Template talk:Blizzard Entertainment

message: Stolen from Template:Ender. - Defunkt (talk) 06:15, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 2004 

message: Do not revert without proper cause, take it to the talk page of the game first to discuss. The discussion can be found here: Talk:The Death and Return of Superman#Blizzard Involvement --Fogeltje 16:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Death and Return of Superman

message: Regardless of what people say, it was a game that was supposed to be released, so linking to it won't kill anyone. ;) Havok 20:57, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added Warcraft Adventures 

message: According to this article:
Justice League Task Force was made by Blizzard.  Any objections to adding it to the infobox? --72.43.103.251 14:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not by just one article, try to find more large sites, like IGN or Gamespot, unless someone who actually has the game can verify it, the Blizzard logo should be on the box or opening credits. Actually IGN and GameFAQ don't list Blizzard. MobyGames does but others don't, either not listing the developer or listing Sunsoft. I guest it would be safest to have someone who could verify it by owning the game.--Fogeltje 16:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Justice League Task Force

message: Racing Destruction Set wasn't made by Blizzard, it was simply a "prequel" to RPM Racing. (Article says RPM Racing was a remake of that.) So I do not think it is right to include it in this template.  --Voidvector (talk) 22:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racing Destruction Set 

message: Shouldn't Bill Roper be listed amongst the 'people' section of the template? He used to be Vice President of Blizzard North, and was well known for his voice ingame for his narrations in Warcraft II and other classic era games; even though he left the company he is pretty significant to Blizzard's history, for nine years he was the public face of Blizzard, used to be the man apparently calling the shots behind quite a few projects including Diable II and I believe Warcraft III. Surely he should be in it? 86.154.202.21 (talk) 18:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bill Roper 

message: Hi Izno,
I noticed your revert on . I was actually wondering myself why the franchises weren't listed in full, but after searching through the history section, I saw that the decision was made over five years ago. May I suggest a new discussion about incorporating the rest of Blizzard's games? --Soetermans. T / C 18:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: @Soetermans: Well, the reason I remember that that decision was made is that I've been here that long... awkward (for me). I wouldn't stop you from beginning a new discussion, but I'm not sure I would support your version. The current solution seems completely appropriate to me. --Izno (talk) 05:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Two days short of two months of replying! :D It's okay though, I realised if nobody else in that same period ever thought of putting everything into one template it'll probably won't make it through a discussion. --Soetermans. T / C 09:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: @Soetermans: Well, obviously, look at the previous revision to yours; it was that way at one point. The reason it was changed was that it was causing duplication in navbox templates, as there are Warcraft and StarCraft specific templates (and a Diablo template?) that covered the navigation to an appropriate degree on all of the pages that would be added to the Blizzard Entertainment template…. That no-one has changed it back since (without checking the BE template history) may be a result of people (like me) preserving the previous consensus…. --Izno (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copied from Izno's talk page 

message: I think the mention of Activision Blizzard should utilize the same convention of The Walt Disney Company in the Lucasfilm infobox, where it's in its own bar at the end. Thoughts? DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 09:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Activision Blizzard inclusion 

message: http://us.battle.net/en/ list of franchises already includes Overwatch 211.119.230.136 (talk) 01:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: But Heroes of the Storm is also on that webpage, but is not listed as a main franchise in the template. So I guess it's fair to keep it excluded. --218.147.166.41 (talk) 04:55, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be a good idea to separate these ongoing(and assumably all future) multiplayer online games from those earlier titles.114.111.166.215 (talk) 16:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

text: How about all the Battle.net 2.0 franchises count as main franchises, other than classic franchises? Celtic Angel (talk) 03:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a need. That Blizzard develops one-off (or supposedly continuing) games doesn't imply that they are alone and by themselves series or franchises. --Izno (talk) 13:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overwatch inclusion in main franchises 

message: How about World of Warcraft and Hearthstone counts as sub-franchises other than as games and be included in this list? They are MMORPG or CCG spins-off other than the Warcraft main series of RTS. Celtic Angel (talk) 03:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: They are still part of the Warcraft franchise and so we should not include them. --Izno (talk) 13:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I think those two games are enough popular, culturally relevant, and distant from the main franchise, gameplay-wise, to warrant entries in this template, so people could click only once to access the articles for them. John Carv (talk) 02:12, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sub-"Franchises or Games? 

message: We have separated Diablo, Starcraft and Warcraft universes (and The Lost Vinkings, which are only 2 titles), but two DC universe titles are merged with other Blizzard titles. And DC universe is even more unique than every other universe in navbox, because it is not Blizzard intelectual property. Few edits ago, DC universe titles were in separated group (called "Licenced"), but now they are merged with Blizzard IPs for some reason that I don't understand. It is much easier to understand developer, and developer's IPs, when titles are grouped in logical groups. Everyone who comes on Wikipedia to learn things, can appreciate logical groups in navbox - it helps in understanding. Keep in mind that not every developer is the same. Blizzard is known as developer of his own IPs, so it can confuse people who are not familiar with Blizzard. Did they still have rights on DC universe, can we expect Superman skin in Overwatch? Batman as Hero? Maybe it is obvious for me or you, but it doesn't mean we need to merge Diablo, Starcraft and Warcraft games in one group. If we already created logical groups for the most of the games, why we merged DC universe with original Blizzard IPs? Can we just back like it was? EchoBlu (talk) 05:33, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there any reason why Blizzard Entertainment navbox doesn't have separated DC universe? 

message: While true, I don't think we need to include this on a template that exists for navigation between franchises and games that mostly predate the acquisition in the first place. This is also something that you don't happen to see on other navboxes. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "A subsidiary of Activision Blizzard"