Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Video game characters

This page 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 page is supported by the Video game characters task force.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Plants vs. Zombies (disambiguation) (13 participants)
Covet Fashion (4 participants)
Vector TDx (2 participants)
Fred Haslam (game designer) (3 participants)
SureAI (9 participants; relisted)
Mighty Rabbit Studios (2 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Next step: C-class Article Improvement Drive

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

A little over a month later, y'all are now at 261 C-class articles. SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We are now down to 254. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

July update (sorry I'm late!): 217 C-class, 269 B-class, and 210 GAs. The number of C-class has been hovering around that number for close to two months now. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 03:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So given the C-class articles are a bit harder to bulk up, some of which going to require complete rewrites, at Cukie's suggestion the goal has been refined to aim for less than 150 C-class article for the time being. This makes the overall goal feel less daunting, and honestly there's a good chance that we will never reach absolutely 0 C-class articles. Concerns also arose too that an absolute zero threshold may disaude editors from trying to do character articles.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pages for Estelle Bright and Rean Schwarzer from the Trails series

They're the two most popular characters from the series and I believe that they are the most likely to get articles in Wikipedia. HassanTNTA (talk) 22:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find sources to prove they're notable then give it a go?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:55, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help Wanted at Nakoruru

I'm currently making edits to Nakoruru, but her Appearances is such a mess and need shortening. However, I am very unfamiliar with the series, and thus don't know what is valuable info or not. Would someone who is more familiar with this series/character be willing to help out with the Appearances section of this article? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:52, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Need a refresher on something: "is a character in" vs "is a fictional character in"

I'm trying to make sure I'm not misremembering something, but I do vaguely recall there was an issue awhile back where "fictional characters" in the lead was frowned upon because by implication a character is already fictional, made moreso by saying they come from a video game or similar media. Wasn't that the case? Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~We should definitely need another discussion, and I will suggest moving thisto WP:VG's talk page for us to use this consensus in the future. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕~~ Rhain provided it below I guess, but there was no consensus at all. (🔔) 06:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a discussion from June last year. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 06:17, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Boneless Pizza!: I disagree with your assertion there was no consensus at all: there were strong arguments against "fictional", and basically nothing for it? The people that supported it barely made a comment on the matter.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I end up on generally leaving it out. Out-of-universe perspective I think sometimes tends to get treated as "we can only talk about X in Y style" but other fields (literary criticism, etc.) they don't need to underline that it's all fictional and generally there's no need for us either. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 11:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I personally prefer "fictional character", although that seems to be a minority opinion here. I will note that the WikiProject for articles like these is WikiProject Fictional characters. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen both. I prefer "fictional character" for maximum clarity, but I wouldn't insist on it if it made the opening sentence feel clunky. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]