Home  ›  How to Upload Overwatch Content to Sfm

How to Upload Overwatch Content to Sfm

Written By segunda-feira, 11 de abril de 2022 Add Comment Edit

I'one thousand a flake worried that there's an article of this size, given 1) Rule 34 exists regardless of topic so the fact it exists should be to no surprise, and 2) that the takedowns have yet to exist declaritively connected to Blizzard (if it was Blizzard even if working through a third party, that gives this a bit more weight). This in fact might be better to have on the Characters of Overwatch page every bit to aid boost the notability there. --ChiliadASEM (t) 05:xl, xix June 2016 (UTC) [respond]

Topics discussed in this article are ane) The PornHub spike in early May that was reported past multiple reliable sources, 2) The reason why Overwatch specifically is popular (its colorful cast of characters), 3) the pop usage of Source Filmmaker and official models ripped from the game, iv) the quality of said pornography, and 5) the takedowns, as mentioned above. At that place are various little details also, like in the content section. I don't know, I think merging all of this with the characters-list would either make it lose a lot of detail or create a potent undue weight for fan-made pornography in that commodity... ~Mable (chat) 08:fifteen, 19 June 2016 (UTC) [reply]
That there was porn of Overwatch characters and that there were takedowns of it are important details, but getting into details of why there was (when Rule 34 exists) and the quality seem like undue weight on this topic, that's the trouble. Information technology'due south a negative thing, broadly speaking in how its discussed in sources, so nosotros should avoid given the quality and reasoning excessive coverage. --One thousandASEM (t) xiii:36, 19 June 2016 (UTC) [reply]
I don't believe the sources talk over the porn in a negative manner at all. This can be seen in the sources similar Kotaku, which really is a long, in-item article all about such aspects, and becomes fifty-fifty more obvious when watching the Eurogamer video. The takedowns is really i of the to the lowest degree interesting aspects of it in my opinion. Information technology was covered by multiple sources, only all of them just kinda copied PCGamesN. ~Mable (chat) 04:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC) [reply]

I was trying to wait for some more than sources to help the article out and constitute these two:

  • http://flavorwire.com/577392/making-porn-from-video-games-why-old-folks-beloved-ya-and-more-todays-recommended-reading
  • http://www.gamenguide.com/articles/27422/20160531/blizzard-is-not-happy-about-overwatch-porn-and-will-do-everything-to-shut-it-all-down.htm

At present I'one thousand not sure if they're usable, the second one is rather redundant. Nevertheless, if y'all're able to use them, that'd be cool. Soulbust (talk) 19:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC) [reply]

The Flavorwire article doesn't really say anything new, just rather links through to the large Kotaku article. The Gameguide commodity may be of involvement, though I have difficulty deciding what sources to use for what aspects of the takedowns. Some 2nd party should probably take a look at that and run into if they can aggrandize the paragraph on takedowns. ~Mable (chat) 08:49, 1 July 2016 (UTC) [reply]

I'm currently on mobile (and I will exist for the residuum of the month), making more complicated edits difficult. I'thousand still keeping up with Overwatch porn news, though :p I was wondering if someone could add data about Mei becoming the most popularly searched graphic symbol to the commodity (under content). iDigitalTimes described this equally "significant". Source: [1] ~Mable (chat) 02:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC) [reply]

This week, most Overwatch porn news seems to exist about people comparing the influx of Pokémon Become porn searches to Overwatch. I dubiety that there is annihilation valuable to get out of those manufactures, but I'm keeping track of them for equally long as this commodity exists. ~Mable (chat) 04:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC) [answer]

I would retrieve that you can find a more reliable source than Jim Sterling for the Overwatch background info czar 04:17, 17 July 2016 (UTC) [respond]

I thought his quote was apt in describing the full general feelings people take for the game, in a way that works well in a quote box. I too thought a person notable on their own works well for a quote. Other sources, like Kotaku and Eurogamer, take of course said like things. It could be changed, of course, though that's a bit too much work on my phone. I may look into information technology when I get home... Merely at that point, the article is very probable to be deleted, so I suppose it didn't thing much what I practise ^_^; ~Mable (conversation) 04:28, 17 July 2016 (UTC) [reply]

So Kaplan was recently interviewed past Kotaku about the porn and at that place's some sizable chunks that could possibly be used in the article.

  • http://kotaku.com/overwatchs-managing director-on-competitive-controversies-and-1783869335

Soulbust (talk) 18:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC) [reply]

@Soulbust: Oh thank you! I don't know how I missed that, every bit I've seen the championship of the article come by multiple times. Will have a expect at that next week :) ...though this article may no longer exist and so... ~Mable (conversation) 00:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC) [reply]
For the record, in loving this source. I already know exactly what content I want to add together where. If just I were in a situation where I could comfortably edit right now ^_^; ~Mable (chat) 00:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC) [reply]
done. ~Mable (conversation) xi:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC) [reply]

@Soulbust: Why did you alter the dating scheme used in the commodity back in June? At present every new source I add, I have to fit my standard dating scheme to what you used, which is very unpleasant... Isn't this against Wikipedia guidelines? ~Mable (chat) 11:50, 27 July 2016 (UTC) [answer]

Information technology was the dating format used in the main Overwatch article I believe. Non meant to be malicious in anyway, and I'm more than okay with information technology being reverted dorsum to the original format you implemented. Pitiful about that Soulbust (talk) 22:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC) [answer]
Information technology'due south not too bad, I'grand simply not particularly addicted of it ^_^; I don't desire anyone to go through the attempt of irresolute it, though. Retrieve dates volition always annoy me, though :p Simply didn't sympathise why it was inverse in the first place. ~Mable (conversation) 23:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC) [answer]
Bold the article survives the merger give-and-take, information technology's almost certain someone will eventually utilize {{Employ mdy dates}}, as the prose is using MDY already. Many people view MOS:DATEUNIFY as advocating the same format in prose and cite, though I'grand not sure that's an accurate read at all. However the script near people employ to practise MOS DATES work typically is used globally. If there'southward no opposition to MDY, I'll run the script now to go everything in sync. -- ferret (talk) 23:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC) [reply]
I can't say I like that read of DATEUNIFY, every bit it's kinda impossible to use YMD in prize as far every bit I know... Other than that, I guess information technology didn't really matter at this point. I'thou not planning to add together whatsoever new sources until new news reports pop up, which may have a while at present the news aspect of information technology is off (unless you count reports regarding usage of VR for porn, which seems similar a weird link to brand). Feel gratuitous to sync up the dates ^_^; ~Mable (chat) 23:52, 27 July 2016 (UTC) [reply]
Done -- ferret (talk) 00:48, 28 July 2016 (UTC) [respond]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Overwatch and pornography/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 14:28, nine October 2016 (UTC) [reply]


Well, technically Undertale seems to exist more prominent nowadays, no? ;-D JAG UAR   14:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC) [reply]

[edit]

  • "The game'southward distinct and colorful character designs grabbed the attending" - I think 'grabbed' sounds a little informal, effort attracted or drew?
  • "Character models were ripped from the beta versions of the game" - link ripping
  • I think a mention of Rule 34 (Cyberspace meme) in the lead would do good the summarising of the article. The website itself is mentioned in a couple of sources
  • "inspired by basically all loftier-contour video game franchises" - sounds a tad informal. It wouldn't hurt removing "basically" and "all", but you lot could use a synonym if you like
  • "during which time various people ripped the character models of Overwatch" - link ripping for clarification
  • "The character Tracer was past far the most unremarkably searched Overwatch-related subject during this time, followed past Widowmaker and Mercy" - where in source 3 does it say that Widowmaker and Mercy are backside Tracer for the most searched characters? I chose source iii as information technology's the but given source which mentions them
  • " such as showing pro gamer D.Va masturbating while streaming" - the character is a pro gamer?
  • "Aoife Wilson of Eurogamer commented upon the pornographic content available on the Internet maxim that some of the videos are of surprisingly high quality" - might audio better as Commenting upon the pornographic content available on the Internet, Aoife Wilson of Eurogamer said that some of the videos are of surprisingly high quality...
  • "Jeff Kaplan stated that as someone who's "creatively responsible" for the franchise" - who is
  • "Prolific video game porn developer Studio FOW stated that it wouldn't create Overwatch pornography" - would not
  • No dead links

This article is of adept quality and is close to coming together the GA criteria IMO. I checked all of the sources and they're all good, as well as the prose. On concord until all are clarified! JAG UAR   14:59, ix October 2016 (UTC) [answer]

I implemented all suggestions you gave. These are really good comments. I hope the mode in which I implemented "rule 34" in the lead section is appropriate? And aye, D.Va is a former pro gamer according to the source. This is also described in her article. As for the VentureBeat source not mentioning Widowmaker's and Mercy'due south popularity, it seems similar you somehow got the incorrect link. this is source 3. ~Mable (chat) 17:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC) [reply]
Thanks for addressing them! I'k ready to promote this merely non sure if information technology'southward best to wait if after the merger discussion has been closed, per BlueMoonset. It looks ripe for closure and should exist kept now. JAG UAR   xiv:50, 10 Oct 2016 (UTC) [answer]

[edit]

I call up it is a very bad idea for this to proceed until the the merger discussion is closed one way or the other. I would strongly recommend that this be put on concur while a closure request is made at the advisable noticeboard. The give-and-take was opened in skillful faith, and in practiced faith it ought to be completed before this review continues. (DYK, which is a less rigorous vetting process, always waits for AfD or Merger discussions to exist completed before assuasive concluding approval.) BlueMoonset (talk) 15:21, 9 October 2016 (UTC) [answer]

That is fair. To exist honest, I am simply happy to bring it ane footstep closer. I think it also shows that, yes, I am serious nigh this commodity. It feels like many people in the merger discussion only see the commodity as a big joke... Thanks for literally doing the review the aforementioned day equally I nominated it, that is very kind. ~Mable (chat) 17:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC) [respond]
I run across no reason not to promote this, then here we get. JAG UAR   11:50, 13 October 2016 (UTC) [reply]
At that place is an ongoing merge discussion which looks like it leans strongly towards merging. one of the criteria for a good commodity is stability: "it does non modify significantly from day to twenty-four hour period because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute". Do you not think that these things may be in conflict? Echoing BlueMoonset's comments above, I feel that this review should have waited out the event of the merge discussion or alternative should have been airtight. Passing in these circumstances seems inappropriate. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC) [answer]
Actually, WP:GA? states:

Vandalism reversions, proposals to carve up or merge content, practiced faith improvements to the page (such equally copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not utilize to the "stable" criterion.

~Mable (chat) 12:xxx, thirteen October 2016 (UTC) [reply]
(edit conflict) I call back you're right, so I reverted my change and have placed it on hold again. It's but that I idea the discussion was put off and would be on concur for much longer, every bit it'southward been active on and off since June. I didn't like the idea of leaving this review on concur indefinitely unless the merger give-and-take reaches a verdict, which it hopefully should soon. I'll re-revert my edit if things change. JAG UAR   12:33, 13 Oct 2016 (UTC) [reply]
(edit conflict) Agree with BlueMoonset and J Milburn. The merger needs to be closed before the article is promoted. I've undone the addition of the expert commodity template to the article. -- ferret (talk) 12:34, 13 Oct 2016 (UTC) [reply]
@Jaguar: If you don't want to get out the review open, not that I personally come across whatsoever trouble with leaving a review open long term, I think closing it without promoting (generally referred to, somewhat unfortunately, as "failing") would be a possibility. The article can ever exist renominated. @Maplestrip: I confess I am surprised to come across that. I have it to mean that we don't need to rush to good article reassessment every fourth dimension someone proposes a merge or there is a disagreement well-nigh wording. I think information technology's a flake of a stretch to say that we tin take that line to mean that nosotros should have no qualms well-nigh promoting an commodity which, due to an ongoing give-and-take, may not (probably won't?) exist in a few weeks' time. Maybe it is worth raising a query about that part of the instructions; I tin can't envisage there being a consensus to say that promoting in this kind of case is advisable (as the comments in this thread could exist said to illustrate). Josh Milburn (talk) 13:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC) [respond]
To be clear, I'm fine with waiting until the merge discussion is closed. I'1000 but 1) happy that this is set and 2) I hope that this might quicken that procedure a bit. It is a tad frustrating when an article that you consider to be of GA quality is stuck in a merger discussion for months. ~Mable (chat) 18:05, xiii October 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Then the article got merged into the principal Overwatch page. I suggest this nomination should exist closed now. GamerPro64 13:25, thirty October 2016 (UTC) [reply]

I'll close this now. Lamentable to hear the outcome, just I hope Mable knows this would have passed! JAG UAR   xiv:xix, thirty October 2016 (UTC) [reply]
Thank you for all the nice comments :) I actually tried to become this topic to stand on its own, just it's too bad to run across that I failed. Maybe if the sources go on coming, we'll be back hither next yr, but we'll encounter what the time to come brings. ~Mable (chat) xiv:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC) [respond]
  • Is the gif actually necessary? I don't know why I was surprised to see it in the article, but it does seem a bit costless. -- Pres Due north thirteen:16, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
  • To copy what I wrote in the file'south description, "the brusque animation gives a 'typical' instance of the topic of the commodity. The image shows in what way the graphic symbol models are edited and animated, how the short videos are typically looped, and the quality of the Source Filmmaker animations." I agree that at present it'southward in the commodity, it'due south rather distracting. Part of the issue is that in cutting it downwardly, I accidentally sped the animation up. I do think it'due south useful content, though. ~Mable (chat) 13:49, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, gratuitous in more means than 1... A unmarried screenshot would be reasonable here if it serves to illustrate what cannot exist explained through text alone, but the animation adds nothing that a single screenshot wouldn't adequately illustrate on its own. (Annotation that we do the aforementioned even for animated films—the visualization is more for the style unless the bodily animation technique needs to be explicated.) czar 17:xvi, 9 Oct 2016 (UTC)
This discussion is probably better had on the commodity's talk page, but the thought was to testify the core loop thought showtime and foremost. I agree that it didn't plow out very well. Not sure whether a unmarried shot would communicate the same data... just this discussion should probably exist brought to the article'due south talk page ^_^; ~Mable (chat) 17:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Moved from WT:VG czar 19:51, x October 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Two things: Offset, on pure NFC grounds, I concord about the use of a single screenshot rather than a gif. 2d, I capeesh that Wikipedia is not censored, simply practise we really need something and then explicit? Given that PresN, Czar and I have all raised concerns, I'yard going to remove the image at this time. If there's later a consensus for its utilize on the commodity, it can be reinstated (and, if it ends up deleted, restored). Josh Milburn (talk) 23:59, 10 Oct 2016 (UTC) [reply]
I think the image works on this folio. Images, videos, and other media help make manufactures more just long blocks of text. They assistance articulate the commodity'due south content amend and in a visual class. You're right: Wikipedia isn't censored. And given that this article deals with pornographic Overwatch content, why non have an image that relates to the article's text? I think maybe the single screenshot would exist better than a gif, peculiarly since it provides a compromise between having a gif visual and not having a visual at all. Soulbust (talk) 05:02, 11 October 2016 (UTC) [reply]
I honestly don't accept such a strong opinion about information technology anymore. The idea seemed good at the time, but the manner I cutting information technology for fair apply and the way it but looks on the commodity are very unpleasant to me. I'm willing to make a nice little screenshot of the same work if you all think that would piece of work better here, merely seeing every bit the main affair I was hoping to communicate was the manner in which the models are animated, I don't think it has much value myself. ~Mable (chat) 17:21, eleven October 2016 (UTC) [reply]
Soulbust, it's less about "why not" and more about fair apply rationale. Nosotros only add non-gratuitous articles when in that location is a specific need to visualize something that must be visualized and for which we have no gratis use media. If at that place'due south something about the way that needs to be said with an prototype, that would be a rationale, but I'm not personally even seeing that here. arbiter 17:45, 11 October 2016 (UTC) [reply]
I personally viewing the topic of the article as a grouping of creative works that are similar in some manner. The paradigm shows an example of a 'typical' example of such a work. I believe the fair apply rationale is in order, that isn't the issue. Whether the quality and the visual effect it has on the article are proper is another question. One could even contend that the sped upwards version of it gives a reader the wrong idea. ~Mable (chat) 17:52, xi Oct 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Why does this article exist? There aren't any articles most Skyrim porn, or Borderlands porn, or Undertale porn. So why does this nonsense become an article?

You are right, I tin can't observe any news articles on Skyrim porn or Undertale porn. Searching for Overwatch porn in Google News gives a lot of results though. Sources have documented and reported upon this topic. Rolling Stone did an article on information technology only last month, and several sources including Mashable reported on a recent YouPorn blog post that documented how porn viewing was affected by the Overwatch League. If you tin find these kinds of consistent articles on other works, then I would love to see them. ~Mable (conversation) 09:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC) [reply]

I'one thousand questioning the new addition of a looped video added by @Thesfmcollection. The rationale currently says the purpose is to "give readers a more physical impression on how Overwatch pornography may wait like" just I repeat the arguments fabricated in the above department: would not a unmarried screenshot suffice? And, even then, why would nosotros need more one epitome? I'yard as well non sure the argument "most Overwatch pornography is only several seconds long and intended to loop indefinitely" needs to be illustrated and there isn't any at length discussion regarding animation styles or manner of animation, so I'm however not quite seeing the need for a specific looped video. Is there a specific written content that this video is visualizing?

My questions are: What is the specific thing that this file is illustrating that is not adequately conveyed by the other existing image or described by text? How is that analogy not served by a single still, so must be an entire looping video? Do we need two nonfree images to illustrate this topic?

I wouldn't object if a however was extracted and it was used in place of the Widow image at the top. I'd even argue that a still out of that video is more representative of the subject area than the Widow image. ~Thanks, Ten Ton Parasol 22:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Overwatch pornography is such a manifold and broad topic, this is why I exercise believe that at to the lowest degree one prototype and one blitheness are necessary to accurately and comprehensively illuminate the subject. First of all I uncertainty that nosotros're hurting anyone with these files, in reverse; Wikipedia tin can illustrate its commodity and demonstrate examples, the artists receive additional credit for information technology, and since they're not defamatory and of no commercial interest to the company, it's also just more advertizement for them actually. I know the licensing policy is to be respected and has paramount priority, just policies and guidelines are designed to assist and not to complicate and worsen everything – then shouldn't ignore all rules employ hither?
I chose this blitheness because it shows both, a female person and a male character from the game, it's an example of a loopable animation, information technology uses music and maps (Hanamura) form the game, it's an instance of where the female character was "slightly contradistinct to show more peel", it displays all relevant intimate parts in an innocuous way, and the software used to create it (Maya) is also used by the company to make Overwatch's "animated shorts". Then if we have to choose between the image and the animation, I'll pick the blitheness for this reasons and because, every bit I already elucidated in my edit summary, animations "found the main and about interesting part of this subject". Thesfmcollection (talk) 09:49, 26 Apr 2019 (UTC) [reply]
I do not think IAR applies to non-free images, no. And I hadn't expressed a licensing concern wrt "hurting" Blizzard and its property, so it isn't relevant to my concerns.
And, similar, while I understand these rationales to why we should keep the D.Va and Lucio image as a single frame, I even so practice not believe it covers why nosotros need both images and why it needs to be a video rather than 1 frame. The valid justifications you outlined are only as well communicated by a still. As I stated before, I do non object to using a withal from the video as the chief image. I merely don't come across the rationale for keeping the nonfree Widow image on top of that as what it communicates is already covered by the D.Va and Lucio file, and I don't believe there's a strong enough case for having the entire video. It isn't necessary to illustrate that the videos loop (that is an easily understood concept) or that they employ music from the game (also an easily understood concept). ~Cheers, X Ton Parasol 15:55, 26 April 2019 (UTC) [answer]
If really necessary remove the Widowmaker image but at least proceed the (full) animation – turning it into a single frame would completely void its purpose, minimizing and deforming media at the sole expense of satisfying a nonliving non-material policy isn't benefiting anyone. Thesfmcollection (talk) xvi:31, 26 April 2019 (UTC) [reply]
I don't empathize how it minimizes and deforms the media. A single frame is as much a unit of the media as a shot is. And if there'due south no strong rationale for keeping it an unabridged video, i.eastward. the entirety of the nonfree media, and then it shouldn't be a video. That'southward the policy. Yous tin can't simply ignore policy. That's non how nonfree prototype utilize on Wikipedia works. It isn't benefiting anyone to dismiss the policy either. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 17:52, 26 April 2019 (UTC) [reply]
"It isn't benefiting anyone to dismiss the policy either" – I ever attach to the rules, but yes, actually it is in this case. Over again
  • The rationale for the file is "requite readers a more concrete impression on how Overwatch pornography may look like".
  • The rationale for the blitheness is "animations constitute the main and well-nigh interesting function of this subject".
  • The rationale for this animation is "it shows both, a female and a male character from the game, it's an example of a loopable animation, it uses music and maps (Hanamura) class the game, it's an example of where the female person graphic symbol was "slightly altered to show more pare", it displays all relevant intimate parts in an innocuous way, and the software used to create it (Maya) is also used by the visitor to make Overwatch'southward "blithe shorts"".
And I tin't run into any argument that would counter these. Cutting the animation would, with no offense, just exist impaired. If it helps I can search for another, shorter, animation, although I practice believe this one is a prime example and therefore hardly replaceable. Looking at Ellowas'south archives – from which I would pick animations in any instance since they're very ordinary, consensual, use common sexual positions and are made with Maya – I could consider the Mercy doggy style animation equally a replacement. Only you don't see the intimate parts that good, and you would have to choose between either seeing their faces or their sexual organs, and it'south less neutral and innocuous, on the other side information technology's half the fourth dimension long (7 seconds instead of xiv), and since in that location is no music and it doesn't loop, yous could technically cutting it even shorter (which I would object however). So what do you think? Thesfmcollection (talk) 19:21, 26 April 2019 (UTC) [reply]
Literally, as I stated before, all the rationales are valid for why we need an image, but it does not justify why it needs to be a complete video. The points of looping and uses the licensed music as well practise not need to be illustrated every bit they are easily understood every bit is, and the remainder of the points are illustrated equally likewise past a still. I am non countering those points. I am saying that those points provide naught justification for why it needs to be a video. too don't sympathise why "cut the animation would, with no law-breaking, simply be dumb." In what way would it be dumb? A shorter animation is also not a solution imo considering, again, there is no justification for why the nonfree file needs to be an animated video of an entire work. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 20:19, 26 April 2019 (UTC) [reply]
Given so far information technology'due south but the 2 of us in this discussion, and we're starting to loop around into repetition, I've placed neutral discussion notices at the three WikiProjects listed at the superlative. ~Thank you, Ten Ton Parasol 20:32, 26 April 2019 (UTC) [answer]
This detail file fails WP:NFCC #two (which is a rarity), #3, #five, and #8. It should be removed and/or deleted. A single frame would still neglect NFCC #3, #5, and #8. I would submit the whole file to WP:FFD. --Izno (talk) 20:35, 26 April 2019 (UTC) [reply]
I would really say, with the text of the commodity, neither of the existing images, much less a video/animated ane, are required failing to encounter NFCC#viii and that these images are used in a style that tips the edges of beingness tantalizing rather than encyclopedic. Nosotros tin reasonably presume that a reader is going to know what a naked torso looks like, and from the official images we have for the various OW heroes, its non that hard to imagine what a naked version would be. There is piffling to no discussion about the quality of the imagery.
Now, if we were talking something that was the same quality but less titillating (like, characters in briefest of underwear/swimsuits ala DOAX) still showing how it is most to the game'southward way, yous might have some room to contend. --Chiliadasem (t) 20:43, 26 April 2019 (UTC) [reply]
Absolutely, I avoided that entire argument, Masem, because I have very Prudish™ standards about what's gratuitous and didn't know if at that place was ground to stand on there. (What am I doing on this article then, lmao.) I'thousand inclined to hold, though. For the record, I don't oppose having no images at all. I call back that's likewise a very fine selection. ~Cheers, X Ton Parasol 20:49, 26 April 2019 (UTC) [reply]
I'1000 trying to be applied, not prude (I'd too add that I could speak to objectifying every bit there's no male pictures, or smexy naked omnics :P) This article is effectively proverb "Rule 34 is upheld" but doesn't talk to quality, so the need for pictures , given WP's purpose, is barely there. --Yardasem (t) 00:08, 27 April 2019 (UTC) [reply]
Oh, I wasn't saying YOU were beingness prude lmao, just when the thought was in my ain head, I couldn't tell whether I was being practical or prude. When y'all say it, I'm like, "Oh, that's definitely pragmatism." Couldn't tell if it's sensible unless someone else is saying it :p Mm. I'd support that line of argument. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 03:nineteen, 27 April 2019 (UTC) [reply]

I came hither because of a comment that was left at WT:WikiProject Pornography. I don't understand why this relatively short article needs two not-gratis images. Either by itself might satisfy the requirements for not-complimentary content. Together, I retrieve they clearly violate WP:NFCC#iii, which states that "multiple items of non-free content are non used if i detail can convey equivalent pregnant information." — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk 22:44, 28 Apr 2019 (UTC) [reply]

So is it safe to say a consensus has been reached? Should the images be deleted and removed from the article? puggo (talk) 22:54, 28 April 2019 (UTC) [reply]
  • I recommend removing the video, as it is unnecessary. The text of the article describes this in enough detail. I'd recommend keeping the paradigm, as information technology works well as a primary means of visual identification at the top of the commodity, and shows exactly what these edited grapheme models wait similar (something which might be hard to communicate in text). ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 20:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC) [answer]
Washed. I hope I didn't exercise anything also rash. puggo (talk) 22:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC) [respond]

OW Porn later the schoolgirl D.Va skin from current anniversary event. --Masem (t) 21:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC) [respond]

"Blizzard Amusement'due south 2016 video game Overwatch inspired a notable corporeality of fan-made pornography." (emphasis mine)

No it didn't. While it was perhaps an above-average quantity of fanmade pornography, what is information technology about this pornography that is in whatsoever way notable?

Notability should signal some shift in culture or engineering science or media; at that place should exist some reason why this bailiwick would be of interest to a reader. And the article actually fails to establish anything unique near Overwatch pornography which would entitle it to a wikipedia article. This pornography was not the result of new modeling tools being widely bachelor or a result of Blizzard partnering with pornography producers. In that location just isn't any meaningful deviation between Overwatch pornography and fanmade pornography for other franchises.

The article itself essentially just says "there is a lot of pornography because the characters are really hot". I'm a little confused as to how this is notable. At best, the quantity of pornography produced by fans of Overwatch deserves a footnote mention in the rule 34 commodity, not two thousand words detailing every nuance of how this specific genre of pornography is created and distributed. Especially when so little nearly its product and distribution is really unique compared to any other fannmade work, pornographic or otherwise.

In that location simply is not plenty that is unique virtually Overwatch pornography to justify a wikipedia commodity. Its presence here is juvenile at best. — Preceding unsigned annotate added by 174.92.107.235 (talk) 02:42, 10 Dec 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Roughly, agreed. I've never liked that this article existed. Information technology's daily grind mill coverage. -- ferret (talk) 03:04, 10 December 2021 (UTC) [reply]

johnsonwisecon1936.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Overwatch_and_pornography

0 Response to "How to Upload Overwatch Content to Sfm"

Postar um comentário

Assinar: Postar comentários (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel