Talk:Wings of Fire (novel series)

Summaries

I think the summaries are too long to put in one Wiki page. Here's some (kinda good) complete summary I found of the first book only: https://wingsoffire.fandom.com/wiki/The_Dragonet_Prophecy_(Book) Maybe we should move the summaries of each book to the books respectively? Also, since the books are a series of novels (quite long), maybe we should look at 'Harry Potter' and copy see how they did it. Of course, this series is not as popular as the Harry Potter series, so we can't go as much in detail (too few sources). What ideas do you people have?  AltoStev  ^Talk 16:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I edited it a lot.... the summaries are probably huge..... 153.137.198.34 (talk) 02:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Uh, reading it, and removing information unrelated to the title, like I did for the IceWing/NightWing War. --Queen Shore the SeaWing (talk) 05:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)I is American English.

I removed the summaries altogether, because of spoilers. --Queen Shore the SeaWing (talk) 06:24, 6 February 2020 (UTC)I is American English.

They reappeared on the page, tho - Dragonlover21 (talk) 17:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I think we should add summaries of all the books and make a separate chapter for summaries, so if people don’t want to look at the summaries because of spoilers, then they can skip it. WingsofFire2028 (talk) 12:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Or we can make an article for each book. WingsofFire2028 (talk) 12:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

And leave this one for one that is about the whole series. WingsofFire2028 (talk) 12:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

A rewrite is necessary

There is far too much detail on this page. It is classified as a low-level article. The books have frankly not sold as well as more renowned books which have less coverage on Wikipedia. It will be necessary to rewrite the article.Thanoscar21 (talk) 21:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I think we should add more info, prefferably about all of ze tribes, and more elaberation on the main characters (Sorry if my spelling is wrong) 153.137.198.34 (talk) 02:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree. This is written in an in-universe style. Also, there are almost no sources past the "Books" section. MEisSCAMMER^(talk) 22:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Objections

No! Please don't rewrite! Dragonlover21 (talk) 16:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Please don't rewrite! 69.248.65.55 (talk) 15:19, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Don't rewrite or delete! --Anonymous Pseudonymous 83 (talk) 15:36, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Tribes, Ships, and BeetleWings

Should we add details about every tribe, and canon wof ships? what do you all think? feel free to edit this with your response -Cobalt the Hive/SilkWing 153.137.198.34 (talk) 02:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello there - welcome to Wikipedia! First and foremost I'd like to personally thank you for your boldness, per WP:BOLD, in actively attempting to contribute to this page. That being said, due to a number of reasons - namely that the string of edits themselves were (1) largely resembling and incorporating details which are considered fancruft (and are therefore ineligible for inclusion in an encyclopedic entity such as Wikipedia per the policies found at WP:FANCRUFT), and (2) of an insufficient standard for this particular page (as it must adhere to the protocol of establishing well-sourced, externally-notable information of an encyclopedic nature, per WP:GNG, WP:SNG, WP:RELIABLE, WP:REPUTABLE, WP:PSTS and WP:FICTION) - I have manually reverted said edits. At the present moment, I strongly suggest you familiarize yourself with the site's general rules and regulations prior to making similar edits at length to the extent that you have... there's a definite learning curve to learning the ins and outs of Wikipedia, and besides, there are newcomer tasks for rather new editors such as yourself to this enterprise. Furthermore - should you decide to stick around and (maybe) set up a free account with the site - I believe you would find it quite helpful to check out the Teahouse, which is an excellent place to ask questions and get the help you need.

To answer your question more directly, the nature of expanding upon "add[ing] the details" you suggest have actually been discussed in several previous sections under this talk page (ex. the February 2023 Content Editing Conflict). There is a distinctive line between information concerning a fictional series which holds in-universe value and real-world value (though this may not always be completely agreed upon universally, much of the basics should become intuitively familiar once one understands the basics and is then able to identify examples which do/don't fit the protocol (ex. separating Wikipedia's editing standards from those found with Fandom). In your case, I would investigate all of the above (especially WP:FANCRUFT) in depth; let us know if there are case-by-case specifics you'd like to run by us with, or particular details you would like clarified for you.

I hope this is some help for you - do let us know if you have any additional questions, comments or concerns, or are in need of anything else... otherwise, I hope this'll sort enough things out for you to go about editing similar pages in the future. Good luck, take care - and happy editing! ^^ TheMysteriousShadeheart (talk) 03:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Details

It doesn't say much about the characters themselves other than their names, should we make a character list article? Dzabic (talk) 20:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@Dzabic: It depends on if the content matters to non-fans of the series. For example, I might be able to explain what the cave the dragonets lived in looked like, but people who aren't fans of Wings of Fire probably wouldn't care much about it.

Also, if you were to add a listing of the most important characters, I would keep it in this article unless it takes up a significant portion of the article. Rusty4321 ^{talk contribs} 00:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

It would be easier to understand parts of the book if there was a character list article.Maybe list some family trees to help some fans. 69.120.245.144 (talk) 20:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I've been thinking about if the main protagonists of each book would be viable for their own pages but i'm not familiar enough with the rules to know the answer to that. How would a character list page be formatted anyway? I'm curious 208.38.243.228 (talk) 15:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

The main characters definitely wouldn't be eligible for their own pages; that would require, say, the New York Times publishing an article giving in-depth information about a character. If you can find multiple reliable, significant sources (like newspapers) on the characters we could work from that. Rusty4321 ^{talk contribs} 20:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Edit to Arc 3 summary

There was a well written summary of arc 3, but it got the order of the arc's events wrong. The way it was written implied that Moon's prophecy was the driving conflict from the start, when in reality, it didn't even show up until the second-to-last book in the arc. The first three books were all about the protagonists trying to unravel several mysteries kept by the queen (mind control, book of clearsight, lies about succession lines, etc. WOF fans will know what I'm talking about). I went ahead and boldly changed it, and made this talk page discussion to justify it so I don't have to write a long edit summary. Feel free to revert since my edit is objectively not written as well, but I felt it was necessary to justify the change. ApteryxRainWing (talk) 17:03, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Let's discuss this article

Over the past day or so, I've been really working on this article, correcting errors, rewriting poorly done sections, and adding some hidden comments that may interest some of you. Despite this, we have a lot of work to do, and I hope to someday get this article promoted to B-Class. However, let's regroup for a second because I changed a ridiculous amount of stuff. First, here's a general list of everything I changed

- Finally fixed a claim with an unreliable source in the hook paragraph

- Pretty much entirely rewrote the Setting and Universe section, because it was obvious that it was written by a person(s) who didn't read at least some of the books.

- Did some heavy editing on the summaries of all three story arcs, the Legends series, and some minor work on the Winglets section. Arc 2's summary in particular read like an advertisement or hook on the back of the book itself, rather than a spoiler-free summary of the driving conflict and characters involved.

- Wrote descriptions for the spinoff/supplementary books because all that was previously mentioned was their titles. While some of them had self explanatory titles (such as the coloring book), some were a lot less obvious (such as Forge Your Dragon World. If I were skimming the article, I wouldn't have known it was a fill-in-the-blank book of character templates and worldbuilding advice.)

There are still several things I wish we can do before we submit the article for an upgrade to B-Class, but they are such massive or difficult changes that I simply cannot do them on my own without someone else's help or at least their opinion. Those things are as follows:

- We still need a few references, and I didn't do the typical cleanup thing where you check if all the citation and inline links still work.

- I would love to summarize each book in detail in the Synopsis section, or even better, give each book its own article. Wikipedia's original research policy when it comes to fictional stories says that it's fine to use the book itself as a source for the plot section, but we need some more references for a reception section. Other articles about books have detailed plot summaries (such as George Orwell's 1984, although there is definitely a valid argument that Wings of Fire: Darkness of Dragons is a lot less notable than the most famous dystopian cautionary tale in literature history) so that could help with article length.

- Finally, we need to get a few more reviews for the series, and I would also like to add a background section talking about how it was written, because Tui has talked about it in the past and I (as a fan of the series) find that very interesting.

With that said, I hope that everything I did for this article was good, and feel free to leave a message on this post or my talk page if you want to dispute something, or just straight-up revert it. I made sure I fixed each paragraph as individual edits so you don't have to burn down everything I did because of one minor mistake. It's a win-win. I get more edits for my profile and you get an easy way to nitpick the incorrect information (assuming there is any). I may not edit a lot, but I do often read Wikipedia so I'll see any messages you send within a day or two. Thank you, and have a good day everyone :D ApteryxRainWing (talk) 15:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello there - welcome to Wikipedia! I appreciate all the effort you put into your page edits - it is quite evident from a glance that you are not only rather passionate about this page but very willing, per WP:BOLD, to make big and bold edits within this encyclopedic project. That being said, there are a couple of points I'd like to raise with you concerning your recent string of edits (Novemebr 20-22, 2024), which I have cleaned up/systemically adjusted. I apologize if the sequence of coverage is out of order - hope I cover everything!

~ The neat thing about Wikipedia is that those who are and aren't familiar with a subject can contribute to page(s) freely (except, of course, in cases of self-disclosed conflict of interest, etc.). Several editors have disclosed their lack of familiarity with the subject matter, while others are noted fans of the books. Do note that, as one of the leading contributors to this page, this page was not written by only people unfamiliar with the books (huge FanWing here!). Encyclopedic neutrality is necessary, however; coverage should be directly proportionate to the law of conservation of detail AND the practical usefulness of our sources at hand. Take a look at WP:PSTS and then look at any of our given sources, then see what, if anything, from said source is probably worth embedding in the relevant article(s). That is where each page start, and that's how developing pages advance toward their best possible versions. (You erroneously claim that "it was obvious that it was written by a person(s) who didn't read at least some of the books", though ALL of us must adhere to the WP:MOS and the site's many other guidelines concerning article content - that in no way renders Wikipedia passioness; rather, it renders articles consistent, professional and with minimized bias.)

~ The fine line between fancruft and non-fancruft isn't always easy to distinguish. To write for Wikipedia, one must edit with the explicit intention of creating/contributing to encyclopedic-quality articles which contain information of broader interest; coverage should be of sufficient value without getting into the miuscule peculiarities fan-built encyclopedias would otherwise cover (ex. Fandom). Rather than break this down further for you, I - and a few other contributors - have already written at length about this subject in quite a few of the above discussions on this very Talk page... feel free to give them a look at your convenience, and don't be afraid to ask if there's something you don't understand and/or want to clarify something.

~ This page is currently a C-class article, and there's nothing wrong with that! If you haven't familiarized yourself with WP:SIZE I'd recommend giving that set of guidelines a look! Keep in mind that (1) not all articles should be edited with the intention of getting promoted/longer for the sake of reclassification, and (2) WP:RPS (ex. readable text) is the key to a successful article. Furthermore, (3) article class is not a definitive measuring tool indicating the objective quality of merit of a given page, so - if that's a big cause for fuss - I wouldn't worry too significantly about that. (As an example, I expanded the Tiziana Rivale and Dee D. Jackson pages extensively, just as I did for this and the Tui T. Sutherland pages, before submitting them both for class reassessment. Though both pages appear to be of similar length, the former was raised to C-class while the latter is still considered Start-class. This doesn't mean the latter is a lesser page - just that the measuring means of other Wikipedia contributors consider it to be of less expansive content standards within its specific categories.) So... if this page gets upgraded, great! If not, that's also okay! ...Okay?

~ Before you edited this page, myself and other editors had compiled as many Wikipedia-worthy citations as could be found; I for one spent roughly 12-15 hours researching extant pieces via archival projects (ex. Wayback Machine), databases and regular/advanced web searches. You say "[w]e still need a few references" without directing contributors to potential sources... and as such, I'm in the same boat as you. I fully agree - only thing is, there's only ever going to be so much coverage on a given subject. These articles we're looking for might not exist. See what I mean?

~ We cannot write articles for Wikipedia to then cite. We also cannot invent sources. (Conflict of interest comes into play here, as you might have guessed.) There are only a handful of existing professional (ex. non-blogging) reviews out there; the ones I know of are all cited. Publisher's Weekly interviews are on the page, yes; many reviewers, however, tend to simply give snippet quote without giving encyclopedic-quality citable reviews (ex. book blurb quotes, nothing more). Are there any science fiction and fantasy writer's magazines that covered the books that I don't know about? If you know any, you can (1) add it yourself, (2) request an edit, or (3) bring it up on this Talk page and one of us can help!

~ Considering how you want to "summarize each book in detail in the Synopsis section, or even better, give each book its own article", strongly consider the question posed several years back by one of the other contributors: "Are there multiple independent reliable sources that provide in-depth coverage about it and are specifically about that book and not just the series in general?"

~ Some of the "Making of Wings of Fire" info has already been worked into Tui's page!

~ Your string of 29 edits may appear sketchy to a casual editor. The reasons you gave for this string of edits, however, are of potential concern. You wrote that (1) "I made sure I fixed each paragraph as individual edits so you don't have to burn down everything I did because of one minor mistake[...] a win-win", then (2) "I get more edits for my profile and you get an easy way to nitpick the incorrect information". For a number of reasons, I strongly recommend that you refrain from this practice in the future. Editors should submit finished edits, not intermittent corrections; if it means putting off the submission for longer, so be it. Think of it like submitting a paper for class - you only can hand it in to the teacher/professor one time. Page patrollers might revert "unfinished" edits without your knowing; one automatically assumes you are finished editing once the edit is live, if you know what I mean. (I could go on, but I think you'll catch the drift if you look at a few editing conflicts across the site.)

(On a side note, you seem to contradict yourself in some of your editing summaries. At one point you said "I swear [I'm] not trying to inflate my edit count, I just genuinely suck at writing", yet in your discussion opening above you talk excitedly about "get[ting] more edits" for your editing history log. Do you understand my confusion (and why I am alarmed at your potential editing intentions)?)

In the bigger picture, your string of edits range from the helpful (ex. noting the pseudo-dynastic quality of the royal line of succession) to the inappropriate (ex. the hidden comment shortly after saying not to take what you added out), and I have thus edited the existing page at large to accomodate your sufficient contributions while removing the unnecessary, unacceptable or unencyclopedic content you added. Please reach out if you have any questions, comments or concerns, would like to request/discuss additional information concerning this page, or hope to go over anything else concerning editing on Wikipedia, be it related to this article or any other. I apologize if I missed any points/issues you raised; feel free to write back if you wish (though, in a state of pseudo-hiatus, there may be a delay in my own reply). Since you appear to already be familiar somewhat with the community portal, I suggest putting what you learn into practice with suggested edits before working up to major page overhauls. Again, feel free to reach out to myself or another contributor if you have any questions/comments/concern. Thanks for your efforts, all the best - and happy editing! ^^

P.S. Contrary to what you suggest in the edit summaries, "forthcoming" is a standard word in the English language and is in no way inappropriate in any Wikipedia article. Please note that articles are written for a general audience, not specific groups (ex. children's books are written about with the same professionalisms as would be used for other subjects.

P.P.S. Should, in your broader editing, you come across "dead" links, please do not remove them automatically. Archive URLs exist for a reason; you can view a snapshot of the page in its entirety by clicking the "archived" link. Since we, the contributors, never can be sure when a page goes offline, it's a good practice to try and maintain these links (and the "death", so to speak, of a page's unarchived version does not in any way indicate that the source in no longer useful (actually, sometimes it's the opposite!)). TheMysteriousShadeheart (talk) 02:04, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

level of detail on this article

i see that rusty cat reverted my edit here. may i ask why you think this edit is not ok. Quinndoggo (talk) 17:17, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

@Quinndoggo: I don't think you need to be that specific about details of the arc. Look at the subsections for the Jade Mountain and Lost Continent prophecies. What details do they provide? (for example, the Jade Mountain Prophecy's section doesn't name Moonwatcher as recieving the prophecy)

Of course, if you disagree, feel free to reply here and we can discuss. Rusty 🐈 17:31, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Tho I agree that it doesn't have to be that specific, the section did not have a significant amount of detail that (I think) would but sufficient, and the edit did not add a huge amount of detail in it anyways. But if you think that the edit is to detailed we can discuss about how to simplify it. Best Wishes, Quinndoggo (talk) 18:06, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Citing an external wiki for the books

I have been working on a section about the dragon species and I was wanting to know cite a fan wiki here. or can I cite the books them selves? and if you disagree with me making a section about the dragons please tell me why. Quinndoggo (talk) 18:14, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

@Quinndoggo:

Since it's fan-made, we don't generally consider it reliable. But you can use the page numbers given on the wiki given you can find which sentence supports the claim. Yes, you can cite the books themselves, just be sure to provide a page number if possible.

By the way, I believe 1-2 sentences for each tribe should be enough (ex. "RainWings reside in a rainforest in Pyrrhia. Although they are a peaceful tribe, they possess abilities such as deadly venom...") Rusty 🐈 18:30, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

If you don't mind me joining in, Rusty is correct on all accounts, both for this and the above discussion: Quinndoggo, (1) your edits neither take into account the editing guidelines for the site (ex. WP:MOS and similar pages), nor any of the above discussions where several users, myself included, give examples of references, guidelines and ways of putting what we know into practice on the page, (2) you do not demonstrate sufficient understanding of what should or shouldn't go on a page, or even why these guidelines are in place (ex. per WP:PSTS, citations should hold out-ofuniverse relevance, hold individual credibility and be useful to general readers), and (3) the specifics of given sections must adhere to the aforementioned conventions without exception. (I would have reverted the edits myself had I seen them first - thanks for keeping a watchful eye, Rusty.)

The books themselves may be cited under certain circumstances; I'd recommend making either an edit request to the site or leaving suggestions on this talk page first if you're neither comfortable enough with the site's editing/formatting guidelines nor familiar with what does and doesn't belong on a Wikipedia page. For example, if I wanted I could cite the deceitful origins of Morrowseer's Dragonet Prophecy, on the basis of what he states in The Dark Secret; there's just one huge problem. The respective importance/minusculity of any given fact has to stand on its own as worthy of inclusion (while I agree that we, the editors, may under certain circumstances cite in-universe specifics on the basis of providing contextual universe-and-setting facts as they are varyingly given, this should be done sparingly and purposefully).

This is why fancruft can be such an issue, particularly in the case of users such as yourself who I presume to be more familiar with the catalogue-everything style of Fandom pages compared to the more "restrictive"-looking Wikipedia.

But there's something important to keep in mind here: different sites aim to serve different purposes, and these differences-in-objective hold real value when considered seriously.

And most important of all: Fandom is as prone to editing, changes and unintentionally inaccurate contributions as you'll find on Wikipedia. Both sites function under a pretense of compiling user-contributed cited listings which detail a subject in depth (though the ends of their coverage and ours are vastly different - Wikipedia aims to cover for the general reader, whereas Fandom is a one-stop shop where everything to do with a work/subject can and will be talked about so long as citation-worthy, canonical resources can be obtained. To cite another encyclopedia/encyclopedic entity such as Fandom is in no way allowed; other users could perhaps explain this better than myself (see WP:PROOF and related pages to this subject), but I think so long as you understand the basic principle at play - Wikipedia pages are only as good as the source which serve as their foundation - then you should either be able to figure out the rest or get a sense of where to look for the answers you seek. I hope this is helfpul for you! ^^ TheMysteriousShadeheart (talk) 21:48, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

thank you, both of you for your advice Have a nice dayQuinndoggo (talk) 04:10, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Upgrade to B-Class

I upgraded this article to B-Class on the Content Assessment Scale because of the work I and @TheMysteriousShadeheart have done with removing weird language and fixing issues with each other's work. Before we make the move to GA status, we need to expand on the Reception section for sure since there is a total of two sentences, both uncited, about the reception. GA status says that an article should be "Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (though not necessarily equalling) the quality of a professional publication," and I personally interpret that as a need for short summaries of each book instead of a broad summary of each arc. I believe this because if I were a person unfamiliar with the series and my kids were reading it or something, I personally would like to see a short summary of the book they are reading so I have some semblance of an idea what a "dragonet of destiny" is, or what "the great war" is when they talk about it. It'll be hard to pull off without violating WP:FANCRUFT (which is what I believe killed the previous attempts to do this) but at least sourcing won't be an issue since you can cite a book itself for a plot summary. I will probably work on that in my sandbox or something and see how it looks, then maybe we can engage in a bit of bold-revert-discuss until we're all happy enough to make the push to GA. ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 15:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I've mentioned a bit more in my reply to the discussion you started up above, and others have written more about it elsewhere (and better, too!), but the interesting thing is, some pages might never have enough content to qualify for an A-class featured article. And there's nothing wrong with that! Per WP:HOWTOFA and WP:ASSESS, in addition to WP:LENGTH, the series might simply not have enough professional, independent sources written about it to warrant inclusion (since we can't include vanity publishing pieces, such as blogging comments or user reviews on Goodreads or LibraryThing (as that would be the same thing as each of us writing reviews and then citing ourselves, which violated WP:CONFLICT)). (I'm not sure how the article fails to indicate that (1) the dragonets of destiny are prophecied to stop the War of SandWing Succession, or (2) what the war is about - what more could one reasonably add without being redundant/repetitive?) Have you read my reply to your first discussion yet? I believe a majority of your points/concerns are brought up there first - let us know if you want to go over something more. ^^

P.S. Considering the message you left on my talk page, I'm not sure why you are both interested in "leaving [my] edits alone" per my talk page message while saying in your above statement that you'd like to "engage in a bit of bolt-revert-discuss". This sounds conflicting, and I'm not sure what you want me to make of this, but I'm merely cleaning up what I can. Have you weighed out the merits of Wikipedia:Bold-Refine? It's what we've been doing thus far - improving one another's prior edits collaboratively. I bring this up as one should only revert when necessary. TheMysteriousShadeheart (talk) 19:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

@ApteryxRainWing: FYI, we can't just move the article to GA because we think it deserves GA. Per WP:ASSESS, the article must undergo a nomination and review process (WP:GAN). Also, #6 of the GA criteria states that the article should be "illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio." Don't you think we need more images? Rusty 🐈 00:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I know about GA nominations. As for images, maybe we can add a picture of the author somewhere Apteryx!🐉 | Roar with me!!! 🗨🐲 13:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)