User talk:Sjones23/Proposal

Serge's suggestions

I think we should make sure we have it down to the most essential parts; if we make it too lengthy, people won't bother to even read it, let alone follow it. That being said, while I find the subsection about references, while true, also true of most articles of Wikipedia. As such, I think we should remove that part, I don't think it's especially essential to note for video game character articles in particular. (I say this when I look over similar policies that originally inspired trying to put this together, like WP:NBAND, WP:NSONGS, or WP:NALBUMS. It's not that they have to look just like them or anything, I just mean in regards to their degree of focus of the topic versus general tips.) Thoughts? Sergecross73 msg me 01:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a good idea to remove the references part. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Reference section removed. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be good to, when mentioning the "out-of universe" stuff, to add something along the lines of "Opposed to in universe descriptions, both to define it, and drive the point home. The way people write a lot of descriptions about characters, I think there's a lot of people who aren't really familiar with the concept of "in-universe" or "out of universe".
Similarly to point 2, I think it would be good to work in/ link to WP:GAMECRUFT when talking about Undue weight and not listing every attack some odd character has. Thoughts?Sergecross73 msg me 12:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have also added the in-universe description ideas. WP:GAMECRUFT would be a good idea to be included in the article as a whole. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I really like most of what is left. (Though, again, the "Lead" info kinda falls into general info again.) I think there's two main things that need to be done. 1) We obviously need to add a part, probably to the "Reception" section, is a very carefully worded part about the use of Top X lists. 2) Right now, it's just instructions on how to do it. I think we need to either add to it, or reword parts of it, so that it refers more to what is needed in order to keep it from being merged. Like scenarios that would probably lead to an article being merged back into a list, or a "bare minimum" sort of comment. (Like how WP:NBAND requires certain things to be present. Not sure what exactly I'd want it to say, but I'll think about it, and thought I'd throw it out there so you can come up with stuff too. (Or I guess tell me it's a bad idea, if that's how you feel.) Let me know. Sergecross73 msg me 01:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a good idea. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll put some rough thoughts down, like brainstorming and you can help me add more rough points, and then refine/shape them. Then we can work on how to include them with what we've already got going. Sergecross73 msg me 13:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, Sjones, what are more reasons you tend to merge character articles back into a list or other article with a larger scope? I'll keep thinking of more, but usually the only time I merge back articles is merely the two I've already given. (It's just not something I proactively do.) Sergecross73 msg me 21:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I sometimes tend to merge the character articles because I can't find any sources indicating real world notability and also sometimes because they have undue weight. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How so on the grounds of undue weight? (Not doubting you, just wondering.) Sergecross73 msg me 02:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I sometimes think that I do merge things because of undue weight to particular subjects. However, I also merge these characters per the describing aesthetic opinions section of our NPOV policy, it says "Wikipedia articles about art and other creative topics (e.g., musicians, actors, books, etc.) have a tendency to become effusive. This is out of place in an encyclopedia. Aesthetic opinions are diverse—we might not all agree about who the world's greatest soprano is. However, it is appropriate to note how an artist or a work has been received by prominent experts and the general public. For instance, the article on Shakespeare should note that he is widely considered to be one of the greatest authors of the English language. Articles should provide an overview of the common interpretations of a creative work, preferably with citations to notable individuals holding that interpretation. Verifiable public and scholarly critiques provide useful context for works of art." Make sense? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think so. Basically, it would be when the sources are there, but it's more based on trivial stuff, like appearrance, correct? Sergecross73 msg me 14:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So maybe this could be worked into the "reasons for not having an article", or maybe not, but I think it would be good to tie in WP:SPS some. I've had some arguments with inexperienced editors, (like on my talk page recently) that things such as the number of deviant art/fan art/fanfiction/youtube videos/fansites etc somehow would prove a character's notability, which is of course not true here on Wikipedia. I think it'd be good to include a cleaned up version of what I said above, to it in some form. Thoughts? Sergecross73 msg me 14:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds good to me. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Threw out a rough draft of various things I would list out in a more direct, "there are things that will get an article deleted/merged" type section. Feel free to add or rewrite as much as you want. Sergecross73 msg me 18:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just read the "Top X Lists" sub-section below. As far as I know, no WP:VG guideline demands that reception sources describe in detail and/or specifically what they liked or disliked on the character(s) which is/are the subject of an article (if there is such a guideline which I don't know of, please accept my apologies); even if a review or best-of list says just a tiny phrase like "X rocks" or "X is the worst character in the game" without clarifying their liked/disliked elements of the character(s), this phrase is more than enough to indicate if the review or best-of list writer's opinion is positive, negative, or mediocre. Hula Hup (talk) 14:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What you say is true in respect to expressing an idea in general, yes, but it's not necessary true in regards to establishing notability. It's not so much a WPVG Guideline as it is just part of the "Signicant Coverage" bullet point of the WP:GNG. Basically, those types of comments could be useable, they just wouldn't go towards determining whether or not the article topic is notable. Your example would be comparable to using a 1st party source; You could use Nintendo's website as a reference in a Nintendo character to add information, but you couldn't use it in an argument that the character was notable. Does that make sense? Sergecross73 msg me 14:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons a character wouldn't have their own article

The character does not meet the WP:GNG. Characters must have coverage in multiple, reliable third party sources, that cover the character in detail.
The character must have some sort of real-world impact outside of the in-universe world of the game he/she was in.

Top X Lists

In video game journalism, it's rather common for websites to create "Top X characters for Y criteria" type articles. (ie Top 5 Hot Video Game Girls.) Editors must be careful in how they use these articles as far as using them to meet the WP:GNG. The source must not only be reliable, but also cover the subject in detail, showing why the character is notable. For instance:

Not Acceptable - "IGN ranked Lara Croft the number 2 hottest girl in video games, because they love her short shorts and smile."
Acceptable - IGN deemed Lara Croft number two on their list of the hottest girls in video games, stating that "started a trend of making it more acceptable for women to be the main protagonist in video games in the 90's, but at the same time, raised a lot of concerns that her design was 'sexist' and 'not realist'".

Comments by Bridies

Is this a proposal regarding notability for characters, or a guideline for general writing of character articles? Either way, I think it needs to be made clear when it's talking about notability and justifying new articles specifically, and when it's talking about content generally (either in the prose, or better yet putting everything covering notability into a subsection of "Separate articles"). Specifics:

Regarding the section about "Reception/Cultural impact" and top-x character lists. As I said when I chipped in at the RfC, I agree that brief mentions in top-x article lists (or brief mentions from reviews or anything covering the broader context of the game/franchise/universe, rather than the character itself) should be used with caution, particularly with regards to satisfying the GNC and justifying an article in the first place. If all one has is a few sentences spread across a handful of these sources, the article won't pass the GNC and it will essentially be a fictional summary with a trivially short reception section tacked on. However, the notability guideline does not not apply to article content itself. Once enough coverage is found to justify the article, there's no reason that brief mentions can't be used as part of the article (they're just not enough to justify an article in themselves). If this passage is intended to apply to article creation only, this should be made clear; otherwise this guideline does not preclude this kind of content wholesale.
Now to the specific example given. It says: "...because they love her short shorts and smile". If we may be frank, with video game characters it's more likely to be some crass comment about tits, but nevertheless: if really all this guideline is saying is that a couple of these throwaway comments are not enough to create an article, this should be made clear (and really it'd be depressing if this wasn't taken as a given per the GNC). Otherwise, commentary (from a respected source) about a character's superficial appearance is valid content, without it having to make some deeper historical point.
Related to the above: this needs to treat "aesthetic opinions" better. Currently the subjectivity guideline is misused in saying that a "character's costume or appearance" is both all that is meant by "aesthetic opinion" and that this aspect is "trivial". Per the guideline linked, "aesthetic opinion" need not be merely about physical representation, but any subjective opinion on prose, music, any artistic work. If this were trivial then we'd have a serious problem with many, if not most of our video game articles (and probably also films, music, and books etc.), which are not influential classics, and which rely on reviews for their secondary coverage. When the GNC talks of "trivial" coverage, it's talking about size of coverage (the opposite of "trivial" is given as "the main topic of the source material"), not its intellectual merits.
Same point as above, but more towards article content: aesthetic opinions are not precluded, as long as they do not "become effusive" (per the same guideline). If I may take an example of an article I reviewed recently, and which is a very good example of what I suspect this proposal is targeting: Taki (Soulcalibur), or rather the version I reviewed. As I said in my review, the issue is not that the article includes uncritical, arguably superficial commentary about her breasts (indeed, since this accounts for a large swathe of secondary opinion, it must be included) but that so many similar quotes are included, so the article becomes a "raving glorification" (my words; effusive, the guideline's, is the same thing) of this aspect. When we want to show that a video game's graphics were critically acclaimed, we include a representative sampling of commentary from the best sources we can find, to indicate the general pattern of commentary to the reader (as the subjectivity guideline puts it: Articles should provide an overview of the common interpretations of a creative work, preferably with citations to notable individuals holding that interpretation; we don't quote everything we can possibly get our hands on. In short: the implication that opinion on appearance, aesthetics, costume, boobies, etc. is precluded is false; but on the other hand I firmly agree that so-called "quote-farming" (mentioned elsewhere but apparently not in the proposal) should be precluded.
Ditto perhaps with mentioning the lists themselves: we don't need laundry lists of every list and poll one can acquire. Perhaps just a sampling of the most auspicious ones, and include relevant commentary (but not in-prose mentions of "Lara placed number 78 in best characters of the last 10 years", if there are already mentions of stuff like "Lara placed number 3 in best-character-evah") from others. bridies (talk) 06:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kww's input

WP:V demands that we base articles on third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. That's the acid test for this kind of article: can you look at the article and honestly describe it as based on independent, third-party sources? Or is it based on the contents of the game, with just enough third-party sources so that the article can stand a chance at AFD? Far too many of the latter kind of article exist, and we don't need more.

What this guideline needs to emphasise is that the article needs to be based on what third-party sources say, with just enough material from primary sources to make that information comprehensible and organised.—Kww(talk) 21:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You make a very good point. I agree. Thanks for that. Sergecross73 msg me 23:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]