Talk:Symmetra

Repeated information

The article repeats information regarding the pick rate and autistic identification of the character. Erik Humphrey (talk) 06:22, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

The lede paragraph's purpose is to summarize the rest of the article. czar 09:47, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

GNG concern

These sources help Symmetra meet GNG criteria:

1. Kotaku (2018) 1a and 1b (same author of two diff articles in same source counts as one toward clearing GNG criteria iirc); (and (2017) + (2018) 2, if diff authors in same outlet are counted together)
2. USgamer (2018)
3. Destructoid (2019)
4. Wired (2017)
5. PCGamesN (2018)

There are also sources available in the Further reading section that could be used to improve if used in prose as citations (and that establish GNG for Symmetra):

1. PC Gamer (2017)
2. Rock Paper Shotgun (2018)
3. Kotaku (2016) + (2018)
4. Kill Screen (2016 1) and 2

Soulbust (talk) 21:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I will add that the overall article needs cleanup (particularly, it should have a lot of those further reading sources incorporated into the article), but it definitely clears GNG criteria. Soulbust (talk) 21:40, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I think Symmetra probably fulfills GNG. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:58, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Edit summary

@Zxcvbnm: Your edit summary says "Remove pointless cleanup tag created by inducing a problem". It wasn't a pointless cleanup tag because at the time further reading section required cleaning up. And the "inducing a problem" half of that seems directed at me, and related to previous edit summary of: "Dumping sources is not the purpose of a "Further reading" section, do it on the talk page or your user page" ... but I have a total of 6 edits on this article, none of which were "dumping sources" or "inducing a problem", as I wasn't the one to add that Further reading section, nor any of the sources included in it. I'm assuming the editor who did was probably just either trying to save the sources for later (mistakenly instead of including it on the talk page) or possibly genuinely thought those were valid sources for the Further reading purpose. Soulbust (talk) 01:23, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

There seems to have been a misunderstanding. By the problem I meant adding the miscellaneous sources into the article, not that the problem was adding cleanup tags. There is nothing wrong with that in the slightest. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:33, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Overuse of primary sources

Whole paragraphs are currently based on primary sources, which should only be used on Wikipedia to fill in essential detail not otherwise covered in secondary sources. Much of it introduces trivia not relevant to a general audience so I suggest paring it down. czar 15:19, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Primary sources are fine to cite for creation and development, namely in regards to artbooks discussing how a character was designed and why or panels discussing how the concept was conceived. Plot elements are also summarized to their bare minimum to illustrate the character as a work of fiction and their plotline therein. This is also completely in line with other character articles in this vein and of GA-class, and relies strictly on quoted material. To boot, there was a vast reduction of WP:GAMECRUFT which overly detailed her gameplay and changes. I'm just going to be frank with you Czar, you seem to be in the minority view here.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:28, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The problem is overciting, not citing. It's fine to fill in detail but the following is excessive (detail that would be trivia to a general audience) and should either be greatly summarized or reduced:

Kaplan created an eight-page pitch for a first person shooter concept to propose the idea, starting with an eight-page pitch that included a series of proposed characters, among them a Caucasian woman called "Architect" clad in a yellow dress with exposed thighs ...

Originally Symmetra was intended to wear a large finned helmet covering the top of their head and face, with long black hair flowing behind it. This helmet would have allowed her to view the world through augmented reality. After consideration they decided to shorten it to a finned visor with transparent blue front and earrings on the side to allow players to see her face.

... During early development, the Teleporter ability required players to build a second teleporter for it to work, however the team found this caused confusion in players and simplified it to a single teleporter as a result.[18]

I.e., it would suffice to simply say that the character was part of the original pitch, that her visor developed from a finned helmet. The original article had three sentences of Lore summary so the current plot summary is undoubtably longer. When you rely on summarizing secondary sources for plot and origin details, you get only and just the amount of detail that a general audience member needs. You're welcome to use primary sources, but it should be for fill-in detail and not whole paragraphs. czar 16:09, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I still disagree it's overcited, it's important information to understand a workflow or why certain concepts were considered and how we got from A to B to C with a finalized design, especially when these sources are providing valid detail. I will admit that the prose can be better, but I'm hoping the GAN process will iron out weaker writing on my part.

And I get this isn't how you would write these articles, we have VERY different styles. But I'm trying to do these properly following the style that's worked for every other and hopefully pull off a Good Topic by the end.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:31, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Section reorder

The recent restructure puts the character's conception over the functional use of the character. The latter is more important to a general audience, i.e., the character's conception is secondary to their actual function in the game, which is the part that secondary sources cover. The original section order should be restored. czar 15:41, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Not sure why this needed it's own section separate from the above, but the structure is to maintain a steady flow: discuss how a character was made, their appearances in games and supplemental media if possible, and then their gameplay related to those appearances. Given these characters are primarily discussed in the scope of being fictional characters in sources, namely due to their representation of cultures/body types/traits/etc, the "general audience" is more likely to encounter them in media beyond the scope of Overwatch 2 especially given they are part of a much larger multimedia conglomerate. Pushing gameplay first would not only border on giving it undue weight but introduce elements to the reader they may not fully comprehend regarding a character's design. If you're discussing a character's weapon usage and then mentioning in design much later in the article what that weapon is and why, the average reader is not going to comprehend it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

It's a separate topic, which is why it warrants its own section. This isn't simply a figure in a plot, it's a gameplay device. The point is to explain why sources found this piece of this game noteworthy enough to elaborate in detail, i.e., their real-world importance. Unlike other video game character articles, this means focusing on the character's use within the game (if that's where sources focus their coverage) rather than the character's body traits. This is why the article has a Background section that should be restored. It needs to provide the (secondary source) context for the subject. czar 16:12, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

But the problem is the gameplay is only one aspect of her reception, and yes while it's a bit of an anomaly for other character articles, it's still examined far less in the grand scheme of things compared to the reactions to her cultural traits, design, and the fact she's a person on the spectrum. I get your view that gameplay is important, but it's not as important as painting a picture of a fictional character as a whole, and the original text not only repeated itself several times (i.e. mentioning she was the least picked), for someone coming to this article to learn more about the character after seeing her in any of the expanded universe material, not to mention fan works, going to grasp from a heavy emphasis on gameplay?

It'd be like writing an article on Sonic, and going into painful detail right at the front about how his gameplay evolved.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Symmetra/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cukie Gherkin (talk · contribs) 16:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Design

1. Was the controversial skin removed? It'd be nice to cap that part off with that, or a Blizzard response, if either one of those is available
   1. It wasn't removed, I expanded it to include the mention that Blizzard hadn't responded.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Image

1. I'd suggest moving the Devi image to the section discussing it in greater depth. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
   1. I'd rather keep it in the lower section as it's discussed more there in terms of the game's cultural approach to Indian iconography.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:47, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Aight, looks good. Everything else was typographical or grammatical errors that didn't need noting (but may be worthwhile to review in the history of the article). - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:24, 30 October 2023 (UTC)