-3

I was reading some of the overwatch questions and decided to look at the tag wiki to find out more about the game, specifically the characters, I noticed that on the wikipedia page the characters are not listed, and I felt that since most if not all questions about the game will mention the characters, that having details about them and and what they do would be helpful to someone who wants to understand what questioners and answerers are talking about, so I decided to suggest an edit for the tag wiki with a list of characters categorised by role, with links to the official details for each character, though one review did approve the edit, the edit was rejected because the reviewers didn't feel that it was helpful and that a complete list was not necessary. When I saw the rejection reasons, I asked myself whether the list of heroes was helpful at all and I still feel it is, but I must admit it's a bit long, so I decided to suggest another edit that just links to the list of heroes on the official site.

I've never played team fortress 2, but I get the impression that overwatch is quite similar, so I decided to have a look at the tag wiki for that, which does not mention the characters, but the wikipedia page that it links to does, which I think is quite useful information.

Considering that the wikipedia page lacks information about the heroes, should details about them be included on the tag wiki of the gaming stack exchange site? Or would that be better suited for the wikipedia page, should I suggest my edit there?

  • the poont of a tag wiki isto give information on proper use of the tag. we give basic game infoatiom, to gelp identify it, but thats it. we dont accept, for instance, a list of playable heroes and corresponding links. – user106385 May 20 '16 at 21:51
  • We use separate tags for the separate classes in TF2. see [tf2-spy] and similar. Pretty sure [Diablo-3] has a similar thing. Maybe that's something we could consider for overwatch – Robotnik May 20 '16 at 23:10
  • @Robotnik, overwatch is hero-based. Heroes fall into categories, but they are individual and unique characters, not class-based. Users pick from 20+ heroes to play with, so the better comparison would be games such as DotA and LoL, which AFAIK, we do not use hero tags for. – user106385 May 21 '16 at 0:11
  • 1
    @Timelord64 - Whether we call them 'hero' or 'class' the fact is the characters play very differently from one another, such that: if someone is looking for all info on Mercy or Reinhart it would help to have tags to distinguish them. I don't play LoL or DotA so I can't speak for why their characters don't have specific tags: perhaps the mechanics of playing one character do not differ enough to warrant separating them out? – Robotnik May 21 '16 at 0:21
  • @Robotnik, the characters of LoL or DotA differ in exactly the same way as they do in Overwatch. Thats why you may have heard Overwatch be referred to as "hero-based", as opposed to the "class-based" genre given to games like TF2 and Diablo. Ultimately, your suggesting we spread a game out across 20+ tags (and that is just the release heroes). Yes, it might work. – user106385 May 21 '16 at 0:32
  • We shouldn't create tags on the basis that we see unique differences, in the first place. We should be creating tags as the need arises. When you consider that most of the overwatch questions during BETA came from a single user, who has since been accused of seeding questions for the point of rep, its fair to say that at best we can't say for sure if hero-tags would be appropriate right now. – user106385 May 21 '16 at 0:34
  • 4
    @Timelord64 - I never said spread them out, we'd still have an [overwatch] tag and all questions, class based or otherwise would have that tag. We should be organising topics based on areas of expertise. Would an 'expert' in Mercy want to see all questions on Mercy? Does someone wanting to look at Redstone circuits in Minecraft use the [Minecraft-redstone] tag? That's the comparison I'm trying to draw here. Do we need the class tags right now? Probably not. Would it be worth considering if we get a lot of questions about specific heroes? Maybe. That's all I'm saying. – Robotnik May 21 '16 at 0:58
  • 1
    In addition to the above, the zerg, terran etc tags seen on Starcraft are examples of the approach. – user101016 May 23 '16 at 10:42
  • 2
    Also, RE: Timelord64's comments "When you consider that most of the overwatch questions during BETA came from a single user, who has since been accused of seeding questions for the point of rep..." - it is not a bad/negative thing to seed questions. See this meta: meta.gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/10100/… – user101016 May 23 '16 at 10:44
4

I'm one of the people who rejected the edit so I'll explain a bit more as to why and address your questions.

A tag wiki is meant to be an overview of the topic that can serve as a lead off if people want more. It is not meant to be an exhaustive guide to everything about it nor a detailed breakdown of things. We want it to serve as a guide but we are not a resource meant to give detail. That is better done on other sites more did to that information and likely particular to the games.

And a list of the characters in this case is too much detail. Wikis are not things that are updated very regularly and doing so is a process. So if dlc adds more characters or something changes, we need to update the wiki. We'd rather not. Again, that's better done in sources that are going to track that, and we can link to those sources.

But, that said, I don't think a link to the characters or classes is super helpful just as a list. In context of a sentence or explanation maybe, but we are not meant to be that comprehensive. You wouldn't see a list of companions from mass effect in the wiki for those games. Instead, help people explore the topic on their own with pointing to sites that are helpful. Not too the list of companions but instead to the site with more info. Official is better, but communities are great too. And these are much less likely to need updating and are much more generally helpful.

If you wanted to point to a subreddit or a wikia, that's a better fit. It should be more general resources though, to help people to find the info their looking for.

  • As the other person who rejected the edit, this sums up my thoughts as well. – GodEmperorDune May 21 '16 at 19:24
3

The expected tag wiki content is explained in this meta:

How should I write tag wikis?

A copy can be found below:

Excerpt

A [Release Year] [Genre], developed by [Developer] for [Platforms]. [Short Description].

Body

A [Release Year] [Genre], developed by [Developer] for [Platforms]. [Fuller description].

General Information

  • Release Date: [Dates, by location/platform/whatever. May need multiple lines.]
  • Developer: [Developer]
  • Publisher: [Publisher]

Links

  • Official Site: [Site]
  • English Wikipedia Page: [Wikipedia Page]
  • Game Wiki: [Any popular game wiki, if appropriate. Multiple, if need be.]
  • [Whatever]: [Any other highly useful resources.]

Related Tags

The tag is used to help categorise questions (mainly by game titles). The tag details need to help clarify the game. Additional links can be added to the tag body to help users jump to other official / popular sources of information on the game.

Now, if the wiki article is missing information, you can add the information to the wiki article...and add the link to the tag body in the format above.

If the information isn't readily available it may be possible to create a self-answered question... but would caution against trying to cover all the characters in one question (as the question may be seen as too broad, and subject to closure).

  • your not actually answering the question being asked, here, at all. – user106385 May 20 '16 at 21:49
  • 2
    Really? Which parts didn't you read? – user101016 May 21 '16 at 9:38
  • The question here is essentially if a list of characters fits the description "Any other highly useful resources". It may be obvious to you that it doesn't, but it is unlikely to be obvious to the asker. Or you may think it does fit the description. Not obvious to anyone. – Brythan May 23 '16 at 0:11
  • @Brythan - if you follow the template I have shown (taken from the linked meta on how to write tag descriptions) then it is clear that we should just add links to wiki articles (from wikipedia or otherwise). No need to fill it with all the details of the game into the tag. It will only be a copy and paste effort anyway...may as well just link to the info. – user101016 May 23 '16 at 10:40
2

The main site for Overwatch is here. Note that there is a tab called "Heroes" which links to the list of characters. That list is going to keep up to date naturally. Any list you put here is going to be out of date with every hero release.

Doesn't it make more sense to link directly to the main site, which has a variety of information rather than to a particular link inside the site? As it is, you could justify linking any of the tabs with your argument. What if they change? Then we have to update the tag wiki. The main site is less likely to change and more likely to redirect even if it does change.

Similarly if there is a wikia for that game, it makes more sense to link to the home page than to some individual page inside it. Wikipedia seems unlikely to have pages for individual Overwatch characters. They aren't notable enough. If anything, it might have a list page of its own. A Wikia makes more sense for additional details.

  • Although, we generally include a link to the games page on Wikipedia, where more general information can be found. – user106385 May 23 '16 at 1:37

You must log in to answer this question.