Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Character notability (for full articles)

RfC: Character notability (for full articles)
What are the requirements for video game characters to be considered notable enough that they should be allowed to have their own articles? Ideally, the results will be as specific as possible as this has been argued quite hotly for a long time. Tezero (talk) 03:23, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * There's no special subject-specific notability guideline so we turn to the WP:GNG, significant coverage from independent secondary sources. This for video games will come down to two things:
 * A discussion about the concept and creation of the character as discussed through interviews with the developers/writers/programmers, or
 * Critical reception of the character from these independent, secondary sources.
 * A character needs to have either one of these, but we do put a bit more weight on the latter since this at least shows the importance of the character by others instead of from the view point of a programmer or writer that may take a haughty view of their creation.
 * The issue than then has plagued us recently is what makes up significant coverage from independent sources. This is where we need to separate true critical discussion, typically found in reviews of the game(s) featuring the character that talk about the impact of the character on the game or major industry awards for the character, from "in passing" mentions of the character, as often found in "Top X"-type lists that are from less-than-reliable sites. Those latter sources, alone, are simply not giving the "significant coverage" needed to meet notability guidelines. (Note that some game reviews can also do the same - if all a review says specifically about a character is only a few words, that's not "significant coverage"). This is not to say that the Top X-type lists can't augment other sources, just that alone, they are a problem. --M ASEM (t) 03:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Some points for discussion proposed by :
 * What constitutes substantial coverage versus passing coverage? Especially relevant: Do mentions, especially non-top or non-near top mentions in "Best of X" or "Worst of X" lists constitute substantial coverage?
 * How much first party sourcing is too much first party sourcing?
 * How do we treat coverage of character when it appears in coverage primarily about the game (as opposed to coverage specifically about the character)?
 * My personal view on some of these is as follows: "Top X" lists do not count as significant coverage, but if the topic of the list has a scope that spans a large number of games or series, it is an indication that the character has notability. For example, inclusion in "Top 10 characters we want for Smash Bros." and "Top 10 Worst Pokémon" are not significant coverage, but inclusion "Top 10 sidekicks in video games" or "Top 10 female protagonists in gaming" would be indicators of notability. However, no character article should rely mostly on "Top X" lists.
 * If the notability for the character comes solely being a game mechanic, it is not notable as a character and should be merged to the respective game's reception section. If the notability comes solely from a controversy involving that character that did not primarily emerge from its design, the controversy itself is not highly notable, or the controversy is not exclusive to that character, the character is not notable and its controversy section should be merged to its respective game or series' controversy or reception section. Jucchan (talk) 06:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * While this may come from bias (though it's not much, as I'm not even that into the Pokémon games as much as I used to be), a top 10 Pokémon or bottom 10 Pokémon list pretty clearly demonstrates significant coverage. Sure, it's being discussed in a more narrow spectrum than "top 10 video games", but the point still stands that Pokémon is a pretty big deal. Smash wishlists are admittedly supplemental sources, but I think it's foolhardy to suggest that Pokémon quality lists aren't strong on their own merits.
 * Okay, I'm calling foul. What's so ridiculously important about Pokémon? Sonic is a big deal. Zelda is a big deal. Tezero (talk) 14:23, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Really, being in a "top 10" list doesn't in itself act as reception, it is the commentary stating why this character was so important to get a spot on this list. If its a joke list with no real commentary, then it shouldn't be sourced. Blake (Talk·Edits) 03:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not consider listicles to be terribly insufficient. My argument is that the weight of a "top 10 Sonic characters" list is less significant than a Pokémon list. Beyond the fact that Pokémon is a billion dollar industry by itself, it goes far beyond video games and appeals to like, three different generations of kids. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 05:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think one point in the matter is that a "Top 10 Pokemon" list is saying "this character is in the top 1% of the series", while a "Top 10 Sonic characters" is not as significant. But like I have said before, it isn't the placement in a list that is worth noting, it's the commentary on why it got placed. Why is this character so much better then the others? Blake (Talk·Edits) 14:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, which articles do you reference when you're bringing up controversy? If it's the Pokémon articles - where there are four articles that discuss controversy - two of them (Haunter and Gengar) are directly referenced in written works; Psyduck's telekinesis (in the anime) is discussed by two different figures - one a faith-based author and one a Priest; and the Abra line has discussion of both the implication that parts of its design are based on anti-Christian imagery and the Waffen-SS, as well as a well-covered lawsuit over the character's use of bending spoons. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 08:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * My stance is pretty well summed up by Masem above.
 * The recent discussions have had some editors complaining that video game characters are unfairly being held to a tougher standard than other fictional characters, like comic book characters. I don't think it's being done wrongfully though, I just think they're being monitored more so. It remind me of how people in real life complain about cops being stricter about speeding in one city than another. Yeah, it sucks if you get pulled over, but the person was still speeding, and getting away with speeding in one town wouldn't get someone out of a ticket if caught speeding in the other town. Sergecross73   msg me   14:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The thing is, it's not just fictional characters. I mean, seriously, click "Random article" 20 times. How many of those appear to have coverage that satisfies your understanding of WP:N even available, let alone used? I don't see the point of claiming moral authority by being stricter if we're not even gonna try to make the rest of Wikipedia stoop to our level. All that's going to happen is that video game characters will be given WP:UNDUE-ly light weight and thus artificially thought of by readers as unimportant. Tezero (talk) 14:23, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That's still just OTHERSTUFF and the same faulty logic as I was getting at in my "Speeding analogy". Sergecross73   msg me   14:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Insofar as it is, I think the undue weight the massive double standard creates outweighs (no pun intended) whatever would be going on behind the scenes, OTHERSTUFF included, to prevent it. Consider the impression the average reader would get after a night on the town at Wikipedia's video game character database and then moving on to, say, comics characters, assuming we take a stance on the deletionist side of things and enforce our conclusions no further. It's probably going to be that game characters in general aren't particularly notable and never do anything. If they were, Wikipedia would have articles about them rather than cramming them into lists, right? The same applies for Sonic characters specifically. Now, if, on the other side of the coin, they knew about OTHERSTUFF and what that had done as a stopgap to keep Wikipedia's notability policies consistent, do you really think they would take offense at Wikipedia, while not perfect, making an effort to at least stay even-handed in its coverage?
 * And it also isn't just OTHERSTUFF. Think about just how many articles not on video game characters exist with sourcing that wouldn't satisfy this project. Lots of them even pass AfD with less. What if we're the ones in the wrong and no one's told us yet, if they even pay attention to our scope? Playing games, as I assume most of us do, doesn't automatically give us truth-goggles to see the proper interpretation of WP:N any better than other projects' members. Tezero (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm a frequent at AfD and I don't think your summary of what passes is accurate. AfD is "put up or shut up" for sources, and it isn't enough to aggregate every mention of a topic—at least one if not several need to be in depth. Browse any "keep" selection from the AfD logs and see for yourself. And furthermore, OTHERSTUFF is mainly a call to not stray from the discussion topic, which is fictional characters. Yes, areas of WP are a mess, especially the random, unvetted things you'll find by clicking "random". That argument is off topic. czar ♔  20:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Precisely, I looked up my stats not too long ago, and I've participated in like 400+ AFD's...and what Tezero describes it not what I've typically witnessed, but rather, what you've witnessed, Czar. I don't recall witnessing all these other fictional characters getting an easier pass at AFD. I'm curious,, do you have any examples of these other fictional characters, comparable to the Sonic ones you're so upset about, that survived AFD or Merge discussions? That's the sort of example/comparison that would demonstrate a "double standard". If they're just existing because no one's bothering to challenge them or nominate them, then that's just comparing apples to oranges. Sergecross73   msg me   23:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think I said that comics characters frequently survived AfDs with less substantive secondary coverage, only that they're held to a much looser standard by default – and while I still think that's a serious problem for reasons I've specified, it is only by circumstance rather than policy. However, I'm looking through the most recent (May 9) logs now. Gayle Williamson was kept with only an interview and like three passing mentions from unreliable-looking sources. California Preparatory College was kept with ONE source and just soft assertions that it's notable because it's a school. Kochu Hassan Kunju Bahadoor was kept with no sources and no indication that any were available, under the rationale that he's a politician – as was the case with Gaudencio Hernández Burgos, though he has 1 source that, again, is more passing-mention-oriented. Ahmed Abou Hashima is a little better, but most of the sources look unreliable and only cover the company he's a part of. Mogilivaripalli has three sources, all of them more like informal "Bill's AOL Town Homepage '98"-style databases than true secondary sources. The rest from that day I generally accept more. Tezero (talk) 22:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I missed this reply. Worth noting that Gayle Williamson was kept because it was an insincere nomination and not at all because a solitary source is good enough. I think it's accurate to say that schools and geographic locations get more of a pass, but that's tautological because any notability guideline separate from almighty GNG is by definition a shortcut (though still ultimately beholden to the GNG). But the question at hand is less of which AfDs you don't agree with than what "kept" fictchar AfDs show that an unfair standard has been applied to the vg fictchars under discussion. czar ♔  20:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed yours, too. Anyway, I don't know what "insincere nomination" means, but Gayle Williamson was kept just because of having won a single award; again, she had no coverage beyond passing mentions in any sources. Her page could easily be merged, but it wasn't. As for "schools and geographic locations get more of a pass", I agree, and I've explained why that's a bad thing at the talk page. Tezero (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "Insincere nomination" as in meeting the speedy keep criteria as a procedural keep—the article's merits or sources weren't even considered because the nom was malformed. If that schools and geo locations get a pass is your point, there's nothing I can do about that consensus. I still don't see evidence of unfair treatment for fictional characters as a category any more so than any other category. czar ♔  17:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Let me get this straight: you're acknowledging that schools and geographical locations have much lower standards for passing AfD, but you don't think it's unfair? Tezero (talk) 19:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Whether those two exceptions are unfair isn't my concern or interest, nor the subject of this conversation. The question is whether fictional characters are being singled out for harsher treatment under the GNG, and there is no evidence of such. The point of looking at recent AfDs was to see how the community defines sigcov, that articles don't "pass with less" unless stipulated by some blanket provision that doesn't concern our project. And if those exceptions the issue, there are better venues for that discussion. (There is quite obviously an easier case to be made for school and geoloc inclusion than for fictional characters.) Looking at any day's set of AfDs, it should be clear that the vague waving in the Sonic character list thread that "sources must exist somewhere" or that the current sourcing of listicles and one-off mentions constitutes sigcov would never fly at AfD. This said, like the AfD regulars who maintain the status quo of lower standards for schools and geolocs, the same WPVG regulars will maintain the status quo of lower standards for our fictional characters, as evidenced by the wealth of myopic opposes to merge not based in any experience outside the video game section of the encyclopedia. If you truly want outside participation, the best route is going to be a new RfC with a plain question and cross-listed in Centralized Discussions. czar ♔  20:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There is evidence. If you don't want to look at it, don't cover the rest of Wikipedia's eyes. There's evidence that the "sources must exist somewhere" argument is used: Kochu Hassan Kunju Bahadoor, for example. There's also evidence that "the current sourcing of listicles and one-off mentions constitutes sigcov would ... fly at AfD": that Miss Whocaresistan award winner, for example. Outside participation is what I want, and it's what I hoped to get by framing this as a plain question - if you'll notice, there's no mention of any specific characters in the discussion title. I don't know what you mean by "cross-listing", but if it helps this come to a real close instead of just allowing this project to continue its isolationist North Korea rule of law, I'm for it. Tezero (talk) 23:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, before I continue, when you say "There is quite obviously an easier case to be made for school and geoloc inclusion than for fictional characters", do you mean that those deserve articles more or are you acknowledging again that they're treated more lightly? Tezero (talk) 23:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I did a full source review on all of the Sonic character articles, so I'm not sure what you mean by not looking at it. And the Kochu Hassan AfD referenced WP:POLITICIAN and had nothing to do with a vague wave to sources somewhere. Your last question is a false dichotomy, so both. I looked into Centralized Discussion and it doesn't look like the proper venue. If there is a question about this that WP needs to consider as a whole, then I don't know it. VG character notability would be best discussed at WPVG, where it has been, and a bunch of people weighed in. I think we'll have to leave it at that because we're not about to set a definitive clause for fictional character notability. czar ♔  01:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about evidence that fictional characters are singled out unfairly, which is the context you initially brought it up in. What you say would never work at AfDs not for fictional characters does - yet you take issue with it for these. So it looks like not only are you failing to acknowledge the double standard; you're contributing to it. Oh, and WP:POLITICIAN, as part of WP:PEOPLE, is based on the vague premise that sources are likely available, so citing WP:POLITICIAN in an AfD is indirectly citing that vague premise. I'm not at all satisfied now because this still hasn't really attracted anyone from outside the project. And I really don't see why we can't set a clause for fictional character notability just because this is under the technical aegis of WP:VG; it is an RFC, after all. Tezero (talk) 04:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with your read of how WP:PEOPLE works, but I've already made my points on this topic. You're free to propose a shortcut for notability along those lines if you'd like, but as I've said, I think everyone who has wanted to weigh in on this has already done so, and I, myself, need to move on to other things. Also you might be interested in the precedents set at WikiProject Fictional characters/Article alerts/Archive 2—I just read two dozen at random and I believe it confirms my position that WPVG is indeed not nearly as strict on fictchar notability as the rest of WP. I'm taking this page off my watchlist now, so ping me if necessary. czar ♔  05:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I emphatically disagree with your analysis; plenty of characters on that list, like Hank Hill even, were kept with less sourcing than the Sonic characters have and nothing to bolster them but the vague promises of further sourcing that you so detest. If you don't want to be pestered any further, though, I can leave you alone. Tezero (talk) 22:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think the problem is the interpration of the GNG. I interpret it for characters the same I do anything else. The difference is that far more journalists/reliable sources do coverage on concrete things like games, movies, etc, so its much easier met. They just don't do nearly as many articles dedicated just to characters. Sad, but not a reason to be more lax on them. Sergecross73   msg me   23:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * But that's just begging the question by assuming that having articles dedicated to a subject is necessary for notability, and as I pointed out back on the Sonic character list talk, WP:N never actually says that – in fact, it directly rejects it: "Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Tezero (talk) 22:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I just remembered that and I worked on a draft of standards for VG character notability a few years back. I think we had some ideas drafted up, but we eventually lost interest because no one could agree on where to "set the bar" with strictness. (Some thought it was too lax, others complained that they wouldn't be able to spam "Top 10 Hawt Females in games" garbage sources to prove notability anymore.) We'll have to see if I can dig that up, might help facilitate discussion or remind us of past roadblocks.  Sergecross73   msg me   15:01, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * , proper ping for you. Okay. Did some serious archaeology on this one. First, this Article guidelines talk is relevant to this current conversation, where the consensus was to use "caution" with Top X lists and to avoid quotefarm receptions. Now re: what you mentioned, Sjones's proposal is what you're looking for, which was spurred by this dialogue following the Metal Gears conversation. The proposal came with this later Article guidelines talk, and it apparently fizzled out from there likely due to interest fatigue. (These dialogues had been going on for a while at WTVG at the time.) I also found some other stuff, but that's for another time. czar ♔  19:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that people are unfairly strict on video game character articles. Many top lists do give significant coverage. Whether the top list in question covers only a specific franchise or gaming in general should not even matter. Either of them can still provide significant coverage either way. Top lists are usually the best way to get reception on a character. I would much rather see a character given their own article than being crammed up into a list article, even if the coverage is only in context to the games they appear in. Kokoro20 (talk) 17:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I had a thought today and I'm not proposing it as much as looking for feedback: "A fictional character becomes notable when discussed in out-of-universe contexts. They can still be referenced for their traits in the series (...duh) but the idea is that their notability transcends their reaction in the game itself and leads to outside comparison." For example, the Citadel in Mass Effect has a whole lot of coverage, and we could string together all of those mentions, but does it have out-of-universe sigcov? If there was an article or full interview (more than a single question) on its development or an article on its level design, that's all out-of-universe discussion, as it happened in meatspace. Likewise, a reviewer mentioning that the Citadel was really cool in a Mass Effect game review, though—not out-of-universe (doesn't mean it can't be added—just wouldn't count for independent notability). Same for a game review that even spends two paragraphs on the Citadel—it wouldn't matter for independent notability (not inherited) until the Citadel is discussed in an article as being definitive of something. Our stance on requiring out-of-universe context, to me, is what separates an encyclopedia's purpose from an in-universe tool like Wikia. Perhaps this idea has been discussed elsewhere, but this makes sense to me as the next step towards resolution. czar ♔  00:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, as I've said, I would be against the idea of out-of-universe context as a requirement for establishing notability on characters. While out-of-universe context coverage would be nice additions for character articles when available, it would be just be expecting too much to have it as a requirement for notability for reasons I have already explained before. Kokoro20 (talk) 01:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Consider the more obscure chemical elements, a subject I've brought up earlier. What indication do they give that people not interested in molecular chemistry or whatever are likely to care about them? I don't see why fictional characters should be held to a stricter standard. Tezero (talk) 22:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that example follows. Elements from the periodic table have multiple articles written about them—they aren't discussed or reviewed solely within the context of being an important member of the periodic table. czar ♔  00:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I generally disagree with a lot of the common claims people make about the requirements for notability, and the basic rules of WP:GNG are already strict enough that you don't need to add your own interpretation. "Significant coverage in third party reliable sources" is a pretty strong guideline, and one that I always recite when a user questions a subject's notability. However, in my opinion, if something was truly notable, people would know it without seeing any sources, the sources simply provide confirmation about why they are notable. Thus following WP:NRV, to create an article, only a claim that sources should most likely exist, thus sometimes, we must remember to at least attempt following WP:IAR to allow for the strengthening of an article before jumping to conclusions. But back to my original point, adding on additional rules is unproductive in my opinion, and should be done very lightly, and situational, not a blanket for all fictional characters. Overall, the sources used for notability should explain the subject's notability, and not get off track discussing aspects which really have nothing to do with the subject. Blake (Talk·Edits) 03:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * , isn't it contradictory to say that you disagree with common claims about N but you think the guideline is straightforward and strong? Or that notability is obvious and stark without sources but we should IAR and go with it when we can't find sources? This discussion is in response to the Sonic merge, where N is obviously not as cut and dried for many of the respondents. czar ♔  03:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * My first comment was referring to the extra guidelines that people make and try to impose on articles, which is my point really. There are different situations in which upholding an additional guideline might be better for an article which has 20 reliable sources covering it, but they are mostly passing mentions or garbage, but another article may have less sources, but can still have strong notability because the 2 sources it does have significantly demonstrate its notability. Throwing a blanket statement on all character articles could mean one of these needs to go, but the other one wouldn't, depending on how you make this new guideline, when really they may have an arguably similar level of notability. So however this ends up getting done, I just want to make sure that people know this needs to be extremely well worded and thought out, and not bar some special cases. Blake (Talk·Edits) 03:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As for the quality of sources, the key word is "Significant coverage". The subject must have sources which cover it significantly, demonstrating its notability. A passing mention or top 10 is not demonstrating notability itself, it has to actually cover why the subject is notable, not make in-universe references, or irrelevant jokes. Blake (Talk·Edits) 03:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * As above, this has come up so many times over the years, and we've always fallen back on the GNG (never been able to agree that there's much ambiguity or wiggle-room regards it, anyway). Can't see it being any different this time. bridies (talk) 14:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, the notability-for-full-article notion is a misleading non-starter. Even if something nominally meets the GNG, it doesn't necessarily need a separate article. So often these nominal notability arguments are excuses to take stub-length secondary coverage, which would fit within a parent article, and tack on vast tracts of plot regurgitation (much of it original interpretation - all those personality sections and such) which should not be anywhere, let alone the bulk of a standalone article. The sonic articles currently being discussed elsewhere are exemplars of this tactic. bridies (talk) 15:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The personality sections, which in at least some cases aren't "original interpretation" (i.e. those of the characters that passed GAN), are necessary because they give context to the characters' roles in the games and the reasons reviewers might or might not like them. The same goes for plot; you just aren't going to understand a character very much if all you have is a Reception section. I will say that I agree that excessive in-universe detail is unwarranted, which is why, for example, I cut out the entire section in Knuckles the Echidna's article on robotic versions of him: it was 2-3 paragraphs on a couple of one-time characters that look like Knuckles, much of it focusing on their designs. As for something like Big the Cat being unintelligent, with a game-related example given, though? Yeah, I think that's relevant, because it forms the backbone of why most people hate him so much. Alternately, the other purple cat from the series having a cold personality and never seeking help is relevant because it sets up principal conflicts of the plots of two of her games. Tezero (talk) 22:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to the few currently up for merge/RfC. If a reception section is any good, yes it will allow one to understand the character well, in itself. And I'm talking about 2-3 paragraphs of secondary commentary (some of that padded out by original additions) against 20+ paragraphs of in-universe content, in one case. The personality sections aren't as bad as some I've seen in the past, but I am yet to see a secondary source, which includes Big. You think it's relevant, no secondary source does? Looks like OR to me. If it's the backbone of why people hate him, the secondary literature must say so. The secondary commentary gives context to the characters' roles, not original editorialising. bridies (talk) 00:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not what OR is, though. OR is using one's own interpretation of the subject matter with no sources to back it up, which isn't the same as using primary sources. (The Sonic character articles use, for example, manuals to back up facts - but only what they actually say.) Furthermore, it's not realistic to expect no primary sources to be used for information; otherwise Wikipedia wouldn't allow them in the first place. In reception sections, reviewers aren't always going to mention everything that's true about a character, because they don't have a reason to. Maybe it doesn't bolster a point that they're making. Maybe they think it's so obvious that they don't bother mentioning it. (Try finding a secondary source that says Mario has an "M" on his hat. Pretty obvious fact, right?)
 * As for the issue of having 20+ paragraphs of in-universe content... Well, first of all, why exactly is it a problem? Maybe some of the plot sections could be condensed, but what's the inherent problem in having a relatively high Appearances to Reception ratio? And why is it enough of one that we should artificially cut away information just to make the sizes even? Maybe I'll be able to better address what you're actually saying. Tezero (talk) 01:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Wrong, interpretation of primary sources is also original research. Merely it being there is making a point, as you just argued - that this or that is the backbone of real-world perception, ans so forth, and that needs secondary sources. Nothing wrong with primary sources per se, sure, but again, we are talking whole sections, ostensibly not even plot sections, with nothing but primary sources and fictional detail. Last point - WP:UNIVERSE and WP:DUE. bridies (talk) 03:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Why are you trying to convince me that "interpretation of primary sources is also original research"? I literally said that; look for "one's own interpretation of the subject matter" in my last reply. The "backbone" part I think you're taking out of context – what I meant was that something being highly significant to a plot or garnering an opinion by a critic is easily sufficient to show that it ought to be mentioned in the article and does not constitute excessive in-universe information. I could see it being OR to state in the article that something is the backbone of something else, but that's not what I'm arguing for. Also, neither WP:UNIVERSE nor WP:DUE is about length of plot sections or using primary sources at all; the first refers to treating fictional events and objects like real ones, and the second is about offering balanced coverage of opinions. Tezero (talk) 21:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * And WP:MOSFICT. bridies (talk) 04:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What about it? Tezero (talk) 21:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * From mosfict: "...should adhere to the real world as their primary point of reference." An article in which the fictional regurgitation dwarfs the secondary coverage does not do this. WP:DUE is about balanced coverage per se. And an article which is lopsided, garbage fandom, with critical commentary squeezed out, is not written from a balanced point of view. You weren't taken out of context; original interpretation of primary sources is synonymous with original research and the personality sections do constitute this. You can be convinced or otherwise. bridies (talk) 22:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "Adhere to the real world as their primary point of reference" means don't treat the fictional object or event as though it's real. To describe, say, game plots as game plots is not "lopsided, garbage fandom" any more than summarizing Jesus' role in the Bible in Jesus' article constitutes oppressive religious bigotry. What you reference within MOSFICT isn't even about notability; it just talks about what to do with material in an article on a fictional topic given that the topic exists. Oh, and for the record, you seem to have no idea what original interpretation is. If the articles said something like "Tails is likely not shown with a girlfriend in the games because Cosmo, his girlfriend in Sonic X, died and he may not have gotten over it" and cited the relevant episode of Sonic X, then yes, that would be OR. It is not OR to describe a character's personality using a description from a game's manual any more than literally any other use of any other primary source is for anything. Tezero (talk) 04:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it means articles should adhere to the real world as their primary point of reference, again simply what it says. This includes real world coverage as the primary focus. The style guide does not directly address notability, correct; it demonstrates why this content should not be here, and hence that the remaining context is succinct enough to be merged, as I said in the first instance. Again, keeping belabouring the it's-just-descriptive point if you like; synthesising a personality section with no secondary justification for its inclusion is original research, as you yourself demonstrated above. This is a point that has been made repeatedly in the discourse against this kind of content over the years. bridies (talk) 05:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * First of all, you can't just give an interpretation of WP:MOSFICT's text that's an interpretation just like mine, then copy-and-paste the original text and make a condescending assertion that they're the same thing. Anyway, okay, suppose you're right about what primary-sourced text gets to be included in the article. Look at the characteristics for Sonic himself (I've barely touched this article) or, for an FA example, even Batman. There are plenty of facts in both that are cited to primary sources, yes, including ones that aren't given explicit "significance" by secondary ones later on. The second, at the least, is not OTHERSTUFF; this is an article that has successfully gone through FAC, so everything there has been ruthlessly combed. Furthermore, I'll ask again: why do we even allow primary sources if we can't use them without every single fact having its importance attested by a secondary source—couldn't we just use the secondary source, then? And if your answer is that the secondary one doesn't go into adequate specifics, then by your own arguments the specifics must not be relevant. Tezero (talk) 02:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not making an interpretation, I'm giving you the plain text verbatim. Real world. Primary point of reference. Again, nothing wrong with primary sources; what is wrong is constructing whole subjective, fictional sections with nothing but primary sources. The batman article's personality section in fact mainly refers to secondary sources and mainly consists of secondary commentary. bridies (talk) 09:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * But what about where it doesn't? Do you mean to tell me that every primary source used in the article is given attestation by a secondary one? If not, what's the significance of "mainly", and where do you draw the line? Also, no, it's still an interpretation just like mine; I'm interpreting "primary point of reference" to mean that the fictional character is described as a fictional character, and you're interpreting it to mean that the fictional character has some nebulous percentage of its facts backed up with secondary sources. Tezero (talk) 02:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, most are, and a majority of the paragraphs are in fact secondary coverage of the personality. That is the plain English meaning of "mainly". "real world as the primary point of reference" plainly means they refer primarily to the real world, which the articles in question do not do, and those sections in qestion do not do, at all. bridies (talk) 18:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * And again, no, if something is highly-easily-significant, then a secondary source must say so, and that is what goes in the article. Otherwise, what you are describing is the very definition of original research. bridies (talk) 22:14, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * But by that logic, we shouldn't even be able to keep the fact that, say, a game got a certain review by a certain critic in its article's Reception section: what reliable source is gonna say, "Hey, that's an important review"? Tezero (talk) 04:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Utter nonsense. Secondary coverage does not need further secondary to demonstrate its importance; we have criteria for determining which reviews and publications merit inclusion. bridies (talk) 05:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * One wouldn't be "artificially" cutting content either: it shouldn't be there. bridies (talk) 04:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair. Seems like we're both begging the question here. Tezero (talk) 21:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Guys, WP:N specifically states that notability has no effect on article content. Notability of content would be another discussion then here. So please, either stop, or take it somewhere else... Blake (Talk·Edits) 04:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It says it doesn't determine notability; it's still relevant for all the reasons given above. bridies (talk) 08:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * My point is, this discussion is about "what makes a subject notable for an article". Your discussion seems to be about whether the characteristics and appearances sections need to have secondary sources or not. These are two different discussions, and it is distracting from the real purpose. Whether or not a character has personality-cruft or plot-summaries makes little difference on whether a character deserves a full article. Blake (Talk·Edits) 13:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If these articles were limited to viable content, they would be plainly ripe for merging. Whether or not there is sufficient secondary coverage is explicitly, entirely relevant. bridies (talk) 14:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * All content in the article does not need secondary sources, usually primary sources are perfectly fine for where it is appropriate. Yes, secondary sources mixed in with it are great, but if they are not available, that does not make the whole article's contents original research. If you are somehow getting that idea from a guideline, maybe you are yourself using original research. As for what type of content should be in an article, that is also another matter, and should probably be discussed per series or project. For example, a Pokemon article may be structured very differently then a Mario article because of the difference in the series. But yes, generally cruft should be avoided, even if it can be primarily sourced. But deciding what is or is not cruft is not the focus of this RfC. If a character was notable, but had no non-cruft content, then a merge discussion should be held saying why good content can't be found for the character and how the situation should best be dealt with. Another matter is the fact that everybody seems to want every single article created to be worthy of WP:GA right from creation, which is most of the time not possible. The quality of the article does not determine whether it gets merged or not, only its suitability as a topic on Wikipedia. Blake (Talk·Edits) 14:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Spurious. You're contributing an awful lot of text to the argument, for someone who thinks it shouldn't be here. Want me to detail again why you're incorrect? bridies (talk) 14:59, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 1. This discussion doesn't belong here because content is not dictated by notability. Content is dictated by project guidelines and common sense.
 * 2. If the content is indeed unfit for a full article, a merge discussion should be held
 * 3. All content does not need secondary sources. If you are simply summarizing plot, the game itself can be sourced, nothing else, unless the content includes things that can be interpreted as opinions, in which it should either be sourced or rewritten.
 * Because of this, yes, a lot of personality sections shouldn't exist as they are both cruft and original research, and are not sourced. If the quality of an article really is trash, and a discussion takes place in which editors agree that it has no chance of being improved, then it can be merged.
 * For example, I agree with you that something like Klefki, which despite a large reception section, should be merged due to having close to no information about its character or appearances, because really, its still a insignificant character, and no amount of reception can help it if it really has no article body. Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That last one is pretty much what various Sonic-related articles would look like, if the cruft, as you put it, were removed. It may be fair to say we've ended up with too much ink spilled over the prose of the Sonic-related examples for a broad discussion on notability, but the questions of lack of adequate secondary coverage remain interlinked. bridies (talk) 15:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * bridies, Blake isn't using "cruft" to refer to anything whose importance is not vouched for by a secondary source like you are. Tezero (talk) 02:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly Tezero. "Cruft", "Original Research", and "Unsourced content" are all three different definitions, but Bridies seems to think they mean the same thing. Blake (Talk·Edits) 02:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

What about this: a character would be deemed notable if (s)he has been one of the four main chars of a video game at least twice, has been one of the six main chars of a video game at least three or four times, or one that has had a small role at least six times. This is just an idea. As far as the numbers go, it's up to the community to decide that. -- Amaryllis Gardener talk 00:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * A seemingly arbitrary condition such as that would seem to fly in the face of the GNG. czar ♔  00:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Also, it would just lead to further arguments about other things. (What constitutes a "main" character versus a "minor" character? Where is the line drawn between "minor" and "non-notable cameo". Etc. Sergecross73   msg me   14:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Where's the line drawn between a passing mention and significant coverage? As I keep saying, it's not being the main topic of an article... Tezero (talk) 20:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I see. IMO still an improvement from "Top 10 from 'X' series". I just don't want to see us still using GNG for chars after this RfC is over. -- Amaryllis Gardener talk 14:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, unless you aim to fundamentally change the whole website, I wouldn't aim for "moving away from the GNG". Any standards we come up with are going to have to agree with it to some capacity. We can't just make arbitrary standards that go against it, either conceptually, or realistically, considering it'd never gain widespread consensus either. Sergecross73   msg me   16:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, IMO notability guidelines on places go against GNG. Try to see if you can find anything on Herrnhütte (Nuremberg U-Bahn). Even though that would be almost impossible it's still notable. Just think, Herrnhütte (Nuremberg U-Bahn) = notable; Vector the Crocodile = not notable. -- Amaryllis Gardener talk 16:35, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The German wiki seems to have something. And otherstuff. bridies (talk) 16:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * When I said anything I meant enough to pass GNG. Two refs is hardly significant coverage. They probably are just passing mentions anyway. -- Amaryllis Gardener talk 16:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Have you read the refs? Detailed coverage within 2 refs would be enough to pass the GNG. Otherwise, if you have a problem with some other article, go start discussion there. Belabouring dispute with the GNG - and to a large extent this whole discussion, as argued above and below - is moot and misleading. Meeting the GNG, assuming an article does, is how it passes an AfD. This discussion has clearly come about via someone being disgruntled with merge disussions, and an attempt to create a way to bypass them via fait accompli. bridies (talk) 18:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This is the same logical fallacy that Tezero keeps falling into: Just because an article exists doesn't mean its a precedent to follow. Is there any evidence your German example was created due to a consensus in discussion? Has it survived merger or deletion discussion? If not, then they're not necessarily an example of a precedent to follow. It could just as easily be an article that needs to be merged but hadn't been challenged yet. Sergecross73   msg me   18:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand that principle. If you've noticed, I frequently state why my reasoning is not OTHERSTUFF - for example, when I claimed that video game character articles are given unfair treatment, czar (rightly) challenged me to come up with examples that had actually passed AfD with less than these characters. (And I did - there were passing mentions and complete lacks of sources in some of them. That shows actual process, not just unenforced standards.) And, in the one case where I believed what I was saying was OTHERSTUFF, I explained why I felt the violation of WP:UNDUE outweighed that.
 * That being said, I'd advise particularly against using foreign-language Wikipedias for OTHERSTUFF; their standards are different. I mean, a few years ago I was looking at some foreign language's featured article on the Yukon River (I think it was Inuktitut's); the page was, like, three paragraphs long and had no sources. Tezero (talk) 20:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Please forgive me for making that assumption. No I haven't read the refs. Anyway, it looks like coming up with anything good to put here is going to be nearly impossible. I must say my suggestion (if implemented) would cause alot of arguments. But it looks like anything is. -- Amaryllis Gardener talk 18:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The other thing is that GNG is a baseline. A bare minimum. I agree that specific WikiProjects can and perhaps should develop their own guidelines to demarcate when merges are appropriate and when stand-alone articles are merited, but such notability guidelines would of course be stricter than GNG. -Thibbs (talk) 22:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I feel very stupid right now. I thought "significant coverage" meant several sources. I'm disappointed in myself that I didn't know that it wasn't the number of sources. I apologize. -- Amaryllis Gardener talk 22:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah no worries. Don't feel bad. -Thibbs (talk) 01:05, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I think bridies' point (i.e. "Even if something nominally meets the GNG, it doesn't necessarily need a separate article.") gets at the heart of the issue here. I think that it would be a wide over-generalization to say that "top 10 best" and "top 10 worst" RS articles are categorically unable to demonstrate notability. Whether such a list fails or succeeds in demonstrating notability depends on whether or not coverage of the topic is significant in relation to the RS article and the topic, not in relation to video games broadly or to the real world. MOSFICT notwithstanding, most of the VG character articles in question do meet the bare minimum for inclusion as under the GNG and I think they should generally be kept. Whether they should be kept as stand-alone articles is a different matter. I think that merges may be a sensible solution for VG-char articles that fail MOSTFICT's real-world frame of reference or (more rarely) those that are really stub articles dressed up with primary source material to look like non-stubs. This of course assumes that there's a good target for a merge, and that stubs to be merged actually lack further sources and are likely to remain stubs in perpetuity. -Thibbs (talk) 03:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand that reasoning. Hell, even if Wikipedia went by my own barbaric personal preferences for what needs an article (which are different from my actual votes on discussions, which I try to make more policy-based, though I'm not infallible), we wouldn't have pages for absolutely everything with significant coverage from sources - sometimes there's too much overlap, or so very little information that it fits better as a section somewhere else. That's just proper housekeeping. The main issue that bridies and I disagree on is where the line should be drawn for what doesn't need an article despite having secondary coverage. Tezero (talk) 00:55, 1 June 2014 (UTC)