Talk:Wings of Fire (novel series)

This article was nominated for deletion on 7 January 2021. The result of the discussion was keep.

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.

Novels Low‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Media franchises Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media franchises, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to media franchises 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.Media franchisesWikipedia:WikiProject Media franchisesTemplate:WikiProject Media franchisesmedia franchise
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Children's literature Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Children's literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Children's literature 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.Children's literatureWikipedia:WikiProject Children's literatureTemplate:WikiProject Children's literaturechildren and young adult literature

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tasks you can do:

Here are some open tasks for WikiProject Children's literature, an attempt to create and standardize articles related to children's literature. Feel free to help with any of the following tasks.

Add {{Portal|Children's literature}} to the See also section of related articles.
Tag the talk pages of related articles with {{WikiProject Children's literature}}
Join WikiProject Children's literature and list yourself as a Participant in the project.
Cleanup: A cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category, the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects.
Deletion discussions: listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature
Notability: Articles with notability concerns, listed at WikiProject Notability
Rate the Unassessed articles in the Children's literature WikiProject.
References: Add references to Unreferenced BLPs.
Requested articles: Create a requested article on literature
Stubs: Improve a stub-class article

edit

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)[reply]

Who bothered you? Argento Surfer (talk) 18:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ok😃 71.37.12.19 (talk) 11:35, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not to long. Queen Shore the SeaWing (talk) 14:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)I is American English.[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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.[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Objections

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

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

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

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)[reply]

Objections

B-but, there are plenty of sources! Look over it again! Dragonlover21 (talk) 11:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can't delete it! You just can't! Dragonlover21 (talk) 12:01, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DESeigel Dragonlover21 (talk) 12:02, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Dragonlover21 (talk) 12:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

If someone does this again (and you need help getting rid of it), please let me know ASAP so i can help out. Data Devourer (talk) 22:41, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hmm, not really. 2601:601:9080:5C30:CC72:5AFC:C937:6FA6 (talk) 23:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. This is good, don't delete it. 69.248.65.55 (talk) 15:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

– 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Sorry, Truthseeker. I wasn't trying to be rude. Macadamia of the LeafWings | ROAR!! | Contribs |Sandbox 12:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Okay, here's the old Characters section:

Article text

Characters

Main Characters

Arc 1

In 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:

Clay, who narrates The Dragonet Prophecy. He is the MudWing mentioned in the prophecy, with his egg being sold by his mother Cattail to her sister Asha. Clay can be described as kind, clumsy, and friendly, however, in the first book, there is a lot of portrayed internal conflict, with him questioning whether he was the dragon everyone else expected him to be. Clay has a strong bond with all of his friends and plays a peacemaker role, tending to be the one that stops or prevents conflicts from occurring. As a result of being born from a blood-red egg, he has fireproof scales, which he uses numerous times to save himself and his companions. Clay has five siblings who he is close to and would have been the "bigwings" of their group if he had not been sold. He has romantic teases with Peril, who has a crush on him, but it is unknown if he likes her back, though there are some hints to it. In a possible future, an orange-brown dragonet is shown. This is possibly the child of Clay and Peril.
Princess Tsunami, who narrates The Lost Heir. She is the SeaWing of the prophecy, and her egg was stolen from the SeaWing Royal Hatchery by Webs. Tsunami is fierce, strong-willed, stubborn, and bold, though she is fiercely determined to do what's right and is a loyal and dependable dragon. Tsunami is the self-proclaimed leader of the group and insists on making most of the decisions, but she learns to also listen to others' decisions as the series progresses. She wants nothing but to reunite with her family and her tribe but grows increasingly disillusioned with that dream in The Lost Heir, realizing that while she does love her family, her friends are more important to her, even though they bicker often. She bears a strong hatred towards the Talons of Peace for stealing her egg and making the first six years of her life miserable. Tsunami is also a member of the SeaWing royal family, as the daughter of Queen Coral, and has two sisters, Anemone and Auklet, and thirty-two brothers. In The Lost Heir, there have been some indications that Tsunami has a crush on Riptide, a fellow SeaWing and in a possible future, a blue dragonet is shown; It is possible that this is the child of Tsunami and Riptide. She helped Turtle explore Pantala in book thirteen, but returned to Pyrrhia between books thirteen and fourteen.
Queen Glory, who narrates The Hidden Kingdom. Glory was a last-minute replacement for the original SkyWing egg of the prophecy. Due to this, she received much abuse from her caretakers Kestrel and Dune, and was raised to think that RainWings are lazy and dumb, even though Glory is not. Glory is sarcastic and frequently grumpy but cares deeply for her friends and those she cares about. She is initially overjoyed to meet her tribe, though when she realizes that they are pacifistic and isolated, she begins to resent them, though she eventually gets over this. Glory gets crowned queen of the RainWings by Ex-Queen Grandeur at the end of The Hidden Kingdom, and then later becomes the queen of the NightWings when they were escaping the volcano. She is known to be a benevolent queen who treats her subjects fairly, despite only being seven years old, and has also tried to improve her tribe by teaching them how to fight and sending dragonets to school. She and her NightWing bodyguard, Deathbringer are heavily implied to be in a relationship, and in a possible future, they end up getting married and have a daughter named Firefly.
Starflight, who narrates The Dark Secret. He is the NightWing of the prophecy, and his egg was given to the Talons of Peace by Morrowseer. Starflight is a smart, nerdy, cowardly, and somewhat arrogant-ish dragon who loves scrolls, which usually annoys his friends with the exception of Sunny. However, Starflight struggles immensely with himself, and his perfect view of the Nightwing tribe is shattered when he realizes how desperate and cruel they have become. In The Dark Secret, Starflight learns to be brave and use his intelligence to his advantage. He becomes permanently blind at the end of The Dark Secret due to the volcano eruption, meaning he can no longer read scrolls, though he does have friends to help him and is currently a librarian at Jade Mountain Academy. He and Fatespeaker are working on scrolls that even blind dragons can read, and he is the only confirmed blind dragon besides Tamarin. Starflight's parents are Mastermind and Farsight, and he has a half-sister named Fierceteeth. Starflight had a crush on Sunny for the majority of the first arc, but she gently rejected him, convincing him to pursue Fatespeaker, a NightWing dragonet who he had befriended. In a possible future, he ends up having a daughter, who is implied to be the dragonet of Starflight and Fatespeaker.
Princess Sunny, who narrates The Brightest Night. She is the SandWing of the prophecy, and her egg was stolen from the middle of the desert by Dune. Sunny is noted several times to be odd due to her small size, golden scales, green eyes, and her lack of a venomous tail barb. She is idealistic, optimistic, trustworthy, and sees good in all dragons, but constantly feels like her friends underestimate her. She has a heavy faith in the prophecy and believes strongly in destiny and fate, and the revelation that the prophecy is fake breaks her. It is revealed that Sunny is in fact a hybrid, and a product of a secret relationship between her mother Thorn, a SandWing, and her father Stonemover, an animus NightWing. Her father being an animus NightWing means she is related to Darkstalker and Whiteout, and could potentially have animus dragonets. At the end of The Brightest Night, she crowns Thorn as the new queen of the SandWings, making Sunny a princess. She is currently a staff member at Jade Mountain Academy. Starflight had a crush on her for the majority of the first arc, but she only saw him as a brother and rejected him for that reason.

Arc 2

The protagonists of Arc 2 are the Jade Winglet, who are students at Jade Mountain Academy.

Moonwatcher, more commonly known as Moon, is a NightWing who narrates Moon Rising. Her mother Secretkeeper secretly raised her in the rainforest instead of the NightWing island. Her father is Morrowseer, the NightWing who created the 'fake' dragonet prophecy. Moon hatched under two full moons, causing her to receive mind-reading and visions, being the first NightWing in 2,000 years to have powers (other than Fatespeaker who is shown to have little to no visions). She is shy, nervous, and gets overwhelmed quickly by all of the dragons at school, but she manages to overcome it and ends up delivering the Jade Mountain Prophecy, the first real prophecy in generations. She befriends Darkstalker in Moon Rising, though later turns on him in Darkness of Dragons.
Prince Winter is an exiled IceWing prince that narrates Winter Turning. He was raised in the Ice Palace, as the nephew of Queen Glacier. He is cold, haughty, and rude, but he is genuinely good-hearted and capable of befriending and showing pity to others. Winter was the disappointment of his family. His brother, Hailstorm, was a First Circle dragon, next in line to be the commander of the IceWing army. His sister, Icicle, was a Second Circle dragon, and although Winter is older than Icicle, he is in Third Circle and thought to be dead at the end of Winter Turning. He is not appreciated by his family, because of his pity for other dragons and his scavenger obsession. This all comes to show when Glacier sends him to the Jade Mountain Academy in Moon Rising, and runs away, in search of Hailstorm, who was imprisoned by SkyWings when Winter was three. Unexpectedly, Hailstorm was disguised as Pyrite, enchanted to appear and think like the fake female SkyWing. Winter also loves Moonwatcher, despite her being a NightWing, but is turned down when she chose Qibli. There is a chance that Winter may like Lynx, a fellow IceWing dragonet who appears more in The Dangerous Gift.
Peril, a firescales SkyWing, who narrates Escaping Peril. Peril was raised by Queen Scarlet to be nothing more than a remorseless killer. She is loud and doesn't really mind killing, believing it is an integral part of her. She grew up very lonely, with her only friend being an elderly dragon named Osprey, though Clay befriends her in The Dragonet Prophecy. She goes into exile after the supposed death of Scarlet, looks for Scarlet, and soon finds her. however, she disagrees about killing anyone for her, and Scarlet is gone the next morning. she then takes refuge at Jade Mountain. In Escaping Peril, she befriends Turtle and learns that she can be a good dragon in spite of her destructive abilities as a result of Turtle's influence and Queen Ruby's forgiveness. Peril also learns that her father, Chameleon, is a RainWing, but shockingly she is not a hybrid (he used animus magic to turn himself into a SkyWing when she was conceived). Peril is currently a student at Jade Mountain Academy as part of the Jade Winglet, and has made an effort to be nicer and befriend the other students.
Prince Turtle, a SeaWing animus, narrates "Talons of Power". Turtle is shy, with a lack of self-confidence, and prefers to stay unnoticed and off to the side. This stems from a childhood incident when he was not able to save his younger sisters from being killed in their eggs, and he blames himself for it. As Talons of Power progresses, Turtle becomes more confident in his abilities and is finally able to put his past beside him. His animus power is revealed when he saves Winter from death in Escaping Peril and taken away by Darkstalker when he is caught in the Night Kingdom, though he is rescued in Darkness of Dragons. He has a crush on Kinkajou, a RainWing student, who then is enchanted by Anemone to love Turtle, and after the spell is removed, admits that she does not know whether she has feelings for him or not, but they will see if it works out.
Qibli, a SandWing, narrates "Darkness of Dragons". At the end of the book, he unsuccessfully tries to turn down Moonwatcher from loving him. He has a scar on his snout due to his family. When he was three, his mother, Cobra, sold him to Thorn, in return for her having protection from the Outclaws, and Qibli began to see her as a surrogate mother. Qibli is sharp-witted, intelligent, analytical, and slightly calculating but he has an enormous lack of self-esteem. Near the end of “Darkness of Dragons” Qibli turns down the offer of getting animus magic, something he’s wanted his entire life.
Kinkajou, a RainWing, does not narrate any books, but she is still an important character in the series. She turns Darkstalker into a dragonet with his own animus scroll in Darkness of Dragons. She appears in both Arc 1 and Arc 2. Kinkajou is very optimistic and forgiving.
Darkstalker, a Nightwing/Icewing hybrid, partly narrates Legends: Darkstalker, along with Clearsight and Fathom. He serves as one of the main antagonists of Arc 2, the other being Queen Scarlet.

Arc 3

The main protagonists are dragonets from the Hives, who make an unlikely friendship.

Blue, a SilkWing, who narrates The Lost Continent. He is a kind and gentle dragon who constantly tries to imagine himself from the perspective of other dragons. Blue and his sister Luna live in Cicada Hive on the continent of Pantala. When Luna goes through her Metamorphosis it is revealed that she is a flamesilk. He helps Sundew steal the Book of Clearsight. Towards the end of The Lost Continent, he develops romantic feelings for Cricket, which is forbidden by Hive law. He goes into his Metamorphosis shortly after and is revealed to also be a flamesilk. After the events of The Poison Jungle, he is presumably under the control of the Othermind, as he used his flamesilk to burn the breath of evil, thinking that it was a cure for the Othermind’s control.
Cricket, a HiveWing, who narrates The Hive Queen. She is a dragon who has an extreme curiosity about the unknown. She is the only HiveWing to not be under the control of the Othermind except for Bumblebee, Lady Scarab, Lady Scarab's daughter Lady Jewel, and all of Queen Wasp's sisters. This is because Queen Wasp goes into each Hive Nest and injects the breath of evil into the eggs. This was confirmed in The Hive Queen, when Cricket spied on Queen Wasp with Bumblebee's egg in Jewel Hive. Cricket was raised by her grandmother, Cadelle, and her grandfather, who she believed to be her parents. She was also convinced that Katydid was her sister, until Lady Scarab, Queen Wasp's aunt, told her she was Katydid's daughter. She also develops romantic feelings for Blue during The Lost Continent and The Hive Queen.
Sundew, a fierce LeafWing who hates HiveWings, narrates The Poison Jungle. She is fierce, smart in everything about plants, poisonous or not, and has the strongest Leafspeak in the whole offshoot LeafWing tribe. She is described to be forest-green with golden flecks all over her body, along with lots of pouches containing insects and other useful plants, although in The Poison Jungle, one of the pouches is revealed to have a small jade frog in it, given to her by Willow (who is confirmed to be in a relationship with Sundew) to use to tell Willow that Sundew is at a small pond situated between the two LeafWing villages.
Swordtail, a SilkWing builder. He does not narrate any books as of yet but is still an important main character. He is shown to have strong romantic feelings for Luna, Blue's half-sister, and has a sister named Io. He is described as a troublemaker and is constantly ending up in Misbehaver's way, the dragon version of Juvenile Hall.
Luna, Blue's half-sister. She is also a SilkWing, and has strong romantic feelings for Swordtail, as mentioned above. She doesn't narrate any books as of yet but is still an important main character. She narrates the unnamed book 15.
Wren, a human who was sacrificed to the dragons at age 7, and met Sky in Legends: Dragonslayer. She is leaf's sister, and she has learned to speak Dragon.
Sky, a SkyWing who is Peril's fireless brother and Wren's dragon companion.
Queen Snowfall, a paranoid IceWing, who narrates The Dangerous Gift. She made a short appearance at the end of book thirteen, trying to get Jerboa to expand the great ice cliff around the ice kingdom (unsuccessfully).
Lynx, an IceWing who dosen't narrate any books as of yet, but is still an important character. Lynx helps Snowfall with her anger issues in paranoia in The Dangerous Gift, and makes a small appearence in Winter Turning.

Minor Characters

Chameleon, a RainWing who can't change his scale colours and used Darkstalker's scroll to become other tribes*, resulting in him being Peril's father while in Ex-Queen Scarlet's service. He is later seen helping Darkstalker and the Talons of Power.

*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.

Anemone, Tsunami's sister and an animus dragon. She is the second SeaWing princess to hatch since Orca enchanted her statue, and later, at Jade Mountain Academy, she is in the Silver Winglet.
Auklet, Tsunami's youngest sister. She is the third and last SeaWing princess to hatch since Orca enchanted her statue.
Mink, Snowfall's younger sister. Snowfall stated that she reminds her of Sky.
Bumblebee, a HiveWing rescued by Cricket in The Hive Queen, so she would't be under Queen Wasp's control.
Io, a SilkWing in the Chrysalis, which is a movement for SilkWing rights. She is sister to Swordtail.
Fierceteeth, a NightWing. She is Starflight's sister, and later a close ally of Darkstalker. She was enchanted by Darkstalker to look and act like Clearsight, against her will, until Moonwatcher convinced him to change her back.
Strongwings, a muscular NightWing who is Fierceteeth's boyfriend.
Foeslayer, a NightWing. She is Prince Arctic's wife, and mother to Darkstalker and Whiteout. She was captured by IceWings and enchanted to be part of the IceWings' Diamond Trial. However, Prince Winter freed her after she was imprisioned in ice for 2,000 years, and she changed her name to Hope when she raised Peacemaker.
Snowflake, an IceWing in the prologue of Legends: Darkstalker, and a character in Winglets: Runaways. She was going to be Prince Arctic's mate until he ran away with Foeslayer.
Peacemaker, a RainWing-NightWing hybrid. After Darkstalker nearly took over Jade Mountain Academy, Kinkajou enchanted a strawberry that he ate, and he turned into Peacemaker. Peacemaker is known for having a fondness of strawberries.
Typhoon, an IceWing-SeaWing hybrid who helped to save the IceWings from the plague.
Prince Cliff, a SkyWing, is Queen Ruby’s first dragonet and is a self proclaimed good singer. He is first seen in Escaping Peril where his grandmother, Queen Scarlet, kidnaps him to use him as bait and a way of making her daughter, Queen Ruby, obey her.
Crystal, an IceWing who is Snowfall's older sister and Snowfall originally feared she would try to steal her throne, before learning she had disappeared because of a MudWing, Gharial, who she fell in love with during the war.
Lady Scarab, a HiveWing and aunt of Wasp. She cannot be controlled by the Othermind (as of The Poison Jungle) and is said to have escaped Jewel Hive with her daughters, Tau, and Cinnabar before she can be controlled by the Othermind.
Lady Jewel, a HiveWing cousin of Queen Wasp and ruler of Jewel Hive.
Cinnabar, a SilkWing who worked for Lady Jewel, and might have been taken by the breath of evil along with Io.

Hope it helps! MEisSCAMMER^{(talk)^(contribs)} 13:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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? ♔MEisSCAMMER^{talk^contribs} 12:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi 24toonenata! Plot summaries should not cover every single detail about a story. Wizzito (talk) 20:12, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

scratch that, everything is gone now. -_- 24toonenata (talk) 15:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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. ♔MEisSCAMMER^{talk^contribs} 13:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. 🍓⋆Stary90♡🍧 (talk) 22:56, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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. 🎧⋆Stary90♡🎶 (talk) 22:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Stary90: 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)[reply]

@Stary90: 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://wiki.eso.workers.dev/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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:59, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:24, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

barnes and noble website agrees with google AaronTheSkyWing (talk) 18:17, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

– 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[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.

References

^ https://variety.com/2022/film/news/netflix-animated-series-wings-of-fire-antiracist-baby-1235269747/

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)[reply]

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:". —ME_isSCAMMER (scam) 15:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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? —ME_isSCAMMER (scam) 02:34, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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. —ME_isSCAMMER (scam) 02:42, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

February 2023 Content Editing Conflict

@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)[reply]

"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 Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:50, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:59, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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 Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:24, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. —ME_isSCAMMER (scam) 13:40, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, indeed. And there is news. It would appear that an additional series of "discussions" occured on User talk:CC8200, which involved a long-term sockfarm threat from the banned user (on top of an anonymous vandalism which may or may not have been caused by said user at a different IP). I have thus placed a second request for extended autoconfirmed page protection - this page is essentially destined to be targeted once in a while, though this new threat specializes this situation in a very different way and may qualify more adamantly and pressingly now. This threat could literally involve hundreds of such edits to this and other pages, after all. ^^ TheMysteriousShadeheart (talk) 19:49, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TheMysteriousShadeheart: The request will be declined because pages are not protected pre-emptively (see WP:PREEMPT), but your idea is good. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:05, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I don't think they will carry out their threat; people just do this to get attention, and when they don't they move on to other things. Unless we actually have hard evidence that socking is happening (I don't see anything wrong in the page history for this page after CC2800 besides one IP who was apparently trying to edit the grammar), it probably isn't. —ME_isSCAMMER (scam) 19:59, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

...Well, there was another pair of edits quite recently. (I have sent thanks to the user who reverted it.)

I for one think it'll be an inconsistent problem that'll come and go. Regardless, I'll be attentive (and I'm sure other users will notice, too). Anyhow, thanks to you both. ^^ TheMysteriousShadeheart (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TheMysteriousShadeheart: No problem! Glad to help! If you want a custom signature by the way, feel free to just ask me and I'll make you one as long as you say what you'd like it to look like relatively. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:44, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Thank you though I will politely decline. ^^ TheMysteriousShadeheart (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe other pages are now the target; it seems that the vandal uses each IP to vandalize several pages (see Tui T. Sutherland and its talk page history). Fortunately, other users have been similarly bold in helping me prevent the pressing problem of vandalism. Again, just want to thank you all for helping get this sorted out - it might not be going away any time soon, though thanks to your contributions editors now seem more cautiously aware of this issue. ^^ TheMysteriousShadeheart (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TheMysteriousShadeheart: hmm... looks like this is indeed socking and they're targeting Wings of Fire related pages. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 22:47, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An update: the page is now protected for a 14 day/336 hour period considering a recent influx over the past several weeks. I do hope this at least disheartens the vandal(s) and ensures that, overall, a definitive decrease in unjustifiable/missourced content added to this and other pages will be ensured/strengthened. Nevertheless, I'll be keeping a diligent eye (or two) on the two or three pages that are the main target; in the meantime, I've made a few minor additional adjustments and fixes to the page. Thank you once again for your help, and to those who read this who are committed to helping Wikipedia become the best it can be, trust me, there's someone out there who truly appreciates it. ^^ TheMysteriousShadeheart (talk) 18:10, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Linguistics in the Digital Age

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 11 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ambersky0319 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Fedfed2 (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Translations Section Advice/Questions

I'm very new to editing Wikipedia, so please tell me if I should go about this in a different way!

I noticed there was a citation needed for the statement that the books have been translated into at least 10 languages. I'm still doing my best to dig further to see if I can find any other sources regarding this, however, the ones I have found I have doubts about their credibility or they don't have enough information, and one is the fandom wiki, which I know cannot be cited because it isn't a reliable source. I otherwise haven't been able to find a single source so far that can cite this statement.

The reason I bring up the fandom wiki, however, is because there's a section about the international releases, listing 17 different languages the books have been released in. I started to think it'd be possible to use that, at least, to find where those books have been released or who translated them. But because there's 17 different languages listed, I don't think putting the citations for that one fact would be a good idea, especially considering it looks like only some of the books have been translated.

I was considering the possibility of adding a section specifically to talk about the translated books. The section would include who translated/edited the books as well as how many of the books were translated in that particular language. Because this would be a much bigger edit to the article, I want to get feedback on if this would be something the article could benefit from.

Any advice and/or feedback would be very appreciated. ^^ Ambersky0319 (talk) 08:23, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ambersky0319 Hidden within the citation needed tag itself, is the reasoning for this tag: Statistical figures on best-selling book charts generally require a citation; while the number of copies sold has been verified, it would nevertheless be ideal to back up all the attached information with sufficiently reliable sourcing.

We might be able to use bookstores as sourcing, but I'm not sure, so I'll leave this for another editor to respond to. Rusty4321 ^{talk contribs} 03:31, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there; welcome to Wikipedia! My apologies for not replying to you sooner - I believe I can offer some clarifications and updates on my own work tackling this question. As a fellow contributor who has done my best to ensure the verifiability, significant status of and original-sourcing referential quality of the already-incorporated sources on this page, when I led an initial major overhaul of the page starting in roughly January 2023, an insufficient portion of information was already included in the pre-existing article. Namely, an out-of-place citation towards a social cataloguing website was listed as the source of the ten-or-more languages which, as far as Wikipedia's editing standards suggested, was not appropriate for embedding in this section. As no evidence suggested this generally self-justifiable information was capable of being verified when linked to an appropriate source which did not copyedit from the pre-existing Wikipedia page, as most sources seem to do, I created the "citation needed" note you can still find in the article.

Where the problem appears to be especially rooted is the aforementioned fact that few encyclopedic-quality articles have treated the subject in depth in more than a passing manner; nearly all of the citations currently included only exist to provide the bare minimum level of information needed to back up the contents of the article. Take a look at the "Book Series in Order" piece currently cited as an example: the quality of the text is poor at best and severely qualitatively uninformed at worst, yet it is presently cited as a "published" work which, in its simplest form, lists the Wings of Fire books in order. (Oddly enough, it omits Winglets compilations.) Similarly, the Toppsta piece is statistically incorrect with dates, poorly linked to other titles within the larger series and not consistently presented as up-to-date. Unless a more readily useful work of a similar nature is discovered, however, this may be the best neutral source available on the subject matter regarding functional listings of tiitles which are not prone to the same problems seen with Fandom/Wikia.

And then there are articles currently cited which use information which can - and does - change on a whim. Of especially conflicting note is the "Children's Series Books - Best Sellers - Books - The New York Times" chart listing, which in unarchived and constantly prone to change; it does not belong linked to the article in its current form and is therefore in need of immediate modification, for example. These may, again, be arbitrarily updated on a whim due to their temporal nature; what is present on the "Scholastic Kids" page can and will change at any time as the publishers see fit. Oh, and I would note that listing the dates of all the translations would, again, prove unnecessary for the purposes of this article.

However, there are other written works - mostly interviews - which do present information with reference to useful statistics. For this I have referred to both this page and the Tui T. Sutherland article. Two articles (here and here) have been cited using Publishers Weekly, and while the content is useful for our purpose as contributors, the figures are now dated to an extent. Few treatments exist by other standards; there are pieces written by the author (the TuiBooks sources); this piece which provides externally-verified information in a non-traditional format concerning a specific wtihin the series' development (these kinds of sources are normally the most suspicious; however, this one is a rare exception due to its break from the nature of writings associated with Fandom); several direct interviews which support external information from the series itself (namely this and this). And then there's this essay, which provides excellent coverage on a number of subjects we can (and do) use encyclopedically yet does not present either a note on translations or chart-related statistics on sales. From where we are concerned, we are looking for something similar to one of these pieces, if it exists - something which does not copy from other sources and it able to verifiably cover this statement in an appropriate context.

I hold to the position that the article would not benefit significantly from an independent section on international translations. Completed using alternative artwork unbeknownst to the series author, little else could be said about the objective usefulness of information about the translated works in an encyclopedic tone without risking becoming what could be considered fancruft (see WP: FANCRUFT). There's going to be a wide frame of reference when viewing how translations are noted in other articles on literary series, however - making this a subject within which one would be wise to self-discern and discreetly handle while considering the aims of the article in question. I'll provide an example. Developing articles, such as The Unicorn Series, would benefit from little more than a footnote mentioning aspects to do with the publication information internationally, as, apart from the factual discrepencies between any translation errors and the problems they may have caused, this information would be of lesser importance compared to articles which, due to the complexity of the historical background and the resulting scholarship which explores varying translations, individual books may sometimes even receive their own page dedicated to the many translations in existence. Both works require sufficient coverage of critical and commercial reception, yes, including snippets of major reviews when relevant, just as significant information beyond the contents of the work itself which could enrich the article's coverage of the subject. However, in the case of Wings of Fire, there are several issues which keep this page from ever becoming anything more than a lower-level article in this regard: (1) no major changes in text have ever been noted concerning translations, (2) next to no coverage has ever been provided on translations, apart from the odd mention that they exist, and (3) the inclusion of an individual write-up on translations and their effective differences/reception could easily prove redundant to readers (again bordering on fancruft if improperly embedded).

Perhaps, under these circumstances, the immediate relevance of this intro-section information would be best relegated to a detailed note about the series' production (not necessarily under "Themes and reception", nor under "Setting and universe", but a new section which heeds both said sections under a more behind-the-scenes how-it-came-to-be write-up. There are a few problems with this, however - the vast majority of information covering the series is obtained from live events and unarchived interviews, and the few written pieces which have been noted to cover this information already seem to be used rather heavily within the page. Furthermore, the tendency of this section to lean into fancruft, coupled with the fact that no official press releases or secondary sources exist which solely treat the subject, I do not believe there are enough reasons to justify the creation of this supposed new section unless one might uncover new sources. As it currently stands, therefore, merely leaving the information in the introductory section where it is appears to be the best bet. ...Unless, of course, the general consensus of editors goes against this, or it is altogether agreed upon that no citations for series sales statistics are necessary in this case.

Here's the short version: no citations seem to have been found yet, and it is highly difficult to find or relegate the information from existing sources in a way which doesn't risk becoming fancruft. Citing a substantial article which notes sales statistics would be useful, whereas in the case of the series translations, we require little more than a mention of their existence in an article to some extent (if we need a citation at all for that). Many articles which cover the books are rather uniformly borrowed from other sources, however, which make the search for an original point-of-reference especially difficult in our case. ...Does this make sense?

I hope this is helpful for you! There is definitely a kind of decentralized editing process for this and the Sutherland article. This article in particular was especially prone to fancruft before the overhaul; please let me know if there are any other questions I can help you with, if you'd like me (or someone else) to explain something else for you, or would just generally like to learn more about Wikipedia - I am here to help you to the best of my ability. Oh, and best of luck with your Wiki Education assignment! ^^ TheMysteriousShadeheart (talk) 19:34, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This was definitely helpful, thank you so much for your detailed explanation! I did notice the fancruft when looking through the previous discussions and versions of the article, hence why I wanted to post the question before making any substantial changes. I get what you mean by making a separate section would risk becoming fancruft.

Thank you again! ^^ Ambersky0319 (talk) 20:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help - don't be afraid to ask if there's anything else. There is definitely room for discussion about this, just as the learning curve to understanding it all is a rather... gradual process. Take care and thanks for asking! ^^ TheMysteriousShadeheart (talk) 21:46, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add info about upcoming books?

I was recently alerted by members of the WoF fandom that Tui has announced that she will be writing a fourth arc (series). I think that we should include a mention of that. Here's the link to the video and the fandom page

BTW, If am not told otherwise (if at all), I will add this. Data Devourer (talk) 22:23, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! As it currently stands, yes, this information has been revealed to the general public, yet - seeing as to the nature of the way this information has been presented - this is a tough call as to whether or not we can add this information to the article. Tui has stated that she is working on Books 16-20 at the moment, just as she stated that another non-Wings of Fire project is in the works (a sci-fi murder mystery). Considering the additional information she revealed at her October 18-19 events in Vancouver (the best example found here), both during and post-broadcast, it appeared to be true that these new titles are not set in stone for an official release quite yet. Even so, the validity of this information does warrant some serious consideration, and to an extent I agree that the information could be incorporated into the article as a short-sentence note on the announcement (and nothing more).

There is a bit of a problem, though, and that has to do with how, for all it's worth, no formal, citation-worthy press releases or publications making note of this fact have been released or made available for us to cite. Consider for a moment the fact that this page is, from time to time, of an especially high risk factor when it comes to fans addressing minute details which could be considered fancruft (see WP:FANCRUFT). We, the contributors to this page, have to not only discern which information holds objective worth for the sake of this neutral encyclopedic project, but to determine whether there are existing sources which supply, provide insightful depth on and support the relevant information. In this case, a fan snippet video and the coverage seen on Fandom do not qualify for Wikipedia's standards.

As a result, we, the contributors, are in a tough spot, where (1) the information is formally confirmed from a first-person source (in this case directly from Tui T. Sutherland at several of her live events, yet nowhere in written sources), (2) no citation-worthy sources exist which could support this information upon its inclusion, (3) the nature of this information teeters on the border of fancruft in that this page may become even more prone to fan speculation and vandalism to do with the subject (as an almost unencyclopedic-at-the-moment tidbit of information which merely concerns the possible future of the series), (4) the fact that Sutherland has merely mentioned she is working on new potential stories, which does not necessarily concern whether they will even be completed in the end, and (5) the information has a bit of a "big news" feel to it, to which other contributors are likely to tag it as requiring a citation for support (since we cannot use any sources at the moment in a valid sense).

Here's what I believe could be the best course of action, based on all that this situation calls for: we can include the information in the article under the "Other works" section of the "Supplementary works" heading (since this does not self-justify its own sub-heading under the series' "Synopsis" heading). Something along the lines of "Sutherland has raised speculation about the release of a fourth arc and/or additional companion titles, having noted at several events that she has put time into the development of further Wings of Fire books." This would be accompanied by a citation needed note at the end of the sentence, since - as I discuss above - no verifiable sources are to be found at the moment but could be made available at some point in the foreseeable future. With a tone that diffuses heightened speculation from other readers of this page, this may be the safest bet. I request that other users weigh in on this issue first, however; there's a valid argument against including this temporal information, and other users may still remove the sentence regardless as it invokes the imagery of fancruft in a certain sense.

Anyone else interested in weighing in on this discussion/debate? ^^ TheMysteriousShadeheart (talk) 18:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

[1] ttps://variety.com/2022/film/news/netflix-animated-series-wings-of-fire-antiracist-baby-1235269747/

[1]