criticalrole

Prior relevant discussions

Historical discussions relating to this for archival purposes. FreckledMcCree (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Continuing to use this as a sort of holding section for related conversations that were had (or are being had) about guidelines, consensus, and general community practices. Feel free to incorporate these into the reference page if you have time or interest:

~FreckledMcCree (Send me a message!) 18:09, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion

Might I suggest adding something regarding capitalization in section names? Everywhere else, including article titles, etc., we only capitalize proper nouns, but sections capitalization seems to be random across the wiki. What is the consensus here? — unsigned comment by User:SorcererSupreme21 (talk)

Very good call! I'm not sure what the consensus is. A lot of articles use title case, but that feels inconsistent with how article titles moving toward proper noun capitalization and sentence case, and some articles do use sentence case in section titles. (For comparison, Wikipedia and many other wikis, like Wookieepedia, use sentence case.) I'll take a look around and keep a note to add something. I'd love to hear your thoughts on which seems more common or better to use, Title Case or proper noun / sentence case. FreckledMcCree (talk) 01:22, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Count my vote for proper capitalization for consistency. SorcererSupreme21 (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
I created a section for this, #Section headers, tentatively with language for sentence case per consistency. I also moved a bunch of other general advice about section headers into it. FreckledMcCree (talk) 18:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Splitting off into smaller pages

As I stated elsewhere, I've been giving some thought about how it might be good to split this into smaller pages that present more focused advice and give this page more breathing room, make it look less intimidating. I would be glad to hear some ideas alternative solutions about that, but my current thoughts about the specifically splitting solution are to split off the following sections:

The downside would be that there are more pages to look at. However, it would also be in more digestible chunks. It's common practice at many large wikis, such as Wookieepedia, the Marvel wiki, the MCU wiki, and others to have a collection of focused pages. It'll allow more focused guidance and advice to new editors, as it'll allow us to more specifically send them to a single page, without making them feel overwhelmed by a longer guide. If an editor is struggling with referencing, it'll be more helpful to send them to a page specifically about that, without making them feel they need to know all these other things as well.

I believe there are arguments for other sections are good candidates, but I think we should start with these. Once these are split off, it'll be easier to rewrite and refactor, then split off more. Work in steps.

But, also, I welcome other solutions to this problems. Any further advice or suggestions about focusing? I would like as broad an input as possible. FreckledMcCree (talk) 00:41, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't have advice on how to best do this, but I do think it would be helpful to have separate pages for some more in-depth topics - categories and linking both seem deserving of more space. I've also brought up on a few talk pages if we should have guidelines regarding notability and how D&D canon that is not confirmed to be Exandria/CR Canon should be handled and I'm wondering if this would be helpful to include here, or if it's out of scope.Untropicalisland (talk) 22:05, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
I think a notability—which I do remember being discussed at least twice, yes—might be out of scope. But, I do not oppose devoting a section here to help develop and incubate that while attention is currently being drawn here. How to handle canon and the canonicity of non-Exandria specific 5e material can be included here, I think. The first step is to draft up a section, then make further determination on whether it's lengthy enough to spin off. FreckledMcCree (talk) 03:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

A Case for Present Tense

Firstly, thank you FreckledMcCree for all the hours you must've put into this. It's a really beautiful, comprehensive document. I can't think of anything worth adding, though I would like to make a case for using the literary present for every article except for the handful of historical people/events that occurred pre-campaign one. Two main reasons:

It helps future-proof the articles. Say campaign 3 happens 100 years after campaign 2. If we stick to past tense for deceased characters, we would then would have to update every human (and aasimar and goblin and tiefling and...) NPC from the previous campaigns to past tense. Plus, with the constant chance PCs can die and be resurrected later, using the literary present saves editors from constantly having to switch tenses back and forth. Just seems like less work in the long run as the timeline chugs on.

Secondly, I know the wiki has a large spoiler banner front-and-center, but I still think it would be a kind thing to do to at least remove spoilers from the topmost character overviews. Literary present helps mitigate that. "Frumpkin was the familiar of Caleb Widogast" becomes "Frumpkin is the familiar of Caleb Widogast." I can't count the times across my fandom history I've just popped onto a character's wiki page from google for an art reference only to be knocked over the head with a spoiler in the first sentence.

I think past tense is best utilized in areas specifically referring to chronology where present tense might otherwise be confusing. Maybe restricted to "Biography" sections or maybe even just "Background/Pre-Stream" subsections and the like? The literary present might be less intuitive to those not already familiar with it, and I don't think it needs be enforced with an iron fist, but it does seem like a good, time-saving practice for frequent editors that could give the wiki a little polish. Insanitysilver (talk) 14:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree! I was thinking about this since there was a valid and recent observation about trying to keep spoilers out of first sentences and "was" is very much a spoiler; these past tenses also leak into external search previews, which was a concern about the name of the Vex'ahlia article. Literary present would help with that, for all the reasons you stated. It is the adage after all, that when you open a page in a novel, a character is forever doing that action in the present tense. If I were to play 2.14, both Molly and Cree are well and alive, interacting in present tense, never moving into the past.
I think the best way to articulate when to use past tense would be, say, anything taking place before the character, object, or location first appeared on-figurative-screen—or happened before the current moment being described, like, "Caduceus buys a broken hilt" in the episode he's doing that action but later it's "the broken hilt he bought" in past tense. Only full past for characters introduced already dead or locations/items introduced as destroyed. I think it would be good to move toward and it wouldn't require people to spend the tedious amount of time changing to past tense when a character dies or a location or item is destroyed. It would also bring greater consistency because the vast majority of references that use the |more= to add context describe actions using the literary present, indicating that apparently it's felt to be somewhat natural in a sense.
I also agree against like a hard enforcement if adopted, unless someone wants to hold a drive to convert to present tense or wants to personally take on that project, but I would think we should implement it moving forward as we update and copy-edit articles. But I would apply it to entire articles, not just the lead, and basically anywhere there's plot summary (biographies, episode summaries, items, cities). Treating these things as fictional plot summaries rather than as real-life biographies, which should make understanding these things easier. FreckledMcCree (talk) 00:58, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Just to clarify, the rule about episode summaries has historically been that the episode page is in present tense, but all other references to the action (such as the mini-summaries on character pages) use past tense. It seems to feel and read most naturally that way.
That said, I also agree that characters-killed-on-stream and destroyed-on-stream items shouldn't be changed to past tense for all the reasons stated above.
Interestingly, some other wikis have reached the opposite conclusion. See, for example, the Forgotten Realms Wiki, where they use past tense almost exclusively for places and items. LynnE216 (talk) 12:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Mmm very interesting! I wonder if that difference comes down to how the source material is viewed/used? While the Forgotten Realms have plenty of books and canonical adventures set in them, the sourcebooks and worldbuilding primarily serve as a framework for DMs to use and build on as they please. Because that's it's primary purpose, it makes sense to me that the wiki treats it's articles like alternative history vs a canonized body literature.
I think most people view CR as the latter, though as the franchise continues to grow and more CR sourcebooks are released, it'll be interesting to see if that perception ever changes. Not refuting your point, just musing on the very interesting nuances of this discussion. Insanitysilver (talk) 12:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
My experience with Wookieepedia is there's a general dislike and constant jokes in the fandom about the exclusive past tense. So, I'd avoid it. Wikis generally decide to write entirely in past, as InsanitySilver observes, because they approach things as historical rather than a fictional, which I think is a bad idea. The clarification on episode summaries in present and character/item/location summaries in past is very helpful. But, doesn't that create inconsistency? If a reader finds a plot summary in present on one article natural, wouldn't they find a plot summary in present on another article equally natural? Both are plot summaries, just with different scopes. And it makes it more difficult for editors, who have to switch tenses in summary per subject. In my experience, people don't find literary present unnatural to read; it takes getting used to in writing.
I'd preferably support full literary present, but I'd absolutely support the halfway "if the subject appears during a narrative beat and is later killed or destroyed, sections that would be written in present tense (lead, appearance, personality, properties, description) for a still-living or not destroyed subject should remain in present tense". FreckledMcCree (talk) 16:51, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Section on handling canon

Might be good idea to add a section about how to handle changing canon and semi-canon material per the older discussion about the orc article and the more recent brief discussion about couching adventure hooks and adventures. ~FreckledMcCree (Send me a message!) 20:43, 31 August 2021 (UTC)