Talk:Wings of Fire (novel series)
This article was nominated for deletion on 7 January 2021. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
On 14 April 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from Wings of Fire (novel series) to Wings of Fire. The result of the discussion was Not moved. |
This is a topic of interest to younger editors, and some editors may be minors. If you're a younger editor, welcome, and you might want to check out our guidance for younger editors. And a reminder to everyone to assume good faith, remain civil, and be calm, patient, helpful, and polite! |
Synopsis
I am fully aware that this is too long, and I wrote it. I will try and trim it down, and other people are welcome to help (although this page doesn't get much traffic, and for good reason) Also, I will add citations. I am new here, and just figured out how to cite a book, so please stop bothering me about it. (especially if you're not going to help) K1i2r3i4t5o (talk) 17:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- Who bothered you? Argento Surfer (talk) 18:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- I don't know, they didn't sign their name, and they have removed their comment, so I will give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they realized it wasn't very helpful and rescinded it. Maybe I misinterpreted it, and it was just constructive criticism. If that's the case, I apologize. As I said, I am new, and am editing this page to get some low-stakes practice. Sorry to take up your time. K1i2r3i4t5o (talk) 20:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
It's not to long. Queen Shore the SeaWing (talk) 14:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)I is American English.
And why for good reason? This article SHOULD have the MOST traffic, because WoF is THE BEST
Kookie Cookie Knows What's Best (talk) 00:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
WoF IS THE BEST! WingsofFire2028 (talk) 16:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
It's not too long. It has three mini series, it should be long. 69.248.65.55 (talk) 15:03, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Grammar and Spelling Errors
Whoever wrote the synopsis for the third book, please screen your work more carefully for errors. This content does not match Wikipedia's standards for adequacy. I'm uncreative. (talk) 05:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Whoever it was, looking at their work, I doubt they were a regular user. I'll try and fix the errors, but I don't think it'll be much of a problem. K1i2r3i4t5o (talk) 06:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- If you use the "view history" link at the top of the page (located near the edit button), you can review the contributors. The edit you're talking about came from User:Noodlejack. If you click on the "contribs" link next to an editor's name, you can see what else that editor has contributed. Adding a summary of book 3 is Noodlejack's sole contribution so far. In the future, it would be helpful for you to provide a link explaining Wikipedia standards when you criticize someone's efforts, such as Wikipedia:Basic copyediting. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
well I'll never contribute again then, Noodlejack 7/8/2018
Yep, thanks, I didn't know that. I'll keep that in mind for the future. I'm uncreative. (talk) 02:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
Typos
Can people watch out for typos please as it's quite annoying to have to fix them.
Thanks,RedRussetFox
I fixed some. :3 --Queen Shore the SeaWing (talk) 05:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)I is American English.
And THIS is the official way to spell the tribe names, in guide order! MudWing, SandWing, SkyWing, SeaWing, RainWing, IceWing NightWing, HiveWing, SilkWing, LeafWing. Spell them the way they're spelled in the books, like the list above! Queen Shore the SeaWing (talk) 14:45, 19 March 2020 (UTC)I am American English.
- Me too! at least sort of. 108.226.22.77 (talk) 02:41, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- ), I fixed some too!
TheDRagonFox
Help
I don't think that we should put all the stuff on there. If we can create separate pages for the books, we can get rid of the complicated plot summaries and instead move it to the page, and leave the blurbs. The point of views can go on the new pages as well Also i fixed the error where under tribes, there was Pyrriah, Pantala and BeetleWings. I removed BeetleWings for now, since we don't have enough information to describe them. Lots of citations are needed, though! Help! 203.221.56.24 (talk) 11:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
French version
Hello! I am a French contributor of Wikipedia, and I translated this page in French. But this page is withdrawing because it hasn't reliable sources. Can you give me a source for my article? Thank you very much. -- Overlord Kelmor audiences 09:49, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Bonjour! (That's the only French I know oof. I know very little Espanõl, which is Spanish, in Spanish.) I fixed your punctuation, but unfortunately, I can't get you a source. I hope someone else who can reads, and responds to this though! --Queen Shore the SeaWing (talk) 05:22, 6 February 2020 (UTC)I is American English.
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 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)
Notability
This article currently does not cite any independent sources at all, and has been tagged as needing sources for over a year. If sources cannot be found and added, the article should be reduced tpo a stub or simply deleted. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 04:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Objections
B-but, there are plenty of sources! Look over it again! Dragonlover21 (talk) 11:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
You can't delete it! You just can't! Dragonlover21 (talk) 12:01, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
DESeigel Dragonlover21 (talk) 12:02, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Oh. Dragonlover21 (talk) 12:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Dragonlover21: It's not a matter of personal choice, it's just a matter of standards. Wikipedia articles are a summary of professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources. There need to be at least three sources that are independent of the subject to prove notability. Of the three sources, two are interviews (and so not independent) and are about upcoming graphic novels (things that might not happen generally are not notable), and one is only about the TV show -- there are no sources about Wings of Fire general. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Although I can't think of a way to incorporate them as of right now, here are some more independent sources related to the Wings of Fire book series:
- 'Wings of Fire' Flying High By Shannon Maughan
- Wings of Fire books 1-10 (reviews of the series)
- Book Review: Wings of Fire – The Dragonet Prophecy (Book 1)
There's also a Fandom wiki, but I doubt that's considered a proper source since they're almost certainly much worse at sourcing than you guys. --JumboDS64 (talk) 03:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Don't delete! 69.248.65.55 (talk) 15:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC) DO NOT DELETE!!!!!!! WE CAN MAKE IT BETTER-MUCH BETTER — Preceding unsigned comment added by Retagirl (talk • contribs) 16:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree that the article should stay. There are about 15 sources, and there could be several more on the way. We could make a separate page for each book, but that seems like a waste of time, and if there's 15 sources here, splitting them up would give us an average of 1 source per page. But we can make this page better, I'm sure.
Macadamia of the LeafWings | ROAR!! | Contribs |Sandbox 12:15, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but only 3 of the sources are useful to the article. The rest are either pages from the books or pages about the books from the publisher. MEisSCAMMER(talk)Hello! 15:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but how are book pages not useful? I mean, they're probably the most reliable sources we could get.
Macadamia of the LeafWings | HEAR ME ROAR!! | Contribs | My Guestbook📖 13:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- True. When you don't have much reliable sources, I guess its better to put all the sources you can get. It's just a guess though. 108.226.22.77 (talk) 02:46, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Stoping people who are intentionally writing false information.
Why are you doing this? Please stop. This will mislead others and it is not funny. WingsofFire2028 (talk) 16:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Also, anyone who wants to help, please help me fix the article. WingsofFire2028 (talk) 16:48, 28 May
2020 (UTC)
I'll help but also still help other people. (Retagirl (talk) 15:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC))
- I'm sorry, but what in the article is false? Is this about an old revision? MEisSCAMMER(talk)Hello! 20:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Book Pages?
Does anyone think it is a good idea to make an individual page for The Dragonet Prophecy? 2601:601:9080:5C30:CC72:5AFC:C937:6FA6 (talk) 22:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- 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? Ian.thomson (talk) 22:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Hmm, not really. 2601:601:9080:5C30:CC72:5AFC:C937:6FA6 (talk) 23:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
No. This is good, don't delete it. 69.248.65.55 (talk) 15:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Delete what? The only thing I see you asking not to delete is the The Dragonet Prophecy page which doesn't even exist. 2601:601:9080:5C30:8CBB:FCA5:F646:3C3B (talk) 17:15, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
24toonenata (talk) 19:50, 24 October 2020 (UTC) I personally think this is a good idea. Also, whoever wrote the wings of fire series page wasn't too good at punctuation, lol I fixed most of it though
Requested move 9 August 2020
- 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.
The result of the move request was: move Wings of Fire to Wings of Fire (autobiography) with the disambiguation page Wings of Fire (disambiguation) moving to Wings of Fire. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 22:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
– The novel series seems significantly more popular than the autobiography, so it should be the primary topic instead. In a Google search for "Wings of Fire", the first three pages of results are exclusively about this series. I think this is pretty clear-cut, but in the event that it's not, my second choice would be to say that there is no primary topic and move Wings of Fire (disambiguation) there instead. Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose 1st, support 2nd, move DAB to primary - disambiguate all per WP:NOPRIMARY. Google WP:HITS aren't a standard we should follow, due to inherent biases. Pageviews are quite equal for both topics. -- Netoholic @ 18:24, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I'm always a bit suspicious of pageviews when one of the pages is already at the primary location, though, since we don't know how many of the people who ended up on that one meant to end up on one of the others. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Right, that's often a reason we disambiguate all. Once pageviews settle down after the move, we'll have a better picture, but I doubt the needle will move much on this one. -- Netoholic @ 01:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I'm always a bit suspicious of pageviews when one of the pages is already at the primary location, though, since we don't know how many of the people who ended up on that one meant to end up on one of the others. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support the second move -- it's probably best if we wait a few months and see if the page view stats become clear once the autobiography is no longer at the base name and then perhaps propose again.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:11, 9 August 2020 (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.
Plot Mistake
In the The Hidden Kingdom summary, it says Magnificent cheated for the camouflage contest. But that isn't really cheat. She was unethical, sure, but it wasn't against the rules or anything. Do you think this should be changed? 2601:601:9080:5C30:7095:469E:9A6B:4988 (talk) 03:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
No, I'm pretty sure it was cheating. Silver might be a sloth, but injuring people in the sidelines should be considered cheating. Ex-Borg Seven of Nine (talk) 22:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
But she didn't injure anyone. 2601:601:9080:5C30:7D79:CD6F:6C20:CEE (talk) 00:52, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
She injured Silver. Ex-Borg Seven of Nine (talk) 17:31, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- so incredibly useless for me to say this now that summaries don't even exist, but no, Magnificent didn't actually ever touch Silver
- She scared Silver, but never injured or even touched him AaronTheSkyWing (talk) 18:51, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Darkstalker vs Peacemaker
Should Peacemaker have his own character analysis? Darkstalker already has one, but technicaly they're different dragons. If Peacemaker does, it should be put in the minor characters section. Ex-Borg Seven of Nine (talk) 01:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheDRagonFox (talk • contribs) 19:38, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Okay, I'll add it in minor characters. Rosefeather of WindClan (Meow at me!) 01:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes Ev666 (talk) 14:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
14th book
now that book fourteeen is out, can someone with it complete that part of this page because it is now out of date. that would be helpful, thanks24toonenata (talk) 15:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- This comment has nothing to actually do with the discussion, I just want everyone to know I moved this from another section MEisSCAMMER(talk)Hello! 20:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
I noticed a discrepancy between two editors
@Truthseeker the Sky-Night and @Macadamia of the LeafWings: I noticed you are communicating with edit summaries, maybe you might want to do it here. MEisSCAMMER(talk)Hello! 17:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. Truthseeker, I personally think we should leave in the characters and the tribes. I feel it helps readers better understand the books if they know more about the tribes and characters, and it just doesn't seem right to take them out. Maybe someone started reading this article, got to the part where they meet Peril, and think "SkyWing? What on earth is a SkyWing?". I feel like it might be confusing if we're talking about the tribes, but there's no information about those tribes whatsoever. Macadamia of the LeafWings | ROAR!! | Contribs |Sandbox 19:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- T: (not sure how to talk, do you just edit the thing here?) I personally believe that we should only list the names of the tribes, since only that is relevant to the summary. So if we say Peril is a “SkyWing,” a reader will know that SkyWings are one of the fictitious tribes of the in-universe continent Pyrrhia. That’s all they need to know. We do not need to do an in-depth dive into each tribe and their abilities and history in the series; that’s a task reserved for the fan wikis. Some of the problems with the article seem to be that the plot summary is unnecessarily long and detailed, and that the article is written primarily in an in-universe style. We’ll most likely have to rewrite the book summaries as well to be much shorter and to the point; the article will be a lot better once it’s cleaned up. Wikipedia strives for efficiency and brevity, and the article should be edited until it complies with Wikipedia standards. That’s all I have to say for now. If there’s anything I forgot to clarify, feel free to ask! 20:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Truthseeker the Sky-Night: I wholeheartedly disagree! People should know what a SkyWing actually looks like, what a firescales is, and know more about Peril's personality! (Oh, and please remember to sign your comments by typing four tildes (~~~~)) Macadamia of the LeafWings | ROAR!! | Contribs |Sandbox 00:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- @MEisSCAMMER: Um, MEisSCAMMER? Is there any chance Truth seeker and I are edit warring? Macadamia of the LeafWings | ROAR!! | Contribs |Sandbox 00:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- If someone wants to know what a SkyWing looks like, they can look for information on the Wings of Fire fan wiki—it’s only a Google search away. We should avoid cluttering up space on Wikipedia. I love Wings of Fire as much as you do and understand your enthusiasm, but please remember that Wikipedia strives to be as professional as possible. This is a professional website, not a fan-run enterprise. Truthseeker the Sky-Night (talk) 00:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Truthseeker the Sky-Night: I just think it's strange that you signed up half a week ago, and already you're deleting large amounts of information from one page, and you must have read many, many Wikipedia guidelines articles. Macadamia of the LeafWings | ROAR!! | Contribs |Sandbox 12:07, 6 April 2021 (UTC) (PS, NO ONE loves Wings of Fire as much as I do)
- @Macadamia of the LeafWings: I'm sorry, I seem to live in a different timezone than you, in answer to your question: maybe? I'm not sure whether one revert each counts as an edit war, but given Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, any more reverting would probably turn into an edit war. Of course, if you mean the talk page, that's not an edit war. Also, I have taken the liberty of indenting the posts by adding colons (:) at the beginning of each message. Also, it's rude to judge them by their knowledge of Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Newbies aren't always clueless. MEisSCAMMER(talk)Hello! 12:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Truthseeker the Sky-Night: I just think it's strange that you signed up half a week ago, and already you're deleting large amounts of information from one page, and you must have read many, many Wikipedia guidelines articles. Macadamia of the LeafWings | ROAR!! | Contribs |Sandbox 12:07, 6 April 2021 (UTC) (PS, NO ONE loves Wings of Fire as much as I do)
- Sorry, Truthseeker. I wasn't trying to be rude. Macadamia of the LeafWings | ROAR!! | Contribs |Sandbox 12:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- Well, I suppose I should weigh in too. I want to keep the character descriptions, but not necessarily go into too much detail about it, and also remove the tribes and the year system. I might be open to keeping the tribes section if we could just put basic descriptions and remove the "scavengers". I also forgot to mention this, please don't press Enter before signing, a space will do. MEisSCAMMER(talk)Hello! 12:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- @MEisSCAMMER: Ok, that's fine by me. Should I revert Truthseeker's edits and work from there, or just start from scratch?
- Feel free to do whatever’s more practical, although I’d prefer to start from scratch. The article’s a complete mess. Keep in mind that we have to fix up the article to adhere more closely to Wikipedia standards. While I’d like to point at the pages of Warrior Cats and Lord of the Rings as a reference for good editing and adherence to standards, they are extremely well known book series, often with separate pages detailing their universe, book plots, etc. Wings of Fire, being a very obscure series, needs to keep everything on one page. For good guides on determining what to include and what not to, see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Writing_about_fiction and Wikipedia:How_to_write_a_plot_summary if you haven’t already. Truthseeker the Sky-Night (talk) 18:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Truthseeker the Sky-Night: It's not allowing me to revert your edits, it says there are 'too many conflicting edits'. Can you try, please? Macadamia of the LeafWings | ROAR!! | Contribs |Sandbox 19:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Macadamia of the LeafWings: When it says that, it means that other users have edited over it, so no one can do it. You'd need to manually add those sections back from the revision history. I'll do it.MEisSCAMMER(talk)(contribs) 21:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Truthseeker the Sky-Night: It's not allowing me to revert your edits, it says there are 'too many conflicting edits'. Can you try, please? Macadamia of the LeafWings | ROAR!! | Contribs |Sandbox 19:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Okay, here's the old Characters section:
Article text
| ||
---|---|---|
CharactersMain CharactersArc 1In the first arc, the main protagonists are the Dragonets of Destiny, who are part of a prophecy that states that they are destined to end The War of SandWing Succession and bring peace to the seven warring tribes. The dragonets are:
Arc 2The protagonists of Arc 2 are the Jade Winglet, who are students at Jade Mountain Academy.
Arc 3The main protagonists are dragonets from the Hives, who make an unlikely friendship.
Minor Characters
*So far, Chameleon is shown to have a SkyWing form named Soar, an IceWing form named Cirrus, a NightWing form named Shapeshifter, and a MudWing form named Bog.
|
Hope it helps! MEisSCAMMER(talk)(contribs) 13:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Idea for the plot summaries
I think we can all agree that the plot summaries are excessively detailed (there's even a maintenance tag), so why don't we just do summaries for each of the arcs instead of individual books? ♔MEisSCAMMERtalkcontribs 12:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
a lack of information
something really needs to be done about the articles for books seven, eight, and nine, as they are very undetailed and are missing entire chunks of the storyline. i do not have the books on me and have not read any of the three in over a year and am therefore not qualified to write each section, so could someone with the books please add more to them? 24toonenata (talk) 02:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi 24toonenata! Plot summaries should not cover every single detail about a story. Wizzito (talk) 20:12, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
i know i mean there are MAJOR bits of the plot missing that i feel are necessary in the summary. not small pieces. 24toonenata (talk) 15:06, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
scratch that, everything is gone now. -_- 24toonenata (talk) 15:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Woah...
@Moneytrees: thanks for removing unnecessary content but the article does need a plot summary. And you've reduced it to a near-stub. Maybe we can work something out. ♔MEisSCAMMERtalkcontribs 13:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Wiki-Quality Rewrite Draft
So, obviously neither the current stub nor the previous info wall is ideal. I've started a draft of a new version of the page here, based mainly on Seekers (novel series), a good article about another of Sutherland's (arguably less notable) series. Added is a basic selection of citations and removed is A LOT of text. However, I have not read all of these books, so I would appreciate if somebody who has writes a one to two paragraph summary of each arc. I have also included a 1-sentence description of each tribe in "Settings," but character descriptions should stick to the book descriptions as in the included Seekers example. The two interviews cited in the beginning have a lot more interesting info to work with, but I haven't been able to summarize it all. Once all the sections are fleshed out and copyedited/cited, we can talk about merging it back in.
Note! Just because the main article is protected does not mean that this draft is the place to pour all of your book play-by-plays. Please behave yourselves.
Pinging @MEisSCAMMER, Moneytrees, Macadamia of the LeafWings, and Truthseeker the Sky-Night:
Mooeena ● 💌 ● ✒️ ● ❓ 23:12, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Weird, I didn't get pinged! Hehe, sorry about the rant below. I kind of exploded before I read the talk page.
Macadamia of the LeafWings | HEAR ME ROAR!! | Contribs | My Guestbook📖 13:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Stub
I've changed the rating to Stub class for now until the article gets better because the article is way too small to be C class. 🍓⋆JennilyW♡🍧 (talk) 22:56, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
What in the MOONS?!
So I take a two-month wikibreak, and when I come back, the article about my favourite book series ever is reduced to A STUB?! What happened?
Macadamia of the LeafWings | HEAR ME ROAR!! | Contribs | My Guestbook📖 13:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
@Macadamia of the LeafWings: If you look at these edits, a lot of things had to be removed because a lot of the text was copied and pasted from somewhere else and the plots were poorly written and trivial. Per Moneytrees's edit summary. 🎧⋆JennilyW♡🎶 (talk) 22:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- @JennilyW: I noticed that after I studied the edits and the talk page more closely. I still feel like we could've simply paraphrased the plagiarized bits, though. Macadamia of the LeafWings | HEAR ME ROAR!! | Contribs | My Guestbook📖 23:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- @JennilyW: Agreed, @Moneytrees: could you clarify what parts you thought were plagarised? I've also run the old page prior to the removal of the content looking for copyvio here: https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=&oldid=1024725913&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=1 The two hits were clearly copied *from* the Wikipedia article, rather than to (complete with badly copied section headings that include the "edit" text!) - but maybe I'm missing something? Absent positive proof of copyvio I'm inclined to restore the removed content (this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wings_of_Fire_(novel_series)&oldid=1024727225) and attempt to address the issues instead. Mvolz (talk) 08:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Mvolz Sorry for the delay, I've been really preoccupied with other things recently. I removed the content because it appeared to be copied from Fandom sites, but I'm not seeing that now. Aside from that I'm not so sure if the content should restored be re added, as a lot of it just isn't encyclopedic- take the massive sections on tribes, for example. I would be ok with the re-addition of other content such as plot summaries, although I think those should be edited down as well, or maybe split off into their own articles. Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide 04:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- @JennilyW: Agreed, @Moneytrees: could you clarify what parts you thought were plagarised? I've also run the old page prior to the removal of the content looking for copyvio here: https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=&oldid=1024725913&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=1 The two hits were clearly copied *from* the Wikipedia article, rather than to (complete with badly copied section headings that include the "edit" text!) - but maybe I'm missing something? Absent positive proof of copyvio I'm inclined to restore the removed content (this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wings_of_Fire_(novel_series)&oldid=1024727225) and attempt to address the issues instead. Mvolz (talk) 08:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2022
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add a plot summary of each of the novels in the series. 104.56.124.120 (talk) 18:58, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:27, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2022
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove the link from "Illustrator: Mike Holmes" linking the GN artist Mike Holmes to an incorrect "Canadian builder/contractor, businessman, investor, television host, and philanthropist" Mike Holmes 135.180.80.106 (talk) 17:56, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
how many books
This coming week 4-3-22 to 4-7-22 on the 5th the book 15 will come out. It is called Flames of Hope and for more info search on Google. 216.116.246.114 (talk) 01:29, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- It is already in the article. Rusty4321 talk contributions log 01:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2022
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It is stated that 15 main series books have been released between 2012 and 2021; however, Book 15 was released in 2022 135.180.80.106 (talk) 18:22, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:24, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- google search shows that flames of hope was released on april 5, 2022
- tui did a flames of hope release event on april 4, 2022 135.180.80.106 (talk) 18:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- barnes and noble website agrees with google AaronTheSkyWing (talk) 18:17, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Requested move 14 April 2022
- 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.
The result of the move request was: Not moved. While participation in the discussion was minimal, consensus via both existing precedent and in the discussion, is that web search results are not a good reason for moving pages. (non-admin closure) Garnarblarnar (talk) 19:04, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
It was proposed in this section that multiple pages be renamed and moved.
The discussion has been closed, and the result will be found in the closer's comment. Move logs: current title · target title
This is template {{subst:Requested move/end}} |
The Wings of Fire TV series was scrapped.[1] --75.90.47.248 (talk) 20:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
– A quick Google search leads you to this article. Also, I couldn't figure out how to do it using Twinkle, but the disambig should be moved to Wings of Fire (disambiguation). Rusty4321 talk contributions log 20:44, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose the series gets 17,709 views but the autobiography has 10,405[[1]] which seems too close. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:55, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- Strong oppose: Sorry, but web search results aren't a good measure of deciding the primary topic, as it gives wildly different results based on geography, and prior search history (related: WP:GSEARCH). Meanwhile Wikipedia's own pageview stats for past 12 months indicate several points at which the pageviews of autobiography outnumbered that of the novel series. Hence, it can't be the WP:PTOPIC as it's not significantly more popular than all other Wings of Fire combined. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • C • L) 08:33, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
References
Change some things.
Add a short summary of each books plot. Someone asked this a while ago and someone denied it because apparently it wasn't clear what changes they wanted to be made? Let me make myself clear. There should be a section created in which every book and a short summary of it's plot is listed. It's very simple to do. If you haven't even read the books, just say that, and get someone else to write the summarys. Also, "heavy and dark subject matter like LGBTQ"? :skull: This may offend some people. It doesn't offend me, but it may be offensive to some. 2603:8081:8900:55FC:89:35C7:EB3C:E314 (talk) 15:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- To the first point: no, we can't put in plots for fifteen different books. I believe that's been tried already; what happened is that the summaries devolved into a massive... thing of poorly written content and trivialities that necessitated semi-protection. To the second point: I do not see your quote in the article, and I'm not sure what point you're trying to get across with ":skull:". —MEisSCAMMER (scam) 15:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- It used to be there, but I have no idea what happened to it. Maybe it was just a troll thing added in and I happened to see it. But anyway, I've read all the books like six times. I could write perfect summarys, but I know they would just get reverted, sadly. 2603:8081:8900:55FC:54EE:D48E:5FE8:825D (talk) 14:49, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
We should add summaries of the books, legends, and winglets
I think that we should add summaries to the article similar to the way the Harry Potter article has.
- Hello? When I make the edit it gets instantly reverted, but when I ask if I can make the edit no one responds? How does this make sense and who do I talk to about it? CC8200 (talk) 00:35, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- First: the reason why your idea (of adding plot summaries) doesn't work has been answered above in the talk page. Second: presumably you were an IP, made the first edit to this section, and then registered an account and made the next edit, removing your previous IP signature. If that's true, welcome to Wikipedia! We don't generally remove signatures from previous edits, though. Third: I don't see anyone asking about making an edit above, could you point me to where you asked that? —MEisSCAMMER (scam) 02:34, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- OK, I just checked and those edit requests were made on another talk page; sorry for the confusion. In response to the second question in your post, there's no one person to talk to: some talk pages are stagnant and don't get visited very much. If the edit you want to make isn't some drastic upheaval of the page, the general policy on Wikipedia is to be bold and just make the edit, and then if it gets reverted you can ping the person who reverted on the talk page and start a discussion. You can read WP:BRD for more on this. —MEisSCAMMER (scam) 02:42, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- The thing is that the edit I want to make is actually a "drastic upheaval" to the page and I would need some help to make it good or it would get 100% reverted, and rightfully so. I'm a big fan of this series, so I would just like that this page have more actual information on the books to it. As for the plot summaries, I have heard two arguments against them. One is your own, which says that they would turn into "a massive... thing of poorly written content and trivialities". Now, this is true of course, as it is hard to write summaries for 15 books. BUT there are plenty of people in this wiki(that I'm not entirely sure are still active) who could help me write these summaries. Such as Macademia of the Leafwings, I think her name was. She wrote 14 summaries and they weren't too bad. We could even use portions of those to write the new ones. Another argument I heard somewhere against summaries is that since the books aren't as famous as some other books that have summaries, these shouldn't?... This one just makes no sense to me. If you still think adding summaries is too much, we could go back to what you said a while back and only add summaries for each arc. CC8200 (talk) 15:05, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- OK, I just checked and those edit requests were made on another talk page; sorry for the confusion. In response to the second question in your post, there's no one person to talk to: some talk pages are stagnant and don't get visited very much. If the edit you want to make isn't some drastic upheaval of the page, the general policy on Wikipedia is to be bold and just make the edit, and then if it gets reverted you can ping the person who reverted on the talk page and start a discussion. You can read WP:BRD for more on this. —MEisSCAMMER (scam) 02:42, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- First: the reason why your idea (of adding plot summaries) doesn't work has been answered above in the talk page. Second: presumably you were an IP, made the first edit to this section, and then registered an account and made the next edit, removing your previous IP signature. If that's true, welcome to Wikipedia! We don't generally remove signatures from previous edits, though. Third: I don't see anyone asking about making an edit above, could you point me to where you asked that? —MEisSCAMMER (scam) 02:34, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Add back the information I put in Setting and Universe
@Blaze Wolf @TheMysteriousShadeheart I really don't think that the information in that section is fancruft. When I look up an article on wikipedia and it's obvious that it was written by people who haven't read the books or played the game, I doubt the reliabilty of the article and I am led to believe that the article is missing a ton of information, just like this one is, and just like I doubt the fact that either of you have read the books. There is little to nothing in this article that you need to read the books to know. It makes it seem like bots wrote the article, honestly. I just want to add a little more information into the setting and universe section. This guy TheMysteriousShadeHeart just hops through wikipedia making edits that were suggested to him, and lowering the quality of articles. We need to have more information in these books. If you look above, to the Section right above this, I am currently asking to add summaries to the books, with no response so far. Saying, "there are some exceptions to these" like TheMysteriousShadeHeart did, isn't nearly sufficient when there are TONS of exceptions that he is just leaving out. More proof that the people who wrote the article didn't read the books is the fact the tribes were literally in the wrong order from how they were shown in the books. I had to change that myself. Blaze Wolf, you say the info is only important to people really invested in the series, but it does no harm to the people who aren't. I told ShadeHeart to fix the grammar and leave in the information, and he responded by reverting the edit with the exact same one he made earlier, and saying he did not remove any information. I even cleaned up the sentences on my second revision, and then you come along and revert it, Blaze Wolf. Have either of you actually read the series and care about the article, or are you just doing this for a quick edit to put on your record? Also, it is absolutely ridiculous to leave out the fact that some of the tribes live together, because in SIX books that is a very important part of the story. But of course, you don't know that, because you haven't read the books. Please refrain from removing someone else's knowledge of something that you barely even know exists in the future.CC8200 (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- "Blaze Wolf, you say the info is only important to people really invested in the series, but it does no harm to the people who aren't" WP:NOHARM, just because something does no harm doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedic article. Wikipedia is not meant to cover every single little thing about a subject, that's what Fandom is for. See MOS:PLOT, things should generally have out-of-universe importance. Having to read the book series in order to edit the article is not at all appropriate. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:50, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- Can you actually respond to what I said? "Also, it is absolutely ridiculous to leave out the fact that some of the tribes live together, because in SIX books that is a very important part of the story." You just completely ignored this part. Go back and re read what I said, instead of the one sentence you chose to respond to. CC8200 (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- I addressed it in the above sentence. "Wikipedia is not meant to cover every single little thing about a subject, that's what Fandom is for. See MOS:PLOT, things should generally have out-of-universe importance." Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:59, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- Man you just really aren't listening, are you? Something that is covered by NEARLY HALF THE BOOKS IN THE SERIES is not a "little thing". Do I have to ask you again to READ everything I just wrote? When I look up an article on wikipedia and it's obvious that it was written by people who haven't read the books or played the game, I doubt the reliabilty of the article and I am led to believe that the article is missing a ton of information, just like this one is, and just like I doubt the fact that either of you have read the books. CC8200 (talk) 18:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- I addressed it in the above sentence. "Wikipedia is not meant to cover every single little thing about a subject, that's what Fandom is for. See MOS:PLOT, things should generally have out-of-universe importance." Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:59, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- Can you actually respond to what I said? "Also, it is absolutely ridiculous to leave out the fact that some of the tribes live together, because in SIX books that is a very important part of the story." You just completely ignored this part. Go back and re read what I said, instead of the one sentence you chose to respond to. CC8200 (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- Hello to you... ^^ I'll try to tackle what you wrote point-by-point - hope it checks out and covers everything.
- An article on Wikipedia is meant to provide an in-depth overview of encyclopedia-worthy information on a subject. Expansively explaining minuscule facts within a short introductory overview to the settings of a page's settings and universe section, as I described in my reversion of your edit, the page is unnecessarily hindered by the run-on sentence I cleaned up and you insufficiently reverted. That is to say, the sentence was a run-on which (1) did not meaningfully contribute anything to the section at hand, (2) jumps into information within the series that is , and (3) does not have an enyclopedic-enough style. As my clean-up showed, the section's excessively descriptive content could be much better posed in an overview of a summative "[w]tih a few exceptions" note at the beginning. After all, the actual purpose of stating specific objections to each rule (1) doesn't allow enrichment of any other aspect of the article, and (2) doesn't explain itself as relevant apart from being a detail that could otherwise be explained away in a clearer form - one which I tried to create from your edit. Indeed, there are exceptions to those qualities; but to describe the sociopolitical system, geographical set-up, impact of the conditional arrangement of Wings of Fire, as well as other qualities already assumed understood by the tone of your edit, those underlying aspects would have to be distinguished and discussed first... and they weren't, nor did it make much sense to include those in a revision just as the article currently stands. May I ask how I didn't fix the page up so both the grammar and biographical body of text are up to grade?
- To respond to your crticisms more directly, I do not hop "...through [W]ikipedia making edits that were suggested... lowering the quality of articles". Rather, it is my intention to (1) ensure that information contained within articles is helpful, logically sound and factually both relevant and insightful enough, (2) of sufficient quality that the average reader could gain a decent understanding of the topic at hand insofar as it would be useful and comprehensively satisfactory, (3) improve the structural, emotional, intellectual and behind-the-scenes components of any piece that is in need of improvement (4) verify the contents of existing information, (5) do my part in constantly learning how to edit Wikipedia to the best of my ability (and then implementing those skills as best I can, constantly seeking to imrpove myself), (6) act as I would like others to act, and perhaps most of all, (7) try to ensure the best possible experience for all who use Wikipedia (see WP:BETTER). Forget my editing record; I'm not trying to amass anything to my name (and would rather quietly be in the background helping out, regardless of whether or not there was a record) - editors shouldn't be here for any other reason than to write and improve the best possible experience possible. How, as you accuse and I ask, I have lowered the quality of articles is beyond me - and with good reason, since I intentionally haven't and have instead improved with each edit I made, done as best I can (despite the occasional mistake, which I always stand behind and try to learn from).
- Please do not accuse myself or others of not reading the books. Trust me, I would not have edited either this page or that of Tui T. Sutherland to the extent I have if I hadn't known a thing or two about either one. And trust me, if discussions on this talk page - where deliberate discussion on whether the page should be appropriately expanded a la splitting Warriors (novel series) into individual pages for each arc (ex. Warriors (arc)) - led to a consensus about creating separate pages for each of the arcs/individual titles, I'd be one of the leading writers behind each of those pages. It is perhaps not an exaggeration to say that I am remarkably well-versed with the series - something I do not say lightly.
- I have revamped up this and Sutherland's pages so as to ensure that a reasonable-length, properly-cited, helpful introductory overview of an encyclopedic nature is available for all to use - something which has been inconsistently handled in the past, I'll admit (see revision history). Again, I am not removing information on the series, with previous edits to prove how significantly I have tried to contribute to both these pages (adding citations, rewriting/reformatting entire sections, cleaning up previous edits, etc.) and in paying attention to both the history of this page (in all its varying lengths) and the series itself, I am fully committed to ensuring the best possible page(s) available for everyone. No exceptions.
- I fully understand the enthusiasm you might have to write articles up the best way you can. Believe me when I say that I made an early mistake in an attempt to edit one page's biographical overview (2015 section to the Nintendo World Championships) massively. There's a time and place for everything - in the case with your specific edit, it's just not now, and not the right place.
- I wish you all the best in your time at Wikipedia - really, I do. But I, as with other users, cannot stand behind behavior such as that which you have displayed. Please let any of us know if you have any questions, comments or concerns, would like advice with anything at hand, or are in need of confirmation of any of the aspects of editing within Wikipedia. I strongly recommend you first investigate the community portal, and I suggest you check out the Teahouse in particular - it can prove invaluable to you, and besides, you'll be able to start on the right foot if you decide to stick around and try suggested edits. I sincerely hope that this can be a positive experience for you; I give every user (and person) the benefit of the doubt and truly believe every user can contribute something to this large project (and get something out of it in the long run).
- P.S. You specifically refer to a game - presumably the Scholastic Home Base and not the shoot-em-up game on the Scholastic forum which most FanWings post-2018 would have no knowledge of. Lacking knoweldge of either of these in particular does not make one ineligible to be considered as "knowing the series" (which I do) - the two endeavors are non-canonical, storyless and minuscule aspects which add zero weight to your accusation.
- P.P.S. There is no rule on ordering the tribes a specific way (ex. in the order introduced in the series). Believe me, I have no objection to having it be written any way at all so long as this listing itself is accurate.
- P.P.P.S. The fact that the RainWings and NightWings live together is a justifiable fact to include in a more comprehensive version of the page, or as Blaze Wolf writes in a Fandom article. Somewhat arbitrarily throwing it into a run-on sentence without any contextualization is - I hope others can agree - quite unsensible if not poorly executed.
- P.P.P.P.S. My initial efforts have also been to ensure this and Sutherland's page are cleared up insofar as the respective talk pages are concerned - and I fully look forward to seeing whether expansion is decided upon or not out of notability and necessity.
- P.P.P.P.P.S. I write ^^ as a sign of politeness, good intention and cordiality; it's not to signify anything other than a respectful sign along the lines of, this is my contribution, and whether it is good or not, I hope you can understand it was done with the good faith and the best of hopes for the future of this page. TheMysteriousShadeheart (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- @TheMysteriousShadeheart: "There is no rule on ordering the tribes a specific way" technically there is, just not written down. Some things tend to have a specific order they are written or spoken in for no real reason other than it just sounds right. Also, the user has been indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing (including edit warring and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior) so some of your points are moot. However I do want to commend you for attempting to reduce the amount of cruft in these sorts of articles. It's a major issue in articles dealing with fictional topics/universes/worlds (and even things that tend to have a lot of specifics such as car-related articles) and can be difficult to clean up sometimes. When I come across it I usually try and deal with it the best I can (much to the annoyance of those who absolutely must have every little detail recorded in the article) but it's not always easy. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:24, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- Hello there~! Thanks for writing!
- Absolutely agreed regarding the mellifluosity of certain phrasings - I merely tried calling attention to how ordering the tribes a certain way was, again, a mostly arbitrary thing. I have since become aware of the user being banned and had written this reply before learning of that, and I thank you for calling that to my attention.
- Thank you for your help as well - I don't know what I would've done without you! Before the editing had escalated this much I actually filed a request for upping page protection which was declined out of low vandalism activity. It's users like you who keep Wikipedia running so wonderfully - thanks a million! It really is a labor of love, often a thankless job. I seriously appreciate all of the hard work you've put in; let me know if you ever need a hand with anything. Your best is good enough! ^^ TheMysteriousShadeheart (talk) 19:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- That being said, incidents such as this do seem to recur every so often, so I think page protection may still be a good idea. —MEisSCAMMER (scam) 13:40, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- @TheMysteriousShadeheart: "There is no rule on ordering the tribes a specific way" technically there is, just not written down. Some things tend to have a specific order they are written or spoken in for no real reason other than it just sounds right. Also, the user has been indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing (including edit warring and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior) so some of your points are moot. However I do want to commend you for attempting to reduce the amount of cruft in these sorts of articles. It's a major issue in articles dealing with fictional topics/universes/worlds (and even things that tend to have a lot of specifics such as car-related articles) and can be difficult to clean up sometimes. When I come across it I usually try and deal with it the best I can (much to the annoyance of those who absolutely must have every little detail recorded in the article) but it's not always easy. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:24, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- Stub-Class novel articles
- Low-importance novel articles
- WikiProject Novels articles
- Stub-Class media franchise articles
- Low-importance media franchise articles
- WikiProject Media franchises articles
- Stub-Class children and young adult literature articles
- Low-importance children and young adult literature articles