Talk:Sombra (Overwatch)

July 2018
There are no sources, why are you reverting this? Anything that has no source and is removed must include a source before being brought back, as per WP:PROVEIT. Computer40 «»  (talk)  02:21, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * As ferret explained in their edit summary, read WP:LEADCITE. The lead summarized the content of the article, and all the statements appearing in the lead are sourced in the body. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  03:17, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how that ARG line has anything to do with Sombra. The rest of the ARG info is fine, but all that line does is talk about how they didn't do many hints for future characters (nothing to do with Sombra specifically). It really shouldn't be in a lead section. Computer40  «»  (talk)  05:22, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * More than half the article is about the ARG, the lede should reasonably reflect it. --M asem (t) 05:28, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Addition of Deliberate Misinformation
An anonymous editor added a quote (link to edit) that was quickly reverted under good faith, but I want to note that the quote the anonymous editor added is not in the source, a legitimate Reddit AMA with Jeff Kaplan that took place a year ago, nor does it exist anywhere. It's deliberate addition of misinformation or factual error. Noting in case there are future attempts to add similar. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  01:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Split ARG Game Discussion/Reception into Separate Article
Right now there's a huge problem with the article and the undue weight the ARG game has been given: while there seems to be plenty of sources discussing it, it's taken over the character article itself, and doesn't particularly *pertain* to the character so much as its a tangent and big enough that it's basically a separate article as is inside this one. I'm proposing splitting it off, and then developing a proper reception section for her.-- Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * What if I counter that this should be renamed entirely to "Sombra Overwatch ARG" or similar, and the character details be stripped out instead? This isn't a matter of working out a proper reception: Right now it is utterly missing. 70%+ of this is actually about the ARG. -- ferret (talk) 19:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I support a split. I actually think you're both proposing the same thing, just Kung Fu Man (as I understand it) is just suggesting we just move the entire ARG section to its own article and ferret is suggesting a move and a split ack into this article, which is just the same thing with more steps. I think we just Judgment of Solomon this and cut the article in half: move everything under Sombra to a new article, and the rest outside of that pertains to the character (the ARG mentions in dev are sufficient coverage for what remains as it pertains to the character). This gives space to develop the missing proper reception. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  20:09, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * To a degree. My stance was more that Sombra's independent notability from the ARG is not established by current sourcing. So a split is a bit chicken and egg. -- ferret (talk) 20:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Argubly the level of detail on the ARG elements is far too excessive. Some of the bits can be summarized more concisely, and thus give less weight compared to the char. I would oppose any split because there is no SIZE problem and the ARG is completely a part of the character's development. M asem (t) 21:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That's also fair! I'm not opposed to that. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  22:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Alright since everyone was down with this to some extent I've moved it over to Overwatch (alternate reality game), patched the references and split the suggested references between the articles. I do agree cutting down some of the quotes will help, especially since there's more references on the talk page to use.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:06, 23 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @Kung Fu Man I'm... a little confused why you moved so quickly on this. I was essentially a soft oppose, and Masem was a directly stated oppose. -- ferret (talk) 14:20, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Apparently I misread based off TenTon's reactions. I think though even if it's simplified, it might be too much undue here in this particular article, and might almost be better in the parent game article?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If I were going to move most of the arg somewhere, maybe Overwatch related media (or something), and combine the animated media and digital comics articles there too. Hell, the porno articles too. I don't see why all four topics couldn't sit together, but that's just me. -- ferret (talk) 15:20, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * At the very least possibly combine it with the Digital Comic series as a standalone digital media article? The porn article I can see getting scholarly discussion as time goes on, and they're still pushing shorts. But the comics are just a smaller thing.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think a combined Overwatch related media covering the comics, animated media, short stories and novels, and this ARG would be best. The pornography article has had a lot of discussion back and forth about it, so I think we should leave that out for now but have a section about it. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  19:00, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I actually think all of them can stand-alone (especially the animated media and pornography articles, but they're all pretty clearly distinct subjects with sourcing establishing notability). If merging the ARG information into anything, the Other media section on the main Overwatch franchise article wouldn't be a bad option. Or perhaps somewhere on Development of Overwatch. Soulbust (talk) 05:52, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The ARG info could perhaps also be merged back into this Sombra article, which I've now fleshed out a bit. But I do think the ARG is distinct enough to be able to be properly split off into its own article. Soulbust (talk) 12:06, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I will reiterate my concern is that while you can argue that both Sombra and the ARG are notable as separate topics, there was no SIZE issue to push for a split, only a DUE aspect (cutting back on the ARG while expanding on Sombra), and there is a loss of comprehensive coverage by splitting the articles. The ARG was 100% around Sombra's release and part of its development (statements from devs of how to include her). M asem (t) 13:02, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The main problem is even if cut down the ARG has its own reception that has nothing to do with the character and is still more about the game's dev itself, even if cut down there's still more sources not cited. So the agreement seems to be it's worth some standalone discussion, the question is where and it doesn't feel like it should be here.
 * Now that said I think the consensus Soulbust is that the ARG by itself is not ready or formatted to be a stand along article, and probably should be merged somewhere. So I'm going to disagree with your statements on that talk page to move it to the mainspace.
 * As for the matter of the dev overlap, I think there we could summarize it a bit and then do a main link to wherever it goes so it doesn't dominate this article. How's that sounding to everyone?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:15, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah the ARG definitely needs some mentioning in this Sombra article. Perhaps a sub-section in the current Development section would work.
 * The ARG draft is a need to be "rewritten to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards." Don't know if we can ask for a copy edit on a draft, but someone should probably go through it and see just how much we'll have to work with. There are also 9 references on the talk page for the draft that could potentially be incorporated into the article. I'll see if I can do that soon, but I'll probably be a bit busy today.
 * If it gets merged, I think a merge into either the Post-release development and support or Marketing (since the ARG was a promotional tool) sub-sections of the Development of Overwatch article would be the best option (though obviously some discussion in this Sombra article needs to be present). Soulbust (talk) 21:27, 24 May 2023 (UTC)