Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Newsletter/20210406/Feature

Survey: How does WikiProject Video games determine character notability?
'' Conducted and written by Panini! ''

This is the first survey on the Wikiproject Video games newsletter. With this survey, my goal is to determine info and consensus on topics in the Wikiproject in order to help avoid debates in the future. The matter is as follows:

'''How do you determine what makes a video game character notable enough for their own page? Do you follow pre-existing guidelines or have your own opinions on the matter?'''

There were 13 responses from some of our most active editors. Here are the results:

In simplest terms, most of the members simply follow WP:GNG. With the general notability guidelines, the character:
 * 1) Must have significant coverage, of which they are addressed directly in detail. It is more than a passing mention.
 * 2) Must have reliable sources to confirm true notability, following WP:VG/RS.
 * 3) Must have secondary sources, avoiding primary sources when possible.

According to a couple of users, notability does not come from one specific area. If the character has been praised and could very easily have a reception section, there needs to be more beyond that. This could include their concept, development process, other adaptations, such as a movie, etc. A character having their own article, popular or rather unknown, isn't because there is enough to say about them that deserves a separate page, it mainly comes from the fact that they need a separate page. There's enough to the point where if the character's info was brought up in another article, there could possibly be a weight issue. Keep in mind that notability is not inherited; if the character is coming to be just as big as the game itself, an article could be due. Not simply because of the fact that people like the character but only talking in the context of the game itself.

Some characters could be covered even if their notability is not because they are a favorite in the game they come from. Some characters are given special attention from the press for other reasons, that would be off to cover in an article about their parent game. This could include racial or sexual popularity, something that should be brought up in their own article in the mindset of encyclopedia coverage. Create the article if it is for encyclopedic purposes; Nookazon wasn't created for the sake of advertising, it was created with the mindset of it being a notable covered subject. Unlike the numerous attempted Pokémon character articles, Jynx was created and hardly reflects her role in the Pokémon series at all.

Keep in mind that none of this implies if the article results in being a stub. Similar to what was mentioned above, even if some of these rules apply, if the article is too small and will likely never expand all of its contents could be moved to an article that covers more broad content. Many Street Fighter character articles have been deleted in the past. Simply because Laura has controversy, it doesn't mean it's so complex it needs an article to describe it. She received a comfy paragraph in List of Street Fighter characters. A strong paragraph is better than an article of multiple mediocre ones; think about which option would better the encyclopedia.

Here are some other small concepts to keep in mind:
 * 1) The character is mentioned on their own in detail and is not being referred to in the context of its parent game or franchise. This excludes listicles (ex. "Top 50 best Super Smash Bros. Characters).
 * 2) A character is not notable if they are only explained within the context of a plot.
 * 3) Follow all pre-existing guidelines. This is what to have in mind to keep your article from dying on the vine, other rules exist.

You can view the full responses to the question in the box below.

  "How does Wikiproject Video games determine character notability?" — Responses
 * ProtoDrake: My determination for whether a character should have their own article is whether they have extensive commentary on their creation, and specific or general critical reception that mentions them outside a listicle context. Personally I didn't look at guidelines when creating the articles for Zero or Nilin.
 * Masem: Basically, it has to meet the WP:GNG, but more specifically, for a character, I'm looking for:
 * Design or development information specifically about that character, more than just a sentence or two. Ideally, information like inspiration for the character's personality and look, and art influences, and if an "acted" role, actor selection.
 * Reception about the character specifically, ideally separated from other gameplay facets. Discussion of the character should be more than just one sentence in the source but a good discussion of the character.
 * Coverage only coming from "top 10 character" lists lacking in-depth discussion should be avoided.


 * TheJoeBro64: I usually see if there are a few in-depth articles that are mostly or all about the character in question. If so, I comb them to see if they contain noteworthy critical discussion of the character. I generally follow the preexisting guidelines, as I think they do a good job of defining what makes a character notable.
 * IceWelder: I'm not really a characters guy, so I don't even know whether there are specific guidelines for VG characters (or fictional characters in general). When I need to review one for notability, I mostly check whether it passes WP:GNG, especially the "significant coverage" aspect. For example, a character page might contain a novel-length fictional biography but is only held up by just one or two sources that very briefly discuss the character's creation (like 1 or 2 sentences). That kind of content is, simply put, not suited for Wikipedia.
 * PresN: A video game character is notable enough for their own page when there are multiple reliable sources specifically about that character; more practically, it can support its own article when there are enough sources about the character to write an article that contains good-sized development and reception sections, as in multiple paragraphs each. The editor should consider (for any article) whether there is enough information for an article to stand on its own independent of the parent article, regardless of notability. A good article about a character should be as long as a good article on a video game, and with the same sorts of information and sources (e.g. not a series of brief mentions in listicles.
 * Shooterwalker:
 * Most people basically accept that notability requires significant coverage in reliable third party sources. And the guideline explains that significant coverage is more than a WP:TRIVIALMENTION, which is something I highlighted in an essay a long time ago. There's some disagreement about how much more than a trivial mention you need.
 * If you're trying to build a stand-alone article, you need meaningful out-of-universe sections for reception and development. Some people ask for a raw word count, but it's not just about quantity. Especially for video game characters, you can find sources that simply summarize the character's plot or subplot. Since Wikipedia articles are not WP:PLOT summaries, this doesn't really give us anything we can write a meaningful article about, and is better covered in the main article's plot summary.'
 * It helps when a source provides meaningful analysis of the character, and one of the highest standards is if that analysis explains its importance to the industry or the art form. This kind of test is sometimes called a "qualitative-quantitative test". You can't have just high quantity, because that's how you end up with a WP:QUOTEFARM or WP:JUSTPLOT -- essentially just filler. But you can't have just high quality, because you can't write an article with only one short quality quote, even if that quote is "one of the most important characters ever created". (Though this would at least be a verifiable fact that should be covered at a parent article.)
 * The good news is that quality and quantity are usually co-related in reliable sources, and a character that can truly be developed into a meaningful article will usually have both quantity and quality coverage. It doesn't need to be the most important character of all time, but if there's a healthy reception section that explains its significance, you're on the right track.


 * Dissident93: Mostly by having several articles written specifically about them. Some people may misunderstand this as citing any passing mention in an otherwise semi-relevant article as giving WP:N to it. And for me personally, I might be considered more strict on these sort of things than most other WP:VG members, as I don't really support spinoff articles, such as Anor Londo and Ornstein and Smough from Dark Souls, as they are mainly sourced from brief mentions on a list-type article and don't really have any strong articles regarding its development or legacy beyond some single editor's opinion.
 * Captain Galaxy: Now while I'm not usually a person to create articles about characters, I was the creator of the draft for the Pauline (Nintendo) article. I created it when was still new to Wikipedia, so I wasn't the best at looking for citation. However, I felt that the character was deserving of an article due to her historical importance, being one of if not the first female video game character. I feel that, besides being notable with at least 4-5 independent references, a character needs to represent one of the following qualities:
 * Having historical importance to video games (e.g. Mario or Pac-Man (character))
 * Being a mascot (e.g. Kirby (character) or Slime (Dragon Quest))
 * Displaying importance to other cultures' or communities' representation (e.g. Vivian (Paper Mario) or Barret Wallace)
 * Shown significant popularity in the gaming industry, as well as outside the gaming industry (e.g. Pikachu)
 * Involved in a contraversy (e.g. Tracer (Overwatch), Jynx or 2B (Nier: Automata))
 * I feel having these qualities (as well as having the references to back them up) are what makes character notable for having articles.


 * Sergecross73: For me, I handle it the same way I do handle writing song articles.
 * 1) Are there 3-4 detailed articles discussing the character specifically in significant detail?
 * 2) Can I write at least 2-3 paragraphs about the character from said sources?
 * 3) Can I add sourced content about the character outside of the context of the video game their from? (Are they in other games? Other media? Had a controversy about them?
 * If I answer yes to all three, then I'm generally in favor of an article. If the answer is no, then I'm generally against a stand alone article. So all in all, it's basically the GNG + being able to expand it out of stub status.


 * Thibbs: In my view, the basic answer is found in WP:GNG. There must be multiple reliable sources that cover the topic directly and in depth. Arguments can be made about how many RSes are required and how substantial the coverage must be, but it's ultimately a judgment call. Following the rules pedantically, the absolute minimum would be 2 sources because the plural word "sources" is used and the substantiality is described as "more than a trivial mention". But the barest minimum is not the sort of thing that many editors would allow to fly at AfD if it was nominated. Notability, of course, is only one element of the question. If the topics of the character and the game it came from were closely related there could be a danger of creating a content fork. Other issues worth considering are WP:DUE and WP:TOOBIG. I would try to follow pre-existing guidelines if available, but I do try to keep the comprehensiveness prong of the encyclopedia in mind as well. Ground-breaking characters of racial, national, religious, gender, sexuality, etc. may be worth covering even if not as well-covered as some of the mega-star characters that we are all familiar with. I must give a caveat here that as far as I know I have never edited a video game character article so I am not the most knowledgeable at the table. I consider WP:CHAR to be a rather recent WikiProject so the rules are a bit looser. I was actually quite amazed to see that the project had just reached its 10th year anniversary earlier this month!
 * TarkusAB: I think the project should use WP:GNG as a guideline, but maintain flexibility to discuss and judge character articles on an individual basis to ultimately do what is best for the encyclopedia and the reader. Even if a character passes GNG, sometimes they are better discussed within the context of a "List of characters..." article or a series article. Other times, characters may arguably not pass GNG, but will have a wealth of interesting development or critical commentary surrounding them. Fitting all that into a larger article while avoiding undue weight could be a challenge, so in those cases, a spinoff article may be the best solution. I think it's important to remember that GNG is not a policy but a guideline, and a gray one at that, and we should use our best judgement to improve the encyclopedia.
 * Zxcvbnm: I basically just follow GNG like regular articles. The character should have sufficient reliable sources specifically talking about them (as opposed to just passing mentions in reviews)
 * Rhain: I think it's important to have your own opinions, but the pre-existing guidelines are there to be followed. It's easy to think that a character might be notable—they're the main star in a huge game, and it feels like everyone on Twitter and Reddit is talking about them and how great they are—but, at the end of the day, if the character isn't discussed in-depth by reliable sources, they're unlikely to be notable enough for their own article. It's important to remember that notability is not inherited; for example, people love L.A. Noire—me more than most—but that doesn't make Cole Phelps automatically notable. If you're in the frustrating stage when there's a decent amount of commentary on each character but not enough for individual articles, lists can come in handy, but it's crucial to be hypercritical of your own work here and not let the article become too plot heavy. The most important step in this process is realising the mistake; it's really tough to see your hard work go to waste, but there's often ways around it: try to incorporate the information into another relevant article if it fits, and, if all else fails, I'm sure there's a wiki that could use the information. But, most of all, don't give up: there are millions of other articles that could use your help, so don't let a failed effort put you down.