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. -- ZooBlazer 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 NegativeMP1 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)

Characters of the Final Fantasy VII series

If this article is brought to GA, we could create a good topic, since all individual characters with articles are GAs. I would do it, but I don't know much about Final Fantasy VII or about writing this type of article. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

:@QuicoleJR you're not the only one. All RE character are now GA, but despite that I am familiar with the series, I have no idea how to set up a good list of x character articles; thus I have no interest now aiming for GT. lol 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 23:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Rhain: who has worked with a lot of Character articles and lists and brought some to GA or FL. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Given Cait Sith just got made, and Cid Highwind is also viable looking at sources, it's probably best to wait before pursuing a good topic.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh, missed that. Still, it would be great to have this article as a GA for when those two become GAs, and having more GAs is good in general. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Character lists

This is something I have never been able to figure out. How do we decide whether an article about the characters of a game/series as a group is an article or a list? My first thought was that pages that used a subsection format instead of a list format were the ones considered articles, but list of Mario franchise characters proves that wrong. I then thought that having info about the creation and reception of the characters in separate sections was the deciding factor, but list of Genshin Impact characters disproves that. It also doesn't come down to the article title, as shown by characters of the Kirby series. Does anyone here know the answer? Thanks, QuicoleJR (talk) 15:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Honestly speaking, most character lists under this task force are basically just dumping grounds with little to no organization or widespread consistency in how they are formatted. And it doesn't feel like there's any solution, since each type of game could warrant a different kind of character list. I'm not sure if there's any major factor that determines when an article is either "List of X characters" or "Characters of X" beyond the personal preference of whoever named the article. λ NegativeMP1 21:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

@NegativeMP1: Sorry for not responding sooner, but I was referring to the quality assessments, not the article title. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

It didn't seem like that to me at first. Either way, my case still remains semi-relevant even knowing that context. λ NegativeMP1 01:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

There was an attempt on my part to differentiate character lists from articles in list format, but it sadly ran into some issues. The main hassle is as Negative said though: many are just dumping grounds because somehow having a character article is bad if it's "not notable enough", but it's good that it's "out of sight" when it's just one giant slab of cruft shoved into the middle of the thing more often than not.

A big example of the "dumping ground" problem are many of the anime game lists, which were literally done just to move the cruft away from the main article. That in the end doesn't help anyone understand the subject, it's basically shoving a problem somewhere else and going "it's not my concern."

We need to sit down and have a serious talk at some point on how to approach these.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

What is the criteria for making a character list? Obviously LISTN is something that you would want to meet, but how much of a factor is SIZESPLIT? Is there a point where a series is so popular that it can have a list even without meeting LISTN? QuicoleJR (talk) 01:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I think at some point Sizesplit just hasn't applied. Like with a lot of the aforementioned anime lists it was literally just a dumping ground, and it became so habitual people kept doing it. Then you have stuff like the Street Fighter character list that has in all honesty become a behemoth that SHOULD be split.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I was referring to how we decide which series get character lists, although I can see how I could have been misinterpreted. I will say that the lists for some series like Street Fighter could arguably be split. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

GAN Backlog

Making folks aware of this, but right now we have 10(!) Good Article Nominations going at once. It could be a good idea if you haven't done a review for someone as of late to grab one of theirs and give it a review. Just remember to be thorough, do a spot check, and let's see if any of them can make it to GA. Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:32, 14 May 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.

• 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 would like to hear what y'all think of this proposal. λ NegativeMP1 21:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

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 NegativeMP1 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 NegativeMP1 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 NegativeMP1 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 NegativeMP1 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 Kung Fu Man. 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)