Talk:Overwatch and pornography

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A bit of concern about this article[edit]

I'm a bit 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 be 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 as to help boost the notability there. --MASEM (t) 05:40, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Topics discussed in this article are 1) The PornHub spike in early May that was reported by multiple reliable sources, 2) The reason why Overwatch specifically is popular (its colorful cast of characters), 3) the popular usage of Source Filmmaker and official models ripped from the game, 4) the quality of said pornography, and 5) the takedowns, as mentioned above. There are various little details too, 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 strong undue weight for fan-made pornography in that article... ~Mable (chat) 08:15, 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 problem. It's a negative thing, broadly speaking in how its discussed in sources, so we should avoid given the quality and reasoning excessive coverage. --MASEM (t) 13:36, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe the sources discuss the porn in a negative way at all. This can be seen in the sources like Kotaku, which actually is a long, in-detail article all about such aspects, and becomes even more obvious when watching the Eurogamer video. The takedowns is actually one of the least interesting aspects of it in my opinion. It was covered by multiple sources, but all of them just kinda copied PCGamesN. ~Mable (chat) 04:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possible additions[edit]

I was trying to look for some more sources to help the article out and found these two:

Now I'm not sure if they're usable, the second one is rather redundant. However, if you'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, but rather links through to the large Kotaku article. The Gameguide article may be of interest, though I have difficulty deciding what sources to use for what aspects of the takedowns. Some second party should probably take a look at that and see if they can expand the paragraph on takedowns. ~Mable (chat) 08:49, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request[edit]

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

This week, most Overwatch porn news seems to be about people comparing the influx of Pokémon Go porn searches to Overwatch. I doubt that there is anything valuable to get out of those articles, but I'm keeping track of them for as long as this article exists. ~Mable (chat) 04:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sterling[edit]

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

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

Kaplan's comments on the porn[edit]

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

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

@Soulbust: Oh thanks! I don't know how I missed that, as I've seen the title of the article come by multiple times. Will have a look at that next week :) ...though this article may no longer exist then... ~Mable (chat) 00:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, in loving this source. I already know exactly what content I want to add where. If only I were in a situation where I could comfortably edit right now ^_^; ~Mable (chat) 00:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
done. ~Mable (chat) 11:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Undiscussed dating style change[edit]

@Soulbust: Why did you change the dating scheme used in the article back in June? Now 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)[reply]

It was the dating format used in the main Overwatch article I believe. Not meant to be malicious in anyway, and I'm more than okay with it being reverted back to the original format you implemented. Sorry about that Soulbust (talk) 22:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not too bad, I'm just not particularly fond of it ^_^; I don't want anyone to go through the effort of changing it, though. Retrieve dates will always annoy me, though :p Just didn't understand why it was changed in the first place. ~Mable (chat) 23:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming the article survives the merger discussion, it's almost certain someone will eventually apply {{Use 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'm not sure that's an accurate read at all. However the script most people use to do MOS DATES work typically is used globally. If there's no opposition to MDY, I'll run the script now to get everything in sync. -- ferret (talk) 23:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say I like that read of DATEUNIFY, as it's kinda impossible to use YMD in prize as far as I know... Other than that, I guess it didn't really matter at this point. I'm not planning to add any new sources until new news reports pop up, which may take a while now the news aspect of it is off (unless you count reports regarding usage of VR for porn, which seems like a weird link to make). Feel free to sync up the dates ^_^; ~Mable (chat) 23:52, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done -- ferret (talk) 00:48, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
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, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]


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

Initial comments[edit]

  • "The game's distinct and colorful character designs grabbed the attention" - I think 'grabbed' sounds a little informal, try attracted or drew?
  • "Character models were ripped from the beta versions of the game" - link ripping
  • I think a mention of Rule 34 (Internet meme) in the lead would benefit the summarising of the article. The website itself is mentioned in a couple of sources
  • "inspired by basically all high-profile video game franchises" - sounds a tad informal. It wouldn't hurt removing "basically" and "all", but you 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 by far the most commonly searched Overwatch-related subject during this time, followed by Widowmaker and Mercy" - where in source 3 does it say that Widowmaker and Mercy are behind Tracer for the most searched characters? I chose source 3 as it's the only 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 saying that some of the videos are of surprisingly high quality" - might sound 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 good quality and is close to meeting the GA criteria IMO. I checked all of the sources and they're all good, as well as the prose. On hold until all are clarified! JAGUAR  14:59, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I implemented all suggestions you gave. These are really good comments. I hope the manner in which I implemented "rule 34" in the lead section is appropriate? And yes, 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's popularity, it seems like you somehow got the incorrect link. this is source 3. ~Mable (chat) 17:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for addressing them! I'm ready to promote this but not sure if it's best to wait if after the merger discussion has been closed, per BlueMoonset. It looks ripe for closure and should be kept now. JAGUAR  14:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments[edit]

I think 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 hold while a closure request is made at the appropriate noticeboard. The discussion was opened in good faith, and in good 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 be completed before allowing final approval.) BlueMoonset (talk) 15:21, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is fair. To be honest, I am just happy to bring it one step closer. I think it also shows that, yes, I am serious about this article. It feels like many people in the merger discussion just see the article as a big joke... Thank you for literally doing the review the same day as I nominated it, that is very kind. ~Mable (chat) 17:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason not to promote this, so here we go. JAGUAR  11:50, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is an ongoing merge discussion which looks like it leans strongly towards merging. one of the criteria for a good article is stability: "it does not change significantly from day to day 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 result of the merge discussion or alternative should have been closed. Passing in these circumstances seems inappropriate. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, WP:GA? states:

Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply to the "stable" criterion.

~Mable (chat) 12:30, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I think you're right, so I reverted my change and have placed it on hold again. It's just that I thought the discussion was put off and would be on hold for much longer, as it's been active on and off since June. I didn't like the idea of leaving this review on hold indefinitely unless the merger discussion reaches a verdict, which it hopefully should soon. I'll re-revert my edit if things change. JAGUAR  12:33, 13 October 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 good article template to the article. -- ferret (talk) 12:34, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jaguar: If you don't want to leave the review open, not that I personally see any problem 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 always be renominated. @Maplestrip: I confess I am surprised to see that. I take it to mean that we don't need to rush to good article reassessment every time someone proposes a merge or there is a disagreement about wording. I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that we can take that line to mean that we should have no qualms about promoting an article which, due to an ongoing discussion, may not (probably won't?) exist in a few weeks' time. Perhaps it is worth raising a query about that part of the instructions; I can't envisage there being a consensus to say that promoting in this kind of case is appropriate (as the comments in this thread could be said to illustrate). Josh Milburn (talk) 13:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I'm fine with waiting until the merge discussion is closed. I'm just 1) happy that this is ready and 2) I hope that this might quicken that process 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, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So the article got merged into the main Overwatch page. I suggest this nomination should be closed now. GamerPro64 13:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll close this now. Sorry to hear the outcome, but I hope Mable knows this would have passed! JAGUAR  14:19, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for all the nice comments :) I really tried to get this topic to stand on its own, but it's too bad to see that I failed. Maybe if the sources keep coming, we'll be back here next year, but we'll see what the future brings. ~Mable (chat) 14:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Animated image[edit]

  • Is the gif really necessary? I don't know why I was surprised to see it in the article, but it does seem a bit gratuitous. --PresN 13:16, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
  • To copy what I wrote in the file's description, "the short animation gives a 'typical' example of the topic of the article. The image shows in what manner the character models are edited and animated, how the short videos are typically looped, and the quality of the Source Filmmaker animations." I agree that now it's in the article, it's rather distracting. Part of the issue is that in cutting it down, I accidentally sped the animation up. I do think it's useful content, though. ~Mable (chat) 13:49, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, gratuitous in more ways than one... A single screenshot would be reasonable here if it serves to illustrate what cannot be explained through text alone, but the animation adds nothing that a single screenshot wouldn't adequately illustrate on its own. (Note that we do the same even for animated films—the visualization is more for the style unless the actual animation technique needs to be explicated.) czar 17:16, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
This discussion is probably better had on the article's talk page, but the idea was to show the core loop idea first and foremost. I agree that it didn't turn out very well. Not sure whether a single shot would communicate the same information... but this discussion should probably be brought to the article's talk page ^_^; ~Mable (chat) 17:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Moved from WT:VG czar 19:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two things: First, on pure NFC grounds, I agree about the use of a single screenshot rather than a gif. Second, I appreciate that Wikipedia is not censored, but do we really need something so explicit? Given that PresN, Czar and I have all raised concerns, I'm going to remove the image at this time. If there's later a consensus for its use on the article, it can be reinstated (and, if it ends up deleted, restored). Josh Milburn (talk) 23:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the image works on this page. Images, videos, and other media help make articles more than just long blocks of text. They help articulate the article's content better and in a visual form. You're right: Wikipedia isn't censored. And given that this article deals with pornographic Overwatch content, why not have an image that relates to the article's text? I think perhaps the single screenshot would be better than a gif, especially 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 have such a strong opinion about it anymore. The idea seemed good at the time, but the manner I cut it for fair use and the way it just looks on the article are very unpleasant to me. I'm willing to make a nice little screenshot of the same work if you all think that would work better here, but seeing as the main thing 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, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Soulbust, it's less about "why not" and more about fair use rationale. We only add non-free articles when there is a specific need to visualize something that must be visualized and for which we have no free use media. If there's something about the style that needs to be said with an image, that would be a rationale, but I'm not personally even seeing that here. czar 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 image shows an example of a 'typical' example of such a work. I believe the fair use 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 argue that the sped up version of it gives a reader the wrong idea. ~Mable (chat) 17:52, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why?[edit]

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

You are correct, I can't find 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 it just 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 can find these kinds of consistent articles on other works, then I would love to see them. ~Mable (chat) 09:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Animated video again[edit]

I'm questioning the new addition of a looped video added by @Thesfmcollection. The rationale currently says the purpose is to "give readers a more concrete impression on how Overwatch pornography may look like" but I repeat the arguments made in the above section: would not a single screenshot suffice? And, even then, why would we need more than one image? I'm also not sure the statement "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 still 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 illustration not served by a single still, and so must be an entire looping video? Do we need two nonfree images to illustrate this topic?

I wouldn't object if a still 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 than the Widow image. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overwatch pornography is such a manifold and broad topic, this is why I do believe that at least one image and one animation are necessary to accurately and comprehensively illuminate the subject. First of all I doubt that we’re hurting anyone with these files, in contrary; Wikipedia can illustrate its article and demonstrate examples, the artists receive additional credit for it, and since they’re not defamatory and of no commercial interest to the company, it’s also just more advertisement for them really. I know the licensing policy is to be respected and has paramount priority, but policies and guidelines are designed to aid and not to complicate and worsen everything – so shouldn’t ignore all rules apply here?
I chose this animation because 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) form the game, it’s an example of where the female character was “slightly altered to show more skin”, 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”. So if we have to choose between the image and the animation, I’ll pick the animation for this reasons and because, as I already elucidated in my edit summary, animations “constitute the main and most interesting part of this subject”. Thesfmcollection (talk) 09:49, 26 April 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, like, while I understand these rationales to why we should keep the D.Va and Lucio image as a single frame, I still do not believe it covers why we need both images and why it needs to be a video rather than one frame. The valid justifications you outlined are just as well communicated by a still. As I stated before, I do not object to using a still from the video as the primary image. I just don't see 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 use music from the game (also an easily understood concept). ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 15:55, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If really necessary remove the Widowmaker image but at least keep 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) 16:31, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand 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's no strong rationale for keeping it an entire video, i.e. the entirety of the nonfree media, then it shouldn't be a video. That's the policy. You can't just ignore policy. That's not how nonfree image use on Wikipedia works. It isn't benefiting anyone to dismiss the policy either. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 17:52, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"It isn't benefiting anyone to dismiss the policy either" – I always adhere to the rules, but yes, actually it is in this case. Again
  • The rationale for the file is "give readers a more concrete impression on how Overwatch pornography may look like".
  • The rationale for the animation is "animations constitute the main and most interesting part 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) form the game, it’s an example of where the female character was “slightly altered to show more skin”, 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”".
And I can't see any argument that would counter these. Cutting the animation would, with no offense, just be dumb. If it helps I can search for another, shorter, animation, although I do believe this one is a prime example and therefore hardly replaceable. Looking at Ellowas's archives – from which I would pick animations in any case since they're very ordinary, consensual, use common sexual positions and are made with Maya – I could consider the Mercy doggy style animation as a replacement. But 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's less neutral and innocuous, on the other side it's half the time long (7 seconds instead of 14), and since there is no music and it doesn't loop, you could technically cut 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 do not need to be illustrated as they are easily understood as is, and the remainder of the points are illustrated equally as well by a still. I am not countering those points. I am saying that those points provide zero justification for why it needs to be a video. also don't understand why "cutting the animation would, with no offense, just be dumb." In what way would it be dumb? A shorter animation is also not a solution imo because, again, there is no justification for why the nonfree file needs to be an animated video of an entire work. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 20:19, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Given so far it's only the two 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 top. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 20:32, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This particular file fails WP:NFCC #2 (which is a rarity), #3, #5, and #8. It should be removed and/or deleted. A single frame would still fail 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 actually say, with the text of the article, neither of the existing images, much less a video/animated one, are required failing to meet NFCC#8 and that these images are used in a manner that tips the edges of being tantalizing rather than encyclopedic. We can reasonably assume that a reader is going to know what a naked body looks like, and from the official images we have for the various OW heroes, its not that hard to imagine what a naked version would be. There is little 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 near to the game's style, you might have some room to argue. --Masem (t) 20:43, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly, I avoided that entire argument, Masem, because I have very Prudish™ standards about what's gratuitous and didn't know if there was ground to stand on there. (What am I doing on this article then, lmao.) I'm inclined to agree, though. For the record, I don't oppose having no images at all. I think that's also a very fine option. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 20:49, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to be practical, not prude (I'd also add that I could speak to objectifying as there's no male pictures, or smexy naked omnics :P) This article is effectively saying "Rule 34 is upheld" but doesn't talk to quality, so the need for pictures , given WP's purpose, is barely there. --Masem (t) 00:08, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I wasn't saying YOU were being prude lmao, just when the thought was in my own head, I couldn't tell whether I was being practical or prude. When you 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, TenTonParasol 03:19, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I came here because of a comment that was left at WT:WikiProject Pornography. I don't understand why this relatively short article needs two non-free images. Either by itself might satisfy the requirements for non-free content. Together, I think they clearly violate WP:NFCC#3, which states that "multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:44, 28 April 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 image, as it works well as a primary means of visual identification at the top of the article, and shows exactly what these edited character models look like (something which might be difficult to communicate in text). ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 20:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I hope I didn't do anything too rash. puggo (talk) 22:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New source[edit]

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

I'm going to take issue briefly with the first line of this article:[edit]

"Blizzard Entertainment's 2016 video game Overwatch inspired a notable amount of fan-made pornography." (emphasis mine)

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

Notability should indicate some shift in culture or technology or media; there should be some reason why this subject would be of interest to a reader. And the article really fails to establish anything unique about Overwatch pornography which would entitle it to a wikipedia article. This pornography was not the result of new modeling tools being widely available or a result of Blizzard partnering with pornography producers. There just isn't any meaningful difference 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 article, not two thousand words detailing every nuance of how this specific genre of pornography is created and distributed. Especially when so little about its production and distribution is actually unique compared to any other fannmade work, pornographic or otherwise.

There simply is not enough that is unique about Overwatch pornography to justify a wikipedia article. Its presence here is juvenile at best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.92.107.235 (talk) 02:42, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Changing image used[edit]

I changed the image as it was previously the one relating to the Tracer pose controversy. However, if this article is about fan-produced porn, or the players sexualizing the characters, I figured it'd be more apt to use a fan-produced image, as opposed to the acutal game developer's official (albeit former) victory pose for a character?

I was going to pitch this for a talk page discussion, but decided to be bold about this. Very open to discussion still, but judging by the previous discussions, it seems like it was agreed that an image (as opposed to a looping video) is okay to use. I know this was years ago but Masem said that "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 near to the game's style," so I figured it'd be fine to use the image of Mercy I switch it to. I was also thinking of using this image which was included in a The Daily Dot article that cited its creator as the "best Blender" animator for the game's porn (the publication also cited them as the best SFM animator as well, apparently). This image also fits that underwear/swimsuit category a bit, and includes D.Va, often cited as the game's most or second-most popular in porn searches. I figured we could cite such information in the image's caption, but thought that that image might be a few touches too lewd, so I opted for the Mercy one. I think it's a good compromise of everyone's point (i.e. sensual, but not overtly sexually-charged; image instead of video; and my point of using a fan-produced image instead of an official game design).

For full transparency on my line of thinking here, I also considered using an image of Mei found here, and here, with the latter sourcing also including an image of Tracer+Widowmaker that I thought could be apt (it's fully clothed, yet still provactive).

In any case, I hope this is alright with other editors. Soulbust (talk) 07:23, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article necessary?[edit]

This feels simply lewd for the sake of being lewd. This feels more like a Know Your Meme article topic than a Wikipedia one. It's linked in the introduction of the Overwatch article, and draws attention away from the rest of the opener. It feels more like a collection of porn than an informative article.

I understand the prominence Overwatch has in fan-made porn communities, but I don't believe it warrants this much attention.

It seems somewhat necessary for Tracer's article, as that's something she's definitely known for outside of the community, but I believe this could be condensed into a section of her article. Perhaps D.Va as well, but that's it, and I definitely don't think it needs to be this in depth. It makes it seem like a much bigger thing than it is.

For example, Pokémon porn is widespread and well known, but there's not an article on that. It just links to the cartoon pornography article.

The only other article of this type and topic I could find was clop, which I feel isn't on the same level as this one. Overwatch is much more recent than MLP, and although MLP porn is less well-known, it has had more of an effect on internet pornography culture, and is necessary to understand the "unmonitored internet access" experience of the 2010s.

I see this has been brought up multiple times on this talk page, but I'm pretty new to contributing in the Wikipedia editing community itself, so I thought I'd just make my own topic. Henriio (talk) 02:03, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with you on all points. -- ferret (talk) 02:06, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Overwatch_and_pornography&oldid=1209571200"