Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Video game characters

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

Next step: C-class Article Improvement Drive

[edit]

With all the start-class articles pushed to C outside of a few lists we're still figuring out, we're moving onward and going to try and bring those C-class articles to B or higher! While this may seem daunting, consider the fact that we're almost halfway there as is. Reaching there, by the end of the year, is entirely tangible if we work together!

So to that end, Cukie has set up a list of all the C-class articles by game here: User:Cukie Gherkin/B drive

We can use this section here to develop ideas on how to approach the articles, consider any that may be worth merging, or sources that may help across the board in certain genres. We pulled off something pretty major with the previous articles: I don't think in the history of the VG project as a whole has there been no Start-class character articles overall. If that doesn't fill you with pride I don't know what will. Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At some point in the future, I'd be willing to work with someone to improve Aloy. It's been on my to do list for awhile. -- ZooBlazer 19:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two thoughts:
Shooterwalker (talk) 19:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know, unfortunately there's been a mixed issue with Lord British where people have been uncertain where to merge it, and trying to brute force the Ultima Online incident as making him notable.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The good news is there are 300 other character articles to work on. When there is no consensus, sometimes editing (or the lack thereof) allows a consensus to form. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I'm thinking. At some point people will have to look at the quality gap and go "why can't this improve farther"?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two things: y'all might want to pin this discussion so it doesn't get archived, and for motivation's sake you should note how many C-class articles there were at the start of this drive (currently, there's 280 C-class). Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 22:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A little over a month later, y'all are now at 261 C-class articles. SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are now down to 254. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And now at 190 GA, 250 B, and 230 C. No change in the number of FAs, though, which y'all should consider eventually. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:53, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be completely honest, I don't feel FAs are going to be a big or mainstream thing with character articles and will likely not be worth the stress for most of them.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the number of articles we still have to improve at this point, we're likely better off working on improving what's there instead of stressing ourselves with the intense scrutiny of making FAs. FAs tend to be way harder to do and have way longer processes. There's not much benefit, if I'm being honest. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:10, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think being able to present your work on the Main Page is a pretty good benefit, but I also don't envy people who nominate in the process. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:39, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see many characters necessarily having the material for a FA to be possible. Maybe having all Top-importance character articles at FA (since probably all of them have high-quality sourcing available) would be a long-term goal to consider? Easier said than done though. λ NegativeMP1 20:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how that could be an issue. The comprehensiveness criteria only requires covering all the major points according to reliable sources, it doesn't require you to cover anything for which sourcing does not exist. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:58, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: We are currently at 231 C-Class articles, meaning the number somehow went up by one. Probably a BLAR being reverted. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably better to let updates be a monthly thing, but a better suggestion would be how do we start chipping down those numbers? I feel like there's definitely a point where a lot of C-class articles are definitely those people just don't want to touch. In my case I just made one, but I know I'll get it to B. But isolating which of the older ones can be improved enough to B would be the safest route.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you are probably right on update frequency. As for improvements, I'm not really sure how to get those numbers down. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdenting) June update: 220 C-class, 271 B-class, and 199 GAs. The number of C-class has decreased over time. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 02:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July update (sorry I'm late!): 217 C-class, 269 B-class, and 210 GAs. The number of C-class has been hovering around that number for close to two months now. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 03:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As of halfway through September, we are at 198 C-Class, 295 B-Class, and 215 GAs. The number of FAs has also increased from 9 to 10. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
End of November update: We are at 190 C-Class, 317 B-Class, 221 GAs, and 12 FAs. Great work everyone! QuicoleJR (talk) 23:15, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


So given the C-class articles are a bit harder to bulk up, some of which going to require complete rewrites, at Cukie's suggestion the goal has been refined to aim for less than 150 C-class article for the time being. This makes the overall goal feel less daunting, and honestly there's a good chance that we will never reach absolutely 0 C-class articles. Concerns also arose too that an absolute zero threshold may disaude editors from trying to do character articles.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the topic of Sonic the Hedgehog

[edit]

Sonic the Hedgehog's had a long history on this website, and so far we're left with the following articles for characters: Sonic the Hedgehog (character), Tails (Sonic the Hedgehog), Knuckles the Echidna, Doctor Eggman, Shadow the Hedgehog, and Chao (Sonic the Hedgehog). As recently brought up at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sega#Ready for evaluation on the subject of Amy getting an article, her potential notability is uncertain, as while she has some good developmental info, her Reception is lackluster and lacking. At the same time, @Red Phoenix brought up that the current state of the articles for many of these other characters suffered from similar problems to the Amy draft, but were still currently up without issue. While I can't speak for everyone, looking at the current articles, I feel Sonic is definitely among our weakest franchises in terms of content. With the exception of Sonic and Shadow, the other articles have the following problems:

-Tails has some alright dev info, but his Reception is primarily trivial mentions and minor bits, with little to no Wikipedia:SIGCOV.

-Knuckles has a weaker Reception and very little conception information with a very bulky plot section. Arguably has some strong claims to notability as it stands but it's counterbalanced by the pre-existing issues.

-Eggman has a massive prose and weak Reception. Dev info is particularly strong through.

-Chao is primarily consistent of review quotes and trivial mentions for its Reception and is small otherwise. Survived an AfD in 2019, but the AfD was kept with very Wikipedia:VAGUEWAVE arguments.

The above four are substantially weak, which is especially poignant when they're such iconic characters. Given the confusion it is currently causing and the potential future confusion that could follow this when it comes to establishing what subjects are deemed notable, I propose that we refocus our efforts onto improving these articles for the time being. Sonic's notability is safely assured as is and Shadow is a GA, so I won't ask editors to divert their time to those areas, but some form of consensus should be determined for the above four on whether

  1. They can be improved to a good quality standard
  2. That there are enough pieces of Wikipedia:SIGCOV to show that the subjects pass the Wikipedia:GNG
  3. Show that they have a reason to exist independently of List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters with what content exists discussing these characters

It's wild that this discussion needs to be held given the characters' iconicity, but given the lack of significant coverage this franchise receives in reliable sources, I definitely feel we should deal with this problem now rather than later, especially since it will help with being improve the whole franchise up to a quality standard by the end of it. Please let me know y'all's thoughts on the above. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pokelego999: Do not discount Shadow the Hedgehog simply because someone got it promoted to GA status in 2019. Even the now-redirected Amy Rose was a GA in 2014. Looking at Shadow’s reception is either based on the video game of the same name and not the character, or sourced to listicles of the “best and worst Sonic characters”. Amy’s reception could be enhanced the same way, which I obviously chose not to do in light of recent discussions surrounding listicles. Red Phoenix talk 20:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At a glance there seems to be some decent hits for Shadow, especially due to the recent Year of Shadow promotion. It'll warrant another look but I feel Shadow's not as high on the priority list right now given his article's in a decent state and it's got room for improvement. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote the Shadow article, it absolutely remains GA quality. Could use a bit of updating but there's already many articles dedicated solely to him and the reception section describes him solely as a character. JOEBRO64 16:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've been advised to ping @TheJoebro64, who has a lot of experience with Sonic the Hedgehog, for input on the above matters. Given his past experience with the series, a collaboration of some sort to determine this would prove beneficial. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:35, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do have a draft for the character list with a structure I think would make it much easier to navigate than the existing one. I can tell you from experience that Sonic characters are hard to write about. JOEBRO64 17:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly think a problem the characters of this series have is that there are so many that even core notable characters are often discussed either in the context of the game they debuted in or in a listicle. I’m of the opinion that those that should be notable are the most covered, and the most covered tend to have the most appearances in games and media. To me, that’s Sonic, Tails, Knuckles, Amy, Eggman, and I’m willing to say Shadow as well. I’m not willing to say Chao deserves the article it has. I would be willing to bet that; if the discussions on listicles and Valnet get squared away with selective notability and usefulness, that all of those I listed, I, or others, could make into GAs. But I think that’s going to be a core issue here, is what the guidance should be. I’m all for high sourcing standards and limitations on notability of fictional characters, but it strikes me odd that game characters with over 10 playable appearances and 25+ appearances in games, plus countless others in TV and comics, would not be notable enough to warrant an article. Certainly sources should be the be-all, end-all; I just find it very surprising. Red Phoenix talk 00:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't think video game appearances constitute notability (we have plenty of characters that appear in many titles but fail notability), I do agree that Chao id far too weak. The best source I could find is this, and one published paper on scholar that may be useful but discusses them more in the context of a game mechanic.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not saying it constitutes notability, only that it suggests notability, akin to a WP:SNG. Red Phoenix talk 13:34, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review Wikipedia:Peer review/Chris Redfield/archive1

[edit]

I feel like this article is far tougher than the 2 articles I worked. Any concerns/comments are helpful for future FAC. Thanks! 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 03:35, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Kitsuragi check-in before FA

[edit]

This article just made GA. The GA reviewer (Crisco 1492) thought this would have an easy time at FAC, but I figured I'd get some quick feedback just to cover off any blind spots.

  • Are there any sources that seem questionable?
  • Is the separation of analysis/reception/accolades a clear way to organize all the reception?
  • Should I address anything else before FAC, or is it good enough to hopefully improve through the FAC process?

Thanks in advance! Shooterwalker (talk) 19:41, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Shooterwalker, just wanted to drop a quick note and contextualize for the Project: based on reviews at similar character pages (Ada Wong, Claire Redfield) this easily meets the comprehensiveness expectations as well as the prose. For the organization of the reception, one comment at the FAC for Claire basically asked for what you did here: organized the reception section by theme, summarizing rather than picking quotes. I can't speak to VGRS, but as a lay editor nothing struck me as problematic. For comprehensiveness, I have not played the game, and thus I cannot say if there's something a fan would know better (like if the Director's Commentary in the Enhanced Edition has useful information).  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • AG aside, I think Vooks and the other ones are questionable at best, and considering how little they're used, should just be dropped. CBR I'm not a stickler on, but it's definitely going to cause problems at FA. Since none of these three sources have issues, I think a good preventative measure would be removal. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 03:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on removing CBR in this case, I can't find any author credentials on Muckrack. A lot of the refs need a once over for citation style: some are missing info, others filled in weird (RPGFan was listed as www.rpgfan.com). Make sure too to italicize the name of any games in the cites, and capitalize the cited article's title if the website didn't (this can help with that).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shooterwalker Also ref 20, 26 and maybe GamingBolt. Multiple source reviewers (Ex. JoJo) have already claimed that GamingBolt is low quality as a source for FA. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 09:50, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is helpful, everyone. For the sources, what I might do is go to FA with the questionable sources in tact, and draw attention to these criticisms here. I'd rather have record of the source discussion at the FAC process, so that it can be an easy archive for future FAC processes too. If anyone sees anything else, let me know. Otherwise I will likely go ahead with the nomination in a few days. Shooterwalker (talk) 06:13, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Video_game_characters&oldid=1262622734"