Talk:Sera (Dragon Age)

Style problems / Fancruft
The Appearances section could benefit from being rewritten with suggestions from Manual_of_Style/Writing_about_fiction. Some examples are the style manual's suggestions on fictography (especially a clearer distinction between real, and in-universe locations and organizations, such as Orlais and the Inquisition) and the inclusion of real-world perspective for each of the listed plot events. If no real-world perspective can be taken from certain content, I believe it would be more in line with Wikipedia's vision not to include that content in the article, or it just becomes fan trivia that doesn't benefit readers who aren't fans of the game series. That is the current state of the section, which is why I have added Template:Overly_detailed. Before removing the template, please consider rewriting/editing the section to better reflect Wikipedia's style guidelines for writing about fiction. 24.68.70.161 (talk) 11:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * What are some concrete suggestions? I'm aware of all the guidelines you're speaking of, but I don't think the article is such an egregious violation of them. None of the sections are more than a couple short paragraphs, and the content seems generally understandable for non-fans. (I've never played this game or heard of this character and I feel like I'm generally following along fine.) Sergecross73   msg me  13:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I would edit the tone and omit certain details. For example I would change this section: "These clues, if followed, eventually lead to a confrontation with a magic-wielding Orlesian nobleman in a secluded courtyard, who assumes that the Inquisition was targeting him. Sera will then reveal herself and promptly executes the nobleman with an arrow to his face." and change it to this: "These clues lead the player to a confrontation with a nobleman NPC in a secluded courtyard, who assumes that the Inquisition (the the player character's organization) was targeting him. Sera kills the nobleman with a bow and arrow." This makes the narrative tense consistent and removes what I perceive as a non-encyclopedic tone. I would also remove trivia details such as: "She will also attack Maryden when she starts singing "Sera Was Never"." I already removed a line like this before the page was protected, and it's not a very big passage to begin with as you said, so there isn't a whole lot of work to do. But secondly, I don't agree that the article must be an egregious violation in order to be improved; small fixes are still positive edits. There are more articles to fix after this one. A couple other isolated parts of the article could use some minor touch-ups to give them an encyclopedic tone. I hope that helps. 24.68.70.161 (talk) 22:57, 17 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Dragon Age isn't my cup of tea, but the section is clearly written, concise, and not at all inappropriately long by comparison with the rest of the article. I suggest we remove the tag forthwith. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:41, 18 February 2022 (UTC)


 * My fifty cents: Maybe the second paragraph of appearances might be too detailed but I'm not familiar with how this series works. If real world info references this, then I think it's notable.Tintor2 (talk) 12:38, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Most of the plot summary content in Appearances isn't referenced at all by the real-world sources cited, or any sources that I know about. It retains tone/prose problems either way. I vote the template is not removed, but changed, or the section fixed and the template removed. 24.68.70.161 (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not mandatory for plot summaries in articles on Wikipedia about fictional topics to be thoroughly peppered with secondary sources as in-line citations; according to convention and consensus across the board, we presume that they are cited directly to the literary/visual media works themselves, though I suspect more experienced editors like and  could correct me or address such concerns better then I can. You'll find that it isn't an impediment to GA-class assessment criteria as well. Even so, the essay by Jessica Hylton which is published in a peer-reviewed book, which does go into detail about the character's in-universe interpersonal interactions, casts doubt on your argument that the prose "isn't referenced at all by the real-world sources cited, or any sources".


 * So what standard do we use to measure the line between "overly detailed" or clear and concise writing for articles about fiction? We go with the policy on due and undue weight as well as sense of proportion to the treatment of such detail in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. The article by Ars Technica, amongst other secondary sources cited in this page, detail the character's interactions with other NPC's, and a few others either approve or disapprove of the character's attitude and vigilantism in articles written specifically about her; while not directly cited in-line within the appearances section in this instance, a closer examination of the contents of that article and the prose of this page will make it obvious that there is no original research involved, and that critics or experts of the vg industry were clearly interested in discussing those aspects of the character as opposed to say, her gameplay utility which barely gets a mention here.


 * Finally, I'd like to draw attention to the fact that at least three other editors in this discussion have questioned your assertion that there is "an excessive amount of intricate detail that may interest only a particular audience". While there is always room for improvement with the drafting and editing of any Wikipedia article, even with GA-class articles, at this time you have no support from the editors of this discussion for your tags to remain in place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haleth (talk • contribs) 10:13, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I see you've edited the article following some of the suggestions in this thread, and I think the problem has been remedied - at least the problems with tone. While I can't say we've reached full consensus, I personally no longer have any problem with the template being removed. 24.68.70.161 (talk) 12:43, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm, it appears to be fine. Plots tend to be like that often when it's the only appearance that she makes. The tag is unnecessary and should be removed now. 59.152.141.198 (talk) 13:04, 18 February 2022 (UTC)