Talk:Anran

Requested move 21 February 2026

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jeffrey34555 (talk) 08:49, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

---

Anran (Overwatch) → Anran – As far as I can tell, at the time of this writing, Wikipedia does not have any other articles called Anran and Anran redirects to this Anran (Overwatch)-article any way. If there (at least at the time of this writing) is no other article called Anran, why disambiguate this article's title as Anran (Overwatch) instead of just naming it Anran? Heart of Destruction (talk) 22:29, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Comment It was intended as a bit of future proofing, as Anran is a proper Chinese name. I have no problem either way, but it feels like down the road a case where we're likely going to have to move this article back to the disambig.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:48, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Support: disambiguation is not meant to be pre-emptive. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 19:08, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

• Support Unless there is a competing topic, it's fine to make it the primary topic. If someone believes the name Anran is notable then they are free to request a move back after the page has been created. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:38, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: Kung Fu Man (talk · contribs) 09:30, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: 11WB (talk · contribs) 22:20, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Well-written?

Lead

• 'a Blizzard Entertainment–developed first-person hero shooter' - Re-order > 'a first-person hero shooter developed by Blizzard Entertainment'
  • Fixed.
• 'and is later recruited into global peacekeeping task force Overwatch' > 'into the global peacekeeping task force Overwatch'
  • Fixed.
• 'and caused Anran's voice actress to voice concerns.' > 'with Fareeha Anderson voicing her concerns.'
  • Fixed (changed to Anderson also to avoid heavy repetition as we've introduced her in the same block).

Conception and design

• No issues generally, but is 'cheongsam' the usual word used for this? Would 'qipao' not be the correct word here?
  • Fixed.

Appearances

• 'Peacekeeping' doesn't require a hyphen.
  • Fixed.
• 'started at when launching the attack.' - 'at' > 'from'
  • Fixed.
• 'requires to be charged before use.' > 'requires charging before use.'
  • See below
• The word 'charge' and its variations are repeated quite frequently in the third paragraph of this section.
  • This one's a bit of a pain, as the wording's one refined from several Overwatch character GANs after other reviewers argued certain wording may confuse some readers unfamiliar with video games.

Critical reception

• The final sentence of the first paragraph is too long and should be split up.
  • Fixed.
• 'with characters prior' > 'with prior characters'
  • Fixed.
• 'initially hopeful her initially' - A different word should be replaced with 'initially' here.
  • Fixed.
• 'and was unlikely a trend' > 'and was a trend unlikely'
  • Fixed.
• 'had come to refer what' Missing word. 'to refer to'. This is a necessary repetition.
  • Fixed.
• The sentence about Anran's voice actress can be attributed using her name directly, and should be merged: 'weighed in on the debate herself, stating...'
  • Fixed.
• Split between 'doing their best' and 'she nonetheless'.
  • Fixed.
• 'and he looked forwards' - The plural on 'forwards' can be dropped here.
  • Fixed.

This is well written. I've included some minor changes above. 11WB (talk) 22:52, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Everything seems to have been done here. 11WB (talk) 00:02, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

This criterion is passed. 11WB (talk) 00:02, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Verifiable?

• Ref 1: Confirms the VA name. The comments she makes are also verified. Y
• Ref 2: I mentioned this in the writing feedback, however this source does not use the term "cheongsam". I am concerned there may be some OR here. N
  • In cases like this it's generally fine to use terms describing what a dress type is to help the reader understand, as long as the images in question support the visual description (for example, we can say a character has a sash with one, without having to say they do.

Would you be able to provide the guideline for that? 11WB (talk) 23:51, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't think there has been an established one as long as the details are non-controversial.

Fair enough. This is logical, so I am fine with leaving this be. Y 11WB (talk) 00:01, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

• Ref 3: This doesn't confirm that she is a martial artist, refs 4 and 5 also don't. N
  • Changed to young Chinese woman.

This is probably true, but the source doesn't state this either. It is pretty obvious what she is from the images, unsure of the best way to proceed here. Probably safest to write that she is a "character". 11WB (talk) 23:56, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

@Kung Fu Man, if you are okay with your wording being a WP:SKYISBLUE situation. I am happy to pass this. 11WB (talk) 00:14, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:18, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

• Ref 7: Verifiable, this is apparently reliable by consensus on Chinese Wikipedia. Y
• Ref 8: The information matches, however Kotaku is not currently considered reliable post-2022, due to content farming (per WP:VG/S#Situational sources). I won't push for this to be removed, but just something to bear in mind. Y
• Ref 9: This is fine. Y
• Ref 10: Destructoid isn't the greatest source, but in absence of a better source, this is acceptable. Y

There are some WP:V and WP:OR issues that I have addressed above. 11WB (talk) 23:18, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

This criterion is passed. 11WB (talk) 00:22, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Broad in coverage?

As this is a recent addition, more coverage may be published in the future. As of right now, this is fine. 11WB (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

This criterion is passed. 11WB (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Neutral?

All opinions are attributed and there are no NPOV violations. 11WB (talk) 22:56, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

This criterion is passed. 11WB (talk) 22:56, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Stable?

There is no signs of edit warring or content disputes on the talk page. 11WB (talk) 22:54, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

This criterion is passed. 11WB (talk) 22:54, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Well illustrated?

The current images are fine, however MOS:IMAGELOC mandates images be placed on the right. There are only two images, one being in the infobox, so there is no reason for it to be on the left here. 11WB (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

• With articles it's generally preferable to try and zigzag images as long as it doesn't break the formatting, as this typically helps with reading.

I think I have to hold firm on this one. MOS says to 'avoid left-aligned images whenever possible'. 11WB (talk) 23:48, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I disagree with this decision, but I'm not going to fight you on it.

No worries, I'll take a look at some other similar articles and see what the general stylistic choice for this is. It may be that there is a LOCALCON in place that I am unaware of. 11WB (talk) 23:59, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

This criterion is passed. 11WB (talk) 23:59, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

@11WB I think I've addressed all of the above.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:37, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

That was very fast. Give me an hour or so to go over everything and this should be good to pass! 11WB (talk) 23:42, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Result

Happy to pass this now that everything has been resolved! 11WB (talk) 00:22, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

This article meets all the criteria and can be reassessed as a good article! 11WB (talk) 00:22, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.