Fort Towson

Page contents not supported in other languages.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 October 2021 and 9 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Baezoey.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Separate team articles

The individual teams should not be linked until there are enough sources to justify separate articles. The Wikipedia standard is to build backgrounds on each team summary style within the Teams section. When there are more than a handful of references from mainstream sources (not affiliated with Blizzard) only then is it worth considering a split.

It's also worth retaining the specifics of ownership—the teams may belong to an individual rather than the organization for which the individual is best known. Also deleted in this edit were sources that have other information that can be used to expand the team's section within this article. I'd edit this myself, but it becomes very unpleasant to deal with the revert hell that is editing a current event article. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 23:12, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking of season articles...

As the pre-season for the League starts today, and that there seems to be enough coverage by RS eSports areas (ESPN specifically), I'm thinking we might want to model season article similar, but not exactly, to something like 2017 Major League Baseball season. However, I'll want to see if these RSes develop a "box score" model to follow first, to know what they consider as key stats. --MASEM (t) 19:46, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With the season starting next week, I want to point out that I set up User:Masem/drafts/2018 Overwatch League Season in anticipation. I want to see the degree and detail that the regular games are covered by before I finalize the format and move it into mainspace. --Masem (t) 16:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Season articles for each team

Moved from Wikipedia:Teahouse

Hi, I've been working on individual season subarticles for Overwatch League teams to maintain structure/continuity for subsequence seasons. See: Mayhem, Outlaws, Spitfire, Fuel, Gladiators, Shock, Dynasty, and Dragons.

8/9 of the subarticles were reviewed and raised no issues. However, an incomplete version I posted: 2017–18 Boston Uprising season, flagged up issues with notability which led to a discussion here: Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers#E sports seasons walled gardens. I posted somewhat of a confusing reply.

I was wondering if there's anything else I need to do, or do I just wait for the discussion to generate some form of consensus? i.e. a notability standard for the subarticles.

Also, the bit which slightly confuses me is I'm not actually sure if the discussion is in regards all the subarticles notability (seeing as 8/9 didn't seem to raise any issues) or just the incomplete Uprising version I had submitted? If it's the latter as I now have the completed version: Draft:2017–18 Boston Uprising season, what should I do to point this out? I mentioned it on the discussion but I recieved no feedback, so I'm now a bit lost. Wiki nV (talk) 10:35, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

@Wiki nV: I think that discussion petered out because it was the wrong venue for it; WT:NPR being a forum for new page patrollers. I would raise the issue at Talk:Overwatch or Talk:Overwatch League and see what other editors knowledgeable about the topic think. I know that Masem and Czar for example have been active on OW-related articles and may have some thoughts. – Joe (talk) 12:07, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
P.S. Please don't create drafts of pages that already exist in mainspace, especially if you're going to duplicate the content. You'll need to request a history merge if/when that draft is moved over the redirect. – Joe (talk) 12:11, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
@Joe Roe: Okay, I'll post something on Talk:Overwatch League. As for the draft, my bad, I just figured that was the best place for it as I didn't want to post the updated version over the redirect without getting an okay from someone. For future reference, if the mainspace exists should I create a sandbox e.g., 2017–18 Boston Uprising season/Sandbox instead? Wiki nV (talk) 12:35, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  • @Wiki nV, offhand, this really looks like overkill: Template:2017–18 OWL season by team. Remember that Wikipedia is a generalist encyclopedia—its goal is not to house statistics on every nuance of everything. Most of these stats are sourced to primary, affiliated, or unreliable sources. I think there could be some room for major stats in the individual team or individual season articles, but breaking out into each team's performance for each season appears premature at this time. We prefer to write in summary style. Include the most important info (as judged by what is covered in secondary sources) in paraphrase in the main article and split out to a separate article only when necessitated by proportional space and an overabundance of secondary sourcing. (not watching, please {{ping}} as needed) czar 12:49, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd have to agree , at this point, a team per-season article is overkill, particularly with that many stats. Pro sports teams can support it because that because the coverage of sports teams are broad across numerous papers, whereas coverage of eSports teams is limited (enough for teams to be notable but not per-season). If that coverage grows in the next few years then we can revisit that issue, but right now we simply don't have the sourcing to support team per-season articles. --Masem (t) 12:53, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now it's here, I agree with the above. It's fine to spin off sub-articles on notable topics, but the problem here is that what you're left with is more an almanac entry than an encyclopaedia article. WP:NSEASONS has some good advice: "Team season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players. Wikipedia is not a stats directory. It is strongly recommended that those articles be redirected to the team page if no sourced prose can be created.". – Joe (talk) 13:23, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]


NB. I used List of Dallas Mavericks seasons and List of Liverpool F.C. seasons as my templates, so when I refer to NBA/Soccer I’ll be referring to the standard I found with them.
Also, I just want to make clear that all the statistics found, aside from Player statistics, so Results summary/Maps breakdown/Record vs. Opponent is simply the information found in the match logs in tabular form. As there’s no interpretation of the values, I was under the impression using primary sources like the official Overwatch League match logs/standings was permitted and even considered the best source as I’m just reiterating facts. The reason I mention this is because match logs are done in the exact same way by NBA/Soccer teams. However, for Player statistics I could understand the argument that Winson’s Lab could be viewed as an unreliable secondary source.


@Joe Roe: If that’s the case, if you give me time I can write some prose for each team using the ESPN recaps + my current secondary sources for transactions. I specifically mention ESPN as they seem to be the holy grail for sports sources in the NBA subarticles. From what I saw they tend to only have ESPN (BBC for Soccer) or primary sources (NBA/team’s official website), so applying a similar standard here.
A tad bit frustrated though, as I know there’s NBA subarticle dating back years with no written prose or who just wrote prose for transactions like I currently have. Maybe, I can have the same time frame :)
@Masem: I can’t argue sports teams have more coverage, however currently there’s plenty of examples where all this extra coverage isn’t sourced and prose isn’t written in these subarticles. They have the exact same layout I do, where only transaction dates have secondary sources (ESPN/BBC) or in some case primary sources.
Like I mentioned to Joe Roe, I could use the ESPN weekly recaps for Overwatch League + my current secondary sources to write prose in regards the season events which would solve the issue? I basically disagree that coverage is limited and that per-season articles can’t be justified.
Also, as mentioned above, the statistics surely shouldn’t be an issue as citing primary sources is permitted per wiki and the data is just the tabular form version of what’s found in the match logs. I don’t get the too many stats argument, it’s the same set of stats broken down in two different forms - which in turns provides a complete summary of the season.
@Czar: So the crux of the issue seems to be I need more reliable secondary sources? Which ones do you currently deem unreliable? Dot Esports, Overwatch Wire (USA Today), Inven Global etc. Also, for the record I’m not sure which affiliated sources you’re referring to.
Like I mentioned above if I did the prose using ESPN recaps, plus retained my current sourcing for transaction dates similar to the standard found on NBA subarticles would that suffice?
Finally, as mentioned above, I don’t see the issue with the stats. It’s the same set of stats in two different forms, and using primary sources is permitted per wiki: Primary Sources Allowed (similar reasoning to what I wrote here). Maybe I missed something, but are you not allowed to display the same set of stats in two different forms to highlight specific segments to paint a complete picture of a season?


Apologies in advance if I missed anything, and sorry as I tend to ramble. Wiki nV (talk)
  • The article under discussion was Draft:2017–18 Boston Uprising season. It cites slingshotesports.com, overwatchleague.com, a Blizzard legal document, akshonesports.com, and winstonslab.com. Some are affiliated and others are unreliable. The use of primary sources is fine for filling out vital, uncontroversial, encyclopedic details, but on the ideal volume of stats, we look to mainstream, reliable, secondary sources as our guide. Do they provide this level of minutiae? If not, neither do we. (Also note that Boston Uprising is a new franchise within a few franchise. It does not have anything near the depth of coverage that a Liverpool FC season would have.) We are an encyclopedia written for a general audience. Good on you for compiling this info, but it is a better fit for another wiki, perhaps an Overwatch e-sports focused wiki. The rest of the content should be generalized and merged into the team articles, preferably the parts best expressed in prose. czar 20:01, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As for the Blizzard legal document, that stemmed from discussions I had with another editor about using National flags for Overwatch players nationalities as I believed their participation in the Overwatch World Cup made them fall under the sportspersons usage. I then used a variation of the wording found on Soccer rosters to note the flags fall under Blizzard eligibility rules and sourced Blizzard viewing them as the governing body, in contrast to Soccer rosters sourcing FIFA. If you're telling me this isn't permitted as it's an affiliate source, then should I go ahead and remove the citations, the line about Blizzard eligibility rules and reverse the inclusion of National flags for all OWL personnel?
Winston's Lab: Fair enough, in hindsight I can understand why it would be deemed unreliable. So that removes Player Statistics and tabular forms of match logs (as I'm now aware you're only allowed to cite to the same level of minutiae).
Overwatch League: Used as a primary source for the current roster, standings and match logs (equivalent to NBA/Soccer). However, I'm now aware that "large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided" and the exception is when the league is deemed to have enough coverage e.g., NBA. The best secondary source as a replacement is probably: ESPN, however for the main bulk (match logs) using their recaps would mean everything bar the team names and scores would have to be removed.
  • So in conclusion, I give up, I honestly thought seeing the NBA subarticles that creating the same for the Overwatch League would be fine, obviously I didn't know all these rules. In terms of the content, I'm pretty sure none of it's savable except the transaction notes? Player statistics: unreliable source; Match logs: primary source not suitable; Tabular forms: different level of detail than source; Standings: already found in 2018 OWL season; Roster: already found on main articles. So seeing as none of it can be generalized, should I just go ahead and redirect all the pages? Also, in regards templates/categories I created how should I deal with them? Plus, as mentioned above, should I remove the National flags/eligibility note?
Also, just because I need to type it out somewhere, the whole reason I actually began editing on Wikipedia was because I was tired of all the information for the team I support being split in 100 different places; so I can't help but laugh and cry when you mention Overwatch e-sports focused wikis. Wiki nV (talk) 00:16, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You might be interested in "what Wikipedia is not", which describes why Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia and not a catch-all for everything on the Internet. I'm sure someone would be interested in what you compiled but it just needs a more suitable home. I'd look into whether liquipedia.net/overwatch, overwatch.gamepedia.com, overwatch.wikia.com would welcome your submissions. But apart from these stat lists, WP's OWL team articles still need a lot of work, if you'd be interested in summarizing their seasons in prose for a general audience. czar 12:11, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lesson learnt. Thanks for the suggestions, sadly I’m just really against having an esports organisation info split into multiple wikis for each game. As for the WP’S OWL team articles, I’ll complete the prose for Dallas Fuel as I had started it before I got side-tracked with the stat lists, however for the rest of teams sadly I'm not interested.
Also, for templates/categories I’ve created how should I deal with them? Should I redirect them to the main article as well? Would rather deal with all the mess I've created sooner rather than later. Cheerio. Wiki nV (talk) 13:28, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You can tag as {{db-author}} if you're the sole author and wish to delete. Or if you merge the contents, you can redirect from the source to the target to preserve attribution. Usually, even if no content is being merged, we'd just redirect to the team articles if the redirected title is a useful/common search term but I'm not sure it would be in this case. czar 13:44, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion to create Overwatch League Inaugural Season

Just noticed User:Clonetrooper76 infobox changes which created a red link. The change does make enough sense in the naming convention for the 1st season has been "Overwatch League Inaugural Season", from what I can tell that's both officially and by most reliable sources. As the infobox parameter for current_season creates a wikilink I was just going to try something like 2018 Overwatch League Season{{Pipe}}Overwatch League Inaugural Season, however that didn't seem to work. So suggesting to create Overwatch League Inaugural Season and have it redirect to 2018 Overwatch League Season as it's probably a common enough search term. Wiki nV (talk) 11:20, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect makes sense (and you should feel free to be bold and make stuff like that if it won't be controversial!) but since it's up for discussion, why is the article titled that way? Is there some sports season naming convention it's following? Source I've seen have referred to the season far more often as "Overwatch League Season 1" than either the "2018" or "Inaugural Season". czar 12:53, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The 2018 naming follows the more traditional sports approach, and how Blizzard names it. --Masem (t) 12:59, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see that Blizzard is using "2018 Overwatch League season" at least recently but all the other sources are using "Overwatch League Season 1"/2, led by ESPN.[1][2][3][4] Did Blizz always call it "2018 ..."? czar 13:29, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously they are calling it the "inaugural" season (not a proper noun version), but they never called it the "OWL Inaugerial Season". But also, I've seen it called as "season 1" etc. (But not "Season 1") by Blizzard. This might be a case of waiting until we know how they will treat 2019/season 2 and figure out from there. Best I can find is that when the season kicked off in full gear, that's when they named it the "2018 OWL Season". --Masem (t) 13:48, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just realised Blizzard has it lower case "inaugural season" on their website, they always use capital letters I hadn't even noticed. It doesn't help they capitalise it on their YouTube/Twitter accounts. Anyways, there is at least +1 for 2019 OWL Season already [5] so I'm assuming it will probably continue and everything will be nice and rainbows. Cheerio. Wiki nV (talk) 18:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OWL team logos

What do you guys think about having the logos as the symbol only version as seen here: [6]?

Teams seem to interchange both versions, so it would seem to be a preference choice. However, it's worth noting the non-text versions do seem to be what the teams actually referred to as the their logo and what I would consider a conventional logo. Plus,

  • It will result in all logos being uniform size wise.
  • Won't have the issue with the unreadable text on some of the text variations of the logos. A logo surely is meant to scale and remain legible? i.e. only the symbol.
  • If it counts for anything, I think it looks nicer. Wiki nV (talk) 19:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The logos are non-free images, we cannot use them decoratively. See WP:NFC. --Masem (t) 19:40, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think Wiki nV is suggesting that we replace the current, labelled logos in the team articles with these ones. I agree – it will look a lot neater and more consistent. The existing logo files would have to be deleted, though. – Joe (talk) 19:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If we're talking only the team pages, then yes, that seems fine. --Masem (t) 14:20, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm inclined to agree with your logic. From what I've seen, the logos are most often displayed without the wordmark than otherwise. Remember to keep the resolution of the images low (per the fair use guidelines) and you can probably just overwrite the existing logos rather than uploading separate files. If the logos are only high res, you can upload that version and request that a bot reduce the file resolution. czar 22:20, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They're in different formats (PNG and SVG) so I don't think that will be possible. On the bright side, SVGs have a nominal resolution so we don't have to worry about that. – Joe (talk) 09:51, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just replaced the Boston Uprising one with File:Boston_Uprising_logo.svg and requested the deletion of the old version File:Boston Uprising Logo.png. If everything looks fine with how I've done it, let me know and I'll upload the remaining resized SVG files.
For the URL, use the page that shows the set of logos, which will live longer than the direct link. Otherwise looks good. Don't even necessarily need to request deletion of the old logo—orphan fair use imgs are automatically deleted in time. czar 23:34, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies section

Hey guys, I'm new to wikipedia and am doing a school assignment where I need to add something to a wikipedia page. I previously added a controversies section that was removed because it violated some policies about naming players who aren't well known. I was thinking about revising it and changing it to be about the amount of pressure the league was facing because of all the player misconduct, which led them to develop a Player code of conduct going into the next season. I wanted to ask some seasoned veterans on wikipedia about this and gain their advice.

I was also thinking of adding the each teams score record for the end of the season, would that be a good idea? -- (Unsigned comment left by User:Bakih1)


Looking at your edits, the issue was specifically your writing about DK– you were linked to WP:BLPCRIME previously, but I'll link you there again. Writing about player misconduct could fall under the Overwatch League#Reception section, although I will note that xQc's drama specifically is already covered on his article. The score records are also already on 2018 Overwatch League season– but maybe give that and the team articles a read and see if there's anything you want to add there.

Also, remember to sign the comments you leave on talk pages by using four tildes. (~)

Thank you for contributing to the OWL side of wiki, and welcome to Wikipedia! Blue Edits (talk) 15:33, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reformatting team table

Currently, the table includes ownership information that is both unclear (at times even inaccurate) and inconsistent. I was wondering if it might be a good idea to reformat it to exclude the "Owner" category and base it on something closer to traditional professional franchised sports leagues' tables (see Major League Soccer, National Football League, Major League Baseball, etc. with location and home grounds information (especially as right now teams are starting to announce and give details about their home grounds plans and this season will have three weeks of play outside of the Blizzard Arena already. Looking for consensus before potentially changing it to mimic those tables better.

Also, specifically looking at franchised leagues because ones that aren't franchised and that include relegation and promotion tend to have vastly different formatting and obviously different participating teams season to season. SharkyIzrod (talk) 15:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SharkyIzrod: I agree, the table needs a rework. I'd be nice to include: the col-spanned divisions, team, city, stadium, joined, head coach, and ref. Pbroks13 (talk) 15:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with head coach, as none of them are independently notable. And we already have everything else you mentioned. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the stadium column because we only know of two right now. I'm not against it, but we should wait until at least half of the league announces theirs before it becomes notable enough to mention. As for the owner column, I feel like that was more important when teams were being announced than it is now, so I also support removing that as well. Perhaps once the stadium column returns to replace it. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree on that point: the league's committed to stadium next season so deals are likely being worked out now and we should be getting more news in the next few months. Given that this is esports, we have to recognize most players and coaches are not notable from a WP standpoint, so those are "useless" names in contrast to team ownership which shows a combination of traditional sports leagues and large game/internet service suppliers. --Masem (t) 17:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When more are announced then yes, but I fail to see the purpose of only having two with 18 missing ones. We should wait until at least the next batch of announcements. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 03:51, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The ownership column is a bit crowded. Perhaps we could use explanatory footnotes below the table instead of all the explanations in the table. And do we really need three references for the ownership (genuinely curious). Stadium info should be included, as well.

Also, I believe being the head coach of a professional OWL team is notable. There are certainly enough notable sources that cover the hiring and firing of head coaches (for example, recently ESPN covered the firing of LA Valiant head coach), but if the consensus believes it shouldn't be included, I won't really push for it. Pbroks13 (talk) 19:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OWL is still too far a new sport to know how much impact coaches have whereas their impact in NFL or NBA is very well-established. It is something that could be added later if the sport continues to thrive. But that's why we should be be including ownership, even though the language can be cut down to just name or whatever partnership there is. Only where we lack bluelinks for the owner that a footnote might be needed. --Masem (t) 19:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I can agree with the head coach non-inclusion. With that being said, I second including ownership in the table. Pbroks13 (talk) 02:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all. I've created a new table; see here. Some of the info in the current table is outdated, so I've updated as well. Pbroks13 (talk) 05:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Team rosters

I am proposing we remove players' birthdays and previous teams from individual team pages; they are unsourced and not relevant to the team itself. JTP (talk • contribs) 14:40, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not that this isn't a good idea, but do consider that there is the minimum 18-year age limit, and that some teams have signed on people younger than that but expected to reach 18 during the season as to become eligible for play then. There may be a reason to keep that, but that's probably better as a footnote in those cases. --Masem (t) 14:44, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 100% agree. Previous teams are guaranteed to get bloated if the OWL continues for years, and player ages are irrelevant. A real sporting team roster does not include either, so why should OWL be an exception? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree as well. There should be separate section or footnote for "inactive players" if a player is not eligible to play yet due to age restrictions. Pbroks13 (talk) 18:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lead to the creation of the European and North American League of Legends leagues?

The article currently has the following line;

"The OWL was also the first modern esports league, which eventually led to the creation of the League of Legends Championship Series, League of Legends European Championship, and Call of Duty League."

Given that the Overwatch League started in 2017, and both the North American, and European LCS started in 2013, before simply changing their names. The North American league simply dropped "NA" from the name. Is it really accurate to say that the Overatch league lead to their creation? Or indeed that it is "the first modern esports league"2A02:C7F:741D:7F00:5DFC:2E0:A01D:F918 (talk) 21:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, that LCS part doesn't make sense (or I just don't follow it enough to understand) and "modern esports league" isn't defined. MrCheese76, care to elaborate? JTP (talk • contribs) 03:16, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the wording being unclear, I meant that the OWL was the first major FRANCHISED esports league. Sorry for the confusion.MrCheese76 (talk) 06:53, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:35, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Partnership for LA Valiant in China

LGE actually partnered with Los Angeles Valiant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UltraJackNotEvenFound (talk • contribs) 18:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It has now been confirmed that the Los Angeles Valiant will be playing in the West in 2023. OrangeRigby (talk) 11:08, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On the "scandal" addition

To the IP that keeps trying to add this (eg [7]) there are several problems:

  • First, Medium, Forbes contributors, and Newsweek (nowadays) are not reliable sources particularly for BLP related facets. These can't be used.
  • Second, you're synthesizing that there have been scandals in OWL from multiple sources that do not use that word (the only one that uses scandal is the non-RS Forbes Contributor). We cannot add up sources like this to come out with criticism of this nature
  • That said, under the existing Reception section, we already discussion related to suspensions of players, etc. (see the second para "Additional concerns were raised...") We don't need to name all the names here, as we're looking at general criticism of the league, not individual players or participants, but how the league has handled that. Any specific issues on players/etc should be on those player or team pages, not this page. --Masem (t) 15:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:11, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Overwatch_League