Talk:Winston (Overwatch)

article seems overly specific

doesn't this page break the rules for articles on overly specific topics? 198.40.29.7 (talk) 15:10, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

.... what? Every topic is... specific. -- ferret (talk) 15:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

The guidelines are less cut and dry than I remember them, but the rule I was thinking of was the general notability guidelines (WP:GNG).

Over a quarter of the publications cited in the article are non-independent sources provided by Blizzard, and of the 18 secondary publications, he is only a trivial mention in sources 1, 3, 4, 11, and 15. Almost the entirety of the Gameplay and Appearances sections provide an exhaustive amount of indiscriminate information with no added context indicating the significance of said information.

This article reads less like a page from an encyclopedia and more like a page you would find on a wiki made specifically for overwatch. Unlike, say, the Wicked Witch of the West, who is an enduring character with countless adaptations and definite cultural significance, Winston is a character whose cultural significance hasn't really eclipsed his role in his source material. I think the strongest argument for the existence of an entire article dedicated to Winston is his prominence in internet meme culture. But this article doesn't even mention that aspect of the character, let alone his iconic mimetic phrase "did someone say peanut butter?"

Sorry if this is incorrect or uncalled for, i'm no expert, this article just stood out as profoundly bizarre to me. 73.50.59.195 (talk) 18:46, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Naw, just needed clarification on what you meant :) I don't really disagree with your view here. -- ferret (talk) 19:25, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

GNG assessment of some references

I believe the article passes GNG. This is an assessment of some of the references included to determine whether they would help etablish GNG for Winston.

Source assessment table: prepared by User:soulbust

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
PCGamesN (2015)		As per WP:VG/RS	Source completely about Winston, regarding the trailer revealing his gameplay elements.	✔ Yes
Heroes Never Die (2018)		As per WP:VG/RS	Probably the best, cleanest example of a Winston guide: 1,100+ word article providing cogent analysis beyond just shallow or brief gameplay tips.	✔ Yes
PC Gamer (2017)		As per WP:VG/RS	Good look at Winston's role in gameplay, particularly in the meta present at the time of the article's publication. Additionally discusses individual Winston players.	✔ Yes
Wired (2017)		As per WP:VG/RS	~ One section of article discusses Winston's place in professional esports scene. I believe this counts toward GNG since it discusses the subject directly and in detail, as per the required criteria. But I can see others believing this is perhaps brief coverage.	~ Partial
Heroes Never Die (2017)		As per WP:VG/RS	Discusses elements of Winston's place in Overwatch lore	✔ Yes
Dualshockers (2022)		Listed as situationally reliable at WP:VG/RS (see most recent discussion for further context).	Discusses design changes made to Winston in Overwatch 2	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Hey Ferret, I saw your comments above. What do you think about the sources? I think I still have a little doubt if its notable. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 11:22, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

PCGamesN is routine announcement coverage. It describes what the character is but has zero actual commentary or description of development. It's basically "This video has a monkey with these traits". I do not like either Heroes Never Die source for this. An Overwatch dedicated sub-site is far from independent. Of course a site dedicated to Overwatch is going to post how to play and similar articles for the characters. Literally the purpose of the site. The first is a pure how to guide, not coverage or commentary. The second is about the Horizon map more than Winston, but it's also mostly just a retelling of lore, offering again no commentary. Not even "I really think this back story is great!" Wired, as noted, is more about esports level play and using characters. Yes, Winston is mentioned with some gameplay details, but again with little commentary of his development or design, its all in the context of high level esports meta. DualShockers is as described, a lengthy article describing the Overwatch 2 changes and why they were probably necessary. Best source here. I am, of course, far more stringent than many others. I am, also, an Overwatch fan with 1000 hours of playtime, with Winston sitting as my 9th most used character :P -- ferret (talk) 14:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I see. That's why you're into Overwatch. I guess DualShockers were the only SIGCoV here and the article still failing third party sources. Great source analysis. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 17:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Your take on the SIGCOV for the Heroes Never Die articles is valid of course, but they still count as independent as they are not affiliated with Blizzard. HND specializing in Overwatch articles in the gaming sphere is essentially the equivalent of Slam specializing in basketball in the sports media world. Yeah, Slam has is going to write about the NBA but that doesn't mean it's affiliated with the league.

So then it's a matter of if those sources do in fact meet SIGCOV. While yes, the HND guide doesn't add much in regards to critical commentary or reception (though it does mention how some fans perceive his gameplay as boring right at the beginning), it's still coverage of the character. The guideline states that SIGCOV means the source "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."

The HND guide satisfies that criteria, even if it's not critical reception.

The HND source about the Lunar map is of course about the map itself, but Winston and his backstory in that environment is covered directly and detail, again satisfying the criteria imo.

But with that said, I completely agree with the sentiment that the article can still use further improvement and I'll see if I can find more sourcing that satisfies SIGCOV. Soulbust (talk) 21:01, 23 May 2023 (UTC)