhero" game or universe, nor does the lore itself seem to include any descriptions of "supers" and "superheroes" in the traditional sense of the word a la "comic book superheroes", which is where my mind first goes. It's definitely a grey area, so I put forth the further idea: Categories are meant for defining characteristics. Is Kiriko a "super hero" in a clear defining manner, or just assorted offhand referrals to the term? I'd definitely argue it's non-defining. -- ferret (talk) 19:17, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that's fair. Just heard a Sojourn voice-line where an in-universe cartoon depicted her as a "superhero", so I'm thinking it's plausible the PvE mode, whenever it comes out, might lean into that a bit or expand on that theme. Guess we'll wait and see. Soulbust (talk) 22:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Soulbust Keep in mind the need to avoid equating casual use "The firefighters are the real superheroes today!" and "Superman is a Super Hero Proper Noun Style"-usage. -- ferret (talk) 23:38, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article improvement[edit]

Since Pharah is currently under an AfD tag, and this one is in much better shape, it might take me a second to get to this one but I will be looking for additional sourcing.

Regardless, the present sourcing establishes Kiriko as a notable character. There is ample sourcing on her development history (including a good amount of sourcing before she was even officially announced; teasing of her character, as well as related leaks, received RS coverage (see Leri, Colp (Sep. 8), Bellingham, and Thomas sources). This is similar to Sombra, even without an ARG to accompany Kiriko's rollout.

I don't know why coverage dedicated to gameplay elements of characters gets pooh-poohed or dismissed (coverage of gameplay still meets WP:GNG and nothing in the guideline prohibits or excludes such coverage from counting toward GNG clearance), but there is also ample sourcing indeed covering her gameplay elements (such as the Richardson source, and this Colp (Sep 15) source).

Coverage on her character design/development in regards to non-gameplay element is also comfortably included in the article. I do not like WP:THREE for various reasons, but if that criteria is met, it does seem to alleviate concerns an article doesn't meet GNG for a lot of other editors. So, circling back to coverage of her development/design (beyond the base-level coverage on her gameplay abilities - i.e. lore, story, art design, or considerations to how Kiriko fits in the gameplay balancing, as opposed to discussion on her core abilities), there is:

  1. The two McWhertor (Polygon) sources (iirc, multiple sources from the same author in the same outlet count as one)
  2. The Howard (GameSpot) source
  3. This Parrish (The Verge) source.

I also believe the Manske and Dane sources fit that bill too.

Again, I will continue to seek and identify sources for inclusion, but it will be a secondary priority to Pharah.

Also, @GlatorNator:, I wasn't comparing Kiriko to D.Va. I was simply saying that the article for D.Va, and Brigitte (and Winston and Mercy) had the sources exist template added to them and was suggesting we do the same for this article. (You were the editor that found sourcing and then placed the appropriate tagging on those articles, so thank you for that). On Kiriko being not notable or primary... well, above I noted how she satisfies notability criteria, and her not being one of the "primary" characters is not a factor to whether she warrants an article or not, as far as I'm aware. I'd also argue she actually is one of the faces of the sequel, being that she was the very last character developed ahead of its official early access release, and the first one included via its battle pass. But again, neither here nor there, just my opinion on that front. Soulbust (talk) 23:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am heavily skeptical about the GameSpot one being a secondary source. It mostly quotes Blizzard. It should be considered primary, based on a press release (or in this case an infographic the article literally shows). The other part is based on an interview and doesn't really offer any original thought. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will also say that the Verge source is describing the animated short, not Kiriko herself. The two things shouldn't be mixed up as one. We don't have articles on the main character of every film, simply because the film has an article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 June 2023[edit]

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: Not Moved (non-admin closure) >>> Extorc.talk 13:12, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

– I think the Kiriko from Overwatch is more notorious abd definitely has more views. When searching at google "Kiriko", the Overwatch character comes out. Other Kirko articles has their last name. So, I thimk the Overwatch Kiriko should be primary. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 13:00, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Given the other topics on the disamb for Kiriko, I can't see a relatively new video game character taking precedence. --Masem (t) 13:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Normally I'd support this, as there is nothing that is solely called "Kiriko", but there's some disagreement on whether Kiriko is even standalone notable. Perhaps years later when the page is stable and there is a clear consensus on its notability this can be re-discussed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:26, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Kenyan place and Japanese girl's name. Should remain a dab page. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:31, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as it could correlate with other pages similar to said name. Additionally, as previously stated before, the character's notability (see WP:GNG) alone is up for debate as a standalone article. Cheers! --WellThisIsTheReaper Grim 19:56, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kiriko_(Overwatch)&oldid=1220606967"