Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Video game characters

Next step: C-class Article Improvement Drive
With all the start-class articles pushed to C outside of a few lists we're still figuring out, we're moving onward and going to try and bring those C-class articles to B or higher! While this may seem daunting, consider the fact that we're almost halfway there as is. Reaching there, by the end of the year, is entirely tangible if we work together!

So to that end, Cukie has set up a list of all the C-class articles by game here: User:Cukie Gherkin/B drive

We can use this section here to develop ideas on how to approach the articles, consider any that may be worth merging, or sources that may help across the board in certain genres. We pulled off something pretty major with the previous articles: I don't think in the history of the VG project as a whole has there been no Start-class character articles overall. If that doesn't fill you with pride I don't know what will. Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)


 * At some point in the future, I'd be willing to work with someone to improve Aloy. It's been on my to do list for awhile. -- Zoo  Blazer  19:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Two thoughts:
 * I'm going to take a shot at Kim Kitsuragi.
 * Lord British and Avatar (Ultima) don't really have meaningful reception. I say that having looked for it, as a fan of the series.
 * Shooterwalker (talk) 19:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I know, unfortunately there's been a mixed issue with Lord British where people have been uncertain where to merge it, and trying to brute force the Ultima Online incident as making him notable.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The good news is there are 300 other character articles to work on. When there is no consensus, sometimes editing (or the lack thereof) allows a consensus to form. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That's what I'm thinking. At some point people will have to look at the quality gap and go "why can't this improve farther"?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Two things: y'all might want to pin this discussion so it doesn't get archived, and for motivation's sake you should note how many C-class articles there were at the start of this drive (currently, there's 280 C-class). Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 22:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * A little over a month later, y'all are now at 261 C-class articles. SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * We are now down to 254. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * And now at 190 GA, 250 B, and 230 C. No change in the number of FAs, though, which y'all should consider eventually. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:53, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll be completely honest, I don't feel FAs are going to be a big or mainstream thing with character articles and will likely not be worth the stress for most of them.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Given the number of articles we still have to improve at this point, we're likely better off working on improving what's there instead of stressing ourselves with the intense scrutiny of making FAs. FAs tend to be way harder to do and have way longer processes. There's not much benefit, if I'm being honest. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:10, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think being able to present your work on the Main Page is a pretty good benefit, but I also don't envy people who nominate in the process. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:39, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see many characters necessarily having the material for a FA to be possible. Maybe having all Top-importance character articles at FA (since probably all of them have high-quality sourcing available) would be a long-term goal to consider? Easier said than done though. λ Negative  MP1  20:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that could be an issue. The comprehensiveness criteria only requires covering all the major points according to reliable sources, it doesn't require you to cover anything for which sourcing does not exist. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:58, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Update: We are currently at 231 C-Class articles, meaning the number somehow went up by one. Probably a BLAR being reverted. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Probably better to let updates be a monthly thing, but a better suggestion would be how do we start chipping down those numbers? I feel like there's definitely a point where a lot of C-class articles are definitely those people just don't want to touch. In my case I just made one, but I know I'll get it to B. But isolating which of the older ones can be improved enough to B would be the safest route.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you are probably right on update frequency. As for improvements, I'm not really sure how to get those numbers down. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

(Outdenting) June update: 220 C-class, 271 B-class, and 199 GAs. The number of C-class has decreased over time. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 02:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Character importance
So realistically this is not working out the best: instead of folks fixing up the articles, we're getting arguments on what counts as "Mid" or "Top" and instead sprouting across multiple talk pages, and more than a few folks have suggested this is actually contrary to working on the articles which should be our primary goal. However, there is argument too that it does help some still prioritize what articles should and shouldn't be worked on first for the best impression.

A straightforward proposal is to switch it to just "High" and "Low", or more possibly "Priority" and "Non-Priority". Right now a discussion is being opened here to find a good solution to this matter. Personally I would prefer if it simply used the same rating as the VG project does to cut out discrepancy, but I understand I am in the minority view there. Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I definitely agree with this. I feel the importance ratings are causing much more harm than good in terms of debate right now. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I will also agree that the importance ratings should probably be removed. They seem to be a distraction with no visible benefit. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I support removing it altogether. If we need to set a priority list for what is important to work on, we can just have a single talk page discussion. Like right here. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: "Core Characters"
This is an expansion and full proposal of the "Priority" and "Non-Priority" idea that Kung Fu suggested, which I generally agree with being a good alternative here. My idea is that importance ratings get completely gutted and replaced with a project page named the "Core Characters", which will list the 50 (maybe 100 depending on peoples preferences) objectively most important video game characters from a cultural standpoint. Characters recognizable to the masses. Think of the way it'd be organized as vital articles, but without levels as the system would be binary. There are numerous reasons why I am suggesting this idea instead. I would like to hear what y'all think of this proposal. λ Negative  MP1  21:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This still gives us a system to determine what characters are more important than others, and with that, long term goals for the whole project. It will also be way easier to say "X and Y are both important" than "Is X more important than Y?"
 * Furthermore, I am in the small minority of editors on this whole site that find vital articles and importance ratings to be neat to discuss, and useful to the project, so this still offers something.
 * Since most editors still would generally agree Top importance to hold weight, this would iterate on that.
 * This basically eliminates any possible "distractions " that debating over the importance scale would bring, as it wouldn't be spread out over 700 different talk pages. There could still be "distractions", but on a way lesser scale due to being restricted to one central page.
 * As a central page, it would be way easier to see what characters are considered important rather than going through categories or individual articles to check importance ratings. It'd also be harder for random editors to change based on their opinions since most of them don't check project pages, so it'd be exclusively determined by consensus.
 * The "core characters" would be very unlikely to change and would likely go static after the initial few days of creation.


 * I like the idea, though how would you propose the one hundred or so being determined? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A good place to start would be adding all Top-importance characters automatically (so that's 14 to start), take eight away from High-importance, and then add the remaining ones which will give us an even 100. We could also start from scratch completely and do a different approach, taking other things like worldwide representation (ex. characters popular in Eastern Europe, if that can be determined) into account. λ Negative  MP1  21:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we could do that proposal you mentioned with the Top + High fusion, and then see if any characters from Mid or Low would be more worthwhile to include? That seems to be the most effective route, and determining the eight should be simpler than determining the 100. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Seems like the ideal way to tackle that. λ Negative  MP1  01:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I will admit one concern I have about this (and honestly the Priority subject above) is that the other characters would be seen as unimportant to work on and could fall by the wayside over time.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We have some evidence here: WP:MILHIST doesn't use the importance parameter at all, and they definitely work on less "important" subarticles. SnowFire (talk) 04:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This feels extremely unlikely, per SnowFire. We also have to realize the fact that vital articles, a site wide thing, accomplishes its goal for the most part yet editors don't get discouraged from editing other subjects. λ Negative  MP1  22:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I've went ahead and created a userspace concept for what the Core Characters page could look like here. I've used the current Top-importance characters as a placeholder to demonstrate how the list itself would be formatted, and have laid basic ground work for how the page will work, as well as wording that hopefully addresses the concerns Kung Fu Man. If enough people approve of it, we could begin moving it over to the project space. λ Negative  MP1  04:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't stop editors from doing this, if they passionately felt it was important. But I think it might just move the battleground without getting rid of it. I'd still advocate for removing importance altogether, or maybe just High/Low, per . A simple list of priority articles would get the job done. If someone really wanted to fight over what should be a priority, there would be little harm in adding it to the list, and seeing who takes on the work. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think high and low as the only parameters is fine, because the likelihood of a dispute of high vs. low is very unlikely. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 14:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This proposal is basically exactly that, but without the usage of the importance parameter and instead just a central project page. λ Negative  MP1  17:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Offer of assistance
My time on Wikipedia is less consistent these days. But I am a pretty effective copy-editor, and can provide mini peer reviews when I can find a few hours. If you're trying to get an article ready for a GA, let me know if you want me to provide a few edits or some comments. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Hey, that's kinda unfortunate. I do have one which is Barry Burton if you're willing to. All edits or comments are welcome. Thanks =) 🍕  Boneless Pizza! 🍕 (🔔) 18:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm going to keep chipping away at it. If there's anything you don't like, feel free to revert or edit further. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. 🍕  Boneless Pizza! 🍕 (🔔) 22:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's in better shape now. The reception section still needs some work. There is a potential WP:WEIGHT issue in using a single source for an entire paragraph of reception (three or four sentences). I'd recommend trimming them back to one or two sentences as a hard limit. You might be able to squeeze another "half" sentence if there is an aspect of the character's reception that is covered by multiple sources. (e.g.: "Multiple sources have also noted Burton for the line about a Jill sandwich."[1][2][3]) This will probably come up at GA, but it can't hurt to get ahead of it. Shooterwalker (talk) 11:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all the help! I really appreciate it. 🍕  Boneless Pizza! 🍕 (🔔) 12:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

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

So it brings up some questions:
 * Do statements of popularity/visibility count towards notability
 * If they do, how do we measure this?

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

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


 * WP:SIGCOV comes to mind, but of course most sources are in the gray zone (more than a single sentence, less than monograph). How many passing mentions that something is popular add up to notability? Well, I think this is what AfD is for, with no consensus defaulting to keep. While I have become more of a deletionist over the years, I do think that when we have many passing mentions, it's good to err on the side of caution and keep such a topic. (And I still think we removed way too many of these passing mentions in this article for no good reason - see its talkpage; now that this article has been kept I think most of the removed content should be restored). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  09:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I feel discussing this further here would lead to us going off topic, so we should likely continue this at Morrigan's talk page if you feel it should be debated further, but I feel adding a bulk of trivial mentions isn't doing much for Morrigan and is only really obscuring the real lack of discussion there is. I feel it would be of bigger benefit to readers to keep things concise; it's better to have a short one paragraph than nine paragraphs that aren't amounting to much that readers would have to sift through to get a general idea of what Morrigan's deal is. I'm unopposed to adding one or two or something back, but I feel adding most if not all of it would be nothing but detrimental. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 14:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see an issue with what we're trying to do here. To me, sometimes that's just one of the shortcomings of AFD. Much of the time, I have faith in the process. But sometimes it comes down more to the cross-section of what editors participate, how well they display shaky arguments, and if the closer drops the ball on reading things (or simply has little valid to work with.) Sergecross73   msg me  11:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree. To me, stuff like Morrigan and Snorlax are exceptions more than the norm for our policies. I still think both should be merged, personally, but I don't think we should restructure our mindset to account for a few anomalies in the process. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 14:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * One interpretation of SIGCOV that I like to use, though don't stick to very hard, is to look at whether the sources available for a subject are adequate to be able to create a GA out of them. This creates a lower limit to the potential quality of articles. But I think the problem stands: Snorlax has had lots of impact on the world but no one is really writing about its base facts or why it's such a memorable and iconic design. It's frustrating and I don't have answers. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 12:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well it does cause an issue if, say, we try to get an article like Morrigan to GA. The end goal of the project is to get everything up there; fanciful certainly, but given the latest strives still possible. Even on a smaller scale, there's projects like Pokelego999's Pokemon Good Topic where Snorlax could be a roadblock. Asserting some sort of consensus we can quantify and point to can help ensure their project isn't brick walled. If we can at least develop some consensus on a baseline that can be pointed to and help such go smoother.


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


 * Perhaps WP:Permastub is relevant here; perhaps we just have to accept that some articles will not reach a satisfactory state unless a revival of interest by sources occurs. This is of course a very unfortunate situation if your goal is Good Topics. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 11:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Maple I'm just going to say that is a terrible suggestion. "Permastub" does not apply to fictional characters in the same way one could end up with such for living persons or concepts.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I literally could not think of a more reasonable situation than a character after whom streets are named or statues are built, but no one really talks about them. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 11:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There are always going to be outliers at AFD. With time, it becomes evident whether these outliers were good or bad outcomes. If the outcome was bad, it will be revisited, and corrected. If the outcome was good, it might be a rare WP:IAR exception, or it might be a pattern of good editing that should be documented for future cases. For now, I agree that these AFD outcomes are a little weird, and we can always have another discussion later. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Peer review/Ada Wong/archive1
Opinions requested. Many thanks! 🍕 Boneless Pizza! 🍕 (🔔) 12:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC)