Talk:Overwatch (video game)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

A section on maps?

Normally, I think WP:NOT#GAMEGUIDE when thinking of a map section here, but I think given the attention given to the game particularly with OWL, that we can have a very brief summary of maps with any details on their development. If there are no strong details, this is at most one sentence per map, but where we can talk about the map more (like Temple of Anubis being from Titan, Blizzard World, or Rialto) we can have a few extra sentences for dev. Key is to keep this very concise. --Masem (t) 21:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• The problem with GAMEGUIDE is when people just add a raw list of levels. I don't think anybody would object to this if it's properly sourced. However, if a map does not have significant coverage, I'd just omit it in favor of the one's that do. I still think that we could make a Gameplay of Overwatch article, and move all the gamemode/map info there. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Glad to see it finally done; now I think the article is around the ideal size. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Chris Metzen

Remove Chris Metzen from director =

• Jeff Kaplan
• Chris Metzen
• Aaron Keller

Chris Metzen's has retired from Blizzard Entertainment and is no longer a Director on the game and should be removed from the list.[1]

Kayovoldk (talk) 20:24, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

But he was a director on the game, and that will never change. We aren't reflecting "only the current director" -- ferret (talk) 21:08, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: -- ferret (talk) 21:09, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, we don't remove personal who leave the company post-release, even for games that are constantly updated. If they get replaced, then we just add a note stating the years they worked on the game, like we do for Notch on Minecraft. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:49, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2018

Second para under Gameplay, pls change "The game features game modes for causal play" to "The game features game modes for casual play" (causal -> casual). Thx 121.44.184.116 (talk) 02:17, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done Sakura Cartelet^Talk 02:43, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2019

Overwatch (video game)/Archive 2
Genre(s)	hero shooter

Linkstrifer (talk) 19:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done "Hero shooter" is still more a neologism even though the FPS page and this page mention it. It's better to avoid that term at this time. --Masem (t) 21:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2019

Please change first sentence from "which released" to "which was released". 2601:647:CB02:5034:D877:84EE:B7DD:9BA8 (talk) 01:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done with thanks, NiciVampireHeart 02:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Overwatch should be added to the list of of bestselling video games of all time

}}

Overwatch has sold at least 40 Million Copies. sources: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rge4Wo508U, https://www.pcgamer.com/overwatch-has-more-than-40-million-players/ KennethRussell3 (talk) 04:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Players != sales. --Masem (t) 05:05, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

The claims never said sold, it said players/accounts. We have an entire list about this very thing already (List of most-played video games by player count), and Overwatch was one of the first additions to it. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 05:12, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 21 March 2019

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 section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 20:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

---

• Overwatch (video game) → Overwatch
• Overwatch → Overwatch (disambiguation)

– This article claims over 90% of all page views between it and all of the other pages of interest (military). I believe it is the clear primary topic. Pbroks13 (talk) 05:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 07:07, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support per nom. This has been the same ever since the article was created,[2] so WP:RECENTISM is not at stake. Lordtobi (✉) 06:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose this is exactly why we have two criteria WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to prevent trivial entertainment products from usurping real life real things. If we followed second criteria Talk:Overwatch_(military_tactic)#Requested_move_15_July_2016 would be at the baseline. Or alternatively delete WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Conclusion leave as is with a dab page. 08:23, 21 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by In ictu oculi (talk • contribs)
• Support as clear primary topic, this isn't just some "trivial entertainment product", it's a real video game that has real significance and has maintained its significance for longer than most video games do. Iffy★Chat -- 10:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

• The game was introduced in 2016, so "for longer" is a relative term which, in this case, doesn't outweigh the historical significance of the battle tactic. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Contemporary pop culture topics should never take PRIMARYNAME importance over terms of historical importance or otherwise well-populated disambiguation pages, regardless of page views. --Masem (t) 11:23, 21 March 2019 (UTC)long-term significance
• Oppose, per In ictu oculi and Masem. Long-term historical significance would keep the primary at the dab page or primary to the battle tactic term itself. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support. I think the long-term significance piece of PT is overused and this is a great example of it. It does not mean the first use of a term is the primary topic, no matter what. Overwatch is a military term from the 1950s with very little significance outside the military The long-term significance criteria is applicable in cases like Apple, Amazon and Nike, not here. Calidum 14:51, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support per others. Overwatch as a search topic is primarily going towards the game (90% apparently), not some obscure 1950's military term that honestly might be better off as an entry in a glossary instead of an independent stub article anyway. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 16:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Masem – WP:PRIMARYTOPIC #2 is directly relevant here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose because if a name can mean more than just the game, then the original name should just be a disambiguation page, and the article about the game should be on the article <original name> (video game). Since like the article about Half-Life the game isn't directly on original Half-Life page, whilst Half-Life the game is what most people would be searching for when they type in Half-Life, the same should apply for Overwatch. Barracuda41 (talk) 20:29, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Barracuda41 I would have to disagree with your rationale here. There are more page views for Half-life (the halving of values) than Half-Life (video game), and even then, it is still pretty comparable (see here). Compare that to my pageview link at the top of this section, where Overwatch (video game) sees 15 times more page views than all of the military overwatch pages combined over the past year (1.10 of 1.17 million). Pbroks13 (talk) 20:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support as primary topic. It's good practice to adapt to the 90%+ of users that are looking for this page when they search for Overwatch. Per Pbroks13, this is significantly different from say Half-life, and per Calidum from Apple or Amazon. The military topic is so unpopular and so specific that it being effectively the sole cause for keeping this page from being just "Overwatch" is, in my opinion, not good reasoning. I would also argue WP:PRIMARYTOPIC #2 is not that relevant here, as all games Blizzard Entertainment have created in the past 20 years, as well as the company's page, remain multiple times more popular on Wikipedia than the military term, and some of those games are older than Wikipedia to put that into perspective. There's good reason to believe that #2 will not be relevant within the next couple of decades if ever, easily long enough to prefer WP:PRIMARYTOPIC #1 over #2 in my opinion. SharkyIzrod (talk) 16:19, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - this is certainly a non-trivial entertainment product... but its still an entertainment product, which means its long-term significance is almost guaranteed to have a steep drop-off someday. I don't see any value putting this ahead of other topics with encyclopedic significance, nor those topics ahead of this. The current primary DAB is fine. -- Netoholic @ 01:13, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
• Weak oppose Per IIO and the fact that incoming links are also an issue since the military tactic was at the base name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Easily fixed with a bot. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 17:36, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support. A military tactic is not necessarily more significant long-term than a video game. The game has had much more usage than the military term would likely ever have. feminist (talk) 14:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Overwatch and pornography merger was never carried out

I just want to note that the merger that gained consensus at Talk:Overwatch (video game)/Archive 1#Pornography subarticle merger discussion was never performed. This should probably be done. Trialpears (talk) 16:57, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

It was performed, then unilaterally re-split by the article creator (See Talk:Overwatch (video game)/Archive 1#Overwatch and pornography returns) and no one ever contested or remerged. There have been no significant changes or expansion of the article since. -- ferret (talk) 16:59, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I missed that (I just looked through edit history searching for merge). I still believe some action should be considered since overturning a long discussion with a lot of participants alone is not appropriate. Trialpears (talk) 18:26, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that there have been no significant changes since the split, unless I am missing something. This is the difference from when the article mas merged to the main page until now. I think there should be a discussion before merging again. Pbroks13 (talk) 00:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I meant since it was re-split, nothing further has happened or been developed. The re-split did bring some additions, but nothing really has changed since. -- ferret (talk) 00:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2019

And for the Nintendo Switch on October 15, 2019. 2601:6C4:4001:8A7B:CD7:77D6:389B:DED1 (talk) 22:02, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done was already on it. --Masem (t) 22:22, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2019

Add the Category:Xbox One X enhanced games.
Source:https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2018-overwatch-xbox-one-x-patch-analysis 68.148.230.9 (talk) 23:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Withdraw request to make proper one. 68.148.230.9 (talk) 17:03, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2019

Add the Category:Xbox One X enhanced games.
Source:https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2018-overwatch-xbox-one-x-patch-analysis 68.148.230.9 (talk) 17:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done --Masem (t) 17:35, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. 68.148.230.9 (talk) 19:01, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Removing Jeff Kaplan from the list of directors

Jeff Kaplan used to be a director of Overwatch. However, he has since stopped working on Overwatch and has left Blizzard, the parent company. Since Jeff Kaplan is no longer a director of Overwatch, he should be removed from the list of directors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MythosDythos (talk • contribs)

Kaplan still oversaw the development of the game, and should still be credited as such. Pbrks (talk) 20:24, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Proposed merge of Lego Overwatch into Overwatch (video game)

The following discussion 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.

---

The sources in this Lego breakout article do not support any more detail on the topic than would be warranted in a single paragraph fit in context in Overwatch (video game)#Related media and merchandise. I recommend merging there. czar 23:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• Agreed. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:50, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
• Also agreed. There's no reason to have this standalone. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 18:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• I agree that the separate Lego Overwatch article is overkill -- but I question if we need that one unique para merged to Overwatch, or if that actually merges into a Lego-themed article. We have the collab with Lego already noted in OW, but the details of set #s is beyond OW's scope. I don't know how the Lego articles are organized to know if there's a better place in one of those lists to list that out better. --Masem (t) 19:06, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• I also agree, but I think that the LEGO page has a bit too much info that's not really needed to be added in the main article, for example detailing every hero's abilities. -- StephenMeta (talk) 13:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• Not sure. There is too much content, such as set details, that doesn't belong to the Overwatch main article. EchoBlu (talk) 09:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Agree -- Wendylove (talk) 16:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose -- This article is beyond OW's scope and has far too many details that don't belong in the Overwatch article. User:Masem asked about how Lego articles are organized; taking a quick glance, everything is kept separate, e.g. Lego Batman apart from Batman or Batman videogames. In fact, Lego set themes are all categorized separately, as can be seen in Category:Lego themes. Knightoften (talk) 14:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - Article has drastically improved since this nomination was made and merits a standalone article. Pbrks (talk) 16:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose —- Just based on the current state of the article and the vast amount of information, I would have agreed with the merger in its original state. Copper1993 (talk) 17:22, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Remove the unreliable sources and everything that remains would suffice as a short paragraph within the parent article. There isn't enough content to justify a split. czar 05:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose —- I already improved the Lego Overwatch page so no need to merge. I agree that this article needs a lot of work but a lack of content does not in itself imply lack of notability. I believe that there is "significant coverage" of the topic per WP:GNG. The Lego theme is a franchise that is a separate entity to the general Overwatch (video game). As a Lego theme it is no less notable than for example Lego Jurassic World (theme). It has also received media coverage in terms of its sets and development. Perhaps it can be expanded with additional sources when more new sets are coming this year. Striker2020 (talk) 05:23, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - As this is a separate product line, it doesn't seem to make sense to merge it with the video game. There is a significant amount of content here about the products that doesn't naturally fit within the video game article. Fieryninja (talk) 08:20, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - There is enough coverage to warrant a standalone article. It's possible that more material could be extracted from the sources and paraphrased onto the page. Haleth (talk) 13:18, 13 June 2021 (UTC)}}

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.

Meta and influence sources

Some sources on the history/evolution of the game meta and hero shooter genre:

• Colp, Tyler (May 29, 2021). "It's Tough to Defend 'Overwatch,' but It's Still Unparalleled". Wired.
• Deyo, Nico; Colp, Tyler (May 28, 2021). "How 'Overwatch' Lost, Then Found Again, the Things That Made It Special". Vice. Retrieved June 20, 2021.
• Bashir, Dale (July 2, 2021). "How 'Apex Legends' Succeeded Where 'Overwatch' Failed". IGN Southeast Asia. Retrieved July 14, 2021.

czar 05:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Pictures of the Heroes

For people looking to research Overwatch they'll start to read about the heroes in the game such as Genji,Roadhog,Mccree, etc. and it would help readers see the heroes if there was pictures of them under the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JustaYungBuck (talk • contribs) 01:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

This would violate our non-free content allowances (we can't include nonfree like character images simply for this type of purpose). --Masem (t) 03:14, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

update IGN review score

IGN has changed their review score of Overwatch to 10/10.

B-RexTheT-Rex04 (talk) 02:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

You'll have to supply the updated review. It would need added in addition to, rather than as a replacement of, the original review, which still shows 9.4 -- ferret (talk) 13:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): LazyTitanLeo.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Mccree name change missing?

Just want to address that mccree's name has been changed to cole cassidy following a controversy. all merch featuring jesse mccree's name has been changed to instead feature "cole cassidy".83.185.37.12 (talk) 14:57, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

It is discussed on Characters of Overwatch. --Masem (t) 19:12, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 28 April 2022

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: move the pages to the requested titles at this time, per the discussion below. As usual, this can be revisited in the future if circumstances change. Whether the article on the military term will return to being a redirect or will remain an article is an editorial decision outside the scope of this close (see Talk:Overwatch (military tactic).) Dekimasuよ! 06:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

---

• Overwatch (video game) → Overwatch
• Overwatch → Overwatch (disambiguation)

– The previous requested move to this location resulted in no consensus. However, after looking over the evidence it is quite clear that the video game is the primary topic for the word "Overwatch". Pageviews indicate an extreme interest in comparison to the military term which is unlikely to die down in the future with the release of a sequel. In addition, the link to the military tactic from the disambiguation page goes straight to a dictionary definition, so it cannot be said to be a proper article in need of disambiguating. That leaves no other real competing topics, just mentions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:43, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Mild concern that an Overwatch "franchise" article will develop in the near future, requiring the game be moved back here so the overall franchise takes the primary. -- ferret (talk) 15:59, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  Maybe, but this would at least establish that the game is primary. No qualms with it being moved back to (video game) if a franchise article was made. Right now, though, the sequel isn't even out yet, but I still believe the game is primary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:28, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose contemporary popular terms should never override terms with established historical precedence, as at some point, the popular item will lose its popularity, while the importance of the historical term will remain. --Masem (t) 16:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  It's unlikely that Overwatch as a franchise will lose popularity in the near future, to the point that insinuating it will die down from around 2000 views to 50 is ironically more WP:CRYSTAL than extrapolating that it won't. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:30, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  What happens in 10 or 20 years when the game is no longer played? Then we'll have to move it back. That's why we should never base page moves on pageviews related to a contemporary topic. --Masem (t) 16:33, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  Luckily we can always move it back in 20 years if for some reason it barely gets any views by then. Still, the Halo franchise is still going strong 20 years after release if not one of the biggest franchises out there, so it's certainly a distinct possibility that Overwatch will continue to be played. Either way, that is a matter for 20 years from now, not now. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  Ut is a matter for now because it is not okay to think it is okay to ping pong on page names as popularity wanes. --Masem (t) 19:15, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  That seems like your own personal opinion. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and page names can easily be changed back when necessary. There's no need to prioritize what might be popular decades in the future. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:30, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support per nom. The only other article titled "Overwatch" is a redirect. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 16:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Disambiguations don't always need to have "(disambiguation)" in the title; the term Overwatch had already been coined decades before Overwatch the video game had even been a thought. Someone typing "Overwatch" in the search may very well not even be thinking of the video game and may be thinking of something else that just happens to have the same name. At least a dozen other things, like CS:GO's anti-cheat, a mod for The Sims 3, etc, all had the name "Overwatch" before Overwatch the video game was even announced. Just like if you type James Smith in the search, you'll find a bunch of people named "James Smith", but you wouldn't move any of those pages to James Smith and move James Smith to James Smith (disambiguation). It really gives undue weight to the video game to move the video game to Overwatch and call everything else a "disambiguation". Just because a lot of people think of the video game when they hear or see the word "Overwatch" doesn't all of a suddenly make "Overwatch" a neutral title for this particular page and saying the video game is the "primary topic" for the word "Overwatch" is subjective to one's own idea of what counts as "primary" anyway.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 19:35, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Mythdon: just for your information, "primary topic" isn't a term that the proposer made up for this page move. It's an established concept that you can read about at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, including some of the ways that we determine if one meaning for a term is primary. Just because a topic is not the original use of the term that does not mean it cannot be primary. Echidna would be an example of such, though there's plenty of others. Our purpose here is to direct readers to the topic they wanted as quickly and easily as we can, so in cases where most users are seeking a particular topic we should direct them straight there instead of having to go through a disambiguation page. Whether or not this video game qualifies for that honor is the question we're discussing. I hope that helps. -- Fyrael (talk) 21:02, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  Just to be clear, I was not trying to say here that your vote is wrong or that long-term significance isn't important. I was just giving more context about primary topic discussions. -- Fyrael (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

• Strong support: It cannot be stated enough times that the primary contender here is not even an article. It's a dictionary definition that the general populace doesn't even know exists. And this notion of oh no, we might have to change this back in 20 years is pretty absurd to me. If this were a Twitter hashtag that would be forgotten in a year or two or three, sure. But to call switching something back in 20 years "ping ponging" is grossly inaccurate. And while I won't argue the game is likely to still be played in 20 years, the amount of time that would have to pass before it gets talked about as infrequently as this obscure military term might be 50 years. I hope Wikipedia itself lasts that long. -- Fyrael (talk) 21:30, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. The usage data [3] shows that two thirds of the visitors to the dab page click though to the video game article. If that topic had also greater educational value, then this ratio could (though by no means necessarily) be indicative of a primary topic, but on this field the video game loses out to the military tactic, which has clearly greater long-term significance and it still accounts for a substantial chunk (almost a quarter) of the clickthroughs. The fact that this topic is currently treated within another article is irrelevant here (also worth bearing in mind that a redirect can always be expanded into an article, and this particular one, Overwatch (military tactic), used to be such an article for over a decade and a half until a bold redirecting from a few months ago, an action that probably needs to be reverted). – Uanfala (talk) 11:24, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

  The article on the term was redirected due to a "dearth of sources" and was a WP:DICDEF that failed WP:GNG for its entire existence. This is making a claim that it is individually notable which is not backed up by evidence. Searching for the military form of "overwatch" in books and the news does not come up with WP:SIGCOV of note. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:18, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

  I don't find this as a very compelling argument. If a user was searching for the military term, pretty much the only way they would be able to find it is through the dab page; that is, users would have to know a priori to appended "(military tactic)". Whereas if a user is searching for the video game topic, they would search "Overwa" and see it get autofilled to "Overwatch (video game)", having no reason to go through the dab page at all. The better indicator is page views, in which Overwatch (video game) receives over 90% of page views between it and every other military-related term. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

  You're holding the pageviews by the wrong end of the stick. The vast majority of pageviews come from external sources or from incoming links in articles, not from readers' searches. There's almost never any simple correlation between the distribution of total pageviews and the ratios of the one tenths or so of them that are due to readers searching (see WP:PPT). Your point about the influence of drop-down suggestions in the search box, however, is spot on. But this affects not just the most popular article, but whatever results are shown in this drop-down box (I see ten of them on my device): the military tactic isn't there, most likely because as a redirect it's demoted by the algorithm, and so readers that seek it will necessarily have to, as you note, go via the dab page. So we need data from when it was still an article: in the data for January 2020, the ratios are 71% for the game vs. 19% for the tactic. That's less skewed away from the game, but it's not different enough to change my view: a trendy topic in popular culture with 71% of the usage doesn't trump a topic with greater long-term significance. – Uanfala (talk) 16:27, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose: With a sequel coming up, a franchise page will probably be called for, so maintaining the current title seems more sensible. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 16:21, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

  Users tend to not like franchise articles for video game franchises with less than three installments. As such, there is a distinct possibility that Overwatch as a franchise will not have its own article. Even if it does, it would be a non-controversial move to change this back. In any event, the article does not exist, and we should be voting its current state. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 16:40, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

  In that case, Support per the nominator's rationale. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 17:32, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support per nom, until franchise page is made.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:37, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which a rarely used military term is not. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 17:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Masem and Uanfala. The term with long-term significance should not be overriden. OceanHok (talk) 05:08, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support. That the game receives 70% of the dab clickthroughs (per Wikinav above) and remains the top organic hits for searches in major engines and databases indicates that there is indeed a "primary topic". For purposes of readers less often seeking the military term defintion, we could easily handle that within the hatnote to the dab page. I have yet to see significant sourcing to warrant a dedicated article on the military concept. czar 16:58, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support. As pointed out above, "The usage data [4] shows that two thirds of the visitors to the dab page click though to the video game article". Who are we kidding to say the video game isn't the primary topic in that case? (Also, let's not forget "Being the original source of the name is also not determinative" when it comes to primary topics, per WP:DPT.) -- Vaulter 02:38, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

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.

Section on Overwatch 2

In my opinion; there should be a section on Overwatch 2 within this article as it pertains to being a sequel to this game. 2600:1014:B048:5218:5841:DAF7:D0EC:B1FB (talk) 01:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, there is, its under the "Overwatch 2" section. --Masem (t) 02:02, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Xbox patch

@Masem: you've reverted my edit, but didn't actually address the issue. If you're trying to say that this patch made the game playable for the first time on those consoles, then the text should read "The game became playable on Xbox Series X and Series S in March 2021". And if you're trying to say something else, then change the text to that. The point is, as I said in my edit summary, the current text sounds like we're mentioning some random optimization patch with no clues about why it's notable. -- Fyrael (talk) 15:44, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

OK, I think we're good now. -- Fyrael (talk) 18:34, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Possible trimming of article

Now that the broader Overwatch franchise has its own article, many of the things on this article that pertain or address topics relating to the broader franchise instead of the individual game should be removed from this article and incorporated into the appropriate one. I already did a lot of this, especially when it comes to the related media and reception, but I'm sure I missed a good amount of things still. There will be a good amount overlap because VG journalists and outlets wrote about the game during a time before they could have known Blizzard would make this a franchise. So, I think some overlap will make sense to retain in this article, but I'm still thinking a good amount of trimming should be done. Also this article could probably then be nominatedd for GA status once its made to have that tighter focus, to be honest. Soulbust (talk) 23:13, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Most of the story can be trimmed to point to the franchise article. Similarly with the additional media , esports, and the sequel, those can trimmed and grouped into a "Franchise" section (though each should be touched on, just don't need the details) Masem (t) 23:17, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

adding Adam Burgees as main composer

Derek Duke might have done most of the music and be rightfully considered main composer, but Adam is credited in 18 of the 25 Cities & Countries musics (which are pretty much all except of few of the game's soundtrack musics) and is solo credited in 9 of them so at the point he is the co-lead composer we can argue. 2A01:CB00:88F0:7400:DDFB:8811:CAC:E19E (talk) 19:19, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

The official soundtrack credits Adam as a guest composer. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 13:47, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

OW2's 2022 credits lists Adam Burgess as sole composer, I will therefore add it. 2A01:CB00:88F0:7400:DCEE:E72E:400A:593D (talk) 14:22, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Overwatch 2 has its own article. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 15:17, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Tense

So it seems that, since I changed the description from "was" to "is", there has been an edit war over which should be used. I'm pretty sure that "is" should be used, given the policy on tense, but it seems that at least two well established editors (@Materialscientist @Masem) disagree, so I want to get a consensus to stop this article from becoming unstable. 22090912l (talk) 09:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Overwatch 1 is no longer playable in any form. The proper form is "was" for that purpose. Overwatch 2 is treated as a different game. Masem (t) 13:30, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I linked the policy on tense itself, so frankly I am quite surprised you didn't read it. The policy specifically states that present tense should be used by default, even when, and this is the important part, the product or work has been discontinued. It even uses the example of flappy bird, another discontinued game, with the distinct "is". 22090912l (talk) 13:51, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

It would be different if the game was still playable in some form off-line, without servers, that is how we would treat it as present tense. But it is impossible to play that game anymore, its not just discontinued, which is why with these type of live-service games, we prefer to use "was" when there is zero playability of a game. Masem (t) 14:13, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

And where exactly did you get that information? The policy that I linked uses the blanket term "discontinued", which could mean anything from taking away online functionality to simply abandoning the work altogether. 22090912l (talk) 14:19, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Our specific MOS for video games at MOS:VG goes this way. And it is based on the simple question of whether the game can be played at all. Masem (t) 16:28, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm confused then, because those two policies contradict each other. The policy on tense specifically says that even articles about discontinued topics should be written in the present tense and gives an example of a situation very similar to this one. Since the policy about video games suggests that this article should be written in past tense, fine, I'll concede. But I still think that discussion should be had on these mutually exclusive policies. 22090912l (talk) 16:58, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I think the VG MOS should be brought in line with the site-wide MOS. Overwatch remains a complete product regardless of whether it is playable. I believe it should be is, no matter how strange it seems. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 00:13, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. The fact that these two policies are so blatantly contradictory is a problem which should be addressed. I don't know which one should be changed to comply with the other one, although personally it seems to me that "was" makes more sense than "is" in cases where products can't be used at all anymore. 22090912l (talk) 18:15, 16 April 2023 (UTC)