Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fictional characters/Archive 3

Active discussions
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Merging How I Met Your Mother characters

The articles (for the most part) have been restored, with no improvements to notability issues. So, uh, does anyone disagree with merging them again (except for Barney)? If so, does anyone have advice to encourage people to not remake the pages? I'd really hate to see them salted. (NOTE: Yes, I've alerted the talk page of the characters list) Harry Blue5 (talkcontribs) 07:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Just revert the undone redirects since I don't see the un-redirector participating in the merger discussion before or afterwards. He can't single-handedly undo consensus, or he needs to demonstrate how the former merger/redirect-consensus didn't follow policies and guidelines. Should an edit-war erupt, he'll be the one getting blocked. – sgeureka tc 10:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. Harry Blue5 (talkcontribs) 11:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Scope

Can't we make a better and more general scope than the one we got? I propose we change it to:

"We cover all articles mainly relating to fictional characters of all media. Such as List articles, individual character articles, and history of characters"

i'm not proposing word for word. but the general idea is what i'm aiming at.Bread Ninja (talk) 05:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you give an example of "history of characters" articles? Do you mean stuff like Boss (video gaming) and Palette swap? Also, I think we should only mention example articles that are FA, like Batman, Jack Sparrow, Bart Simpson, Master Chief, etc. Blake (Talk·Edits) 13:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Egh...i dont think so. There should already be a section listing featured articles already...But i'm referring to Character archetypes that main character follow, whether they're good or not. Such as Anti-hero, the happy-go-lucky type. Than the japanese ones like anime and amnga are tsundere, or deredere etc..Bread Ninja (talk) 13:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, I just don't think we should be showcasing low class articles in the defining of our project. They need to be very important examples, but they should also be actual good articles. I can't think right now to think of some like that, but how about something like this:

This project covers all articles relating to fictional characters. This includes:

I think that works. Blake (Talk·Edits) 14:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
No thats what i was against in the beginning. No examples in general unless we need to explain a certain exception where it meets or doesn't meet the scope. It's the scope section, not a promotional section.Bread Ninja (talk) 14:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I think the definition by Blake still works after removing the examples: "This project covers all articles relating to fictional characters. This includes supervision of individual character articles, lists of characters and general articles about characters." Diego Moya (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good to me.Bread Ninja (talk) 14:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree with making a list of FAs and GAs. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

In general terms, we already have a list of FAs and GAs. However, it's not really given prominence on the main project page. If we were going to give prominence, I'd say only give it to FAs, otherwise there'd be a whole lot of examples. Anyway, the reason there are examples is that it helps clarify things. Is evil twin a general character article? Does the Weighted Companion Cube count as a character or just an item? Etc. Harry Blue5 (talkcontribs) 21:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong that category table being on the main project page though. Jhenderson 777 22:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Glass Joe at FAC

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Glass Joe/archive1 - Please contribute and ensure that this does not suffer the same fate as previous video game FACs that failed for a lack of response. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 00:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Coverage of female characters in video games

I'd like to address the issue that there's no easy way to find significant characters that are protagonist of notable video games. Category:Female video game characters is being used to list stand-alone articles about female characters. But there are other characters that have received significant third-party coverage at reliable sources and have made an impact in the video game scene (like April Ryan from The Longest Journey or Yorda from Ico), which aren't included in the category because they're discussed inside their respective video game articles or in lists of characters (see April Ryan).

I've been discussing with User:Kung Fu Man (here and here) about one character Galatea that marginally meets the criteria for being listed at the category. The problem is that if this character is not included, currently there's simply no way that it could be found by people interested in the topic; nor any other characters in the same situation.

There's clear interest in such a compilation of female characters; a "populate" tag was recently added[1] to Category:Female video game characters in an attempt to find more characters, and several categories and lists of female characters have been created at various times (see Category:Video games featuring female protagonists, List of video games with female protagonists, List of video games with female antagonists). But this goal is not easy to achieve: those lists have regularly been deleted or challenged for deletion as they provide too broad criteria for inclusion and would likely grow without control.

I've proposed the creation of two new lists that I think would not suffer the same fate: Category:Video games with female playable characters and Category:Video games with female main characters. As I explained in the category talk page, an strict inclusion criteria would make those lists useful - the first one by avoiding user-generated or computer-generated characters from RPGs, and the second one by including only notable characters that have received coverage in reliable sources, but not enough for a stand-alone article. I ask you fellow Wikipedians at this project what do you think of this proposal, and what would be the best approach to solve the problem. Diego Moya (talk) 18:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

This a tricky one. I'd (maybe) support it, but only if the characters included count if the reliable sources dicsuss the character as a female. E.g. Chell was praised for being a non-sexualised female and Samas Aran was praised for being one of the first major females. Otherwise, it just becomes a trivial list of "characters which are female". Harry Blue5 (talkcontribs) 18:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Question: If we did this, would it just cause an unnessacary content fork, since the characters will be being discussed in their series articles? I could see a general article like "Females in video gaming", but I don't think a list would really work for this one. Harry Blue5 (talkcontribs) 19:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I've always wanted to do something like "Females in video games", but as a history article, not a list article. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 19:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I, too, have been meaning to do something like that. I've started collecting sources for such a non-list article in fact. I hope it turns out well. Do you think I should expand it to cover all females as opposed to just characters? Harry Blue5 (talkcontribs) 20:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Hopefully, the sources are more direct in history of females in VG in general, than merely stating notable females in VG History. I personally don't see the flare. Females in video games been around the early times of video games. If there was a more general topic, like History of Protagonist in video games, or anit-heroes in video games would seem interesting if there were notable sources.Bread Ninja (talk) 05:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea of a "history of females in VGs" article (and Harry Blue5, I love that LGBT_characters_in_video_games link that you provided). But that wouldn't suffice to address the problem, which is that there is already existing content at Wikipedia about female characters and we can't found it because it's not indexed. My primary concern is that of creating a navigation device to find all that content. Of course all references that can be used to create a main article for that index are welcome; I think the best approach would be to expand the current Portrayal of women in video games, generalizing it to include all females (even of the not-human variety). Diego Moya (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I dont know, if theres sources giving female characters being such an impact in video game history, and several third-arty reliable sources support it, than it would be good. But i doubt there is such coverage. If the sources were provided, i would suport this more.Bread Ninja (talk) 08:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that there has been significant coverage of females. I've got some sources in my sandbox (as I've pointed out), and there are many female-specific sources. Harry Blue5 (talkcontribs) 12:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
There are hundreds -or even thousands- of scholar articles covering female video game players; I'd bet at least 90% of them address female characters as well. See [2] for example (search for "female character") to get more than a handful of references. (P.S. even better, search for Lara Croft). I'm sure digging through the scholar network will provide enough material for several articles about the history and portrayal of females, and many examples for the proposed lists. Diego Moya (talk) 12:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
What? How can you compare females who play the video games with the actual female characters in a video game? And Hary Blue 5, please provide a link to this sandbox. other than that, female-"specific" is what i hope be avoided. If its specific female character studies, than don't you think the article isn't individual enough to sustain notability?Bread Ninja (talk) 12:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
WE should also avoid making list articles such for these type of topics. Its just not appropriate.Bread Ninja (talk) 12:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Uh? I'm not comparing them, I'm saying that the two topics are strongly related to the point of being studied together. (BTW Harry Blue already provided this link to his sandbox, and I've provided additional sources). What are your reasons to say that those list articles are not appropriate? I've given a good reason why we should have them as a navigation device. What alternative do you propose to solve the problem of finding Wikipedia articles with significant coverage of female characters? Diego Moya (talk) 13:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I highly HIGHLY doubt they would be studied together. One is about fictional character in video games, the other is about real people playing video game. And again, these studies have to be general enough to make an article about it not be made up of completely individual specific pieces. Significant coverage to how female characters impacted video gaming, or how video game female character roles slowly changed to what it is now. But if its just individual characters, why bother? I had the same sense with LGBT, but that seemed a highly controversial topic in the real world and could be studied to a more general form.Bread Ninja (talk) 14:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

From the linked source:

Although such content characteristics presumably attract male players, they may repel females from playing, because observing such gender stereotypes could impede identification with the female characters or even cause cognitive conflicts and annoyance (especially if the subjective construction by the player involves a feminist self-concept; see, e.g., Cassell's discussion of Lara Croft, 2002). Female users could have low attraction and appreciation for such portrayals of female characters (McCroskey & McCain, 1974), and their enjoyment and playing motivation could be reduced in consequence.

Can you please answer now my totally unrelated questions about navigation within Wikipedia? (I only introduced the topic of female players as a way to find papers about female characters, not because I wanted to base the article on players; this subject is totally off-topic). (I think I'd actually prefer a category over a list; it's easier to add articles to it so it would serve best my primary purpose). Diego Moya (talk) 14:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
That source doesn't really provide much. If the study of female characters playing video games connects to the female characters in video gaming, then yeah, but the source seemed a little nit-picky and doesn't really confirm anything, sounded more like a theory. Regardless, why should we make a category of female characters? Sounds a lil over the needs of those who want to look up random female character.Bread Ninja (talk) 14:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Did you notice that we already have a category of female video game characters? The reason for its existence was discussed at its (rejected) deletion discussion. We have enough sources there and at Portrayal... to establish its notability as an independent topic. What we're discussing here is not the subject itself, but its organization within WP. The inclusion criteria in the already existing category are enforced so that characters without a whole Wikipedia article are being actively excluded from it. I'm trying to fix that arbitrary criterion for exclusion through new lists, and I'm asking participants of this Wikiproject what the best new criteria should be. Diego Moya (talk) 14:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
No there isn't. the entire article has a sense of original research. Each section is made up of specific things but don't really aim to talk about history of video gaming itself, or the impact it trully it overall. Not enough refs, and where there are refs its for specific characters, and only talk about what those characters controversy within video game, Portrayal of women in video games is the same thing as a "List of portrayal of female characters in video games". Despite that, i don't see how criteria excludes characters that don't have an article. And i really don't see the connection at all or how making more list will actually help.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Why do you say there isn't a Category of Female video game characters? I'm not talking of Portrayal of women in video games at all in my proposal, but about the category. I'm afraid that, with that fact in mind, you should re-read everything I've written so far, because you're arguing about peripheral things and your arguments are absolutely unrelated to what I'm arguing for; that's why you're not seeing the connections, you're arguing against something I didn't say nor imply. Diego Moya (talk) 21:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I reject a category for females. If we do that, we'll have to also categorize males. I read them as i come. so should you.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Now is where I notice that you're simply trolling me. This conversation is stupid. Diego Moya (talk) 21:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Not trolling. like i said, I'm saying things as it comes to me. regardless, should we add female/male to all media characters? this is why i dont think gender categorizing is a great idea.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

You keep arguing against things I don't want to do. I'll clarify my proposal so that you can at least ramble against what I actually want. ;-)
  1. Create categories to tag video games with significant female characters. Not ALL characters, nor ALL media. Just video games where having a female character has received media attention from reliable sources.
  2. Break down the category in two sub-categories: playable characters and NPCs that have a major role in the storyline. This way the categories would provide additional information above just "this is a female character".
  3. - no, that's it.
So, do you have anything to say about points 1 and 2 above? I'm not interested in a rhetorical battle with you about anything else, really. My only worry was trying to get some feedback about these two points. Diego Moya (talk) 22:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I think y'all need to take five and cool off a bit. It's getting a little too volatile. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 22:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm perfectly cool. I just don't agree. Why categorize male and female characters in video game only? But other than that, for the rest of whether you're not interested or not, the other articles seem to lack general notability...Bread Ninja (talk) 22:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Punch-Out!! characters

I am requesting assistance in copyediting Punch-Out!! character articles. Disco Kid needs some improvements at GA, and Glass Joe is already going to be copyedited and improved for FAC. Otherwise, there are Bald Bull, King Hippo (needs some serious improvement), Aran Ryan, Bear Hugger, Piston Hondo, Great Tiger, Soda Popinski, Super Macho Man, Von Kaiser, Mr. Sandman, and Don Flamenco. I'm hoping to bring all of these articles to GA (I think that with some work, Bald Bull, King Hippo, and Soda Popinski could even be FA), and it would be great if some of you could help me on that task. Aside from a few of them, they are basically complete, they just need to be improved. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I am watching Glass Joe to see if he will make the featured article qualification. Good luck with it.:) Jhenderson 777 23:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words; if you could, I really need as many eyes on this article as I possibly can get, otherwise, I don't think it'll pass. x3; I've done some improvements, and I think that the only concern remaining is the grammer/flow/prose/etc. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 21:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

LGBT characters in video games

There's currently a giant list of LGBT characters in LGBT characters in video games. There's a discussion on the talk page about splitting this list into its own article. See here for the discussion. The discussion was started in April and no one responded, so in the hopes that this will get the issue resolved I'm posting this here in case anyone's interested. Harry Blue5 (talkcontribs) 18:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I personally don't see any importance in listing specific characters, unless its impact is noted. But toher than that, merely mentioning LGBT characters in video games will only hurt the article.Bread Ninja (talk) 08:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Could you go and say here then? Harry Blue5 (talkcontribs) 15:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Spider-Man a FA?

This will be a tough assignment and I am not sure we are a good at handling comic book characters as we are on video game, television and film characters, it can be a bit tougher. But I am hoping that we could see a fictional character article to go to FA and I have my eyes on the Spider-Man article (an article that I am sometimes active on) to be compared with the likes of the Superman and Batman article. What do you think? Having GA articles is great but we do need more FA articles and having more of them is twice as exciting as a GA. Jhenderson 777 14:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It's always tough to tell an article's quality when it's as long as Spidey's article, but there appears to be a lot o images. It might be worth going over them all and making sure they're allowed under fair-use policy, particularly the comic covers. Copyright is one of the most major concerns Wikipedia can have about anything. Harry Blue5 (talkcontribs) —Preceding undated comment added 16:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC).
Yeah I know. That's always been a comic book character article problem to add fair use images. Which one do you think should go. I am kind of thinking the Spider-Man enemy one can go because it's already on List of Spider-Man enemies and a few others becuase they are already on some other articles. So it's not like they will be lost on Wikipedia if they are removed. So to start out let's figure out what images can stay or can go if that's alright. Jhenderson 777 18:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not so sure supporting character section is necessary, plus some of it isn't cited. There's Also the long character piography that just seems way too long and some parts like i said before don't seem that necessary. They constantly explain things comic issue per comic issue, and seems pretty redundant.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
The problems with comic books - and the reason why I'll never edit an article about them - is that the characters go through SO many changes, it becomes insanely excessive to discuss them all. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 19:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
The supporting characters is essential for summarizing the two main articles mostly. It could be trimmed mainly. I didn't really approve of the introducing that Spidey fights villains outside of his rogues gallery so I might remove it. Superman and Batman (FAs) have sections like that so it can be made essential for FA standards. As for the changing I don't think we need to discuss every little change we just need to let the most important and notable changes be in the article but if this is not one of the articles that you want to improve to FA because you are not into comics I suppose we can change it to a different article that you would rather be improved. Jhenderson 777 20:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I'd definitely say some of the non-free images need to go, and be replaced with free ones, like File:Tobey Maguire 2007 Shankbone.jpg. In fact, he was in 3 major movies, why isn't there even a picture of him? CTJF83 20:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

An image of somebody playing him. That sounds doable in the In other media section. What about Andrew Garfield? He's going to play him? I think a merged image of both of them would be nice. Kind of like the Spider-Man in film article has with depicting both of the actors playing the character. Jhenderson 777 20:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good, they both have nice free images to use. CTJF83 20:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
The sections aren't sourced though, well mostly unsourced. And i really think something subjectively important such as adding other characters in be "essential" for Featured Article. Regardless, the aren't sourced, nor giving a certain aspect of development related to Spider-man. It seems more like a popularity contest between fans. Still there are other sections to worry about too.It shouldn't even have passed GA. i think it needs a review. can you slow down on the posting? i have 4 edit conflicts...Bread Ninja (talk) 20:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Also i'm against Andrew Garfield to be added in yet.Bread Ninja (talk) 20:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
File:Stantheman.jpg would be a good image to include also. CTJF83 20:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
WE dont need somany images to make it a featured article. in fact, those are all complimentary images, not essential.Bread Ninja (talk) 20:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I am not really worried about adding images just yet. Just removing some. As for the supporting characters it doesn't necessarily need sources just like a lead doesn't need sources or a film's plot section doesn't need sources. It has another way to prove it's reliability and that is the article that it has already summarizing. I think the section may need a trim but not totally removed. It's basically a section that is introducing other Spider-Man centric articles for navigational purposes. Jhenderson 777 20:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
In that case, I'd say 1 image of Spider-man, 1 of a comic book cover, and 1 of Peter Parker would be more than sufficient, and not purely decorative. CTJF83 21:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I was on a dinner break and didn't get to say everything I wanted to say. The last comment was helpful about the image thing and thank goodness becuase the discussion almost seemed to be all talk and no action. I mean suggesting stuff is fine but you are allowed to be bold and edit on the article as well and I would trust you to know how to make it better. If the supporting character thing is too much trouble there might be other options. The enemy subsection I like better because it's already sourced and proven but the supporting character part sounds a little hard to find but it seems that you can't have one section without the other though. I am branstorming on how to fix it. And also I do believe the article did deserve a GA when it was nominated but edits from the future can infringe on it being a true Good article anymore so if you can see any of that you may fix it because it needs to stay as a true good article. Jhenderson 777 22:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I got rid of a few of the images but the publication history one's I didn't really quite remove yet. The middle one with Spider-Man battling Green Goblin I don't find really necessary but the other two might be essential. The first one in the section is his first comic book cover appearance and the last one on the section seems to have a decent commentary. What do you think? Jhenderson 777 22:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
It's a good start, just keep in mind, the regulars at WP:FAC are extremely strict on...well, everything being perfect, but especially non-free images. Note for example Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Davenport, Iowa/archive3 the "images" discussion towards the top. Other than 1 image of spider-man and probably 1 of peter parker, none of the others are #8 "essential to the understanding" of spiderman CTJF83 22:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Ok the images thing seems to be fixed. So if there is any great free use images that can help better the article that would be great. And please by all means lecture and recommend how to make it better and say what's bad about it or even edit on it if you like. :) Jhenderson 777 18:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I still suggest trimming the plot information. Especially since there are so many versions of Spider-man now that have altered each story more drastic by each adaptation.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I was the main guy pushing to get this one to GA, so I know that took at a lot of work and I'm sure it will take a lot to get it to FA.  :) Here is what it looked like when I was done: [3] You'll notice the much smaller fictional charcter biography section, for one thing. The supporting character section actually had more citations back then; maybe it isn't necessary, if we have a link to the list? BOZ (talk) 19:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Well I thought what User:Tenebrae did to the fictional character biography (note the section header was called comic book character though when he added it though) was great and informative and it mainly created for past article "Fictional history of Spider-Man" but then he realized it could fit in the main article. The only problem was maybe a little bit of the updating of current events going on. So trimming might could work but still a lot of information seems important. This is a 'We'll see as we go along with it' thing though. Jhenderson 777 20:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I actually some parts don't seem to be that important. It could definitely be trimmed down. I dont even think a fictional biography article is notable either. comic wikiproject needs alot to work with.Bread Ninja (talk) 02:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
We almost all agree with you that a fictional character biography is not notable that's why the article doesn't exist anymore. That article was in-universe and cruft anyways. Only a History of Superman exists now that I know of and that's not much better. Jhenderson 777 00:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I have had my work cut out for me and I am anywhere but done but how is it looking so far? Better or worse? Jhenderson 777 23:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Starkiller once again up for peer review

I've put Starkiller up for peer review. (Yes, again. :P) Please comment here if you have any suggestions or other remarks. Harry Blue5 (talkcontribs) 20:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

GLaDOS

Who's with me that this could be a possible GA. Maybe a little bit of cleanup but overall I think it can make it. Jhenderson 777 23:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I plan on doing a rewrite of the development and reception section, to do more paraphrasing and to clean up the grammar. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 00:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Cleaning up Pirates of the Carribean

We really need to clean up the PotC characters. First of all, we need to deal with the ridiculously in-universe and somewhat trivial infobox, and then we need to remove half the articles. I wouldn't mind simply replacing the infobox with the standard one, although I'm open to other suggestions. Harry Blue5 (talkcontribs) 17:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you stalking me and seeing what movies I watch? First Toy Story, and now this. lol. I just watched the series this last weekend. Anyways, I agree. After watching, I looked at some of the articles, and was surprised at the large amount of them that had little real-world information. Blake (Talk·Edits) 18:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
You might want to join this discussion here. Jhenderson 777 18:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
That discussion was months ago, and stated to merge "minor" characters back. Some of the "major" characters need to be merged as well. Sadly, not even Will Turner shows notability. I haven't checked yet, but Jack may be the only notable one. Unless we want to search for reviews and interviews, which could possibly exist. Blake (Talk·Edits) 18:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
That may be true but that will be a lot of hard work. Let's focus on getting rid of the less important first. That discussion was a while and I almost forgot about it and I had to put it back on my watchlist but even if it was a long time it needs to be more active. Jhenderson 777 18:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I propose merging of Weatherby Swann, Captain Teague and Sao Feng. There are some others who I think shouldn't have articles, but they're good starting points. Harry Blue5 (talkcontribs) 19:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I take back what I said before. I think all but the ones you just mentioned have chances of being good articles. I will try and work on finding material for some of them. Also, there are other problems with this series of articles. There is a list of ships, which don't seem to be notable. Blake (Talk·Edits) 19:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure if the Kraken is notable. It certainly doesn't pass guidelines in its current state. Harry Blue5 (talkcontribs) 19:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Question: Should the PotC really be on Blackbeard's article? It's just that when you get someone like Blackbeard who is not only real but incredibly famous, it feels like the equivalent to putting a Family Guy template on Obi-Wan Kenobi. Harry Blue5 (talkcontribs) 19:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, like I said, all of them have "chances" of being good articles. No guarantees. I certainly learned a lot from it's "Film production" section. I think if we found sources for that section, it could stay.
As for Blackbeard, it appears that someone added characters from the new 4th film, and most of them were removed as redlinks, but they missed Blackbeard due to it being an actual article. I propose removing it. Any material to be had later will be on the character list until good development or reception is found. The actual Blackbeard article will just have a passing mention. Blake (Talk·Edits) 20:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
While the Kraken has some nice info, it still needs indepedent third-party sources to get it's own article. However, that kind of information would be just swell in the list. Harry Blue5 (talkcontribs) 20:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

You could probably find up actual sources from the articles of the films they are in itself. The majority of them are good articles after all. Jhenderson 777 21:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I limited the primary characters a bit. There was definitely too many that were considered primary. I hope that helps with deciding who should stay and who should go. And by all means don't let me stop you on figuring out how to help make the franchises articles better. Keep on suggesting more good ideas. Jhenderson 777 19:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I highly doubt that Tamara, Queen of the Mermaids is notable outside of PotC. Shall we redirect/merge it to the list? Harry Blue5 (talkcontribs) 20:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes by all means, it should definitely be merged. Jhenderson 777 20:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Bah, Kung Fu Man beat me to it. Anyway, is anyone opposed to merging/redirected Sao Feng for the same reasons? Harry Blue5 (talkcontribs) 21:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Actually merging it to list of characters articles sounds like a better place for it to be merged to in my opinion. And also in my opinion merging Sao Feng and Captain Teague is a must. There was already a merge request for Captain Teague. Jhenderson 777 21:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree with merging Weatherby Swann and Captain Teague. I highly doubt there would be ANY coverage on them. As for the rest, I think we should wait see if the new movie brings in any interested editors to help fix the articles. Blake (Talk·Edits) 21:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Both Tamara and Captain Teague have been restored. Harry Blue5 (talkcontribs) 06:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I suppose we can wait until the weekend blows over. Then try and find coverage for them. If there isn't, then merge to the character list. Blake (Talk·Edits) 14:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
They are AFD'd. You are invited to join the discussion if you like. It's here and here. I doubt that they will be deleted just merged but this will help bring out a consensus once and for all. Jhenderson 777 17:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

From the looks of it, both of those will be merged/redirected. There's still an issue with the infobox used PotC character's articles, though. Harry Blue5 (talkcontribs) 16:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Captain Teauge was redirected and Tamara deleted. Soon, I will be redirecting Weatherbt Swann for similar reason. Harry Blue5 (talkcontribs) 12:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The World of Darkness

I'm not sure if any fictional groups, e.g. the clans in Vampire: The Masquerade, are notable enough for their own articles. While I understand the size and popularity of the World of Darkness, especially the first V:TM (which is getting its own MMO), I doubt the fictional clans and groups it contains are individually notable outside of the series. Harry Blue5 (talkcontribs) 20:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Our very own search engine

www.google.com/cse/home?cx=012474945078376839224:epcvwuvzqyc

Basically, this search engine works in the same vein as WP:VG's search engine, except a bit more specific. It searches specific web locations, rather than the more general approach available for other search engines (apart from stars.ign.com, which makes things a lot easier), of top 10 character lists and the like. Obviously, such a search engine will forever be incomplete and will never be perfect. However, in theory it should make finding reception for characters a lot easier, and can be used as a good starting point for reliable sources. If anyone knows any more top 10 lists and the like, please tell me so I can add them to the custom engine. – Harry Blue5 (talkcontribs) 22:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

There are so many, it would be hard to know where to start. I doubt such an engine would be possible to help. Sure, sometimes people add information about only a few characters on the top 10 list and forget about the rest, so it is an ok idea. But there are so many of them. It would make more sense just to search for the character in the VG search engine. While some other pages may cloud the results, it would work better then this. Blake (Talk·Edits) 23:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I've already got like 10 lists on there, and stars.ign.com adds another whole bunch. Like I said, it's not a great "THIS WILL REPLACE EVERYTHING" tool, it's just a useful starting point. – Harry Blue5 (talkcontribs) 00:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Fictional characters to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Fictional characters/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 00:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Finally. The character that is ahead is because of the movie no doubt. :) Jhenderson 777 00:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
GLaDOS is the most popular video game character. Nice. :> - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 01:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
This is so interesting! It's kind of how I expected with mostly comics characters at the top but it's nice to see an EastEnders character within the top... 550 :-) –anemoneprojectors– 09:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm confused, I looked at page views for a handful of soap characters that had over 1000 views in this month.. but they are not on the list.Rain the 1 BAM 12:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Rain, the list goes up to 1500, the lowest of which has apparently 14420 this month. – Harry Blue5 (talkcontribs) 20:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Kurt Hummel

Hello, WikiProject:Fictional characters. Kurt Hummel, a Glee character, is currently at FAC. I was wondering if anybody has any experience with featured articles, and if they had any suggestions. Comments would be extremely appreciative. Also, a Support vote wouldn't hurt either if they feel it's worthy, haha. ;) HorrorFan121 (talk) 21:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll check it out. Hopefully it'll pass, we need some more FAs. – Harry Blue5 (talkcontribs) 22:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Popular pages

Several WikiProjects have totaled the number of views on pages in their project to determine the most viewed/popular page. I think this would be an interesting idea for us to try. An example: WikiProject Film. Glimmer721 talk 18:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Great idea, I hope someone knows how to make this happen. It is a great insight.Rain the 1 BAM 18:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I can request it here. It's run by Mr.Z-bot. I support the idea. Harry Blue5 (talk) 18:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Yeah go on then, get it sorted. :p Something fairly easy then.Rain the 1 BAM 20:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I also support this idea. Nice to see a film I helped to GA on that film list, 117 is not bad considering it came out a couple of years ago. - JuneGloom Talk 20:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
What should I put as the maximum number of articles to show? We can choose between 500-1500. Harry Blue5 (talk) 20:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
1,000? This sounds like a great idea to see who to work on first. While the lower characters need help to actually be notable, we need to remember that we should also fix up the big name characters. Blake (Talk·Edits) 22:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
1000 sounds good to me. - JuneGloom Talk 22:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I'd also say 1000 is perfect. =)Rain the 1 BAM 22:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Alright, I sent the request. Hopefully it'll be done soon, I'm interested in which character's most viewed. Harry Blue5 (talk) 23:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, I'd say either a Glee character or a Marvel character. Maybe Spiderman. Any other predictions? - JuneGloom Talk 23:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Either Luke Skywalker or Darth Vader are definitely going to be somewhere on the list. And Mario is totally going to be on the list, he's the face of all gaming! Harry Blue5 (talk) 00:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I think Wolverine, Captain America, Kurt Hummel and Lara Croft. I hope some soap opera characters make it on the list.. **sighs* =DRain the 1 BAM 01:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
We should start betting. Harry Blue5 (talk) 01:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to let my fanboyism get to me and root for Crash Bandicoot (character). For his pre-Crash of the Titans appearances, of course. Post-Crash of the Titans Crash can go die. >:( Harry Blue5 (talk) 01:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I loved that game.. I got curious and it doesn't look to promising for good old Crash.. [4].. . It seems they don't know a classic old game anymore!Rain the 1 BAM 02:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I have no problems against CotT itself, but Crash's redesign was horrible. And no views for Crash? Life isn't worth living anymore! :( Harry Blue5 (talk) 02:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I somehow doubt Crash will appear very high. Also please remember that this is WP:NOTAFORUM. Thanks, Blake (Talk·Edits) 02:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we should use the popular pages to try and figure out a "Collaboration of the month/week". The most popular pages should be of high priority and usually tend to have sources lying around on the interwebs. Harry Blue5 (talk) 15:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Great idea! From my experience with this automated tool, you should get your first set of results on May 1st. BOZ (talk) 20:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Huh. Nothing happened. Harry Blue5 (talkcontribs) 13:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
That's disappointing!  :( 129.33.19.254 (talk) 13:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Should I resubmit the request? Maybe something went from when I requested it... Harry Blue5 (talkcontribs) 14:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
No resubmiting, if you did it once, then go find out why it did not work. Complain to the right people.Rain the 1 BAM 15:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Any update on this anyone?Rain the 1 BAM 17:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

So basically this came to nothing? If no one is even willing to answer questions - what does that say for the project.Rain the 1 BAM 20:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Whoops. Yeah, I kinda sorta forgot about this. Totally on it right now, though. Harry Blue5 (talkcontribs) 20:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Right then, the owner's been contacted. Now we play the waiting game. Harry Blue5 (talkcontribs) 20:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Apparently, it will be created at the end of this month. All sorted, then. Harry Blue5 (talkcontribs) 23:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
That is good news. Fingers crossed aye. :)Rain the 1 BAM 15:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
...And we have it! Wow, the comics really dominated! Glimmer721 talk 17:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Nice! This is really interesting and could be very helpful to the project. Can we put a link to this on the main project page somewhere? — Hunter Kahn 17:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Portrayal of women in video games

I have some serious issues with this article:

  • Some of the information contained within could use some fact-checking: "Gender discrimination and censorship" for example makes a statement that only occurred in Nintendo-based ports of Final Fight, and was more a case of violence against women than anything. The whole existence of Poison as a transsexual was Akiman's attempt at bypassing the issue, and was not what was censored in the games as the character replacements were just that, replacements.
  • The article on the whole reads less like a neutral article and more like a laundry list of how games have negatively portrayed women. I'm sorry but where's the other side of the argument? It certainly isn't in...
  • "Claims of positive portrayal", which is just a laundry list. Many female characters that have received negative reception have also received positive reception on different grounds but all regarding their portrayal. Ivy Valentine, Rayne (BloodRayne), and Lara Croft are all examples of this. The character list there reads more like a biased look at the subject as a whole, and to be honest those listed have also received negative reception.

My main problem with the article on the whole is this: yes, it's necessary. But it needs to be neutral. The treatment of female characters in games is indeed a very important one and a heavily discussed one, but at the same time it needs to be approached properly. This isn't it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this is an improper approach to the topic. I would suggest gutting the article and working with print sources. I don't think web-only sources are appropriate for this topic. Instead, a source like this should be used instead. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
While I would agree that more academic approaches to the subject are the best to use for what should be treated as a sociological topic, I see no particular rational for saying that web-only sources are inappropriate here, so long as they are reliable. かんぱい! Scapler (talk) 15:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Per WP:NEWSORG, "For information about academic topics, scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports." The web-only sources in use are news reports that cater to video gamers. Like you said, this is a sociological topic, so we should minimize the use of such news reports and instead use scholarly sources. There is a world of difference between an article about an individual video game that no scholarly source bothers referencing (and thus reliable web-only sources are acceptable) and an article about a high-level topic that is already indicated to have been studied. Web-only sources should be minimally used here, if at all. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I propose we remove the whole idea of either "negative" or "positive" portrayals. Everything is subjective, and I'm sure that readers will be smart enough to tell how well-received a type of role is if it's called something like "Rape" or "Sexual objectification". Specific examples, in my opinion, are right out. – Harry Blue5 (talkcontribs) 15:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree about removing the idea of positive/negative portrayals. It struck me as a section-based version of a POV fork. As for specific examples, I would prefer to have them if the academic coverage names them. For example, I wouldn't be surprised to see Lara Croft used as an example, where specific Dead or Alive female characters would likely not be named (though the series as a whole may be used as an example). Erik (talk | contribs) 16:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Is "Rape" really worth it's own section? I mean, those seem to be more controversies about... well, rape than the portrayal of women in video games. Also, not sure if List of adult video games should really be "further information"'d under objectification and sexualisation. Sexualisation happens in many games that aren't adult. – Harry Blue5 (talkcontribs) 19:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I think Rape would be better handled under the objectification of women, though I'm not entirely sure whether or not Custer's Revenge really qualifies there (hell I'm not sure WHAT it qualifies for other than poor taste...I even have an old 80 Micro magazine that went "WTF" at it).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I think including Custer's Revenge (unless a reliable source says so) is somewhat opinionated, which of course applies to everything. It's not so much a game about objectifying women, but rather a game of hillariously badly outdated graphics-wise porn involving rape. – Harry Blue5 (talkcontribs) 18:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

That sounds outrageously subjective to be related about "video games".Bread Ninja (talk) 08:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Discusion that may be of interest here

Something that has cropped up again at the Comics Project that may be of interest here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#List of character appearances as "Bibliography"

- J Greb (talk) 15:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Lightning McQueen and Mater (Cars)

I knew these characters would have there own articles someday and I know they are deserving since they have been very popular icons in kids merchandising but the articles aren't selling it. I come in here hoping for some experts to fix it up Wikipedia style. Jhenderson 777 20:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

It might be worth checking some of the Top Pixar Characters lists for reception. – Harry Blue5 (talkcontribs) 21:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea. One reason why I ain't responding quickly or doing anything lately is because I haven't been Wikipedia busy yet but I do believe I will be coming back soon but there's got to be lists like that in the internet for sure. But there needs to be good creation and concept sections on these kinds of articles as well not just reception. Jhenderson 777 17:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
This has some recepton on Mater. – Harry Blue5 (talkcontribs) 19:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Here (pg. 96) is a good page about Mater too. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and I know that concept and creation is also important, but due to Wikipedia's notability guidelines (you need reliable non-first party sources), the majority of sources notability-providing sources will be for reception/analysis/etc. So as such I find it's always nice to start off with the Reception section, as that helps the most in deciding whether or not the article actually gets an article. – Harry Blue5 (talkcontribs) 09:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Actually, all that WP:N calls for is significant coverage in third party reliable sources. It could have a really detailed "Concept and Creation" section(from third party sources), and it could possibly pass. Reception sections are just the usual route. But in the end, most of the stuff we seem to throw in reception sections are trivial comments from people who most of the time don't know what they are talking about. So if there are sources which simply help to buff up the real content in the article, that should be enough. Blake (Talk·Edits) 14:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I know, that's why I said majority and most instead of all and totally. – Harry Blue5 (talkcontribs) 16:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm thinking Mater needs a reception section; I skimmed reviews for Cars 2 and a lot of them talked about an overabundence of Mater. But it would be unbalanced to add that without the inital impression of the character from the original movie. I don't even know where to start on Lightning's article. Glimmer721 talk 23:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at LGBT characters in video games

there's a discussion with Diego Moya and I over, making a separate list of List of LGBT characters in video games (which without proper consensus, the editor split the it anyways). IT would be a really big help for someone to put an end to this. Third-party opinion would be very helpful. I just want proper consensus is all.Bread Ninja (talk) 11:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Transformers related articles.

Out of all the franchises that have fictional character (and just about any other) articles the Transformers articles break the rules of how to create Wikipedia articles the most. As well as having maybe too many fictional character articles as well and needing a place to merge if they are not notable. Just go ahead and navigate yourself to these article and you will see what I mean. In-universe and fancruft, they make G.I. Joe and Comic related articles look good. It mostly seems like at least one user is interested in the project some of the time and I applaud the loyalty even though I am not sure how much he knows about Wikipedia guidelines. It actually feels like a poorly written Wikia half of the time. This discussion is similiar to what Raintheone was talking about with the G.I. Joe articles were done and I have felt that progress has been done. User:Fortd33 is really good at copyediting and creating a perfect list article for them and I am hoping that the same could be done for this article. Now keep in mind that I am a fan and I like Transformers and I want the best of them so accusations that I don't like Transformers like what happened in the G.I. Joe project is a false fallacy if any of the project members accuse that of me. I am a fan and I want better for these articles. There are going to be readers when the next Transformer's film comes out this month so I want things to look nice in these related articles. So helpful discussions is recommended here or on the Transformers WikiProject page on how to fix it and putting them on the watchlist would be nice as well. And keep in mind I am not too strict, if the character is a major character in the franchise then I am automatically going to assume notability and unprofessional treatment even if it's not proven good enough but the problem there is minor characters that have their own articles too and that's when they cross the line. I think the first helpful thing is to decide who goes and who doesn't. Jhenderson 777 20:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and it seemed like they were rolling the ball to get the articles cleaned up, but it took to long, and I think I removed the project from my watchlist. As fans, they assume that every character must be detailed somewhere, and since lists don't appear to exist, all of them get separate articles. In reality, only a select few(less then 10%, maybe 5%) need articles. I am all for WP:IAR, and giving special treatment, but this is ridiculous. But the problem is that creating list(s) to contain all of the information would take forever.
The real solution would be to just murder all that content and make a list similar to List of Star Wars characters, where each character only gets a few sentences. Because other then just a general description of the character, it's just plot info, repeated information, or trivia. Much of which is not sourced to reliable sources. Blake (Talk·Edits) 20:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Optimus Prime, Bumblebee, Megatron, Starscream and maybe even Ratchet, Shockwave, Soundwave and the Witwick family are examples of obvious notability but there's definitely a limit to where we say that's enough characters. This doesn't have to have every character with their own article with Wikia around. I wonder what character's should go and where? Jhenderson 777 22:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
More of an "in passing" ATM, but I think you're going to need this heads up... Take a look at Noob saibot red (talk · contribs) and and their 50+ socks (and counting). The Transformers is one of their "faves" and it would be wise to at least be familiar with that situation to weed out the sock complaint's as you chip at the major overhaul. - J Greb (talk) 23:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I think you are discounting the current improvement taking place in Transformers related articles. Sorry if it's not fast enough for you, but the articles have been getting deleted and merged down, and we have been working on improving the formatting, sources and moving the plot summary off the character pages and onto episode summary pages. I know it' easy to complain that they are all bad, but please do not discount the improvement. The few people working on the project these days spend much of the time fighting off vandals and sock puppets, but we do try to improve the article as well. Mathewignash (talk) 23:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
To be honest it might be best to formulate a plan of attack:
  • Gather resources discussing the characters in question and notability thereof, and post them on a temporary page so they can be processed as a group effort. This worked out well for the pokemon project, and would make it much easier to figure out which characters are actually notable while creating a solid reception section.
  • Work characters that lack notability into character lists.
  • Approach remaining articles with an emphasis on the primary notable version, and all other versions of a character discussed in alternate version articles, spun off into separate smaller lists if need be. Case in point, while there's much reception for Soundwave, it all revolves around the original version of the character; the same can be said for several other characters from the series. The current structure of each version having their own subsection is really not the proper approach.
  • Find development information for each and work it into their articles. This info has to be available somewhere, no?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Seeking advice on potential FL candidate

Hey all. I've been doing some pretty extensive work on Characters of Parks and Recreation for the last few days, and I think it's nearly ready to be nominated for featured list. (I also eventually plan for this to be the anchor of a good topic.) However, while I've done several FAs in the past I've never really done an FL, so I was hoping you guys could give me some advice on whether you feel it is ready before I go ahead with it. I plan on reading through the article once or twice more for a grammatical copy edit and to possibly tighten the prose in some areas, but I think the substance of it is mostly complete... — Hunter Kahn 16:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

  • I have nominated it. — Hunter Kahn 17:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I think the references are a bit squashed. There's no need for that many columns. – Harry Blue5 (talkcontribs) 07:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

RS noticeboard on Amina Abdallah Arraf al Omari

See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Amina_Abdallah_Arraf_al_Omari.2C_Minal_Hajratwala regarding an RS noticeboard entry on the Amina Arraf/Minal Hajratwala interaction WhisperToMe (talk) 18:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Infoboxes, is gender important

We were talking about updating the infobot for a fictional series, and the question came up as to a line for gender. Up until now there has been no gender line. In the story, 90%+ of the characters are male. So many people say gender is unimportant for that series. I say that it makes it more important, as the minority gender is more unusual. Does it hurt to add a gender line to a fictional character infobox? Mathewignash (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't really think it is necessary. If the gender is important, then mention it in prose. The infobox should ideally not list every minor detail about a character. Blake (Talk·Edits) 21:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Or any other in-universe information that is subjective towards the series and not overall fiction.Bread Ninja (talk) 05:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I still don't see how to tell the difference when it's to be placed or not. For instance the Star Wars infobox has a line for Gender, while the Star Trek infobox lacks one. The MASH infobox has Gender, the GI joe infobox does not. What's the difference? Seems like it's just there if they guy who designed it wanted one. Mathewignash (talk) 02:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
It is just based on the person who put it there. I don't think it should be there because it should be obvious just by looking at the picture, or by the identification pronoun(he, she) used throughout the article. Having a whole line of the infobox devoted to whether they are a boy or a girl just seems silly. Blake (Talk·Edits) 03:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
True. It's a kin to "Height", "Weight", "Hair color", "Eye color", "Tattoos", etc. 99.9% of the time (or more) it's either unimportant, self evident by image, or made clear as soon as the character is referred to by pronoun in a plot related way. The cases where it isn't need more clarification than is proper for the 'box. - J Greb (talk) 03:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
It really isn't needed. Can't we start a discussion with the aim of removing it all together and certain other in-universe fields?RaintheOne BAM 17:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm just wondering what's right, and I see that different Wikipedia page seem to do it differently. So it's a fair question. When I write a new infobox, should I include it, or should it be removed from existing infoboxes? Infoboxes quite often contain mostly information duplicated in the text of an article, so it's not valid to just say that it exists elsewhere in the article so it shouldn't be in the infobox. Mathewignash (talk) 20:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

List of Misfits characters

Not entirely sure what to do about this, so looking for a little advice.

All of the main characters from Misfits currently have redirects to the above mentioned list. However, I've just discovered an editor has created the following character pages using new (and incorrect) titles:

Most of the articles have one or two references and consist mostly of plot. Should they all be redirected back to the list? Moved to the correct title? Merged? AfD'd? Help! - JuneGloom Talk 15:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Bring it up on the List of Misfits characters talk page (unless it's already been discussed), just to avoid any edit warring. I myself think they should be redirected back. – Harry Blue5 (talkcontribs) 20:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
They should be redirected to a list, it is good that there are actual sources in place. Unlike Skins characters, which need to be merged into a list urgently! Anyone willing to do it?RaintheOne BAM 20:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I'll take it to the talk page. For some reason I drew a complete blank on what to do as there are now two different names/redirects for each character. - JuneGloom Talk 22:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Ariel is currently on Peer Review

Thought that I would mention that. Any input would be appreciated. Thanks--GroovySandwich 07:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merges/deletions of Parks and Recreation character articles

I am seeking input on some ongoing discussions. I have done some extensive work on Parks and Recreation-related articles. A user has recently proposed that many of those articles (specifically Mark Brendanawicz, April Ludgate, Andy Dwyer, Ann Perkins and Tom Haverford) be merged into Characters of Parks and Recreation, and has proposed that at least one other (Marlene Griggs-Knope, Jerry Gergich, Donna Meagle) be deleted. I've started a centralized thread on the Characters of Parks and Recreation talk page to discuss this, so an input would be appreciated! — Hunter Kahn 21:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

ThunderCats splitting

I proposed that some of the ThunderCats character articles need splitting because there is more third person sources to justify solo articles. The first one I have done is Snarf (ThunderCats). Dwanyewest (talk) 18:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

that isn't enough third-party sources.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - I'm sure Snarf can be expanded with additional sources; a quick Google search brings up over 2 million hits. There's bound to be some decent sources there; same with the other ThunderCats — the main ones anyway--GroovySandwich 21:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Switch to Oppose (for the time being)--GroovySandwich 08:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I'd support this...IF they bring more sources. thinking optimistic isn't going to help. you have to prove it. At the moment, make special pages, and show us what you got, if there not ready yet, keep adding. 5 sources isn't enough. You guys also have to remember "stub" class isn't acceptable.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I have nothing against stubs so long as their notability is established, as is the case with Snarf. But I agree, these pages should first be made in a sandbox before moving forward with the split--GroovySandwich 22:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I'd say don't split the articles... Prove they are notable by adding actual content to them. Four sources is just pure lazy. I hope everyone here is going to watch what happens.RaintheOne BAM 22:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Putting the articles on my watchlist just to be safe.Bread Ninja (talk) 00:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Tygra (ThunderCats) is the last one I have done for the time being. Dwanyewest (talk) 01:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

You have to be more careful, it seems you don't really know what "notability" is. I would at least add this information on the list first.Bread Ninja (talk) 03:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Oo, nice job on getting some sources, but I think these need a little more before getting split off. Ideally you should be able to have about a paragraph on each section. Tygra only appears to have two sources so far, which I'd say is definitely not enough for an article. I'd say that Snarf should be merged back soon. But I could imagine that one day they could be expanded into fullblown articles. For now, I'd recommend keeping them all the character list and expanding on them there. – Harry Blue5 (talkcontribs) 08:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Harry, building them up on the character list would be the best approach.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Reinstatment of How I Met Your Mother character pages

With enough contribution to each article, Robin, Ted, Marshall and Lily can pass notability. My main query is why the main character fails notability but Barney does. Allow me to reinstate them, add sources and more details. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 1:31 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Get the sources first and add them to the character list. Then split them out. Barney got an article because we found sources indicating his real-world notability. – Harry Blue5 (talkcontribs) 12:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Gargoyles characters should they be merged

Goliath (Gargoyles), Gargoyle clan, and many others should be merged in my opinon because they seem to rely on primary evidence but there seems to no definitive conclusion to this situation. In order to voice your opinoins for or against it go to Talk:List of Gargoyles characters. Dwanyewest (talk) 13:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree, theres not much third-party sources noting of it's existence. Therefore not notable.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

List of LGBT characters in film, radio, and TV fiction nominated for deletion

Plain as day. Discussion is here.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Scrubs character merge discussion

I've started a discussion here regarding a merge of the main Scrubs characters--GroovySandwichYum. 21:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Entourage

Hello all. I've started rewriting some of the character descriptions to be more out-of-universe. Since the series ends in a few weeks' time, we'd need more people decrufting this. Thank you. --Eaglestorm (talk) 16:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Emmerdale character articles; invitation to discussion

I've begun a discussion regarding the atrocious state of character articles within the Emmerdale universe. These articles stand to be deleted unless corrective action is taken. Please join the conversation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Emmerdale#Serious problems across the board; let's start with character articles. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 15:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

AfD: Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cass Carnaby

Need I say more? Simply south...... eating shoes for 5 years So much for ER 18:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Kurt Hummel at FAC

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kurt Hummel/archive2 – Hi all. After extensive work since its last review, Kurt Hummel is at FAC again. Any additional input would be much appreciated, thanks! Frickative 19:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Is this character even noteworthy

I realise this character Gandy Goose has appeared in several cartoons but is he really noteworhty to deserve an article or should it be nominated for deletion?Dwanyewest (talk) 09:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Upon search, couldn't find anything...it's remembered, but only in the greater aspect of the cartoons and not as a stand-alone character. At most it can be summed up in a sentence.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Merge Ki-Adi-Mundi

See Talk:Ki-Adi-Mundi#Merge?. – Harry Blue5 (talkcontribs) 18:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

"Low importance"?

Aya Brea (her series' single player protagonist), Kasumi (Dead or Alive) (the most important of all characters in her series), Taki (Soulcalibur) (quite possibly the most important out of all the good guys in her series) being of "low importance", excuse me? Alisa Bosconovitch, Ibuki (Street Fighter) and Lili (Tekken) (in just a few games, or even just one so far) being allegedly being more important than Kitana (Mortal Kombat), Mileena and Sophitia - that's some pretty ridiculous rating out there, don't you think?

Quality scale is also widely off-mark, for example Kasumi and Kitana being (among others) being "Start-Class", really? I seriously don't know what could be even possibly added to these articles, that is besides even more references (but there are dozens of refs already). I say you should go and re-rate all the vg character articles properly, or else it's all just completely worthless. --194.145.185.229 (talk) 12:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and Chun-Li is rated as "mid-importance" just as Alisa Bosconovitch and such, while really she should be rather alongside the likes of Mario and Sonic (as their fighting game / female character equivalent), also Solid Snake is now actually more popular in Japan than Mario and Sonic.[5] Or is really Mortal Kombat II only "Start-class" - even as it used to be a "good article"? And so on - it's all so random it's silly and doesn't work at all. --194.145.185.229 (talk) 12:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

You do realize that this project no longer keeps track of importance, right? The whole deal got too messy. Look at WP:VG/A for your answers. It says what an article must have to be a certain quality or importance. Blake (Talk·Edits) 13:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Mortal Kombat II isn't even part of this project. I think you may be looking for the video game WikiProject. かんぱい! Scapler (talk) 13:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I think they were included because of their live action film appearances.RaintheOne BAM 14:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I'd copy this discussion over to WT:VG, but the browser I'm using right now doesn't have that functionality. Anyone else want to do that? Reach Out to the Truth 17:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Infobox for a puppet?

I've just fixed up the Flat Eric page a bit and was looking for an appropriate infobox... Does anyone know of one? I was thinking maybe {{Infobox character}} though it doesn't appear to work for a puppet. Cheers, Nikthestoned 11:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Fred7601 (talk)This is for the Crazy Frog page. I LOVE the frog. I pretty much have all of his cds and watch his videos on YouTube. Fred7601 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC).

Can this article be reassessed?

I wasn't sure where to put this, so... can Cody Martin please be reassessed and could someone possibly provide some (hopefully somewhat specific) suggestions for improvement? Thanks. - Purplewowies (talk) 18:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Mainly, Cody and all other characters need coverage in third party sources. Right now, they are not suitable articles, and should be merged to the character list. London Tipton's reception section is a good example of what to try and find. Coverage in sources like those show that the subject is worth writing an article about.
Also, look at some quality character articles for an overall guide on what to do. The bulleted lists showing the character's relationships to family and friends is NOT something that is accepted in Wikipedia articles. Blake (Talk·Edits) 16:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Circular categories

Hi!

I was trying to find the appropriate en-wp sister category for fo:Bólkur:Uppspunnin fólk (approximately "Invented people"), when I run into the confusing category structure at top level here. In fact, you have

  1. Category:Fictional characters, which is a subcategory of Category:Literary characters (and also of Category:People in literature);
  2. Category:Literary characters, which is a subcategory of Category:Fictional characters by medium (and also of Category:People in literature); and
  3. Category:Fictional characters by medium, which is a subcategory of Category:Fictional characters.

Which one do you consider as a top category?

For a while I thought that Category:Literary characters was a supercategory of Category:Fictional characters, because the former name also could comprise real people, to the extent that they (also) are treated as literary characters. However, if so, why is Category:Fictional characters an immediate subcategory to Category:People in literature?

Best, JoergenB (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree, and suggest that "Fictional characters" be removed from "People in literature" and "Literary characters". Blake (Talk·Edits) 19:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
I see that it was me who included Category:Fictional characters in Category:People in literature when I set up the latter. I can see now that this is not such a good idea, and will remove this. I will also remove Category:Literary characters and provide a "see also" link on the "People in literature" category page instead. I also agree that "Fictional characters" should be the top category of the others mentioned above. There is no categorisation of real people appearing in literature. – Fayenatic (talk) 18:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Return to the project page "WikiProject Fictional characters/Archive 3".