Talk:Jill Valentine/Archive 2

REsident Evil 3: Nemesis

When will the make a "Resident Evil Archives: Resident Evil 3: Nemesis" or a "Resident Evil 3: Nemesis Wii edition" wich would have better graphics similiar to Resident Evil 4,5 REmake and Zero and have the gameplay similiar to The Umbrella Chronicles? Resident Evil Archives was releashed like in 2009 how long can it be before we can see Jill in another updated version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.215.53.113 (talk) 11:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Resident Evil: Revelations

I have added information from Resident Evil Revelations...

I have played the game fully(as I am in the PAL region of Australia, so it was out here on the 2nd), and am surprised to find no mention of it on Jill's current page(obviously due to proximity of release), so I've taken the liberty of adding a basic plot summary to it.

Jill is actually infected with a version of the T-Virus called the T-Abyss virus. She takes a Vaccine(prior to being exposed to the virus) but it's only an experimental form and only keeps the Virus dormant. She becomes a "Carrier" of it, but it must be injested or injected before it takes over, meaning it can now be somewhat "controlled". This explains why Wesker wanted her instead of a normal T-Virus sample.

Colliric (talk) 23:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

And yet you forgot to source this. Also your writing is pretty bad overall. --194.145.185.229 (talk) 16:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't forget, it's just hard to find a source for a video game's plot outside of the game itself.... It is revealed the T-Abyss virus is actually a new stronger and somewhat controllable strain of the T-Virus. She takes an experimental Vaccine against it in the game, however Capcom delibraly left it ambigious as to weather or not it was totally effective and she is TOTALLY exposed to it. Jill seems fine at the end of the game, but they've left the door open for it be explained as the reason Wesker specifically choose her. He wanted the stronger T-Virus strain that she had in her system. Also that other user who edited thje "terragrigia" incident section is wrong, it's the hunter strain of the T-Virus that was released in "Terragrigia" as you only ever face hunters in that section of the game. Colliric (talk) 02:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The A-class thread

Because apparently it's needed to be started, so be it. --Niemti (talk) 10:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

REmake Picture

Jill is arguably best remembered today in her REmake (2002 GameCube Resident Evil Remake) incarnation. Her beret is so distinctive that almost all fan art/cultural depictions of her include it.

While I wouldn't necessarily recommend altering the main picture, since it represents her latest look, I would suggest adding a picture of her in the body of the article in her REmake costume (http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20121107050135/residentevil/de/images/4/4f/300px-Jill_Valentine.jpg , or http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20080812060847/residentevil/images/4/40/Shinkiro_Jill_Valentine.jpg).

Sound good? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.236.228.15 (talk) 08:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Jill Valentine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150103161953/http://www.gamestop.com/xbox-360/games/marvel-vs-capcom-3-fate-of-two-worlds-collectors-edition/88341 to http://www.gamestop.com/xbox-360/games/marvel-vs-capcom-3-fate-of-two-worlds-collectors-edition/88341
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.residentevil.com.br/entrevistas/michelleruff/english/ - 404 page not found
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150103181444/http://www.toywiz.com/residentevildraftingbox.html to http://www.toywiz.com/residentevildraftingbox.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/galleries/ten-babes-who-should-and-10-babes-who-shouldnt-meet-your-mom/?page=3
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamesradar.com/who-was-your-first-gaming-crush/?page=2 - 404 page not found
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.news.com.au/technology/photos-e6frflwi-1111120521500?page=1 - 404 oage not found
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150123234148/http://portalplaygame.com/top-100-as-personagens-mais-gatas-dos-games/ to http://portalplaygame.com/top-100-as-personagens-mais-gatas-dos-games/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.1up.com/features/top-5-worst-dressed-videogame
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamesradar.com/top-20-overlooked-game-babes/?page=2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jill Valentine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/2012.07.17-234623/http://www.1up.com/features/top-5-worst-dressed-videogame to http://www.1up.com/features/top-5-worst-dressed-videogame

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Alt text for the infobox image

@Freikorp: This isn't significant enough commentary to qualify as a review, but I noticed that the alt text for the image in the infobox describes the image as photo-realistic. I get what's meant - it's not heavily stylized - but it very much looks like a rendered 3D model to me. I think the text needs tweaking, perhaps by changing it to say the representation uses realistic proportions.--IDV^talk 12:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Done. Good point. Feel free to tweak it further if you think it could be worded better. :) Freikorp (talk) 12:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Didn't see your reply until now, but I think that works pretty well.--IDV^talk 08:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Removed content and departure

A lot of content has been removed from this article without consensus, and in some cases, despite the fact that there was a consensus for it to remain. Due to the high volume of edits, it's becoming increasingly difficult to find a version of the article that contained a particular piece of information. In order to make it easier to see exactly what has been removed without consensus, I am compiling some of this information here. Some of this information I believe should still be in the article, while others I mention just to get a better understanding of the character. I am also including a collapsed copy of what appears in two of the offline sources, as this information could be summarised differently by somebody else.

• Shinji Mikami said that Valentine became the protagonist of Resident Evil 3 as they could not use any of the characters from Resident Evil 2 for reasons of continuity, and Claire Redfield had already been chosen for Resident Evil – Code: Veronica (2000), meaning Valentine was the only suitable character remaining.

• Valentine's outfit for Resident Evil 5 resembles a catsuit; according to modeler Yosuke Yamagata, the close-fitting clothes were supposed to give players the impression she had been experimented on when she was captured. A mechanical mind-controlling device was originally going to be placed on her head, though at the suggestion of the project leader it was moved to her chest on the grounds it would be sexier. [Sourced to The Art of Resident Evil 5]

• Valentine's partnership with Redfield, which is based on loyalty rather than romance, is considered by video game journalists to be among the best in gaming.

• Valentine's pirate outfit was deliberately made to be colourful to contrast with the storyline's dark themes. Her miniskirt costume from Resident Evil 3 was not originally intended to appear in the 2002 remake; it was added during development because staff members liked it. After the costume's addition the developers changed camera angles to reduce the amount of upskirting, and matched the colour of the skirt and underwear to make the issue less obvious.

• Commenting after the release of Resident Evil: Retribution, Milla Jovovich said that as Valentine was such a strong character, men would rather play as her in the games than her male counterparts.

• Jason Williams from Bridgewater State University states the Valentine has a fairly even ratio of rescuing others and being rescued herself throughout the series, comparing her to other characters in the series such Rebecca Chambers who is more frequently in distress.

• Writing in Participations: International Journal of Audience Research, Samantha Lay said that Valentine lacked depth as a character in the original game, though argued that characters in games do not require depth as players form a connection with them by controlling their avatars. Writing for the Digital Games Research Association, Geyser and Tshabalalaa described Valentine as an "essentially generic" character in Resident Evil 5.

• The fact that her ethnic heritage has only been mentioned in a few Japanese primary sources has led Western fans to debate whether the character is actually half-Japanese.

References

• In preparation for her role in Resident Evil: Apocalypse, Guillory underwent martial arts and military training and also studied Valentine's body language and movements from the games. [Sourced to Game Babes featurette]

Relevant quotes from the 'Game Babes' featurette on the Resident Evil: Apocalypse DVD

Sienna Guillory: You've got these two women (Alice and Valentine) who have this incredible arsenal of marital arts and gun control (implying skill in firearms training) and you've got someone as beautiful as Milla and as minxy and sexy as Jill. It's a great dynamic. Sienna Guillory: I'm definitely independent minded. I've always done my own thing. I supported myself and went against what other people thought I should have done and stuck to my own path. In a way I'm probably as pig-headed as Jill (laughs) Sienna Guillory: It's really liberating actually to have such a kind of sexy outfit (miniskirt and tube top). ... I'd love to dress like that every day. It's not always possible but that's what the movies are for. Milla Jovovich: Part of the appeal of the game is how sexy the girls are. In the first movie it was like the battle of how do we get Alice to look sexy, because in reality she [would have been] wearing a security uniform; nobody wants to see that ... I suggested that Raccoon City is going through a heat wave, and it's not just me, how do we get Jill Valentine in her typical miniskirt and tube top? Heat wave in Raccoon City, thank you very much (smiles). (Note: The academic source by Stephen Harper also comments on the supposed heat wave in Raccoon City being given as the reason for the revealing clothing). Sienna Guillory: The glamour and fun of playing a character like Jill Valentine; you've got this girl in a little tight top and an miniskirt , she's cool and she's sexy and she's fun ... Milla Jovovich: Sienna's been watching the games and she's doing a few of the things that [Valentine does] in the games, like when she waits she'll do this thing with her hips while she's waiting for a zombie (imitates movement wigggling hips) Sienna Guillory: The Jill Valentine character does this thing where she like is on wait, she's got a gun by her side and a hand on her hip and you've gone off to make a cup of tea and she's like (imitates movement wiggling hips from side to side playfully and impatiently) 'are you gonna finish the game of what? You gonna play with me? Come on!' And I love that wiggle its like she's a girly girl, she's a sexy little minx, she's fantastic, I love the little hip going its really cool. Sienna Guillory: [In preparation for the role] I spent an hour a day with a personal trainer ... I did commando and martial arts training ... (doesn't clarify what either of these entailed)

The Art of Resident Evil 5

Modeler Yosuke Yamagata on her catsuit costume: I didn't receive any specific instructions to give her different outfits for before she gets caught by Wesker and when she shows up as an enemy, but it was something I chose to do anyway. Considering that she would be all superhuman when she reappeared, and also since years would have passed since she was captured, I thought it would be mean to make her wear the same clothes. (laughs) The close-fitting clothes she is wearing are supposed to give the player the idea that she has been experimented on while she was captured. Book: The Art of Resident Evil 5 - Chapter: Characters - Page: 32 Production director Yasuhiro Anpo on her chest device: The control mechanism was going to be on her head, but our project leader say, "If we put it on her chest... we could open up her chest area and it'd be sexy..." No one disagreed. (laughs) Book: The Art of Resident Evil 5 - Chapter: Characters - Page: 32 Modeler Yosuke Yamagata on her BSAA outfit: Jill's theme color is still blue, as it has always been. I think the fact that her hair changed color when she became an enemy really accentuates the change in her character. I enhanced her raccoon-like features, with heavy lips, relatively larger eyes and nose, and brushed her up to bring out the texture of her skin and veins. For her clothes, I stuck to Jill's "style" while incorporating different aspects from military and sportswear, crafted from futuristic material. The two images above are drawn early on, and were immediately approved. This uniform was for when Jill is acting as a BSAA agent, and is an ally to the player. Book: The Art of Resident Evil 5 - Chapter: Characters - Page: 33

Freikorp (talk) 03:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Even though only one user would still oppose this article being nominated at FAC, that user is reverting anything I add to the article, and any attempt I make to discuss the reversions is either given a perfunctory dismissal, or is completely ignored. Example: At the peer review, three editors were in agreement that a piece of content should be added. The only opposer would not respond to the discussion of whether the content should be included, though continued to revert any attempt to add it back. Between the FAC's and PR, no less than four other editors (not including myself) have expressed how appalled they are with this user's behaviour. Nevertheless, said behaviour is persisting. So with a heavy heart, after nearly 3 years of working on this article, I have decided to take it off my watchlist as this user is preventing anything constructive from coming out of my presence here. Good luck to the next person who tries to improve this article; you're sure as hell going to need it. Freikorp (talk) 22:16, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Puzzle Fighter

She is also in puzzle fighter on google play https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=jp.co.capcom.smash.retail — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathiastck (talk • contribs) 19:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

[1] Revisiting my edit from June, for instance, I think the paragraph is worse off for its reversion to the previous format. I think I've already said this before but to briefly recap:

• "with the 2011 version of the Guinness World Records Gamer's Edition naming her the 43rd most-popular video-game character of all time" – what is the virtue of these extra factoids? what should a reader do with the knowledge that she is "43rd" (and out of 100? 200?) Or is the point simply that she has been named among the most popular video game characters? Hence what I had written: "Gaming publications, including the Guinness World Records Gamer's Edition, list Valentine among the video game medium's most popular and iconic characters."

I considered this more of an WP:ACCESSIBILITY issue than anything else. The only real difference between either of our phrasings is my inclusion of her being placed at #43 (of 100, BTW). If we used your phrasing, I thought the casual reader might be left wondering, "Well, where did she appear? #1? #100?" If the source is there to cite her position, then why not include it? It's Guinness World Records, after all, which I feel is a notable enough publication for inclusion. Homeostasis07 (talk)

(That link is about technical web accessibility.) If the reader wants to know the ranking, they can read the article. But unless we're putting JV on a scale from Mario to some minor character from another series, I still don't see how knowing #43 answers more questions than it raises. fwiw, I wouldn't consider Guinness WR to be any standard bearer of character ranking. Would need to know more about their methodology. c

The number has been removed. Homeostasis07 (talk)

• similarly, with "Complex's Brittany Vincent and Joystick Division's James Hawkins have both ranked the partnership as" – what should the reader do with these two names? does it temper the overall generalization that the partnership (with Redfield) is among the best in video gaming? this sentence regurgitates a brief mention in a source instead of getting at its kernel of truth: that "Her professional relationship with partner Chris Redfield is noted for its basis in loyalty, not romance, and its balance of their personalities: Valentine's intellect and Redfield's brawn." furthermore, listcle/throwaway sources like https://web.archive.org/web/20150103171322/http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2012/10/the-25-most-a-kicking-video-game-duos/ are not encyclopedic, and not suitable for a quality article, nevertheless FA. If there is need to namedrop the author of the source, the question is what good that namedrop does to be worth its syllabic weight in the sentence.

Please see message below. Homeostasis07 (talk)

• btw, much easier to parse wikitext if written with {{r}} instead of <ref>. I can convert by script if you want this.

If you feel strongly about this, feel free to make the change. I've been editing for 12 years, but even I'm not that familiar with {{r}}—a relatively new invention. I'm comfortable with the source formatting as it is now, but if you make these changes, then I may need your assistance if someone at the next FAC raises issues with sourcing. Homeostasis07 (talk)

Check the page history for a version with the simpler template, which I reverted. Feel free to use whichever you prefer. c

• in general, the article is jammed with puzzling specifics that make a reader question why that tidbit was important, especially if it doesn't build to some greater point by the end of the paragraph
• e.g., third sentence of the article, we're introduced to JV and hear that Mikami was opposed to objectification (in 2014) and then goes right into a descriptive sentence about her sexualized outfit. If it's meant to be coy, that he said the opposite of what he did, it doesn't come across that way, and in any event, I would expect a FA-quality article to have some sourcing or link that asserts this, that despite what Mikami described as his intentions later, she was clearly designed to titillate men/boys.
• sometimes you can refer to the sequels as "the sequel"—rather than by name—if it helps the flow of the sentence. The second ¶ introduces Nemesis, Claire, Veronica without going into any detail on any of them, and again itemizes her wardrobe without any clarification. These elements would need to connect. E.g., JV skipped the sequel but returned in the 1999 RE3. Keep the wardrobe discussion to its own paragraph if needed. "no character from Resident Evil 2 could be used for continuity reasons" and "meaning Valentine was the only suitable character remaining": continuity/suitable between what? opaque. Remember, remember that we write for a general audience.

I actually agree with a lot of these last three points. The problem I faced with prose on the outfits was that those two particular costumes are referenced/discussed by multiple sources later in 'Reception', so it felt wrong to have the commentary but not have an as-brief-as-possible description. Another possible issue is the use of the images, which you and two other people have questioned (i.e., if there's enough significance to include them). Since they illustrate those two outfits, it could be argued that they be used in lieu of a prose description, or have the description included as part of their captions. Were they removed at a later date, though, then the prose would need to be added back to the article. But I'm not really free to work on the article right now. I might be able to implement some of these changes tomorrow. Homeostasis07 (talk)

Yep, either way, the prose should build towards something. If the outfit descriptions are important, they should be put in context of some other point, e.g., as illustrations of a style or point about sexualization. czar 03:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Hope that's helpful (not watching, please {{ping}} if needed) czar 15:19, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, @Czar: I hope you don't mind if I respond beneath each point. One thing, though... I think you've made a mistake somewhere along the line. Maybe you accidentally re-read from an older version of the article? For instance, your second point ("similarly, with 'Complex's Brittany Vincent...'), that particular sentence was rephrased some time ago, and the names you mention above are long gone. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:23, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, oops, must have pulled that instance from the wrong side of the diff, but the point similarly applies to instances like "Bonnie Ruberg from" "while GamesRadar's Brett Elston said she was" etc. what good that namedrop does to be worth its syllabic weight in the sentence czar 02:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I've only realised now that you must have also derived your last point ("sometimes you can refer to the sequels...") from an earlier version of the article as well @Czar: as the current version is quite a bit different from the text you quoted (i.e., "connective tissue", although I'd happily rephrase what's there if you request). There's still some work for me to do in 'Reception and legacy', but I've taken pretty much everything you've said above (minus the 'connective tissue' point I mentioned) and re-written the 'Concept and design' section. Do you see anything I could further improve upon in that section?

Also, I've removed the majority of names from the 'Reception and legacy' section, except Lisa Foiles and Anita Sarkeesian (as they have their own articles), and Lara Crigger and Bonnie Ruberg, who I feel are both notable writers who arguably deserve their own articles at this point as well (not that I have the time to make them). Also Jenny Platz, because she's Unraveling Resident Evil's author. And, unfortunately – and as much as I despise him personally – Bob Mackey is one of the bigger names in gaming writing/reviewing, so I've left his name there as well. Although I do like the idea of people in-the-know reading that sentence and rolling their eyes at the idea of him calling something else "embarrassing". If you want his name removed, have at it... I swear I won't mind. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, see below c

---

• Why the long Reception quotes? Not seeing what's special about the phrasing that wouldn't be better off paraphrased. Is it trying to make a point about Capcom's strategy or about JV being iconic, because the rest of the paragraph is about the latter. "She might not have the brute strength or obscene 90's hair of some of her [male] counterparts, but when you need a gigantic, genetically-altered zombie taken down, she's the girl to do it." What is this quote meant to impart?

The quotes were attempts to illustrate the latter, since you said at FAC3 that the statements made by these sources needed further clarification within the prose. I've paraphrased both of them now, hopefully not reintroducing aspects of your original complaint back into to the article. Let me know what you think. Homeostasis07 (talk)

• I don't agree on naming the rest of the commentators in the Reception but that's your call at this point. If the individuals were "notable writers", they would have their own articles. I would not expect a general audience to know who these publications are, nevertheless their individual writers. E.g., the qualification "Bonnie Ruberg from the same publication included Valentine among the least-sexualized female characters"—not sure what I'm supposed to do with this info. Is Ruberg some vetted standard of female character lists? This is the type of stuff I'd massage into more synthetic/paraphrased sentences. Not sure Lisa Foiles will stay a bluelink for long either, based on the extant sources

All names have been removed, except Lisa Foiles and Anita Sarkeesian, and the quoted text has been rephrased. Homeostasis07 (talk)

Blondes do it better - Lisa would know! Enjoy some eye candy with the Top 5 hottest blonde video game girls. Some things are better than others. WebTV sensation Lisa Foiles makes a list of the top 5 best and worst things in games, so you don't have to. Every Tuesday. Only at The Escapist.

This is the only copy in the source. This is clickbait journalism, notwithstanding that for purposes of encyclopedic commentary on video game characters, Foiles is known as a video host and not as a journalist. That she says JV was "one of the hottest female character designs ever" is not going to stand to scrutiny at FA as an important point. At most, I'd only use this source as backing (in the existing combined ref) that JV has been listed in listicles for her sex appeal, not as a separately worthwhile claim, though I've already expressed that even those such sources don't belong in a FA article. czar 13:30, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

• "Unraveling Resident Evil" If this isn't independently notable, a general reader would better know this as "a book of essays about the series", which in this instance would be, "in an essay about X in the series" (whatever was the topic of Platz's essay). Also what about the contrast is important: JV is desexualized and Wong uses sexual empowerment to subvert patriarchy—what's the interaction?

I've removed the author's name and added a description of the book. As for your latter point, you'd need to ask SlimVirgin/SarahSV. She was the one who introduced this sentence to the article, or – evidently – you can access the book yourself and rephrase to your own specifications; I'm afraid this is the only source on the entire article I've never been able to access (Google throws a "This book cannot be previewed." message every time I click on it). Homeostasis07 (talk)

@Homeostasis07, that book is published by McFarland, with whom WP has a partnership. (So you can apply for a copy rather than me applying for you.) I'd be interested in seeing the chapter myself, if you can get a copy. Let me know if, for whatever reason, this method falls through and I can get the chapter for you another way. czar 10:15, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@Czar: I've applied for access to this source. I'll let you know when [or, if] I receive it. Homeostasis07 (talk)

• The epithet "Journalist Bob Mackey" cited to the article "Top 5 Worst Dressed Videogame Characters" feels like overreach. If this point is important, why does it need to be attributed to Mackey? Weird because on one hand, citing this opinion implies that it is important, but looking at who it cites (a redlink journalist of no listed publication), why would a reader discern that this opinion is important. Can it be phrased in a way that carries the same importance without making it seem like just one random writer's opinion? Maybe it can be amalgamated with another, similar thought.

I've [happily] removed Mackey's name, and replaced it with 1UP.com: the publication he was writing for (which has been included in other FA's). Homeostasis07 (talk)

• "Producer Paul W. S. Anderson considered several ways to justify the usage of such a revealing costume, including having it described as an undercover outfit,[99] while Milla Jovovich suggested using a heat wave as the reason." This reads like development, not reception

'Concept and design' is dedicated to the character's development within its original medium (gaming). But I've rearranged and rephrased this entire paragraph to lead to Anderson's point about that outfit's critical reception. Homeostasis07 (talk)

• "extent to which Valentine's appearance had changed over the course of the game series has also received a mixed response" a single source citation for this summative statement? Also is this even a quality source and how is "a writer for GamesRadar said she had been redesigned so many times", writing about the game series, related to a paragraph about film?

I've rephrased the summative statement: "mixed response"→"been criticized", because GamesRadar is indeed a reliable source. What may have thrown you was the fact that the publication name was linked two paragraphs earlier. I can link the 2nd instance of the publication's name, if you want. And this paragraph jumps from negative film reception→negative game reception because this entire paragraph is dedicated to all mixed/negative reception, aside from the sexual commentary, which is incorporated elsewhere. This was one of the issues I was left to rectify on my own since the last peer review closed: how to disseminate what everyone wanted. As a compromise, I simply separated all non-sexual-related negative commentary to its own paragraph, in the hope that no-one would find that objectionable. Do you object to this? Homeostasis07 (talk)

There is no indication that the paragraph is about mixed reception, hence why it's jarring when it switches from film (as the ¶ was introduced) to other topics. See below—I think signposting and separation would help here. czar 13:30, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

• re: concept & design section: my Mikami point from above still stands and sticks out

I have to politely disagree. I removed the outfit description entirely. What about that specifically do you object to? Homeostasis07 (talk)

It's a jarring time warp to go from 1996 to 2014 and back again (1998). It's relevant to mention the creator and what he was thinking when the character was created, but these views on objectification are not describing the 90s and they're not peppered by any other discussion of his thoughts at the time of creation. Better to add those 2014 details to a paragraph/area that discusses sexualization and her design, not jammed into that first paragraph. Also if presenting his 2014 views, the reader naturally asks what his views were in the 90s, because to anyone following along, they don't appear to be the same. If he evolved on this issue, would be helpful to add that to wherever his 2014 views are explicated. c

I've moved Mikami's quote to its more natural position, in 'Reception and legacy'. Homeostasis07 (talk)

This introduces other problems. This R&L ¶ now reads as a string of facts/claims rather than a cogent whole. If this paragraph is about JV's sexualization, it should first signpost ("topic sentence") what the paragraph is about before giving examples that support that topic sentence. If this ¶ is about how JV is not sexualized and is in fact known for not being sexualized, then make that clear. It doesn't help that the last sentences are written in "X said A, Y said C" fashion when they could instead synthesize a claim that some journalists described her dress as revealing and sensible but not sexualized, which sets up a transition to discuss how other journalists disagree. In short, these factoids need to be massaged into sentences that clarify one another rather than beads on a string of related but unconnected topics.

The article needs to figure out and express clearly whether, or how, exactly, the JV character is sexualized. If it varied, during what periods was the character sexualized? If critics are mixed, show that sources disagree. Instead it reads like some throwaway listicles offer some milquetoast opinions on her dress being both tame and simultaneously sexy/revealing, while academic sources pointedly elaborate on what exactly makes her costume sexualized. And then there is this 2014 Mikami comment which contradicts everything else listed here, but is displayed with no useful juxtaposition for the reader. If he opposes portraying women as submissive to men, what should the reader even do with all of this evidence that says he did otherwise? Is Mikami deluded, or did he mean well and fail in his portrayal, or is some other later character designer responsible for the costume/design that the rest of the section criticizes? Need to lay this out for the reader: Since there is no summation of these little factoids, nothing holds them together. My honest advice would be to answer the above questions from scratch in FA-quality prose, and then return to source that content while removing the claims that cannot be sourced and massaging the extant sources into a form that does not leave the reader to do the heavy lifting.

Additionally, the original opening ¶ (whence the Mikami reference once rested) introduces JV but weirdly goes into why she wasn't in RE2 but was in RE3—why? This ¶ is about her concept and design. Why is the reader hearing about her later appearances when it's both unrelated to concept/design and while there is a whole section dedicated to her appearances below. Stuff like this reads as an an accounting of every fact for JV/series enthusiasts (leftovers from how it was originally written?) when the goal is for a general audience to follow this writing. Highly recommend my suggestion below about reading out loud or to someone unfamiliar with the series. czar 13:30, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Hold off your horses, @Czar: I informed you above that I'm still waiting for the McFarland project to get back to me. I thought it went without saying that, as a result, the R&L is a work-in-progress. I still have no idea what @SlimVirgin: @SarahSV: (because she keeps changing her username between the two) meant when she paraphrased that source the way she did. But, in saying that, I can also speak to one of your points above: it's not always a good idea to paraphrase quotes from every source. Some sources have content which is so specific and can be so easily misinterpreted by future editors that it's better to keep the original quote as it is, especially when later editors can only access that source via some project which doesn't respond to me in the time it takes for a user like you to respond with a massive tome such as the one you posted above. So unless Sarah wants to contribute in the immediate future (this is the fourth time I've attempted to initiate contact with her in the past 3 months), I'm on the verge of simply removing that source and text altogether and re-working the entire article as I see fit. I'll let you know when McFarland gets back to me, because you said above that you also want to access the source. I'll work on the prose after that. Until then, don't even bother reading the article. Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:56, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

• as do the above points about "no character from Resident Evil 2 could be used for continuity reasons" and "meaning Valentine was the only suitable character remaining"

I've removed all of these details. Homeostasis07 (talk)

• I'm not going to be able to go line by line here but I recommend reading these paragraphs out loud or to someone unfamiliar with the series and ask if they follow between the sentences. I'm familiar with the series and between sentences I'm still scratching my head about why certain points are made and others aren't connected.

czar 13:07, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Cheers for the feedback, @Czar: I think I've done everything you've asked for above. Although I know there's still more work to do: some of the changes I've made could be refined, and it's introduced some inconsistencies. I'll [hopefully] be able to rectify all this tomorrow. And please disregard the final paragraph of 'Reception and legacy' for the time being. In my discussion with Bridies some time ago, they made some valid points about the Jill/Chris relationship, which I hope to incorporate there over the next few days. Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

OK @Czar: So McFarland obviously isn't happening (not that I've been refused, just that it's been well over a week and still no word). So I'm moving on. Anyway, I disagree that R&L doesn't read like a "cogent whole", and that there's insufficient "signposting". I never really understood the entire "signposting" thing anyway—it seemed to me more of a random crutch certain people clung on to with little basis for genuine application. This is a Wikipedia article we're writing, not a college thesis. Nevertheless, I've incorporated signposting, but opted to do so in an "engaging and professional" way, and not in a spoon-fed, repetative way. "Several commentators have suggested that Valentine's portrayal as a military professional tempered the ability of game developers to overtly-sexualize the character." This paragraph relates entirely to Positive critical commentary of her/the series' sexualization (or lack thereof); "Despite this, Valentine has appeared on several lists which rank characters on their sex appeal...." This paragraph relates entirely to Negative critical commentary of her/the series' sexualization; next paragraph relates to more general mixed/negative commentary, and so on. There's a cohesive whole to be found, if you want to.

And several of your latter comments seem like continuations of long-held misunderstandings of the MOS for VG characters: "Concept and design" versus "Appearances", and what both sections should and can actually consist of. The overall point of mentioning that Valentine did not appear in Resident Evil 2 is to illustrate the intention of designers "to retain the level of fear found in the original game by introducing similarly inexperienced characters." So this can be seen as relating to design in general. 'Appearances' "should list any games or related media that the character appeared in and briefly discuss their role in the game." In this instance, the sentence is referring to why designers opted not to have her appear in a game, so it would be unsuitable for 'Appearances'. Ditto the RE3 continuity point. As for your remaining point about having the article read by other users, it's been done... ad nauseam. Your truths are not self-evident, apparently... as Jefferson might say. You're the only one to mention any of these things. Anyway, thanks for all this feedback. I'm much happier with the article as it is now. Some minor clean-up, and I'm ready to renominate. ;) Unless there's anything else? Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

"Is Mikami deluded, or did he mean well and fail in his portrayal," - I'll tell you what clueless/biased/actually-deluded "academic sources" and apparently also you don't understand. He personally likes Jill contrasted with Rebecca (girly and timid and non-aggressive), who's "submissive, she’s not independent" like Jill, and Rebecca wasn't even playable before 0 ("peripheral characters") and then wasn't playable alone but as a part of a team with a man she was dependant on to be constantly around to survive (and then just went away to recently resurface as kidnapped woman-in-distress). It's all right there in the source. Also Ada never "subverted patriarchy" (unless that "patriarchy" is a force for good, because she's a sociopath villain working for evil people just for profit and thrill), she's using her sexuality to manipulate the honest good man that is Leon (or not-so honest men like John). She's a classic femme fatale archetype mixed with an action (anti)hero and there was never anything else intended by anyone (there's no "death of the author", postmodernism is a lie). SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 00:24, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

@Czar: Can you explain what's happening? I sent the requested source to you about a week ago, but you've not responded to any of my subsequent e-mails. Plus, I'm not entirely sure why you asked me to send you the source in the first place. Did you not trust me to properly disseminate it on my own? If you're busy, fair enough. If you don't have any further objections, then please say so. Because the fact that you've requested the source but haven't responded is making me anxious. I'd like to know... one way or the other. Cheers. Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:45, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

? I've received a single email sent three days ago—apologies that I couldn't respond right away. You've said multiple times that you plan to remove the source and indicated that you don't plan to make any changes based on my Sept 29 comment (above) so I didn't expect you to be waiting on anything from me. I think I've made myself abundantly clear. How you decide to proceed is your prerogative. czar 11:50, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I e-mailed you four times since 9 October. You responded to the 2nd one (sent 22 October), didn't respond to the 3rd (24 October), and have obviously seen the last (26 October). Most of them are irrelevant now, as the first two were regarding McFarland, and you've addressed many of the points of my last two in your response above. Although... the McFarland source hasn't been removed; I just read it and rephrased what was already on the article to what can accurately be ascribed to it. You wrote above: "I'd be interested in seeing the chapter myself, if you can get a copy." I assumed that meant you'd be interested in reading the chapter and doing something with it on the article. That was obviously a misunderstanding on my part. Apologies. But it's unfair of you to say that I didn't "make any changes based on [your] Sept 29 comment". I responded to all of those points on 9 October (after 9 days of waiting for McFarland). It's your prerogative to respond but... it's all been done, regardless; I worked on the article quite a bit this month to address any of your remaining concerns. So thanks for all the help, @Czar: the article has definitely improved as a result. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:32, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

My quote was "don't plan to make any changes based on my Sept 29 comment", as in your response's dismissal of the points I raised. The article has improved, but it still hasn't reconciled how JV is simultaneously among the "least-sexualized female characters ever created" and "one of the hottest female character designs ever" with zero context aside from juxtaposition, as if they're just different views of the same thing rather than polar opposites. Also still don't see why a reader needs to know about RE2/3 in the first design paragraph. I'm here to read about the character's design, not about why she didn't appear in sequels. If I was here for the latter, why isn't her appearance/lack thereof in later titles also explained? But I already expressed these and other points cogently in the Sept 29 comment, so while your decision against addressing them is fine (that's what I meant by your prerogative), the result is different from actually allaying the concern or, more, that "it's all been done". czar 10:43, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

They weren't 'dismissals', but legitimate arguments as to why I consider those points resolved. The polarisation you're referring to in those two paragraphs is a byproduct of the article's history, when users were focused almost entirely on the character's sexual objectification, to the detriment of some of the more general aspects of the article. Thankfully we've moved past the combative stage, but there's still a line there which needs to be threaded in order to keep the peace. And the word "hottest" isn't used in the article in the way you're now implying (as if it were specifically added by me as part of signposting), but rather as a direct quotation from a RS. And there's a lengthy explanation from me above on the reasoning behind the inclusion of those details in 'Concept and design'. It's your individual prerogative to accept any of this or not, @Czar: but the context you say you're looking for is all there, if you wanted to see it. This conversation seems to have reached its logical conclusion. I think it's time we both move on. Thanks for your time. Homeostasis07 (talk) 20:05, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reception feedback

Hello again. I hope you enjoyed the festivities. For the record, this is what I meant by "FAC4 won't be the last time you'll be speaking with me". There's FAC numbers 5, 6, 7 and 8 to look forward to. But hopefully we can sort this out – one way or the other – before 6, 7 or 8. So to reiterate, specific aspects of the article you currently object to are:

• Moving info about her non-appearance in RE2 from 'Concept and design' to 'Appearances'  Done
• "The Reception & legacy (R&L) reads as a string of facts/claims rather than a cogent whole", specifically "'the most consistent' as a superlative"  Done (i.e., expanded content on that point)
• Mikami quote  Done (i.e., added context for the discrepancy in her sexualization)
• "The interplay of the sources on her sexualization is nonsensical."
  • ^ To that end, I've created this draft. Please feel free to rearrange there the text on her sexualisation in any manner you see fit. Thanks. Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Czar § Mk. III

Leaving some quick comments but otherwise, for a number of reasons, I'm not planning to engage in a perpetual review as I did in-between the last three FACs, so I think Laser brain's advice (re: reaching out to another experienced/unassociated FA writer) is a good place to start.

• re: "Please feel free to rearrange", My advice for the Reception section was not to simply rearrange content but to rewrite it wholly and holistically for a general audience from its sources. I've been known to help with this sort of work before, but not now and not when the collaboratory environment is openly hostile.
• re: moving 1UP.com, this was the glue that held two sentences together in the film paragraph. Now it reads:

  Her outfit in the movie was based on her clothing from Resident Evil 3. Producer Paul W. S. Anderson considered several ways to justify the usage of the costume, such as having it described as an undercover outfit, while Milla Jovovich suggested using a heat wave as the reason.

  Justify the usage of what costume? Doesn't make sense if the sexualization isn't explained
• which begs the question of why the Reception section goes into developer/filmmaker intent in the first place. (Aren't these design choices?) If they are design choices that need to be discussed in tandem with critical reception, then maybe they should even be split back out to their own subsection or section on the sexualization of her portrayal? And what would be left from this Reception paragraph as-is if the design choices alone were moved into another section?
• Mikami: I still don't think this resolves the core issue. Mikami claims to be against sexualization of women, per the quote. The new sentence implies that he successfully did this, such that JV was sexualized only when he stopped directing series games. But two sentences later, 1UP.com claims that JV's Resident Evil 3 costume—directed by Mikami—was an embarrassing relic. Well, which is it? And if both, the difference needs to be crystal clear to the reader. I get the impression that the Mikami paraphrase needs to be recast both to match the paragraph and to accurately reflect that this is fallible self-assessment. Basically, it is overweighted if it's about to be contested by other sources.
• For that new sentence re: post-Mikami, how is this substantiated in the source? Could use some quotations within the footnote.)
• "Valentine's portrayal as a military professional tempered the ability of developers to overtly-sexualize the character." the last half of this sentence can be made easier to understand and shouldn't be hyphenated

These aren't just checkboxes to tick but forces to balance within the article. I think the disjunctures mentioned above would be clear to anyone reading the text sequentially, and it's not the responsibility of the reviewer to provide the line edits. Perhaps fresh eyes, as Laser brain recommended, can help pare down and make sense of it all. (not watching, please {{ping}} as needed) czar 06:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

For posterity, moving the 1UP.com source to another paragraph was an attempt at addressing a criticism this user made at FAC4. And the criticism beginning "Justify the usage of what costume?" can in effect be answered by the article text quoted at the beginning of that criticism: "Her outfit in the movie was based on her clothing from Resident Evil 3." Also, Mikami did not direct Resident Evil 3, Kazuhiro Aoyama did. Mikami directed Resident Evil 1 and Resident Evil 4 (the latter does not feature Valentine). Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

new appearance of Jill here

Requesting an update at the infobox image, the image is here [2] source Capcom itself. 106.165.208.235 (talk)

 Not done. Any image used must be hosted at Commons (or at English Wikipedia if non-free and qualifies under WP:NFCC). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 05:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Appearances chart

Would the timeline/appearances chart "Games featuring Jill Valentine" benefit from a key? I'm uncertain what meaning is attached to the colours used. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:16, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm a bit divided on that. I mean, the actual prose is well balanced with wikilinks so there is no need to make a table for her games. The only thing I wonder is that if it is necessary to include the year of a video game.Tintor2 (talk) 17:20, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I believe the table was added give readers a quick understanding of Valentine's appearances in the franchise. It is something that readers can look to at a glance to keep the chronology straight. It seems like the green part is meant to represent a future release, but I think it would be better to be more consistent with the rest of the table and use the pink between games and the purple for the actual game release. Aoba47 (talk) 19:59, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Nemesis image

We already have two depictions of Jill's Nemesis look. Why add the CGI then? The original one is need to provide more coverage which is quite important for a FA.Tintor2 (talk) 18:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I understand your viewpoint, but I think it's imperative that we use the most recent look on some character's pages. This newer design also varies greatly from the other two. I have a question for you - why is it that Jill's remake artwork is not applicable while Leon Kennedy's is? Ramenwik (talk) 20:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Avoid following WP:Other stuff opinons unless those are articles have a high status. What I meant is that the Nemesis design is already explored in the article. I would give more time to add the remake image considering Capcom didn't discuss it so far. I did something like that with Kyo Kusanagi as the developers talked more about his redesigns.Tintor2 (talk) 23:12, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

That's... not even the argument I'm trying to make, but I'm not going to push for this any further. I concur for now. Ramenwik (talk) 00:50, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with the recent image changes.

• As for the infobox image, the RE1 outfit is most appropriate. As the MOS states, the purpose of the lead image is to be recognizable, "to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page". The new RE3 appearance does not satisfy this requirement because it's...new. The RE1 outfit appearance is debatebly her most iconic and recognizable.
• Her classic RE3 outfit may also satisfy the requirements for being the lead image, but it serves better alongside the movie outfit and discussion of her sex appeal. Given that we should show both her classic RE1 and RE3 outfits in the article, I think the current layout is most appropriate.
• It is not ideal to show the RE3 outfit comparison in the lead. The reader is left thinking why there are two character images being shown for what is one character. Only one depiction in the infobox please.
• Finally, the new RE3 outfit should not be added to the article because I don't think case can be made yet for NFUR. That is, critics have not discussed the appearance so we have no reason to show the image.

TarkusAB^talk/contrib 21:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I will second all of TarkusAB's comments across the board. The RE3/Apocalypse image is better suited for the body of the article, where the accompanying prose can affirm the significance of both images. I think adding the RE3 Remake image would be a solid addition to the article once the game comes out and there's more to discuss about it. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  00:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with TarkusAB's comments. It really does not make any sense to include the comparison picture in the infobox; it makes more sense to keep the comparison in its current location in the article itself as it is next to the prose describing it. Aoba47 (talk) 22:06, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Ditto. Part of the criteria for a featured article is that all images used have "contextual significance" (meaning that the images used relate to the prose in some way). That's not yet the case for any of the RE3 HD imagery... yet. And considering one of the people I unfortunately had to deal with in my efforts of making this an FA resorted to edit warring over the Mikami image, it's best to leave things alone until the dust settles. I'm still watching this article and all related coverage of the character. Things will all be added in good time. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 22:29, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

First Female Protagonist

Despite what Esther McCallum-Stewart wrote in 2019, Jill Valentine is not even remotely "one of the first playable female protagonists in video games". There are examples of video games with playable female main characters going back to at least 1983. See for examples: https://web.archive.org/web/20140921102501/http://www.hardcoregaming101.net/inventories/80sheroines.htm 63.230.188.98 (talk) 20:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you for the link. It is probably best to remove that part altogether as it rather contentious (and there are quite a few earlier examples before Valentine). Pinging @Homeostasis07: just so he knows. Aoba47 (talk) 22:18, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • To be clear, I don't want to detract from her, she's a great character. But I don't think that's a claim that survives scrutiny. 63.230.188.98 (talk) 22:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
    • It is a fair criticism. I think Esther McCallum-Stewart was just unaware of the previous characters since a majority of them have not survived in the popular conscious as much as Valentine. Thank you again for the comment and links and for your overall politeness. It is always nice to work together to improve an article. Aoba47 (talk) 22:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
      • Thanks for fixing this, and the problem with the green lines below, Aoba. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 22:35, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
        • I am glad that I could help. Aoba47 (talk) 03:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Jill Valentine Resident Evil 3 Remake default outfit.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

The article has ended up dumb!

There's no mention now that Jill was a part of STARS.82.37.169.38 (talk) 14:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Calm down "Of Japanese and French descent,[4] Valentine excelled at bomb disposal during her training with Delta Force,[5] and later joined the Special Tactics and Rescue Service (STARS) special operations unit.[6]".Tintor2 (talk) 14:50, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Removal of content

Please guys avoid editing wars. Any commentary about massive removals of content should be left here to discuss and reach a verdict (consensus).Tintor2 (talk) 20:39, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Can we stop with the opinion stuff and primary research citing already.

1) As has been pointed in the First Female Protagonist section the research work of Esther McCallum-Stewart has been called into question. If we're to include her work for other section then Jill Valentine must be considered one of the first female protagonists too. OR we can acknowledge the work is flawed and primary research not supported by other sources and discount it. Also no DiGRA doesn't count as a source itself it's a research group not an academic publication. If you wish to cite DiGRA work pick those that have been published in actual journals with actual peer review systems.

2) Before I get "But they published a book so it must be true" yeh Fredric Wertham did too about how comic books were causing youth deliquence. Having written a book doesn't make the claims anymore true.

3) The piece from Anita Sarkeesian other than the number of times I've been told she is irrelevant also isn't academic research, it's not been peer reviewed and very much comes down to opinion but not presented obviously as such. The Polygon article being used to back up the addition doesn't mention Jill at all or Anita's views on her so doesn't count as a secondary resource to back up said claims either. 86.153.225.201 (talk) 23:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

It's OK to report opinions from notable sources in Wikipedia articles. Popcornfud (talk) 00:10, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Anita Sarkeesian as I am constantly told is irrelevant now. Esther McCallum-Stewart is some-one I've never even heard of until recently. So is anyone who posted an opinion online now ok because it seems to me people are adding said opinions from people who are no longer relevant or were ever relevant for some strange reason to the page when they add nothing. Are people coming to the Jill Valentine page to hear what Anita Sarkeesian thinks of Jill Valentine? Or would that be more of a thing for some Anita Sarkeesian fandom wiki and the Jill Valentine page should be you know actually reported info from creators of various series etc or characters inspired by her etc? If you want the former then it's a free for all on whose opinion is worth doing especially when you're arguing the NPR rule doesn't apply here and we don't need secondary sources citing their opinion on said subject to make it deemed worth of reporting on. 86.153.225.201 (talk) 00:27, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, IP, but I'd advise you to please leave the article alone until this discussion has wrapped up—so other users can actually read the content you're objecting to before commenting. The offending content referred to in the First Female Protagonist section above was removed during the FAC peer review process, and was published by Routledge not Digital Games Research Association. Regarding the Polygon source, the text of that article doesn't mention Jill, but the link to the YouTube video included therein does. I don't really consider any of these opinion pieces, but can probably be swayed. Otherwise, I hope this has explained a few things. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:35, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

The youtube video IS Anita's video thus the primary source being linked to without the secondary source mentioning said bit of content. If for example some-one reports on an Alex Jones video and links it in the article that doesn't make Alex Jones's opinion on something as worthy of bringing up so why is Anita's video being deemed relevant when I am constantly told she is irrelevant? All the secondary source in this case could be argued as doing is proving the video itself exist and any views the article mentions existing. We cannot simply cite that a video being linked by a cite means all the opinion within are notable unless said source actually specifies them as notable. Also my point on DiGRA still stands about them not being a hugely valid academic source as again they have no peer review of their own and are not an academic publication as such. I mean one year a guy did a presentation on "Nerdcore porn" at an event so take that as you will. 86.153.225.201 (talk) 00:49, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

What exactly are you referring to when you say you're "constantly told" Anita "is irrelevant"? And the one DiGRA source isn't being used to source anything controversial, so what exactly is the problem with that? Cheers. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Relevance of the persons opinion in this case for Anita. As for the DiGRA source I'd say the claim "MacCallum-Stewart suggested the popularity of the series was damaged by the unexplained reappearance of Valentine as a "mind-controlled BDSM assassin" is fairly controversial as the series going away from it's horror routes and generally perceived direction the series too towards action gameplay did far more harm to the series. The fact MacCallum-Stewart is saying it damaged the franchise doesn't make it so anymore true or really relevant than if I were to say Apperley Thomas H. mentioned in a DiGRA conference that Jill Valentine was popular in the Nerdcoreporn scene. The information likely should be relevant to what people are looking for and the claim by MacCallum-Stewart isn't supported by others 86.153.225.201 (talk) 01:13, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I get your point but, as I said earlier, the MacCallum-Stewart source wasn't published by DiGRA, but Routledge—a mainstream publishing company. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:35, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

So should we be adding the opinion of Fredric Wertham to every superhero page as his book was published by an established publisher with the book suggesting comic books are bad influences on children? MacCallum-Stewart's claims were opinion unsupported by other sources not fact. If a secondary source reported on them then it could be argued they have relevance. However as is it is merely the opinion of an author like how Fredric Werthams claims were his opinions. Also I must question the relevance of the inclusion of such an opinion especially one that can be misconstrued as factual information when it is seemingly unsupported.. 86.153.225.201 (talk) 02:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I genuinely have no idea who people like Fredric Wertham or Alex Jones are. After what you've been saying, I have no real desire to do the requisite research to find out. Please see Other Stuff Exists. It'd be best if we just focus on this article and the sources used therein. ;) Some of which I agree with, some I don't—several of the sources you're now questioning were included on suggestion of an FAC reviewer. Were a compelling case made to delete a source, I'd probably delete. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok so the question has to be. Are people coming to this page to learn the opinion of some-one else of the character or are they coming here to learn about the character? While you can argue Other Stuff Exists I can equally argue Coatrack articles to point out said inclusions of content is getting away from the topic of the page which is the character NOT peoples opinions of the character otherwise we might as well write the opinion of anyone whose ever mentioned her in here. I can also argue again that without secondary sources backing up the claim said content harmed the franchise then it is a primary resource that has no more evidence for the claim than the people I mentioned before and their claims. Without Actual evidence supporting it then it is speculative and seems to be an addition to the page done for nothing more than trying to direct the page to be about another issue which in this case would be Sexism and video games or Sexualization both of which it would more succinctly fit into rather than turning the page specifically about any video game character into also a discussion of said subjects. The sources being included on request of an FAC reviewer makes me question the reviewer to be honest and if they are choosing to use more wiki pages as a Coatrack so to speak 86.153.225.201 (talk) 04:35, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

We've finally come to the crux of the issue: you're essentially arguing that the article focuses too much on the negative sexual reception the character has received. There was a time when I would have agreed with that, but in my efforts in making this a featured article I reached out to basically every editor who ever had a stake in the article, as well as some uninvolved ones (something like 30 users by the end). So the current version is a tempered result of very disparate opinions.

I genuinely don't believe this is a coat-rack article: the content is concise and appropriate to the topic. Album and video game articles have entire sections based on critical reviews; articles on authors have impact and legacy sections focusing on how their work has been received by the wider public. Opinion pieces have a vital role in determining the content of the rest of an article. We just use the best of what's available. I agree that the sourcing for the Anita commentary could be improved, and have spent the last hour trying to find secondary sources discussing her claims with no success. So in the interests of putting this to bed, I'll remove that commentary. But I'm afraid I don't agree with your comments about the Esther MacCallum-Stewart source—it's an academic work written by multiple authors and edited by several notable academics, and published by a major UK publishing company, so I can't remove that based on current criticisms. Thanks for your commentary, and I hope I've gone some way in addressing your concerns. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 23:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

"I genuinely have no idea who people like Fredric Wertham or Alex Jones are. After what you've been saying, I have no real desire to do the requisite research to find out." They're literally pointing out that the article is spreading unsubstantiated, politicized "opinions" from quacks, yet you refuse to spend two seconds clicking on a link or googling to investigate. There's no excuse for this, other than feigning ignorance and leaving the sources to push an agenda. You cannot control reality by policing sources of information - you're only damaging society by operating in this hamfisted, stereotypical "power contributor" manner.

Your position is unreasonable and Homeostasis07 has been amazingly generous. Time to drop it. Popcornfud (talk) 01:13, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Please register an account. I have no idea who I'm talking to at this point, if it's the same person or a politically-motivated group of people. If Fredric Wertham or Alex Jones (whoever they are) want to get hits by bitching about the 2-years of work I've put into this article, that's not my problem. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. I'll not be swayed by click-bait nonsense. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:20, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

IP edit page protection requested. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:33, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Could you add image of Jill on RE3 remake? just like Cloud Strife. 49.149.127.224 (talk) 11:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

If there is enough coverage for such image I can't see why not. However, there are already two images from RE3 in this article. Dunno what will add.Tintor2 (talk) 11:32, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I mean the RE3 remake image of Jill is different to original one, But I think its fine to put the RE3 remake image of Jill on reception section. 49.149.127.224 (talk) 12:32, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Jill already has way too many designs like other RE characters (or the cast from Devil May Cry) so I don't find it possible unless the reception section talks too much about it (besides having too many nonfree image is discouraged depending on the size). I had a similar issue with Dante as he always has a different design in each appearance so I see that most articles stick with the either the most common or the latest. Kinda like Jin Kazama, Kyo Kusanagi, etc.Tintor2 (talk) 14:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I've uploaded the RE3 remake iteration of Jill and put it into the infobox, per WP:CONSISTENCY, seeing as how most of the other RE character articles have put the characters' most recent major appearance in their respectively infoboxes. That iteration of Jill is also used for the upcoming multiplayer RE:Verse game so like Chris Redfield's design from RE7, it isn't a one-off thing. In spite of what the article claims, Jill never had a consistent look like Chris. Her RE Revelations and RE5 appearances weren't included even though they are quite distinct, but not including them would be best for brevity's sake. Dante at least have a rough outline of how he should look (white hair, red trenchcoat), an important context behind why his redesigned look for the remake was met with backlash. Haleth (talk) 06:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

And yes, I do have sources to support this, which also could be used to update the article:

Resident Evil 3: How Capcom Redesigned Jill Valentine Into an Action Hero

Jill Valentine Looks a Lot Different in Resident Evil 3 Remake

Internet Reacts to Resident Evil 3 Remake and Jill Valentine's New Look

Resident Evil 3’s Jill Feels More Real

Resident Evil 3 producer explains why they redesigned Jill Valentine

How Resident Evil 3 has changed with its remake

Capcom writeup

Resident Evil 3 Special Developer Message

I never thought about consistency but instead of giving a character their most recognizable outfits. I mean, Leon and the others had other looks but they weren't that different from the original like Chris and Jill. Still, I agree with keeping this image.Tintor2 (talk) 13:45, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

It looks like going forward, Capcom is using this redesigned version of Jill, whether for the multiplayer games Resistance and RE:Verse, or crossover projects in other media too. Going by the recent sources, I'd say this is how Capcom wants the character to be marketed in the modern era, which is a departure from the shark they tried to jump with her a decade ago. Anyway, speaking of the "mind-controlled BDSM assassin" look, I decided an on-point cosplay photo would also be helpful, if only to give readers context and they could decide for themselves whether the undermining of the character's original spirit was as severe as the quoted expert described. Added some existing inline citations as well to anchor the point. 14:47, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2021

On Appearance section, the "Games featuring Jill Valentine" column doesn't completely list Jill's appearances in the games; a lot of them are missing, such as her being a playable character in Dead by Daylight and others. The name of the column should be changed to "The Resident Evil Games featuring Jill Valentine" to limit the number of lists and so the article will be maintained easily, or completely remove it. 203.171.9.137 (talk) 22:27, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah that's a fair point. I don't see a lot of value in adding all her cameo appearances to the column, so I'm shortening it to Resident Evil games. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:30, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

2020*** remake, not 2002

Fix this error in the relevant section please. 2601:190:700:2170:B52C:2B4A:4A06:91E5 (talk) 04:17, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

It really helps if you tell us which is the relevant section in question. The article makes lots of references to both the 2002 remake of Resident Evil and the 2020 remake of Resident Evil 3. Which one do you think is wrong? Damien Linnane (talk) 04:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I've also checked the whole article, and confirm there's no such error. All instances to the "2002 remake" refer to Resident Evil (2002 video game), and all instances of "2020 remake" refer to Resident Evil 3 (2020 video game). Those are both "remakes" of the original games (1996 and 1999, respectively). If you think there's an issue here, please be more specific IP and I'll be happy to fix it. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 23:28, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Actors

@Damien Linnane: I think the other user removed the other voice actresses because of it made the lead overdetailed. Only the most important parts of the character should be used in the lead based on guidelines.Tintor2 (talk) 15:28, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

@Tintor2: They didn't remove the voice actresses, they removed the live-action actresses from the films. I agree voice actresses would be too much information for the lead, but I'm inclined to think physical portrayals are very relevant, especially since there's only been two of them. Your thoughts? Damien Linnane (talk) 15:32, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

She's probably going to appear in the upcoming Netflix film. It's going to be overdetailed soon, but since it's an FA article and a lot of people watchlisted this article, I have no problem with what the consensus is, since it will be updated quickly, unlike other RE characters. BloatedBun (talk) 21:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh, btw, the article in the appearances section didn't mention Jill also being a playable character in the multiplayer Resident Evil: Resistance. You might want to add that. BloatedBun (talk) 22:13, 22 May 2022 (UTC) 

I'm happy for it to be trimmed back if and when there are other appearances in film. Considering Sienna's portrayal spanned multiple films and is therefore undoubtedly the longest running live portrayal, I'd be inclined to trim it back to a sentence mentioning her portrayal and then making passing reference to the fact other live-action portrayals exist. We can cross that bridge when we come to it though.

Also it's my understanding several Resident Evil games she appears in aren't explicitly mentioned, but rather, this is covered by the sentence 'Valentine is a playable character in several non-canon Resident Evil games'. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I just thought about it when I cleaned up several Resident Evil character articles like Ethan Winters and Rebecca Chambers, both at GAN now. But I guess once she appears more, then it will be the right time to trim it. Thanks for the detailed response. BloatedBun (talk) 02:14, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Not sure what to do, but ref 77 is dead and couldnt find it on google search. BloatedBun (talk) 09:05, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

The archived version is still working: [3]. I've updated the relevant ref parameter so the title will link to the archived version now. Thanks for pointing this out. Damien Linnane (talk) 13:46, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

"Jill", not "Valentine"

Jill Valentine should be referred to throughout the article as "Jill", not "Valentine" (and similarly for other characters — "Chris", not "Redfield"). I understand it's polite convention to refer to people by their last names, but this is not typically afforded to fictional characters. Per MOS:LASTNAME:

For fictional entities, use common names. For example, Jason, Luigi, and Wesker.

The common shortened name for Jill Valentine is "Jill". That's how she's consistently referred to in the games, films and related media. So the article should reflect that. — Kawnhr (talk) 03:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Pinging Aoba47, since they reverted the change. — Kawnhr (talk) — Kawnhr (talk) 03:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

The current wording at MOS:LASTNAME was actually suggested by myself, after I discovered there was a clear consensus at WikiProject Video games that video game characters should be referred to by their common names. See this discussion. Damien Linnane (talk) 04:35, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

"Jill" appears to be the most used name in sources, so I support using that. Popcornfud (talk) 09:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

@Kawnhr: Thank you for bringing this to the talk page. I primarily reverted the change as I believed it should be discussed first. I am okay with my revert being reverted since @Damien Linnane: agrees with the change and there is a consensus for using first names for fictional characters. I do not have strong feelings either way about it. Aoba47 (talk) 13:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I definitely don't oppose the change, but I don't have strong feelings about it either. She probably is referred to as Jill more often, but she is at least more recognisable as by her surname than other RE characters (I.e. Sheva Alomar) so I never considered referring to her by her last name to be an issue. This change will make it consistent with the other RE characters though. Damien Linnane (talk) 14:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. It would be ideal to have consistency with all the articles on the Resident Evil characters so that works for me. Aoba47 (talk) 14:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, consistency was the main reason I went and made the change. I've been touching up some of the other character pages, where they are always referred to by their given names, and saw this was out-of-step. — Kawnhr (talk) 16:15, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

That is understandable. I have reverted my revert as there is a consensus forming to use the first name rather than the last names. Thank you for your patience with this discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 17:00, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

No worries, happy to see an easy resolution. I admit I could have said more in my edit summary. — Kawnhr (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, and you are all good. I am always happy when a resolution is reached. Aoba47 (talk) 19:47, 31 October 2023 (UTC)