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]
February 2025 update: 160 C-Class, 302 B-Class, 228 GAs, and 13 FAs. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:53, 8 February 2025 (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]

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]

Image request

[edit]

I could use a second opinion and an assist. I was noticing that a lot of the other character FA's include at least one gameplay shot, to show what they look like in context. There's tons of people who have screencapped moments showing Kim Kitsuragi's reactivity[1]. Would this be fair use? I'd also appreciate the favor of someone uploading it and sorting it out. I'd be glad to return the favor with a copy-edit or other type of review. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what thumbnail we should made up for that image, especially when FAC reviewers will nitpick fair use images to death. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 13:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm admittedly unsure of its necessity, and I don't feel it really conveys to much to understanding the character or the article. Unless a reviewer requests another one, I'd say the current selection is likely fine. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 14:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are probably right that it's fine. It always feels a little text heavy, but that's what Wikipedia is all about. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Crash Bandicoot (character)

[edit]

Crash Bandicoot (character) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 02:36, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns raised on the Wikipedia discord regarding character lists and not being classified as List-class

[edit]

User:Hey man im josh raised some concerns in the discord about how lists are classified within the scope of the Videogame project, particularly how some are classified as List-/Featured-List and others on a standard article scale depending on the prose. While we've discussed it before in the past and attempted to try and find some reasonable ground for such especially with the naming standard, Josh pointed out it do seem to represent a WP:LOCALCON rather than Wikipedia as a whole, and led to one editor being dissuaded from approaching the FLC process over FA as a result.

So what I'm proposing might be a good idea with going forward is to:

  • Reclassify all non-GA/FA list articles as List class. Establish this as the norm going forward, so future articles fall into this category.
  • Leave GA/FA lists where they are for the time being. While this can be seen as an "out of sight, out of mind" issue, I fear we can't simply sideboard them over to FL due to different standards and concerns of lack of review being brought up. These articles will be grandfathered in under the argument that standards have changed, and not the rule to follow. If at some point they are delisted through review, they will fall down to List-class.
  • Rename List-class articles to a standardized "List of SERIES characters" to encourage consistency.

Now with the matter of quality control on such articles, it was suggested we could follow WP:MILHIST's assessment scale as seen here, but that will take a broader discussion on the main Wikiproject to aim for consensus. Still I think that may be worthwhile to look into, as where we stand the last thing we want is a flood of lists that just end up crowded into one category...that nobody ever wants to work on because there's no way to tell the wheat from the chaff.

How does this sound as a forward solution? Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:35, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should have a list-based assessment. Not sure on the naming aspect yet, I think we need to figure out the scale first. — Masem (t) 03:22, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, part of the reason I was so open to the prose/list separation in the past was because there's just List and Featured right now, and that does nothing to tell editors one list is in any better shape than another, or even worse a guide on how to proceed with fixing one up.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:04, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I repeatedly mentioned, I wasn't and am not interested in participating in a WikiProject specific discussion about this, so I'm not sure why I was pinged. For, I believe the fifth time now, I will make clear that I said that, as a delegate at WP:FLC, I see no reason not to promote prose based lists to featured list status if they are appropriately reviewed. A list is a list, whether it's a prose list or a table list. I also said I have no interest in trying to demote lists that are GAs or FAs, as those aren't my domain. Hey man im josh (talk) 04:36, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A list is a list, whether it's a prose list or a table list—I'm pretty sure this is what KFM is saying too; they just want to discuss it with the WikiProject first before making any changes. I assume the ping was just a courtesy ping since your name was mentioned; that being said, I think it's beneficial to see your viewpoint shared here on-wiki anyway, even if it is the fifth time overall. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 04:55, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's just common courtesy to ping someone if you're talking about them. No one asked anything of you. You need not participate if you don't want to. Sergecross73 msg me 15:17, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have always taken the tack that they should all be classified as List-class and renamed "List of ____ characters". Doing otherwise is just gaming the system so it can qualify for GA. Any GAs that are lists should be reconsidered for Featured List and if they fail the guidelines, demoted. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:49, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The name is a minor thing. For example, Characters of the Overwatch franchise is clearly still a list article, but its got enough prose that there's an actual topic of "Characters of Overwatch" with significant coverage about the characters en masse to meet GNG, as well as individual ones, and not simply just being a list of characters like List of Danganronpa characters. Just that the "shape" of the Overwatch article is still a list, and if I wanted to take it to being good or featured, I'd go along the FL/GL list rather than FA/GA line. Masem (t) 04:56, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not deep into this topic area, but I take Masem's point that some characters articles are just articles. They might cover several characters, but they don't become lists in the same way as Billboard Latin Music Award for Hot Latin Song of the Year or List of power stations in Sri Lanka or List of Chicago Bears seasons or Army groups of the National Revolutionary Army or...
    I really quick look at Wikipedia:Featured lists makes the distinction really obvious. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:17, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So probably better to leave out the renaming part, and just the reclassification. That said though I feel it would behoove us to make some sort of guideline so editors can figure out which is which as they develop their lists.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:53, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think a clear distinction being being "just a list" and something that we would considered good or featured is that there is a section on the development of the characters as a group, as the case for Overwatch or something like Characters of the Final Fantasy VII series. Having reception about the characters as a group is also helpful. It is important about as a group is respected, since I could see a development or reception section built from the discussion of individual characters but absent a statement towards the group which I think would be gaming this (that infomration would be helpful to develop a standalone character article, though). — Masem (t) 21:41, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A big concern here Zx is that many of those articles are tied to featured or good topics. Right now the only one that's probably in review range to be worried about is Characters of Myst, which was passed in 2009 and has a lot of unsourced sections. But forcing those to downgrade would not only cause more work for the project as a whole but may also serve to push out their related editors especially when editor participation is low. Nobody likes to drop everything and scramble to fix fires after all, especially not an inferno. Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:47, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, if the author of the GA article isn't interested in fixing the issues, then I think it should be deslisted from GAR (they are not required to repair their GAs anyway). It wouldn't make sense that they have a GA sticker at the top of the article if its terrible. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 04:00, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not the argument Glator, Zx is arguing they should be fed through the FLC process now and demoted if they don't apply, not that they have issues for the rating they have now that aren't getting fixed.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:01, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not 100% sure on this. I'm not really convinced that the ones we classify as articles are lists. Not everything that discusses a group of related topics is a list, and if we have development and reception, I'm not sure whether it would be considered more of a list or more of an article. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:57, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well for the time being since there seems to be a majority agreement, I have changed the B's and C's to List class. I am going to formulate a discussion to bring up a possible ratings scale adding for Lists, but that'll be on WT:VG proper as it'd be a major change. I think too we need to sit down and seriously hammer out some guidelines for what is viable as a list, as we have over *one hundred* and many of what we have are never going to be able to reach FL, let alone really seem to pass notability standards.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:25, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for working on this. Overall, I'm all for improving the quality of these character articles -- whether they are considered lists or not. And if the quality isn't there (and will never be there), then I support discussing a re-organization of some sort. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:15, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Video_game_characters&oldid=1275042997"