WikiProject iconVideo games Template‑class
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles
TemplateThis template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Untitled 2004[edit]

Stolen from Template:Ender. - [[User:Defunkt|Defunkt (talk)]] 06:15, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Death and Return of Superman[edit]

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)[reply]

Added Warcraft Adventures[edit]

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)

Expansion packs[edit]

Going to add the expansion back inside ( ) signs, please tell me why they are not represented. Havok (T/C/e/c) 11:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reading from the edit summary, it states that they are represented in other info boxes. Which ones? Havok (T/C/e/c) 11:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I have been looking for that myself after I made my edit. The expansions are named in the introductions to the articles. I recall that the top info boxes used to have information about predecessor and follow up games in game series (like WarCraft) and had expansions listed, but for some reason they don't show up anymore. It could be that the info box template got changed. I'm not sure. As for the expansion, if you going to list them, list them all, not just the Burning Crusade (and only Blizzard expansion, in the past the Hellfire expansion for Diablo also was in this template but this doesn't belong here as it was made by Sierra). --Fogeltje 11:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't we go back to the old version. Not showing of the expansion packs is kinda silly. Havok (T/C/e/c) 12:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Man In Black I don't understand your argument.. they are legitimate games that should be linked in this box. I have asked you to explain why in a broader term, and yet you fail to do so. Can you please explain it here, like I have asked you two times now. Thank you. Havok (T/C/e/c) 07:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need a link to the Warcraft III expansion in The Lost Vikings? It's already linked in Warcraft III. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The same reason all iPod products are linked to in the template for Apple products, even though they are all represented in the iPod article. Convenience? Havok (T/C/e/c) 09:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think following the lead of a crowded, badly-designed template is a very good idea.
You need to read the articles about the main games to have the basic understanding needed to read the expansion pack articles anyway. No sense cramming links in places where they will confuse uninitiated readers and clutter the template. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which can be easily remedied by having expansions shown in italic links. You have yet to convince me that how it is now is the optimal solution. And right now, two editors want the expansions inside the box. Havok (T/C/e/c) 07:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All of the links should be italicized; they're proper names of longform fictional works.
So far, you've proposed we add a bunch of links to articles where they're either already linked or aren't relevant, and additionally proposed adding an extra line of metadata explaining what bold or underlined or whatever means. Why is this at all a good idea? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then by all means, let us be overly difficult about it and make separate boxes for each gaming series, so that we can add the expansion packs. There is no clear indication that a game has an expansion pack, it was a part of the info box at the top before, but that has been removed. Adding them to this box is - I'll say it again - is convenient for our users. Havok (T/C/e/c) 08:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template title Video games developed by Blizzard Entertainment. Brood War and The Burning Crusade are video games developed by Blizzard Entertainment, yet they are not included? Seems wrong to me. – ARC GrittTALK 00:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resurrecting an old discussion. I also wonder why the expansion packs aren't added. Plenty of other video game series templates include their expansion packs: Elder Scrolls series, Total War series, The Sims series, and Call of Duty series are just a few. Reading through the above discussion, I fail to see why the Diablo series and Warcraft series do not have their own expansions. --theSpectator talk 04:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also find it absolute rubbish not to include them. One argument I think was that the expansions were listed in the infobox of the games, but that is no longer the case. Yes, they are linked in the article, but that is no reason not to include them in the template, templates are supposed to provide easy navigation to related articles, in the case of the Blizzard template it means easy way to go to other Blizzard games and that includes expansions. As for the question "Why do we need a link to the Warcraft III expansion in The Lost Vikings?", then I ask you, why do we need a link to Warcraft III at all in the article about the Lost Vikings? In that case we could do away with the whole template all together. I say re-add them. There is no official rule about this, but it's easier for the reader. And as far as I can tell from this discussion header, there seem more people for it than against. Just make sure they are clearly distuingished from the main game, put them brackets. --Fogeltje 06:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hellfire isn't made by Blizzard but by Sierra, it was only authorized by Blizzard. So it should not be in the template, for the same reasons that StarCraft: Insurrection and StarCraft: Retribution don't be. --Fogeltje 22:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing that. --theSpectator talk 00:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justice League Task Force[edit]

According to this article: [1] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The game was made by Condor, the company that became Blizzard North when Blizzard purchased them in 1996. However the game was published before the purchase.--60.242.159.224 04:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are several sources mentioning the Blizzard name I found in google: [2] [3] [4] [5] I'll add the game unless anyone objects--PCPP 04:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Racing Destruction Set[edit]

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)[reply]


Bill Roper[edit]

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)[reply]

Copied from Izno's talk page[edit]

Hi Izno,

I noticed your revert on ((Blizzard Entertainment)). 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)

@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)
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)
@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)

Just copying the above from my talk page. --Izno (talk) 01:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Activision Blizzard inclusion[edit]

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)[reply]

Overwatch inclusion in main franchises[edit]

http://us.battle.net/en/ list of franchises already includes Overwatch 211.119.230.136 (talk) 01:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

"Sub-"Franchises or Games?[edit]

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)[reply]

They are still part of the Warcraft franchise and so we should not include them. --Izno (talk) 13:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Is there any reason why Blizzard Entertainment navbox doesn't have separated DC universe?[edit]

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)[reply]

"A subsidiary of Activision Blizzard"[edit]

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)[reply]

Categories