Talk:Varauna Goldfeather

Questions about Wiki-Editing + Future Edits
Hi and thank you for the corrections!

Questions:
 * Would you suggest adopting the way of writing the dates only at the start of the article?
 * I have also seen other wiki editors use the "late 15th Century" style, but am I correct in the observation that this is usually done at the start of articles? I understand the reason is that Varauna may have served beyond the dates mentioned, and the "late 15th Century" DR conveys this
 * I understand it may be a matter of personal style, but I prefer having sub-sections and bullet points when the number of people in the full section is greater than 4 or so. I could not find a guide / policy for this. When would you suggest adding bullet points to a wiki? The larger Truesilver wiki I edited had them for members, but so does the smaller Skatterhawk wiki.

Suggested Edits I can make:
 * You removed the hyperlinks to shadovar, and occasionally Havilar, Maranth Goldfeather & Raedra Obarskyr. I avoid the hyperlink more than once if a sub-section (e.g. relationship) is talking about that character. Should I edit and re-insert these links?
 * You added Varauna flashing a smile to her mother in her History section. I feel this was a very minor event in the novel not worthy of being in History. I had added it into the Relationships section for her mother simply to point out that her mother was alive, and that their dynamic was such that Varauna would smile towards her (what the smile implied, is not clear in the book. It was rather minor). Shall I remove this from History?

I noticed how you placed the History section at the top. Reading through your Talks page on Wheloon, I can see the rationale. Reading Varauna's history puts everything else about her in context. The Forum:Standardizing article sections guidelines are great, but sometimes, like here, History being on top makes sense. Thanks for that!

Also thank you for lower-casing leather armour, longbow, etc. I keep forgetting some of the rules!

BlissfulSavant (talk) 12:29, 21 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Some of my changes were more stylistic or personal preference, but I'll try to explain.


 * For the first point, I like to use the full year name for events that specifically take place in that year (useful if the year name can be read as prophetic), at least where it's first mentioned or linked to, where it's relevant to events in that year, or in a History section, as the full name shouldn't be repeated too often to avoid being repetitious. At lesser mentions of the year, then '1486 DR' will do.


 * Saying 'late 15th century DR' or 'late 1400s DR' gives the era of the topic. When in the article lead, it signals to the reader how relevant it may be to them, that is, this is a 4e- or 5e-era topic. And Varauna Goldfeather is more than just a lady-in-waiting to Raedra, she may have a life well beyond that and live for decades before and after this period. So having a long range of dates covers that possibility. After the lead, you can use such statements as needed; an article about a location that goes back-and-forth could use them a lot. 'Late 15th century DR' feels wider by being longer and 'late 1400s DR' narrower by being shorter.


 * Dot/bullet points are useful for lists of things. In both Skatterhawk and Truesilver, those are just names and scant details, so dot points are appropriate. In this article, the points were going into full prose sentences, two sentences, even whole paragraphs, which defeats the purpose of a list. You might as well just write out the prose. Bullet-pointing information can lead to articles listing random details, without discussing what those details mean or relating them in context.


 * Ideally, links should be used sparingly: once in the infobox (as it's treated as a separate object) and once in the main text of the article, at the first appearance of the term. Too many links can turn an article blue and red and be distracting. Who needs a new link when the last one is just in the previous section? In a very long article, you can consider adding a link again, where it's directly relevant and necessary to the discussion. For example, if I was writing about a major deity, I could link to other deities in the Relationships section and in the Activities section where they oppose that deity's plans, but not bother in the History section.


 * For me, the mention of the smile had no context or apparent purpose. We don't know anything about her mother, so why was she smiling? What did the smile mean? Why would she smile at her mother? That is, she's her mother, why wouldn't she smile at her? Putting it as part of the events of the siege gives it more context: it shows Varauna is brave or in good spirits, etc. You could expand on that, and relate the events around it. For example, "Varauna flashed her mother a smile before joining the front lines of the siege."


 * Yes, while we're not strict on section ordering, it pays to keep in mind what the reader needs to know and the order they need to know it in. Introduce something at the start that you need to use later or that will explain something later. You can even arrange an article so that spoilers and twists appear at the end. In this case, having History at the top gives context by explaining the events, while the following sections give extra detail, rather than leaving the reader wondering when the fight happened, what the siege was, etc.


 * Writing a good wiki article is an art-form as much as anything else. Don't think of it as just having a bunch of sections and trying to fill them in with whatever can go in them. Instead, you're writing an essay or you're telling a story about it and are trying to make that easy and entertaining for your reader. Sections are more guidelines for structuring and focusing discussion, but they're not all needed. Especially with novels, which are already stories, I suggest starting with the History and summarising the events, then seeing what else there is to say. Often, you won't need many additional sections. Try to avoid repetition, try not to assume or speculate about matters, and keep key information together rather than scattered around the article, to keep it in context. When trying to explain something general about character, say it, and give the incident as an example or evidence of it. An article ought to be complete but concise, not long and unwieldy.


 * I didn't get a chance to address it in my edit, it would've been too much to do, but I'll explain now and you can consider revising. There are several matters that are repeated two or three times in the article, when they could've been handled once, and get tiptoed around when they could be addressed more directly. For example, the fight with Pelarra gets two lines in Relationships, but honestly, how much of a Relationship can they have if they've never been in the same room since? I would suggest doing this in History, for example:


 * Varauna was a lady-in-waiting to Princess Raedra alongside Florelle Ambershield and Pelarra Huntsilver. However, when Pelarra was being "an absolute beast" towards Florelle circa 1483 DR, Varauna defended Florelle, even attacking Pelarra and tearing out her hair. Thereafter, Varauna considered Pelarra "a viper" and the three refused to even be in the same room together, until Pelarra left to be head of her own house.


 * I feel that's more direct, active, and follows the sequence of events in chronological order. Once these events are established in History, they can be recalled later in a much briefer form. Under Personality, you might say:


 * Varauna was quick to go on the attack to defend her friends and allies, like when she attacked Pelarra to protect Florelle, or when she joined in the defense of Suzail.


 * This focuses on Varauna and her personality and gives some quick examples in support of that, without going off on a tangent telling that incident. It doesn't even need to appear in Relationships, because there is no ongoing, important relationship to discuss here as there is with Raedra. You could so something similar regarding the incident with Havilar: summarise that event in History, then refer back to it later in Personality. For example, 'When seeking attention or wishing to lift Raedra's spirits, she had a bad habit of engaging in gossip or mockery, such as she did with Havilar, but she did not display any overt signs of prejudice.'


 * Wow, that's quite a lot and I've spent too long on it, clearly. Works of fiction like novels can be the hardest to document as the information isn't neatly packaged like it is in a sourcebook, it's scattered and embedded in the story, so it's difficult to do well. But it's good that you're thinking about it and how to handle it better. I hope these explanations and ideas are helpful for you. ~ BadCatMan (talk) 14:29, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to not just correct, but walk me through the rationale and best practices :) This will certainly influence my future wiki edits! I have taken a look at the Help-Policy pages. If there are any other new-editor-onboarding resources that can be useful, then I would love to take a look at them! Apologies if I missed them.


 * Makes sense! I will use the full-year name as you suggest
 * Got it. "late 15th century DR" style when I am writing in broad strokes. Specific dates for specific events / history
 * Will extend the 3 sentence rule to not just new page creation, but also Bullet Point creation. Another consideration will also be if the sub-topic merits a list, or is more prose-like
 * I think I have seen wikis/ had my wikis edited by others, such that hyperlinks were put in for almost every mention. Too much red, or even blue / gold would certainly be distracting. This is likely a personal style choice, but definitely seems more readable this way. I will be taking up this approach as well.

So far, I had approached the wiki like I do my gm-notes. Complete and concise information delivered in an organised and inter-linked manner. I did not consider how reading wikis can draw people in (esp. newcomers). That engagement, structure, and story-telling could or should apply here. While I will still strive for full and concise information, I will be adopting this perspective. Think from the POV of the reader, and how to maximise their fun + engagement.

I will revise this page in light of what we discussed. I had not consider redundancy (Relationships being discussed in History, thus meriting no future repetition), because I was treating the wiki as quick reference for GMs. Thank you, once again. Your input was immensely helpful :)

BlissfulSavant (talk) 16:40, 22 March 2023 (UTC)