Talk:Blizzard Entertainment

On splitting the Hong Kong protest aspect

I would be against such split, at this point. We've documented in depth to this point as it was unclear where this was going.

If this still is a big deal next week, then we might need to figure out something. If with Blizzard's statement, this dies out, then we need to drastically trim back the coverage to be more appropriate of the situation. But in generally, we should avoid splitting controversies out to separate articles in the first place. --Masem (t) 17:51, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Agreed with Masem, we should see if this is still big news next week and if Blizzard is still digging themselves into a hole. If not, trim what's there and move on. Depends on what happens. QueerFilmNerd^talk 18:31, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

My reasoning of splitting out this article is to properly categorize this incident as part of HK protest. As for Blizzard, maybe not next week but Blizzcon is in three weeks.... and some players are planning to protest.. something big will possibly come up SYSS Mouse (talk) 23:04, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I know what you are getting at, but such an article should incorporate elements of the other various US companies tripping themselves up in China relations (NBA, South Park, etc.) and even if that article existed, the details of the controvery would be better suited at the individual articles due to the details (eg much about the Heartstone stuff means little to the political world). --Masem (t) 23:21, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

It looked like NBA issue would just quiet down - Tencent quietly started showing NBA again. SYSS Mouse (talk) 20:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@QueerFilmNerd: Just my two cents: if this doesn't get split into its own article (say the fervor dies down, which between still-steady coverage and BlizzCon coming up, I'm not sure it will), I don't think this section of the article should be trimmed down at all. The coverage and worldwide awareness of this controversy was relatively massive, and I think the article has every right to reflect that in its level of detail. Personally, I would be all for placing this in an article of its own (Maybe "Blizzard–blitzchung controversy" / "Blizzard–Hong Kong controversy" or something of the sort), while leaving a small section in this article under 'Controversies' briefly summarizing the events and linking to the main article. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 23:58, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

We have to keep in mind WP:RECENTISM and WP:UNDUE. Should this basically be it (outside of pockets of protest at Blizzcon), then we need to consider that what we have is far too much. We don't need all the quotes, names, etc, nor the impacts on Riot/Epic. What is 4-some paragraphs can be trickled down to two keeping the most relevant facets and most of the major sources so that a reader wanting to learn more can go research that. But I don't know if that's the right course of action now and won't expect to be able to decide until after Blizzcon. But a major thing is that controversies should not be split off to separate articles, per WP:NPOV. --Masem (t) 14:08, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Given that the Overwatch Switch launch event in New York was cancelled today (schedule to be on Thursday, on 16th), things will only get worse until Blizzcon. SYSS Mouse (talk) 16:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, Mouse, it's officially getting worse. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 05:26, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

This matter has been covered by many independent sources, and the subsection in our article is already quite large. It should be spun out into a daughter article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Certainly deserves its own article as it passes WP:SIGCOV.  🕵️Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 19:20, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion Shunt to the article Tactics and methods surrounding the 2019 Hong Kong protests. 293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 00:14, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Oppose. That's not even what the article is about. SYSS Mouse (talk) 00:34, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Oppose ... but I don't know if there's enough in better RSes than gaming media to talk about Mei as a symbol there in specific response to this ban. --Masem (t) 00:44, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Oppose. With the recent condemnation from the United States congress and continuous backlash against Blizzard, I think this controversy deserves its own article entirely rather than being merged. 109.78.163.98 (talk) 21:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

This has become such a massive controversy that has had a profound impact on Blizzard and the video game industry – it is well beyond the scope of any actual events in Hong Kong, and this article can no longer reasonably hold all notable and cited information on this controversy. The thing is now eight paragraphs long as of writing, after all. I'd like to suggest some options for titles for this proposed new article.

• Blizzard Entertainment–Hong Kong controversy
• Hearthstone–Hong Kong controversy
• Hearthstone suspensions controversy

– PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 14:24, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Not really. It's still being discussions, but I have not seen much direct fallout yet from it outside of the letter from Congress to them. Splitting off controversy articles is strongly discouraged from a NPOV stance. We need to wait until after BlizzCon - where it has been said there will be protests. If those have an impact, then we may consider something, but if BlizzCon goes by w/o a drop of news, this section can be severely trimmed back. --Masem (t) 14:28, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I believed that despite it is a controversy, spliting it is still needed. It has become too long to include in the page but such length is nesserary to tell the reader what happened. Also, I believed it is the one of the start. Mariogoods (talk) 23:14, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

So: The protests actually did happen [1] [2] and the statement made at the start didn't sit too well. So lets give this one more week and if more develops from BlizzCon lets start talking a split. --Masem (t) 21:41, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

"the statement made at the start didn't sit too well"... . Other than that I do not believe much will be coming out at this point. SYSS Mouse (talk) 22:46, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

See second link I added. Some protestors felt it wasn't enough. --Masem (t) 23:04, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

At the very least, I think some kind of test draft should be created to see if the situation could be better explained in its own article. There are far less relevant things with their own pages than this. 109.78.163.98 (talk) 22:17, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I have found the page Blitzchung. Should we move to it?Mariogoods (talk) 22:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

That's not an appropriate article. There's very little info on Blitzchung outside this controversy, so it is inappropriate to use a BLP article to cover that. I have redirected that article back to here. --Masem (t) 23:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

---

• The amount of coverage for this ongoing event continues to pile up and now constitutes undue weight to leave at this length in the article. Per recent comments above, I've split it out to Blitzchung affair and pared it down, but there is room for expansion. The section in the parent article can afford to be chopped down summary style. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 18:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Also, in general, this article shouldn't have a dedicated "controversy" section. It can be worked into the general history of the company with proportional weight. czar 18:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Blizzard Entertainment Logo.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2020

Please change:

| num_employees = {{Increase}} 4,700<ref name="gamasutra-dice-2012">{{cite web |author=Gamasutra Staff |url=http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/40230/DICE_2012_Blizzards_Pearce_on_World_Of_Warcrafts_launch_hangover.php |title=DICE 2012: Blizzard's Pearce on World Of Warcraft's launch hangover |website=[[Gamasutra]] |date=February 9, 2012 |accessdate=January 23, 2013 |url-status=live |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20130208121006/http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/40230/DICE_2012_Blizzards_Pearce_on_World_Of_Warcrafts_launch_hangover.php |archivedate=February 8, 2013}}</ref>
| num_employees_year = 2012

To:

  | num_employees = {{Decrease|7.07%}} 9,200<ref name="macrotrends-2020">{{Cite web|author=Macrotrends|url=https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/ATVI/activision-blizzard/number-of-employees|title=Activision Blizzard: Number of Employees 2006-2020 {{!}} ATVI {{!}} MacroTrends|date=June 27, 2020|accessdate=June 27, 2020|url-status=live|archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20200627133512/https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/ATVI/activision-blizzard/number-of-employees|archivedate=June 27, 2020}}</ref>
  | num_employees_year = 2019

Which should look like this: 9,200

Thanks! 172.101.5.82 (talk) 13:41, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The source provided is for the totality of the parent company, Activision Blizzard. This is the article for Blizzard Entertainment specifically, and would need a source that covers only Blizzard. -- ferret (talk) 13:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

To:

  | num_employees = 5,001-10,000<ref name="crunchbase-2020">{{Cite web|author=Crunchbase|url=https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/blizzard-entertainment|title=Blizzard Entertainment {{!}} Crunchbase|date=June 28, 2020|accessdate=June 28, 2020|url-status=live|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20200628133117/https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/blizzard-entertainment|archivedate=June 28, 2020}}</ref>
  | num_employees_year = 2020

Which should look like this: 5,001-10,000

Thanks! 172.101.5.82 (talk) 13:33, 28 June 2020 (UTC)