Talk:Galatea (video game)

Citation Please

I haven't seen the game and I am not well versed in the culture of Interactive Fiction, but any claim that a work contains the best character ever implemented in a computer game needs to be supported with citation. If it is "widely regarded" as the best, it should be easy to find an outside source which says so. I am sure it is a great work, but a list of awards it has won should indicate that very well. BarkingDoc 19:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, the claim was actually about the field of interactive fiction, not about CVGs in general, but the point is valid, of course. I've went forward and reworded the statement to be a clearly attributed quote. I also plan on adding several quotes from reviews and mentioning the sheer size of the game--it's 260 Kb of Z code, which is BIG by Z code standards (Curses is smaller!)--but that will have to wait until I get some much-needed sleep... ---Vladimir V. Korablin (talk) 22:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Galatea computer game screenshot.png

Image:Galatea computer game screenshot.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 10:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Not a _video_ game?

I wouldn't call it a video game. Pure text. Midgley (talk) 13:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It's played on video screens, though. Diego (talk) 16:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Categorization

There are three reasons by which User:Kung Fu Man shouldn't delete the tags for the Fictional_artificial_intelligences and Female_video_game_characters categories.

1. Nowhere it is stated that the category should only contain whole articles about the characters; an article about a movie, book or game for which the character is the main attraction may be classified as well in the category. In fact, there are articles right now in those categories which are not directly about the character but about the media in which they appear. So no difference here.
2. Even if we required the category to contain only articles about characters, we have no separate articles for Galatea the Video Game and Galatea the Video Game Character. So this article is about both.
3. The main reason: having this article classified under those categories is useful for Wikipedia readers, so your invented rule about what should or shouldn't be in those categories is hurting Wikipedia usefulness.

If you're still not convinced by these arguments I will move this article to Galatea (video game character) so that you won't have any reason left to complain, at the cost of a small disruption. Diego Moya (talk) 10:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually if the article focused on the character instead of the game as your proposed move would do, it would end up failing notability as a result.

Did you miss the XYZZY Best Non-Player Character award? Galatea is notable on its own as a character. Diego Moya (talk)

There are several games with a titular character of one gender or another (i.e. Bayonetta). However the categories pertaining to that particular character are reserved for said article. Same for Nathan Drake and so forth.

Bayonetta has separate articles for the character and video game, it makes sense there for only the Bayonetta(character) being included in the category. We have a single article here, so this article is included. Logical, isn't it? Diego Moya (talk)

As it stands this article covers the video game's subject: the character aspect really has no leg to stand on beyond this work, does it?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Why do you feel that it's relevant for those categories that the character has relevance beyond one work? Galatea is undeniably a notable artificial-intelligence female character, by way of being the raison d'être and sole attraction for a notable video game (which is notable because of the character!). That fact should be enough to find this article on those categories, since people looking for artificial-intelligence female characters will likely want to learn about her.

Neither of the criteria you use to delete the categorization (stand-alone article about a character, character appearing in more than one work) is implied by the description of those categories - and in fact there are other articles there which don't match your criteria, so there's no reason to exclude this article. I'm calling a third opinion on this edit war. Diego Moya (talk) 15:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The categories should go on a redirect of the character if they must(see Category:Super Smash Bros. fighters), not this article about the game. Character categories don't go on video game pages. Similarly, you wouldn't put categories on a list of characters that only apply to one character. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 17:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

The article currently says "Galatea is a work of interactive fiction". A game or a work of interactive fiction simply is not a character, so this article does not belong in a any category of characters. I am not persuaded by the points you raise to the contrary, Diego (though you have made your points well). Having categories loses its utility if they are "loosely interpreted" to include a lot of articles that don't quite fit into them, which is in my opinion what you would like to do in this case. I see you have recently added this article to Category:Artificial intelligence in fiction and that seems fine to me. Perhaps you could consider that categorization sufficient for your purposes here...?—WikiDao ☯ 22:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Blake has suggested a very good compromise that satisfies both parties and is already implemented, so I'll settle for the current state. We'll have to agree to disagree about the utility of categories. In my view they should be used as a navigation help. This means that articles with a strong similar information scent (such as this Galatea article with respect to female video game characters) should be listed together, even if they don't belong to the same set.

The categories system won't work as a universal scientific classification, because to work that way it should be systematic and have complete coverage. Categories in Wikipedia won't ever be like that given their organic nature.

Also your logical binary approach to inclusion ("a game is not a character, so it can't be included") is a little bit extreme. If we used it without any flexibility, a category like Category:France would be quite lame, don't you think? ;-) ("French law is not a country, it can't be included!") Diego Moya (talk) 13:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Now don't blame me for this. I just said IF THEY MUST, they should go on the location where the character WOULD be if they had an article. The Smash Bros characters have the category on their redirects to make the category "complete", I guess. Though, most categories like the one you are placing are just to group articles that are alike. If the subject doesn't have an article, it shouldn't be in the category. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 04:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It was supposed to be a praise :-) What I don't get is why all of you place so much more importance to the form - the article has 'character' in its title- than to the contents -the article covers a notable character. Is it really that essential for you having a category with only one kind of cut-from-the-same-cloth articles, for you to find the category useful? Why is that? I'm really trying to understand the rationale behind that thinking and how other people see categories, so that this kind of edit war won't happen to me again. Diego Moya (talk) 10:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Categories, like Navigation templates, group articles that are similar. This helps readers find information they might want to read. While the SSB character category can be completed easily, other categories would go on forever if you listed every single redirect that fits the category. Plus, most of these are redirected because they don't contain much information. Why would you point the reader to a bunch of incomplete character entries? Thus, only subjects with an article get categorized. Hope you understand. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 15:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand not linking to entries like Nidorina. But then Latias and Latios is listed under the category, when "Latias and Latios are Pokémon species in Nintendo and Game Freak's Pokémon franchise.". How is it that an article about both male and female Pokemon whole species can be loosely interpreted to belong to Category:Female video game characters but a video game with a single female lead character can't be? Diego Moya (talk) 05:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Categorization of Galatea

Should Galatea (video game) be listed in Category:Female video game characters? Does this article match the category description below?

"Fictional characters in computer and video games who are female. This character should be reserved specifically for characters originating in video games, as opposed to licensed appearances in games."

Diego Moya (talk) 05:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Based on what you quoted just then, the answer would be no. Regardless of the debate on whether or not the game article can represent the character in a category, the fact remains that Galatea is not a character "originating in video games", but rather from Greek mythology. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 05:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Note that this Galatea is not exactly that Galatea; this one is an artificial intelligence at an exhibit. Also the rest of the sentence if "...as opposed to licensed appearances in games" - the sentence is meant to exclude characters like Ororo from comics or Trinity from movies while appearing in their respective franchise videogames, not for videogames with an original storyline. This appearance of Galatea would be akin to Cú Chulainn at Tir Na Nog or Amaterasu Omikami at Ōkami. Diego Moya (talk) 10:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The distinction is certainly an interesting one, but I wonder if arguing that this Galatea and that Galatea are different characters wouldn't be seen as arguing semantics in favour of a desired outcome. The myth of Galatea is a statue come to life by mechanisms unexplained, and this doesn't vary in any notable way by this particular interpretation of her character being driven by artificial intelligence. I don't see that this case is a clear example of a distinct new character being inspired by the myth, rather than being a direct interpretation of the myth itself.

In any case, perhaps a more clear precedent would help swing the balance in favour of your position. I superficially skimmed the category but the only example that jumped out was Epona (The Legend of Zelda), based on the Celtic goddess Epona, a situation that loosely resembles this one. I'd prefer better examples, but my argument as to whether or not the two Galateas are distinct characters seems to be muddied by the Epona example. In light of that, I think you have a very weak precedent to argue for including the category. So I'll very weakly support it for now, but I'd also really like to see some better, clearer examples if at all possible. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 00:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful response. I'm wondering that the best action might be creating a new list or category for Video game characters based on mythology, given that the restricted nature of Category:Female video game characters makes it hard to create a thorough classification of characters by any criteria other than 'having a Wikipedia article'. Diego Moya (talk) 08:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Never mind. There's already Category:Mythology-based video games. Diego Moya (talk) 08:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I know this discussion's a bit stale, but I do not think this article should be categorised under anything like Category:Female video game characters. This article is about the game itself, which just happens to cover Galatea as part of it, in the same way that Portal covers the handheld portal device. Articles like Latias and Latios focus on those characters in particular, just along with something else because they're often grouped together and are more-or-less the "same" subject, which is why they can (though if I remember correctly categories like that should be placed on the Latias or Latios redirects. Don't know if that's still the case). This article should not be categorised under those sort of categories for the same reason Star Wars: The Force Unleashed can't be categorised under Category:Star Wars characters. – Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Star Wars: The Force Unleashed does not have a single main character that is the sole source for gameplay. Galatea (video game) does. So both are not really comparable; you (nor anybody else, for that matter) have not addressed the main argument I've given as the reason for inclusion in the category. Diego Moya (talk) 16:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the whole basis of The Force Unleashed is that you play as this badass dude with badass force powers. But look, a game itself cannot be a character, even if they form almost the whole game. It's either a game, or its a fictional character within a game. You can't eat your cake and then expect it to be still there. – Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

1. Nowhere it is stated that the category should only contain whole articles about the characters; an article about a movie, book or game for which the character is the main attraction may be classified as well in the category. In fact, there are articles right now in those categories which are not directly about the character but about the media in which they appear. So no difference here. Two wrongs don't make a right. They should only be for the characters.
2. Even if we required the category to contain only articles about characters, we have no separate articles for Galatea the Video Game and Galatea the Video Game Character. So this article is about both. No. It is about the video game. Star Wars would not be about Star Wars and Darth Vader, even if Vader didn't have his own article. Being the main character and most central character or even only character does make you the actual game.
3. The main reason: having this article classified under those categories is useful for Wikipedia readers, so your invented rule about what should or shouldn't be in those categories is hurting Wikipedia usefulness. Not really. Besides, usefulness on it's own isn't a great enough reason. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, after all. Honestly, Galatea isn't that much of information to have. She's a trivial character from a freeware game that is very bordering on notability itself. Sorry to sound harsh there.

– Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey, obscurity ≠ lack of notability. I'm not worried about the notability of Galatea even when Interactive Fiction won't be featured at video game magazines soon; the game has won the most prestigious award in the field, received critical commentary from one of the most respected authors and influenced how NPCs are seen in this genre.

I understand now that Category:Female video game characters is a set category, not a Topic category, although that was not clear from the category description. Which goes back to my other concern that I stated at the category discussion: that's not a very useful categorization since it makes impossible finding obscure characters that are anyway influential to a particular limited field. There should exist a way to index articles relevant to the topic of female characters even if they formally are not articles about the character itself.

(BTW, by the same criteria you're using, Portrayal of women in video games shouldn't be listed at the category. That strict formalism you're defending seems a little absurd). Diego Moya (talk) 06:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

PS- also you might want to read the essays you link to: "There are some pages within Wikipedia which are supposed to be useful navigation tools and nothing more—disambiguation pages, categories, and redirects, for instance—so usefulness is the basis of their inclusion; for these types of pages, usefulness is a valid argument". Diego Moya (talk) 06:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. You can't categorise a video game under "Fictional characters" even if it is useful. – Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 08:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand that, that's why I suggested a new, alternative categorization as a better approach. Diego Moya (talk) 08:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem is, as mentioned elsewhere, a character being female isn't really a major thing. Sure, major enough that individual characters can be categorised under it, but loads of a video game characters feature girls in all sorts of roles, including main character, antagonist, protagonist and player character. Asking yourself "Would we have a male version of that?" is a good way to see whether a category is a good idea, albeit a limited one due to fiction being part of our culture and woman "specialness" also being part of our culture. Anyway, as it stands this article should be removed from those categories (IMO). However, if any of your category proposals work then they can have additional categories added/removed per those proposals. – Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 10:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your commentary, I'll keep working in the creation of a fitting category for games with notable female characters.

(P.S. I think Duke Nukem would qualify for that "male version" of specialness). Diego Moya (talk) 12:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Galatea (video game). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121107044728/http://www.1up.com/features/top-5-interactive-fiction-games to http://www.1up.com/features/top-5-interactive-fiction-games

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)