Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Video game characters

Next step: C-class Article Improvement Drive

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)

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)

Two thoughts:

• I'm going to take a shot at Kim Kitsuragi.
• Lord British and Avatar (Ultima) don't really have meaningful reception. I say that having looked for it, as a fan of the series.

Shooterwalker (talk) 19:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

A little over a month later, y'all are now at 261 C-class articles. SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

We are now down to 254. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

Notability and the "Morrigan problem"

So recently we have an AfD for Morrigan Aensland, which can be found here. The skinny of it is that while Morrigan has very little actually said about her, she's so visible and stated as being visible that she has notability due to that. Even some of the editors involved like Piotrus in discussions I've had with them outside of the AfD have agreed that this subject may be too difficult to get to GA due to how little there is. But the stated popularity, even if nothing is actually *being* said of actual volume.

So it brings up some questions:

• Do statements of popularity/visibility count towards notability
• If they do, how do we measure this?

There are other examples of this problem at play too: Snorlax is a particularly prominent one on the Pokemon end. When you look at the article it's weak as almighty hell because there's just nothing to say there. But attempts to AfD or Merge it have been met with harsh pushback because "it's popular". Does it being included in a series of street names for Las Vegas count towards notability? Can we quantify its popularity by the fact police were reported to ignore a call just to catch it in Pokemon GO (something I kid you not brought up during its AfD)?

So with the above questions in mind, here's a third to consider: if these are a valid factor, how can this be applied to help set a "bar" as it were for articles? Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:SIGCOV comes to mind, but of course most sources are in the gray zone (more than a single sentence, less than monograph). How many passing mentions that something is popular add up to notability? Well, I think this is what AfD is for, with no consensus defaulting to keep. While I have become more of a deletionist over the years, I do think that when we have many passing mentions, it's good to err on the side of caution and keep such a topic. (And I still think we removed way too many of these passing mentions in this article for no good reason - see its talkpage; now that this article has been kept I think most of the removed content should be restored). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I feel discussing this further here would lead to us going off topic, so we should likely continue this at Morrigan's talk page if you feel it should be debated further, but I feel adding a bulk of trivial mentions isn't doing much for Morrigan and is only really obscuring the real lack of discussion there is. I feel it would be of bigger benefit to readers to keep things concise; it's better to have a short one paragraph than nine paragraphs that aren't amounting to much that readers would have to sift through to get a general idea of what Morrigan's deal is. I'm unopposed to adding one or two or something back, but I feel adding most if not all of it would be nothing but detrimental. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 14:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't see an issue with what we're trying to do here. To me, sometimes that's just one of the shortcomings of AFD. Much of the time, I have faith in the process. But sometimes it comes down more to the cross-section of what editors participate, how well they display shaky arguments, and if the closer drops the ball on reading things (or simply has little valid to work with.) Sergecross73 msg me 11:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I definitely agree. To me, stuff like Morrigan and Snorlax are exceptions more than the norm for our policies. I still think both should be merged, personally, but I don't think we should restructure our mindset to account for a few anomalies in the process. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 14:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

One interpretation of SIGCOV that I like to use, though don't stick to very hard, is to look at whether the sources available for a subject are adequate to be able to create a GA out of them. This creates a lower limit to the potential quality of articles. But I think the problem stands: Snorlax has had lots of impact on the world but no one is really writing about its base facts or why it's such a memorable and iconic design. It's frustrating and I don't have answers. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Well it does cause an issue if, say, we try to get an article like Morrigan to GA. The end goal of the project is to get everything up there; fanciful certainly, but given the latest strives still possible. Even on a smaller scale, there's projects like Pokelego999's Pokemon Good Topic where Snorlax could be a roadblock. Asserting some sort of consensus we can quantify and point to can help ensure their project isn't brick walled. If we can at least develop some consensus on a baseline that can be pointed to and help such go smoother.

Additionally, knowing where to set that bar will help with the establishment of other articles. One thing I've been working on in my sandbox was a planned revival for Kasumi (Dead or Alive) after it's earlier AfD, because I realized that while this is *weak*, it still has the same "it's popular"/"heavily cosplayed"/"recognizable" statements that kept Morrigan afloat but by comparison is actually saying something. So figuring out where to measure and what to measure can help those fringe cases.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:Permastub is relevant here; perhaps we just have to accept that some articles will not reach a satisfactory state unless a revival of interest by sources occurs. This is of course a very unfortunate situation if your goal is Good Topics. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Maple I'm just going to say that is a terrible suggestion. "Permastub" does not apply to fictional characters in the same way one could end up with such for living persons or concepts.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I literally could not think of a more reasonable situation than a character after whom streets are named or statues are built, but no one really talks about them. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

There are always going to be outliers at AFD. With time, it becomes evident whether these outliers were good or bad outcomes. If the outcome was bad, it will be revisited, and corrected. If the outcome was good, it might be a rare WP:IAR exception, or it might be a pattern of good editing that should be documented for future cases. For now, I agree that these AFD outcomes are a little weird, and we can always have another discussion later. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

FA for Ada Wong

I have nominated Ada Wong for a featured article candidate. Feel free to chime in if you have opinions/concerns at the article. Many thanks! 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 01:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

The "Pokemon Copypasta" revisited

So I've been trying to refine the Pokemon species copypasta. For those confused, this is a baseline of information at the start of each of the species articles to help establish to the reader a) what a Pokemon is and b) to help understand basic terms used in the article. Two parts of this can be omitted from relevant articles as needed (the explanation of evolution and the explanation of the Pokedex) but are included here for the sake of cohesiveness. Some suggestions on how to refine and rework it can be useful:

POKEMONNAMEHERE is a species of fictional creature called Pokémon created for the Pokémon media franchise. Developed by Game Freak and published by Nintendo, the Japanese franchise began in the 1990s with the release of the video games Pokémon Red and Blue for the Game Boy. In these games and their sequels, the player assumes the role of a Pokémon Trainer whose goal is to capture and train Pokémon. Players use the creatures' special abilities to combat other Pokémon, and some can transform into stronger species through a process called evolution via various means, such as exposure to specific items. A major goal in each game is to complete the Pokédex, a comprehensive Pokémon encyclopedia, by capturing, evolving, and trading with other trainers to obtain individuals from all Pokémon species.

I've tweaked it a bit since the last time to be clearer we're discussing the franchise and games as a whole to boot. Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:25, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

After thinking this over for a bit, I think ".. is a species of fictional creatures called Pokémon .." is my preferred start. Otherwise, I still think this is pretty good, and I'm particularly happy with how the optional sentences are used right now. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps clarify "trading with other players"? Since I feel trading is a bit unclear. I do also feel Poke Balls should be mentioned somewhere (Probably around the capture section) and I do feel we should have some intro on types since that has come up a bit. Additionally, should we change to Red and Green? I've had various people be confused about that, and I'm uncertain how to phrase it given the latter is correct in terms of specifics, while Red and Blue is what's used per its article. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

How would you suggest clarifying the trading part?

As for the Pokeballs bit, I feel it's unnecessary because only Voltorb and possibly Mewtwo really need any mention as to what a Pokeball *is*; with all the other pokemon, the reader just needs to understand a capture aspect, no?

As for Red and Green, I feel Red and Blue is best because we're English wikipedia and it fits the MOS here. It's why for example R. Mika doesn't say she's from Street Fighter Zero 3, despite technically originating from there over the westernized title Alpha 3.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I've quoted how I'd correct it. (For the trading bit)

I've seen the Poke Ball come up a couple times, but either way I'm not sure how best to tackle it when it does come up. I do feel we should at the very least do some type explanation though.

Alright, that should work then (In terms of the MOS) Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Regarding Green, we do say that the franchise started "in Japan with Red and Blue." In reality it started in Japan with Pocket Monsters Red and Pocket Monsters Green. Specifying Japan makes it a bit of a catch-22. I do have alternative proposals:

.. published by Nintendo, the Japanese franchise began in the 1990s with the release of the video games Pokémon Red and Blue for the Game Boy.

or even shorter: .. published by Nintendo, the franchise began in Japan in 1996 on the portable Game Boy console. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat)

Incorporated suggestions based off Maple and Pokelego's suggestions. I left out the Pokeballs bit because I still feel that'd be very specific to only a select few, but how does it look now?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Second opinion needed at Talk:Geno (Super Mario RPG)/GA1

Hello, I recently nominated the article Geno (Super Mario RPG) for a GA review. NatwonTSG2 had to taken the task to do the review, however I feel it best if someone with more experience (as well as a good understanding of the character) to give a second opinion and give more pointers for the review. CaptainGalaxy 16:04, 28 July 2024 (UTC)