This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
Fixed. Since the references were archived, now that the original URL is dead I've switched to the archived version by default, by changing the 'url-status' parameter to 'dead', as is customary. Damien Linnane (talk) 05:45, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not fussed either way, but I cant see anything wrong with just putting the archived version in the current citation, so I've done that in the meantime.ย :) Damien Linnane (talk) 01:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A source from a further section doesn't have much stuff to say, would you check it? if its not valuable then I guess its safe to remove. ๐Boneless Pizza!๐ (๐) 10:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not enough information for me to take any action. Can you specify exactly which source, what it's currently backing up and why you think it doesn't say much? Damien Linnane (talk) 15:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When you press ctrl+f, it has only one mention about the character from the source at Further reading section: "Real Boys Carry Girly Epics: Normalising Gender Bending in Online Games". Thou, or maybe it doesn't provide me a full page. ๐Boneless Pizza!๐ (๐) 17:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, when you said 'a source from a further section' I wasn't aware you were specifically referring to the only source in the "Further reading" section. I thought you just meant a section further down the page from where you were referring to earlier. But yes, now that you point it out it indeed doesn't say much. I'm integrating it into the body of the article in the only place it would fit. Damien Linnane (talk) 00:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. As this is a featured article, the threshold for sources is higher than just WP:RS. Sources must be high quality, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources notes that while siliconera is reliable, it is not high quality. I'm also hesitant to use the Capcom poll itself as it's a primary source. If a better quality video game publication has commented on Jill being in the poll, we can use it as a source, but even if you do find one we won't be adding anything to the prose from the source. There's a very strong and established consensus at WikiProject Video games not to add 'listicle' information to articles, for example, that Jill was 'voted the 6th most popular Capcom character'. The only place sources like this would ever be added is as an additional source after the sentence "described Jill Valentine among the most popular and iconic video game characters." So if you find a better quality source, you can add it in there, but there's plenty sources there already so it's not particularly necessary. Damien Linnane (talk) 03:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to Capcom's data from a poll they held recently, Jill is the company's 6th most-popular character; number #5 with men and #7 with women. The female character with the most votes internationally and at second place in Japan, after Chun-Li. Should some of this data be included in the article, or are they not noteworthy? PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a strong and well-established consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games that adding listicles that rank characters, such as by popularity, is poor-quality journalism and that it's embarrassing to include this information on Wikipedia. Instead we summarise things. So the article currently says Jill is "among the most popular and iconic video game characters" and then provides multiple listicle sources after this. We can also extract information from listicles to explain why the character is popular. I.e. what is currently written in the article: " Magazines praised her as the most likeable Resident Evil character,[listicle source] with the most believable and consistent story arc in the series.[listicle source]". But simply saying she is the 6th most-popular character according to a poll that doesn't explicitly clarify why she is considered popular is the kind of information we're actively trying to avoid as a project. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:47, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Make sense, well I also rewritten most of RE characters at reception as "among the most popular and iconic video game characters" or "Magazines praised her as the most likeable Resident Evil character" then omitted most of the text that are written like listicles for ex. you said "top 6th most-popular character according to a [magazine]" from the article Chris Redfield and especially Ada Wong. ๐Boneless Pizza!๐ (๐) 02:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy for you to add the information. To be honest I'm not looking for ways to expand any articles myself. I pretty much just monitor changes to my watchlist these days. Damien Linnane (talk) 12:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't add the source that I provided above because I have no idea where or what to add wordings. Just in case if I am not very sure what to do, I usually ping you just in case hehe (Update: I already added it myself). Also, about the italicizing game and film titles per MOS:CONFORMTITLE, maybe I will work on it since it was brought up from Wikipedia:Peer review/Ada Wong/archive1. ๐Boneless Pizza!๐ (๐) 12:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The book page 46 said Ada and Jill's appearance was intended to appeal to a presumed straight male audience. Something that can possibly be added to the article. ๐Boneless Pizza!๐ (๐) 10:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, they weren't dead at the time when they were cited. All of the websites were archived in advance anyway, so I've just updated them as dead now, so that when you click on the links it automatically takes you to the archived version, which is still available. Problem solved. Damien Linnane (talk) 05:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
