Jump to content

Talk:Ghost (Call of Duty)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 22 November 2022

[edit]
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: not moved. Per consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 06:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Riley → Simon "Ghost" Riley – Most sources use his full name plus his nickname, so I think WP:COMMONNAME would apply. I might be wrong, though. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 02:13, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. I agree with @162 etc.'s interpretation of WP:NICKNAME. Not unlike Abigail "Fetch" Walker and Jeff "Joker" Moreau, the vast majority of reliable secondary sources identify the character by his full name + nickname in parenthesis, and that has not changed in the years since the character's introduction. While it is fine in article content, Wikipedia does have very specific rules about the title of said article itself. So we have Fetch (Infamous) and Joker (Mass Effect) as article titles, instead of their full names + nicknames in parenthesis. Following the precedents, and also because the character's Ghost nickname and gimmick has left its mark in other titles throughout the COD franchise (e.g. dog named after him or as the main inspiration for the name and theme of Call of Duty: Ghosts, I would argue that the appropriate title for this article should be Ghost (Call of Duty), not Ghost Riley which feels like a misguided attempt to follow the naming convention behind related character Soap Mactavish. Haleth (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Requested move 29 November 2022

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed. After extended time for discussion, there is a clear consensus for the proposed move, and a policy-based explanation for why it can't stay at the current title. BD2412 T 17:53, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Riley → Ghost (Call of Duty) – While most reliable sources refer to him as Simon "Ghost" Riley, others have pointed out that this is the correct name- according to Wikipedia policy- for his article to be titled. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 19:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 05:08, 8 December 2022 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:13, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Video games has been notified of this discussion. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:13, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Notability

[edit]

This article is in bad need of sources that demonstrate WP:GNG. I see numerous sources that are either situational sources like Valnet (Gamerant, Screenrant, TheGamer), or unreliable (Looper/SVG), or self-published essays. Very few sources show in-depth significant coverage of the character itself. The following source evaluations are based on WP:RSP and WP:VG/S. Based on Special:Diff/1127222259, the current version at this moment:

  1. Sources 1 & 2 don't contribute to reception of the character.
  2. Sources 3 is Valnet, seen as a situational source and not to contribute to GNG.
  3. Source 4 is a self-published student essay.
  4. Source 5 and 6 are Valnet again.
  5. Source 7 is reliable, but doesn't discuss the character, again focused on the voice actor.
  6. Source 8 doesn't look like a reliable source.
  7. Source 9 is reliable, but a low quality source rejected at FAC.
  8. Source 10 is unreliable.
  9. Source 11 looks unreliable.
  10. Source 12 is another Dot Esports, so low quality, but two sources from the same publisher doesn't help.
  11. Source 13 is reliable, but misused. It's attached to statements about Dot Esports, but covers that the dog Riley in Ghosts is named for Simon Riley. Not in-depth coverage.
  12. Source 14 may be a reliable study, but makes no mention of Simon Riley or Ghost at all.
  13. Source 15 An unreliable student thesis. Only mentions Ghost in terms of game plot, not as an analysis of the character.
  14. Source 16 and 17 are not a reliable sources, or in-depth coverage. It's about the betrayal/plot twist, not analysis of the character. 17 doesn't even mention Ghost.
  15. Source 18 is reliable, but yet another listicle about the betrayal plot point.
  16. Source 19 is reliable, but non-independent, being a developer interview quote that they'd like to do an origin story/game. No analysis of the character.
  17. Source 20 another study about Call of Duty that doesn't actually ever mention Ghost. The reliability doesn't matter, he's not in the study.
  18. Source 21 is Valnet again.
  19. Source 22 is... Valnet again.
  20. Source 23 is reliable but less about the character and more about the meme on Tiktok. And ironically, this is the most in-depth source we've seen yet.
  21. Source 24 is another Kotaku article, same as 23, on the same Tiktok meme, just from their Australian subsite.
  22. Source 25, reliable, but again about the Tiktok meme.
  23. Source 26, situational source, but again, about the Tiktok meme.
  24. Source 27, unreliable source, but again, about the Tiktok meme.
  25. Source 28 is dubious reliability, but again, about the Tiktok meme.
  26. Source 29, once more Valnet appears, and once more, about the Tiktok meme.
  27. Source 30 Yahoo! Reliable, of course, but yet again about the memeing.
  28. Source 31, unreliable, so doesn't matter. Yet again Tiktok meme.

So we have 4 things here:

  1. Unreliable sources.
  2. Sources that don't even mention Ghost.
  3. Valnet.
  4. Reliable sources that all cover a brief Tiktok meme.

Is that really it? I would send this to AFD, except I don't have the inclination right now to fully perform a WP:BEFORE search. So for now I've illustrated the issues with the current sourcing. -- ferret (talk) 00:27, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note also prior AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon "Ghost" Riley, though I believe enough time has passed that there's a chance of suitable sourcing to be found. -- ferret (talk) 00:35, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If there was a List of Call of Duty characters, I think that would be a suitable redirect target. But yeah, it seems the primary claim to notability is the TikTok meme, which I don't think is enough to substantiate a full article. DecafPotato (talk) 01:15, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Basically I think I'll let this sit for a week or two. If no new sources are found or highlighted, I'll send to AFD then. -- ferret (talk) 02:09, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
made a draft if anyone's interested in helping--I know basically nothing about CoD so I can't do a bunch, but I'll work on it a bit. DecafPotato (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm obviously going to be defensive since I wrote the bulk of this article- but I do want to point out that the sources used for this article are of very similar status to Captain Price and Soap MacTavish, both of which almost entirely use primary sources, store listings, and listicles with very little reliable sources solely about their characters. I doubt that if this doesn't pass notability guidelines, then those two can stay. Ghost occupies a similar presence to those two within the games themselves- being a major, playable character in multiple titles.
I understand that Valnet isn't allowed to establish notability. I will defend the other sources I used though- the academic articles I cited are published and presumably been reviewed, and Source 20 mentions Ghost a total of 45 times. I read it. As for the Tiktok meme- I am aware that being the subject of fan attention for a few weeks isn't enough for an article, but the game is recent enough that I have reason to believe that it will be a situation similar to Lady Dimitrescu where a character becomes notable due to its outpouring of fan content. Even though the articles are mostly about recent internet attention, they do detail who he is, and it is unfair to say that simply because they are about an ephemeral meme that their content can't be used to retroactively establish the content being topically notable.
I will look for more reliable sources that are about Ghost, I'm sure there's enough for it to skirt deletion. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 04:14, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure why I could not find Ghost in source 20 the first time. I was doing text searches and nothing would come back. I even tested a common phrase to make sure searches were working but didn't find "Ghost" the first time. However, I still don't like this source. The farthest it gets into discussing Ghost as a character within his actual media is to describe him as tall, and wearing his signature clothing. After that, all mentions are passing in "He did this in the plot", and discussing his place in various fan ficts. There's no character analysis. This might be a fine source to cover "Call of Duty fanfict", but it doesn't analyze the character Ghost. -- ferret (talk) 16:45, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the new sources added up to Special:Diff/1128841154:
  1. Polygon doesn't help Ghost notability
  2. Gamesradar is an interview, non-independent
  3. HardcoreGamer is an interview.
  4. Gamespot is closest, but it's just an announcement for a game release, not analysis of the character.
  5. PCGamesN is a repeat of a story I already mentioned from an existing source. It's an interview quote about a possible origin story. (See source 19 above)
  6. Videogamer only mentions Ghost briefly in the form of plot points
  7. Forbes Sites (Contributors) are unreliable.
Techradar now. This is what you want. This is an in-depth discussion of the character. Ironically, it's a negative one, but that's fine.
The interviews are fine sources to have to source basic details and facts but they are ultimately Primary sources. This is what the developers are saying, so they don't aid in Notability/GNG.
The Gamespot source is a common trap people fall into trying to source characters. It's an announcement about an uncoming game feature. In short, the source isn't actually about the character: It's about the game. It doesn't discuss the character, their traits, their flaws, it just says "They are coming." -- ferret (talk) 16:55, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ghost_(Call_of_Duty)&oldid=1200819595"