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)

Development info and the subject of notability

This is a subject I've been thinking about, but a lot of our notability standards rely on notability: showing that there is some degree of reaction or commentary on the design or character itself, usually in a varied manner and to a significant degree.

But we've also seen cases where development info on how a character was made through articles devoted to the subject have counted as SIGCOV, and it's led me to wonder just how much that can apply in the long run to notability. Like does it extend to third party artbooks? Magazine articles where character designs are explored? Obvious a reception section is still a necessity, but how could such make up for this content in a way we'd all be satisfied with? Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Art books in the sense of books that license the IP and showcase the art from a game are useful for getting some insight into the creation, but not independent enough from the game and its creators to do anything for notability, the same way that a dev log doesn't count toward meeting GNG. A book, magazine, web source, etc, independently discussing and analyzing the art is a different story.--Alexandra^IDV 23:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

That's what I mean more like a Japanese artbook going into a blow by blow as to why things were made a certain way, or stuff like Undisputed Street Fighter as a book discussing character origins (Zxcvbnm mentioned that before, and at the time I was dismissive but I can see some merit in retrospect).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

The trouble is, finding development info these days is even harder than it is to find good reception for most characters. But in the rare case a character gets really good and detailed development info, I think that can make up for reception that is more on the lackluster side, just as long its published by third-party sources. MoonJet (talk) 13:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I think it's great how ambitious this group is. But as I've tried to remind people in the past, reception sections are not the only route to notability. It's generally the most common/easy path to it. But all we need is significant coverage from third party sources, and enough content to warrant a split from the game. It should be meaningful, but it can take any form, as long as it's from a third party. Concept/creation coverage is no more or less valid than anything else. Sergecross73 msg me 21:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

It would be rare to see an independent source cover the making of a character if they didn't also say something about why that character was important. Still, the key is the independence of the source. I agree with people who say that a licensed guide or behind the scenes is basically a devlog with higher production value. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Task force importance ratings

Hey y'all, NegativeMP1 asked on Discord if I could set you guys up with task force importance ratings, so I've done so! Adding e.g. |characters-importance=Mid to the talk page template will add articles to the correct category of Category:Video game characters articles by importance; right now I stuck Doomguy as Mid to test it. The User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Video game characters table should update with them the next time the bot runs. Let me know if you want me to change or revert anything! --PresN 17:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Importance ratings

I feel like we should have a discussion about how important a character must be for each level of importance. I feel like several characters have been listed higher than they deserve, and I have already reduced the level of a few. Many characters who were listed as Mid-Importance should be knocked down to Low, and there are likely a few in Low that can be brought up to Mid. Keep in mind that Low is the default, and Top, High, and Mid are all above average. Pinging @Cukie Gherkin and Greenish Pickle!: as participants in a previous discussion on the latter's talk page. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't mind the discussion, but I also want to caution not getting too "obsessed" (for lack of a better word) with where things land. I think it can prove to be too great a distraction, especially when the purpose of this is to help find important articles to improve. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I know this is Mii thing again. It is not a "top" importance. I feel like you have a personal bias going here, but no. I also thought that it should be actually "mid" not "high", but I think rating it as high would be fine? Greenish Pickle! (🔔) 00:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I also disagree with Samus being ranked so low. She's quite well-known and a highly influential character overall. In terms of Video Games characters, I'd say Top Importance is justified. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

That is not the reason I started this discussion. The Mid-Importance and Low-Importance sections should not be the same size. Besides, the main project has a guideline for importance, and I think it would be useful here as well. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I was planning on starting a discussion for this before too long. Gonna chip in with my own opinions on how to assess importance in this regard:

• Top: Iconic to millions beyond gaming, and easily recognizable to a gamer of any sort. Could also be applied to characters that were influential to the gaming industry in terms of representation. This would be for characters like Mario, Sonic, Link, and Pac-Man.
• High: Recognizable to most gamers or still known to general audience, but significantly less than ones at Top-importance. Could also be applied to characters that received vast amounts of critical acclaim. This would be for characters like Ellie (The Last of Us), Solid Snake, Doomguy, and Charizard.
• Mid: Supporting characters in a larger franchise, main characters of a smaller game, or only known to a smaller audience. This would be for characters like Paimon (Genshin Impact), Raiden (Metal Gear), or the Arbiter (Halo).
• Low: Extremely niche, not very well known characters. Too many examples to pick from.

Based on this criteria, I'd argue that Mii would be High, while Samus could be either High or Top. I want to know what y'all think of this. λ NegativeMP1 00:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense. I agree with those criteria. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I have a suggestion on this matter: omit Mid, and go with just Top, High and Low. Mid is going to be contentious because unlike Top and High there's not as much definition between it and High/Low, and it'll rely more on a user's own views and perspectives. High and Low by themselves are much easier to define.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Importance is a distraction. Mid is a fine importance level for any character to be at. Don't worry about it too much, we all know well how significant certain characters are to many of us. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I didn't quite realize until just now that this taskforce now has its own importance rating system separate from the general video game one. I don't think this adds anything to our project, and I think importance on WP:VG normal was clear enough as is. (Very fast and nice technical setup tho, PresN!) ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

It feels a little redundant in most cases. I suppose there's not much harm in adding it, but if it becomes a distraction, we can discuss removing / merging it back to the main Wikiproject rating. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Feel free, btw- it's easy to turn back off in the main WPVG template. I personally agree with KFM- "obviously super important", "important", and "the rest" makes sense to me for all projects, and any amount of time spent arguing over what bucket to put a start/C-class article into is wasted time. That in turn implies that arguing over what the buckets should be is also wasted time though, so, I'll leave it there. --PresN 23:04, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

== Aim for GT == Anyone who is willing to help with the article List of Resident Evil characters is very much welcomed. I really find it very hard to make up the concept and design sections for a list of characters (I couldn't even think of where to start). That article and Wesker (which is currently GAN-reviewed right now) are the only ones left to make this a good topic for Resident Evil. Arigato gozaimasu Greenish Pickle! (🔔) 05:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Antón Castillo

Dear WikiProject members,

I was just wondering whether any members of this WikiProject would consider contributing to a draft article about Antón Castillo, the central antagonist of Far Cry 6. The draft is still in its early stages, but it has potential to reach a quality standard, similar to the articles of the antagonists of Far Cry 3–5: Vaas Montenegro, Pagan Min and Joseph Seed. So far I have had very little experience in editing video game articles, so I was hoping that a few editors here may be able to lend a hand.

If you are interested, please indicate this with a short message below, or simply start contributing to the draft. :)

Kind regards and all the best, Lotsw73 (talk) 13:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

HOW CAN I GET CHARACTER ARTICLE IDEAS

Okay this is frustrating and confusing to me about how my articles get redirected while characters like Asgore and Angela from Mana and a bunch of Final Fantasy and Fire Emblem have no problems like HOW, there no SIGCOV. What should I do with my own problem? Luckily, this wikiproject may have my problem, there are users who are creating articles without sources that mainly talk about their character. NatwonTSG2 (talk) 22:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Have you...read the articles you're raging about? The new Final Fantasy ones have several pages in books discussing them alone. Cuphead had...valnet? And that's coming from someone that has considered the possibility of a Mugman article. You just didn't have substance there so the merge was unsurprising.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I do and realized that the books have several pages mainly discussing them so, I guess I just needed to look at the books instead of just Valnet so. NatwonTSG2 (talk) 23:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

It's more that you shouldn't get discouraged if there's a lack of discussion. The fact you're summarizing those articles as "well they're not being talked about in the sources!" shows that. Look at what's being said, and how. SIGCOV does not mean "the entire source needs to be about the subject", it means substantial discussion needs to be in a source.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh, my bad that I didn't acknowledge since most guidance pages just explain and show that the fact that the source has to entirely about the subject of discussion. Also I have a question which is "is it necessary to merge some of the information from the character article to the game or series article?" NatwonTSG2 (talk) 00:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I expect that most information on Cuphead the character can fit in Cuphead the article without constituting undue weight. It's the player character that the whole game is about. This is why people had such a hard time writing an independent article on Rayman (character) that didn't just rehash the series article. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Well there are some users who make creating articles look easy, with most of them having little information and sources however, still make the cut and yes, I do acknowledged that sources count does not matter so. NatwonTSG2 (talk) 12:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I mean, it ain't easy, it was a process of learning how to search for sources in the most efficient and effective way. This is what I use to search for sources: User:Cukie Gherkin/Source searching - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 05:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Scrutinizing all characters

I think we already checked across a lot of fictional character articles. Now there are few articles that seems to be very weak state or failing notability. Zhongli (Genshin Impact), (can be nominated for several months) Juhani (Star Wars), Vette (Star Wars), (can be renominated several months) Ghoul (Fallout), Edward Kenway, Arno Dorian, Atlas (Bioshock), Vault-Tec, (lacking reception) and Lord British (can be potentially renominated in several months). Just gonna note here. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 01:32, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Vault-Tec's not covered under us.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

The character index

The instructions on the character index page say that the index should use the task force importance ratings, but most characters are currently classified under the importance ratings for the main project. I would appreciate help fixing this. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Update: Some characters are entirely incorrect, it seems. Sans (Undertale) was listed as Low-Importance even though we have him at High and the main project has him at Mid. Some class ratings likely also need updates. Like I said, I would appreciate help fixing the ratings on the index. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter. I believed that it one was created just to track the character articles. You can't even see the importance ratings on that page either way. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 13:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

@QuicoleJR I really believe the importance scale is more of a formality than anything official, and shouldn't be fussed over this hard.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

@Greenish Pickle! and Kung Fu Man: My issue is not a focus on importance ratings, my problem is that the index is currently inaccurate. I am trying to fix that inaccuracy. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

And I'm trying to explain to you it's not that big a deal: there's always going to be some one arguing one thing is Mid and the other is Low. I'd rather just nuke Mid entirely. There are more important things to fix and finish.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, I agree with you on nuking Mid for this project. I think having Top, High, and Low/Normal would be better here. However, while they are here, I don't see why we should leave the index with incorrect information. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:44, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Actually, a better idea might be removing the importance ratings from the index. The list and class ratings are the important part of the index, and the index doesn't really need to show the importance ratings. Also, like Greenish Pickle said, they are not easy to see. If I could figure out how to do it and didn't edit on mobile, I would do it myself. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: Disable Mid-Importance while keeping the others

Several task force members have stated their support for only using Top, High, and Low as importance ratings. I think this would make things much simpler and stop a good number of arguments from happening. Mid is the most subjective of all of the ratings. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
2. Support. I feel this will help get rid of the debating of category importance from various users, and allow us to have a less subjective ranking of characters. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:32, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I can understand the rationale here, but I disagree with that rationale. Not only would getting rid of mid-importance be fairly unorthodox compared to the project (and the rest of Wikipedia, for that matter), but it serves as a compromise per Shooterwalker's statement below. I really don't see how getting rid of Mid-importance would solve anything, it's not even that big of a deal or a point of contention. Edit warring over importance ratings is dumb, and it's not like any more than three people are going to be actively looking at importance ratings. Debates about importance ratings aren't going to be that common. Just keep the status quo. λ NegativeMP1 22:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

If editors can't help themselves with arguing/wasting time on it, I recommend the whole thing be scrapped. Or if there's a lot of interest in continuing it, then let those people handle it, and the time-sinking editors should step away from it. This is one of those things, kind of like with Wikipedia's category system, that people need to keep in mind that comparably very few people will ever even see this.

Here's a good example to illustrate what I mean. While Cloud Strife averages 600+ views per day, conversely, the talk page averages one view per day. And you don't even know that every talk page view is looking at the quality assessment either. Sergecross73 msg me 16:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

It's one of the reasons I didn't think it'd be a good idea to be honest: the importance scale is often just "there" and most people are going to work on what they want to. While it might be neat to work on high importance character articles, I feel it's not a *necessity* as most are going to have folks bog down.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree that we don't want editors to argue and waste time on this. But I see how this proposal could backfire. I could see editors getting a lot more defensive if they are forced into all-or-nothing (important-or-not). "Mid" might be helping things towards compromise. The distance between "low" and "high" is bigger than the distance between "low" and "mid". Shooterwalker (talk) 21:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)