This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in
film,
literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It was proposed in this section that multiple pages be
renamed and moved.
– There's a pretty solid argument that the model is what most people are looking for when they search for "Ashley Graham", based on pageviews. There's also no point doing a
WP:NATURAL disambiguation of Ashley from Resident Evil when there's already someone named Ashley Graham. So, I suggest simply moving the RE character to "Ashley" per
WP:COMMONNAME and making the model primary for "Ashley Graham".
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
23:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose RE move; ambivalent on other two moves: Although I'm not oppossed to "Ashley Graham" the model becoming the primary topic, the idea that RE's Ashley should be moved to just "Ashley (Resident Evil)" doesn't make sense to me. Like, the character's last name is quite well-known. It's not as if only appears in the credits or the girl is surnameless. Ashley's page title should remain exactly the same. --
PanagiotisZois (
talk)
12:00, 24 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose RE moveResident Evil characters are known and often referred to by their full names and Ashley is no exception. Changing the disambiguation and model page titles I am OK with but the RE move I oppose.
TarkusABtalk/
contrib17:49, 24 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose I see no reason to move the BioHazard videogame topic, we would just end up moving fictional characters around like crazy if we follow that precedent. You can create your suggested pagename as a redirect --
65.92.244.249 (
talk)
06:54, 27 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Support making model Ashley the primary topic and Oppose changing RE Ashley's title per all other RE character's wikipedia articles and above. Putting a see also template with the new disambiguation page at the top of the article should be sufficient.
Yeoutie (
talk)
03:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)reply
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.
Other than needing a light copyedit, all previous concerns I had were addressed, and the article is far more detailed and thorough. To boot it was actually a pleasure to read also. No problem with passing it for Good Article status.--
Kung Fu Man (
talk)
00:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Pre-GAN notes
For posterity, copy of my pre-GAN notes from
User_talk:GlatorNator#Ashley_Graham_(Resident_Evil)_pre-GAN_feedback:
Hello! I noticed Ashley still hadn't gone through the GAN process, so I wanted to share some thoughts on it before I took a swing on things I feel may be a problem for the article:
There are many single paragraph subsections, several of these feel like they can be worked into the parent sections for the most part. Citing promotional material or media such as figures or promotional videos may help bolster the other appearances part (I know they did this for RE8 for example with the puppet shorts).
Can the overall appearances section be fleshed out any more? It feels short and stubby. What about any points you play as the character, or characterization? You can cite in-game dialogue or scenes for this information if need be. And if she is playable for any length of time how does she compare to Leon? What about any particular gameplay elements or costumes specific to her that can be unlocked during the course of the game?
The second image showcasing Ashley is a fair use image, meaning it needs better rationale in the body of the article. A lot of the reception seems to focus on her original portrayal being negative, is there an image that can be used instead to convey this while also showing the original Ashley?
I hope that helps. I would like to review it definitely, there's a lot of good work here. I just have those concerns and I'd rather not drop them on you during the GAN itself given how things are lately.--
Kung Fu Man (
talk)
15:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC)reply
I reverted the change to the OG 2005 image. The new screenshot was quite bad, you couldn't see anything at all. I understand Kung Fu Man's concern but that screenshot wasn't an improvement. Actually, the current concept image actually isn't that bad. It shows her with legs crossed and a skirt. You can see her thighs. I think it's suitable for the context.
TarkusABtalk/
contrib00:41, 3 May 2023 (UTC)reply
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as
this nomination's talk page,
the article's talk page or
Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Overall: ALT0 is not supported by the source. It mentions a young girl but not that she was unnamed. ALT1 is supported by the sources. I think it's more interesting than ALT0. As a side note: this is my first DYK review so it might be good for a more experienced reviewer to take a look.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
07:28, 20 June 2023 (UTC)reply
More experienced reviewer here. You should have investigated whether the nominator requires a QPQ. (On this occasion, I corrected
Onegreatjoke's malformed nom, so it said that was me, even though it was not, which I've now corrected.)--Launchballer13:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Thanks for pointing this out. I had assumed that Onegreatjoke had done the nomination and review for your sake but it would probably have been better to inquiry than to assume.
Phlsph7 (
talk)
14:35, 20 June 2023 (UTC)reply
ALT1 is fine in terms of sourcing. However, since the article refers often to "Girl", I'm not sure that it fulfills the adequate-sourcing-requirement. But my experience with DYK is still rather limited. If you are also unsure then it may be better to let the application fail. What are your thoughts?
Phlsph7 (
talk)
17:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC)reply