Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Characters in Castlevania: Sorrow series/archive1

Characters in Castlevania: Sorrow series

Nominating this article for FA status after the acquiring of more out-of-universe sources during the writing of Castlevania: Dawn of Sorrow, which recently achieved FA status. I feel that it qualifies under the featured article criteria, and I will endeavor to answer any and all questions, comments, and concerns. Regards, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 02:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I believe that character lists (such as List of Metal Gear Solid characters) to be featured are nominated at WP:FLC. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 05:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• And Characters of Final Fantasy VIII (FA), Characters of Kingdom Hearts (GA, currently at FAC), and Characters of StarCraft (GA) say otherwise. Since this article has conception and reception sections, the proper nomination is here. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support - I am impressed you were able to find all this information for this one Castlevania game, great addition to the Featured Article roles. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm not sure, just looking at the "Reception" section, most of the information is on the plot and not the actual characters. If we removed all the information on plot alone on this section, how much info would be on the actual characters? I know there's a close link between the two, but what is there could go in the main article, (reception only) if you know what I mean. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 07:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• In reviews, any comments on the characters are inevitably tied to the plot. Since the characters ultimately create, compose, and define the plot, it's relevant. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 19:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• • Not necessarily. Characters help define the plot, but in reverse order it doesn't really do anything for the characters in this way. This factor shouldn't be used as an excuse to write a "Reception" section on characters with more detail on the plot. My point is that you haven't included much reception on the actual characters at all; this section doesn't really lend anything to the subject of the article. I know that you probably can't find that info, but it seems as if this section is pretty bare, but has just been beefed up with information from the plot to make it look as if there's substance. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 21:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support: Quite frankly, I'm very impressed by how this article turned out as a result of others' work, as opposed to how the page was when I first created it a ways back. The aspects of the page I personally like are the Character Conception and Reception sections, and how the character list is divided between Recurring, AoS, and DoS sections. There's plenty of references, but not an overload of them, and I think it's great how half the references are from official sources and the other half in-game text citations. Another big plus in my books is the image setup; it's a great satisfaction of Wikipedia Fair Use to have one primary image that effectively showcases every character in the subseries, with the one character not showcased getting his own image later on. This is better than one portrait for every single character section. The only thing about the article I'm not too sure about is the See Also section, with just one bulleted link to the other Castlevania page and the Video games Portal link as its only content. While to me that seems a little awkwardly constructed, maybe I'm simply wrong and that See Also sections are part of the actual recommended structure that Featured Articles generally have. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate or Laugh At)} 18:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• I've added links to the Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow pages, as they're both linked only once in the initial sentence, and are relevant. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 19:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose: As well as what I've said above, you use the same references consecutively, which is a no-no (I think). Another major problem is that besides the first section and the highly-dubious "Reception" section, it's written in an in-universe style. Seriously, all the character sections mention the plot only. Sorry, the article initially looks decent, but digging a little deeper presents greater problems. I'm not even convinced about the notability of this article. Sorry. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 21:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• There's nothing wrong with using the same references consecutively, notably when the relevant references are interviews, and the subject addressed is only mentioned in single interviews. As for the in-universe content, it follows WP:WAF, and frankly is supposed to be present. It describes the placement of the characters in the plot, their actions, and how they feature in the game. It's no different from the in-universe content in Characters of Kingdom Hearts, Characters of Final Fantasy VIII, and other similar character lists. There is little to none out-of-universe content there aside from their playability in the game simply because it doesn't exist. If it did, it would be there. In any case, the article would not be comprehensive if such in-universe information was not included, and again, is similar to the aforementioned character lists. As for the article's notability, its placement is fine per WP:FICT, which provides for the treatment of characters in a major list instead of their own articles, many of whom were originally merged into this list. As for the reception, you seem to dismiss the entire section based on two statements that were focused on the plot. Practically every other line concentrates on the characters, and as I mentioned before, their relevance and importance to the plot, as inexorably every review does so. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 22:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

So you're taking notice now there's an "oppose". Sorry, but the article's superficial in the sense that I've menioned. For the "reception", it seems that you've quoted any small, generic reference to these characters, but mainly, the plot. I've never questioned that in-universe material is supposed to be present, but the whole prose for every character is written in an in-universe style, barring a fwe statements. No mention of each character's impact or any other info? It just seems that the out-of-universe info that you have found is very generic, leaving the individual characters with nothing. Also, just because the information doesn't exist shouldn't mean that we exempt the article from FA standards. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 09:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Forgive me for not being omniscient of all edits and not having other things to do. <_< Anyhow, when the reviews in question spend a paragraph or two talking about the characters, then the reception does not become superficial. As for the lack of out-of-universe information in the individual character sections, the fact that it does not exist does not disqualify the article from ever satisfying the "comprehensiveness" FA requirement. If the article is comprehensive in the scope that is allowed to it, and the article itself is notable, then it satisfies the said requirement. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

What, so you don't keep a watch on this page? <_< Since when did being comprehensiveness ever be the only thing needed for FA? It fails on the MoS since the majority of it is written in an in-universe style. The reviewers probably do talk about the characters, but what's the point when the individual characters don't get anything from it. I don't know much about these articles, but its out-of-universe info is surviving on some very generic comments and one or two developer interviews. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 09:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... Looking at the article closer, I suppose some of the writing isn't up to par (is it really necessary to have half the sections make mention of one little scene of romantic tension at the end?). I'm not exactly a veteran FA reviewer, which is why I didn't really think of that earlier. ^^; So I should make clear my thoughts on why I think the page exists in the first place; If these were characters appearing in one single game, then what we would do is simply cover the characters in that game's article and be done with that. In the reality, however, these characters have been featured in two distinctive games, both rather high-profile compared to your typical handheld games, and I know that the differences in art style in between games was a major subject of debate everywhere, in publications and Internet sites alike. That seems to allow for the creating and maintenance of a character list that can at least remain GA... Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate or Laugh At)} 08:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I know what you mean; look at this in Mina's section: "She appears at the end of the game, and shares a tender moment with Soma." What? Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 09:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll start working on the prose. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 17:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose, no screenshots.--Nydas^(Talk) 11:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• The images for every character were removed over fair use concerns. The single image contains every character except Graham, and is much better than each individual image. This isn't really a valid oppose. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 17:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• Promotional art does not adequately capture the nature of the video game characters being described. It could be a comic or cartoon for all those images tell us. Would I be correct in assuming that the given image never appears in the game?--Nydas^(Talk) 17:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• The characters look exactly how they do in the game. I wouldn't use it if it wasn't accurate. Whether it appears in the game or not is irrelevant given that it accurately depicts every single character in the article except one, and that it trumps using individual screenshots over fair use concerns. See Characters of Final Fantasy VIII, which uses concept art, or Characters of Kingdom Hearts, which also uses promotional art that depicts practically every significant character in that series. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 17:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• The in-game characters look a bit more pixely, don't they? Characters of Final Fantasy VIII and Characters of Kingdom Hearts both suffer from the same problem of using cool-looking promotional artwork rather than in-game graphics. Characters from a visual medium (video games) should be displayed as they appear in that medium, rather than in ancillary stuff. Otherwise, we're just misleading the reader.--Nydas^(Talk) 18:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• We're not misleading the reader so long as the material is official. If I was a reader in any case, I would drastically prefer concept art over the polygon representation of Squall in Final Fantasy VIII or in this case, the promotional art over Soma's tiny in-game sprite or the portrait image here (which looks just like the promotional art in any case, making your point irrelevant). For multiple fair use images to be included instead of a single one, especially when that single image represents every character and is official material released by Konami, since they are not a "proper" representation of the characters is ridiculous. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 20:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• Official material is often misleading. Video game adverts are well known for being coy about actual gameplay footage; a Wikipedia article should not do this, no matter how much you think the reader would 'drastically prefer' this..--Nydas^(Talk) 09:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Except that you've apparently missed my point that the promotional art accurately depicts the characters. Per here, the appearance is accurate. Not to mention that this image is on the game's cover anyhow. Your argument that we're misleading the reader is beginning to sound more like a WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than anything else. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 10:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• I believe that a similar discussion has taken place at the KH Characters FA Nomination. The WP:FACR does not stipulate what type of images should be used for what type of articles. Character artwork is certainly appropriate to depict characters. Given that this article is about multiple characters from two games on two handheld systems, screenshots aren't always suitable since they normally feature very few characters. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 02:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC))

• A single screenshot is essential to give the readers an idea of what the characters actually look like in-game. There's no need to have multiple characters, just one of the protagonist is sufficient.--Nydas^(Talk) 09:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Except that having one image of practically every single character gives the readers a much better understanding of the article beyond a single image of the protagonist, regardless of the medium that they are portrayed through. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 10:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• That's a false dilemma. You can have both. Or at least, you can try.--Nydas^(Talk) 10:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Nydas, you're not giving a good reason for adding images in this article. Even though you think it's pretty, it's against fair use policy. Thus, you can't use images as an excuse for voting "Oppose". The Prince (talk) 12:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Strawman. I have never advocated 'pretty' as a reason. I advocate a screenshot for reasons of completeness and neutrality.--Nydas^(Talk) 13:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Don't really see the big deal behind the promotional art vs. screenshots issue. However, I do think that the fair use concerns are overwrought. The art style is clearly relevant here, and moreover, having the images in two pictures or many is wholly irrelevant to the amount of copyrighted material actually used. As an extreme example, combining 10 images into one gallery picture doesn't reduce the true amount of copyrighted material used at all (though that isn't what happened here, as this is a good picture in its own right in the lead).

So. I would be in favor of adding (restoring?) more images to the article, though I see this as an editorial and style concern rather than a policy issue. The problem is that someone not familiar with the games is not necessarily going to be able to figure out who's who in the opening picture. Soma, Genya, and Mina are identified in the caption, but figuring out who's who among the others would require a bit of detective work. Individual images to distinguish, say, Dario from Dimitrii would be quite useful and add to the article. My two cents, though I wouldn't rest an FA oppose to it. SnowFire (talk) 00:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the full list of characters in that image is mentioned in the image summary at Image:CharactersDawnofSorrow.jpg. I simply felt it was a little too long to clump all of it in the image summary in the article, though I will if you find it prudent. Thanks, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 02:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support - I did a copy edit of the article and I feel the article meets the Featured article criteria. A bit of tidying up in the character sections and further tweaking in the "Reception" sections to address the comments about the plot reception. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC))
• Comment - per Nydas' comments, an image illustrating Soma's in-game appearance in both games has been added. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 02:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Except every character is written in an in-universe style. Please, can we at least exercise discussion about this major factor? Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 09:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

We can absolutely talk about it. I feel that we may have different definitions of in-universe style. While the character sections obviously contain in-universe content, like the character's role in the plot, that info is needed to describe the characters. Right now I don't see how it is written in an in-universe style. In-universe style normally reads like a story instead of an article. Other than the "romantic moment" part, which as been addressed in the article, are their specific parts you are referring to? Something we may have missed. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC))

Firstly, let me state that I don't object to this information, just that there is nothing besides this information on the character sections. There is no out-of-universe info. As for the style, here's an example: "Julius accomplished this feat, as in 1999, he was part of a group that was able to kill Dracula and prevent him from reincarnating by sealing his castle within a solar eclipse.[19] However, he lost his memory after this incident, only remembering that his name started with "J," and searched for clues to his identity.[20] He comes to Dracula's castle in 2035, drawn by the prophecy stating that Dracula's reincarnation will receive all of his powers. He encounters Soma Cruz, and Soma's dark power awakens Julius' memories". I hope I haven't taken this out of context, but there's no clear distinguishment that these represent a timeline in the fictional universe. A readermay believe that "1999" is referring to a game that he appeared in this game. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 21:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

So it sounds like you're saying the intro to each character should begin differently; with info less related to plot to better frame the content for the reader. Is that correct? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 00:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC))

...kind of. It's a great idea, but I was referring more to the content in general. Another example: "One year later in Dawn of Sorrow". This is like a conflict of universes, because it mentions the game by its name (out-of-universe), yet follows the chronlogical timeline within the series. Yet again, the reader may assume that DoS was released a year after the other game. Overall, it seems most is written in an out-of-universe style (with exceptions); however, let's not forget that there's no out-of-universe information in these sections as well. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 09:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Tidied up a bit. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 00:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose—1a. Here are examples of why the entire text needs a good massage.
  • Opening sentence is a huge snake. Recast into two sentences, or at least allow us a pause at a semicolon.
  • "Aftereffects" is not one word.
  • "Lead" is on the periodic table (Pb).
  • "Both games", please.
  • "sold over 158,000 units in the United States three months after its release"—what about between its release and three months after?
  • "release" vs "initial release"—are they different?

Then I looked below the lead and saw "Due to the game being set in the future", which is grammatically clumsy.

This is not written to the required professional standard. Please find collaborators who can lift it. Tony (talk) 01:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• I've placed a request at WP:LOCE for a copy-edit. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 03:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comments The prose is quite lacking in places, and is often more tortuous than it ought to be. Needs a thorough copy-edit to make this FA standard. Unfortunately, the issues are not limited to simple, small grammar mistakes that are easily fixed. Take, for example, the "Character conception" section, which by itself has numerous problems:
  • "Her drawings are made in a dark, gothic style, and borrow...". Why the sudden switch to present tense? "made in a...style" is more wordy than it needs to be. A more succinct and stronger version is: "Her dark, gothic drawings borrow..."
  • "The placing of the game in the future was a decision made by producer Koji Igarashi, who asserted that he wished to explore a "different route" for the series by using a futuristic setting." Again, way too many words for this rather simple idea; makes this sentence rather clumsy. Passive voice is weak. Try something along the lines of, "Producer Koji Igarashi decided to set the game in the future because he wished to explore a "different route" for the series". Clean and efficient.
  • "As the game is set in the future, Kojima's designs are notably more contemporary, utilizing modern clothing, in contrast to the medieval attire that characters from previous games are featured with." We were just told the game is set in the future, so there's no need to repeat that information. The last part of that sentence is quite awkward. How are characters "featured with" attire?
  • The two uses of "character designs" so close to each other is a bit repetitive.
  • "In favor of her style of drawings, the characters were drawn in an anime style." What? To what does "in favor of her style" refer? Misplaced modifier suggests that the characters were in favor of her style.
  • "This character would be a manager in a Japanese firm and have a family as well, a character type Igarashi referred to as a "general Japanese worker."" "And" and "as well" mean the same thing. Second clause can be combined: "This charachter, which Igarashi referred to..."
• Sometimes, the in-game descriptions assume a certain level of familiarity with a game, which is not very friendly to readers unfamiliar with the game. For example, the article describes Julius Belmont as "sealing his castle within a solar eclipse" without any explanation or clarification for that confusing image. 69.202.60.86 (talk) 01:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)