Jump to content

Talk:Critical Role campaign two

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 1.129.108.26 (talk) at 22:13, 8 February 2021. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Why does this List article exist separately from the Critical Role article?

After multiple discussions on Talk:Critical Role (1, 2, 3) about the length of plot summaries (100+ episodes for each campaign), consensus was to spin out a list article for episodes due to WP:SPINOFF & MOS:TVSPLIT. This ongoing project started at Draft:List of Critical Role episodes and discussion there led to the decision to spilt campaign 1 & 2 into separate list articles (see also MOS:TVOVERVIEW "Multiple pages"). Sariel Xilo (talk) 22:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 30 January 2021

Critical Role (campaign two) → ''The Mighty Nein'' – The current title is not really specific enough. This is effectively the second season of Critical Role, but as it focuses on a group of adventurers knowm by the name "The Mighty Nein", that seems like a more accurate title. Alternatively, "The Mighty Nein (Critical Role)" might work. 1.129.104.85 (talk) 05:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. Jack Frost (talk) 07:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment @Sariel Xilo: while following the conventions of most television series makes sense, I think that the nature of Critical Role means that these conventions make sense up to a point, but then they become restrictive (which is why I suggested the rename). For one, there are over a hundred episodes in a single "season", and with every episode being longer than a feature film, following things like MOS:PLOT is practically impossible. So renaming this article something like "Campaign Two: The Mighty Nein (Critical Role)" makes a lot of sense to me. 1.129.104.49 (talk) 10:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose page move. I am not seeing the argument that the current article title is not specific enough. It unambiguously and concisely identifies the article topic and complies with convention. However, support creation of redirects for plausible search terms as appropriate. Lowercaserho (talk) 14:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – whilst I'm not tied to the current title; it seems WP:PRECISE enough. If we want more specificity in the title; Critical Role: The Mighty Nein campaign would be better than "The Mighty Nein" (IMO). If we do that we should probably rename the campaign one article Critical Role: the Vox Machina campaign at the same time. The reason for suggesting having "campaign" in the title is down to the existence of the VM Origins comics - plus, if you'll forgive me for ignoring WP:CRYSTALBALL for a second, the forthcoming VM animated series and announced MN Origins comics. I know official names often count for naught, but I was curious as to what the CR channels call the campaign... Their Twitch channel uses "Critical Role Campaign 2", and their YouTube Channel uses "Campaign 2: The Mighty Nein". I could only find a single, third party source that referred to the second campaign as "The Mighty Nein". Little pob (talk) 19:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have dropped notes on the talk pages of WikiProject Television and WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons inviting more voices to join the discussion. Please notify any other projects/editors that you feel might be interested, but bare in mind WP:CANVASS. Little pob (talk) 13:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose — if anything, it should be moved to a variation of the existing, "Critical Role (Campaign 2)", "Critical Role: Campaign 2", etc. This title is already specific enough. In fact, the proposed is very unspecific: is this referring to the Mighty Nein campaign, the fictional adventuring group, the upcoming Mighty Nein Origins comics? Also, per WP:COMMONNAME this campaign is referred to in the official channels, in RSes per Sariel, and even in my personal experience in the relevant online spaces as "Campaign 2". ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 01:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment - There is current consensus that a move to the proposed title is opposed. However, there have been a few proposals for alternate titles, as well as a simultaneous RM discussion in relation to Season 1 which may also have an impact upon this article. Hence, relisting to enable further discussion and a clearer consensus to emerge across both articles. --Jack Frost (talk) 07:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arc designations?

Where did the arc designations come from? I may have simply missed them, but all arc designations I know of are entirely fan organized, which makes them inappropriate as segmentations here. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 01:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure were they've come from. They arc names and episode splits differ somewhat from those I've seen on the Fandom wiki and Reddit though. (I'm not suggesting we switch to using those, as both are listed as "unreliable" on the WP:RSPSRC list). Little pob (talk) 15:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, those are what I was thinking of. If there isn't anything officially dividing the arcs up, then I propose we just remove them entirely. Either way, it's wholly inappropriate for the plot section, which should just be written straight through. The episode list is very long, so there's merit to separating the list into subsections. I propose doing so by years aired or in 50 episode chunks. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm removed the arc separations from the article and divided the episode list into years, which actually happens to separate them into chunks of ~50. (Well, more like 40-46ish.) This should make the list decent to navigate without relying on non-official / fannish arc splits. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 03:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TenTonParasol: Following up here rather than at List of Critical Role episodes just to keep the conversation in one place. This source for campaign 1 specifically calls out the "Briarwood" arc & the "Attack of the Conclave" arc with episode numbers. Also, most coverage of the animated show mentions the Briarwood arc in the context of it being adapted (for example: 1,2). I think breaking it down by year works for now but for campaign 2, we should keep an eye out for their new show Crit Recap Animated which will recap specific arcs. That will give us the official breakdown. Sariel Xilo (talk) 02:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
'Tis true, 'tis true. It crossed my mind, but the lack of such divisions and "arc names" for every single arc makes it sort of useless in the episode listings, though it's absolutely useful in the context of discussion specific episode chunks. I think until then, we should steer clear of arc designations until there's an official breakdown for all of them, such as in the Recap Animated as mentioned. Will keep an eye out. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 05:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Synopsis/Plot

I just reduced the plot section a bit but it still needs to be reduced by ~400-500 words per MOS:TVPLOT. However, technically, it is suppose to be a prose summary (500 words) or an episode by episode summary in the table (200 words per episode) but not both. Given the length of Critical Role, I think it makes sense to have both as an exception to the style guideline. We could also consider moving the reduced prose plot summary to the List of Critical Role episodes. Thoughts? Sariel Xilo (talk) 03:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Saruel Xilo — I know you're going off MOS:TVPLOT given the episodic structure, but I think it's worth looking at MOS:FILMPLOT as well given that individual episodes (like "Fair-weather Faith") can be as long as two films. MOS:FILMPLOT says the following:
"Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words. The summary should not exceed the range unless the film's structure is unconventional, such as with non-linear storylines, or unless the plot is too complicated to summarize in this range."
I think Critical Role definitely qualifies for this. One of the trickiest things that I have found is being able to summarise a plot without actually knowing what is relevant at the time. Case in point, Gelidon's return. When Gelidon appeared during the Uthodurn arc, I don't think anyone anticipated her coming back like this (but I discovered the show during lockdown, so maybe more experienced critters could). I then had to go back and add Gelidon to the relevant episodes and it's easy to lose track of the word count. Likewise, there are elements that seem important but never really go anywhere, such as the clearly abusive relationship between Jester and Artagan (I'll never know why M9 didn't kill him on Rumblecusp). Why do you think I added the "setting" sub-section? It was because episode summaries contained references to the Clovis Concord without actually explaining what that was. Likewise, there are key characters played by Mercer—Essek springs to mind—that I think need to be established in the article before popping up mid-synopsis. So I think we do need some kind of campaign summary early in the article. 1.144.109.66 (talk) 05:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More granular details like that, such as Gelidon, don't need to be in the plot section as they are fine existing in the episode summaries themselves. The plot section is for the most broad and over-arching details of the plot, for as long as the plot section exists. I wonder if there's a way to push the article toward a "Synopsis" and list of episode structure, in the way that Firefly (TV series) is formatted, where "Synopsis" isn't really a plot summary but rather a broad overview of the format and premise of the series as a whole. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 06:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I like User:TenTonParasol's Firefly example. I kind of think the setting section is unnecessary since Exandria exists. The main thing is that this article already has episode by episode summaries. We don't need to get bogged down in undue details (see WP:PLCUT, MOS:PLOT, & WP:FANCRUFT) and there are other websites (the Fandom Wikia comes to mind) which go into greater detail. For example, I think mentioning Gelidon in the prose summary is unnecessary since the party has had about 2 encounters with the dragon versus Essek who has become a reoccurring NPC that the party often interacts with. Editors will probably always have to go back and update summaries as key context changes. That's just the nature of Wikipedia. Side notes: I think you would benefit from making an account & you should use edit summaries when you edit both article & talk pages. Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 06:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do think having a brief setting section is worth having, just to contextualize relevant details about the plot here. I do think the setting section is in a good place right now, but I generally agree that it should not get too into the weeds. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 06:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the "Firefly" example is a poor one because the series was cancelled mid-season. It never really got past its premise; the entire point of "Objects in Space" is that Mal accepts River as a member of his crew.
"For example, I think mentioning Gelidon in the prose summary is unnecessary since the party has had about 2 encounters with the dragon"
I agree. What I meant is that prior to "Fair-weather Faith", Gelidon was a dragon who appeared in a single episode, and the summary for that episode simply mentioned her as a dragon. However, the fight with Gelidon gave the Tombtakers the chance to steal the Bag of Holding and break the alliance, knowing that the Nein were weakened. Therefore, the fight is significant and it is more concise to refer to Gelidon by name in the episode outline. So that the reader is not left asking "who is Gelidon?", we had to go back and add Gelidon's name to the episode that she first appeared in. That's what I meant when I said that it was hard to anticipate what would be important.
"We don't need to get bogged down in undue details (see WP:PLCUT, MOS:PLOT, & WP:FANCRUFT)"
I'm well aware of these. But I have found that it pays to keep track of sub-plots in case they become plots. It makes writing the synopses a lot easier to keep them cohesive. When the Nein found the corrupted arboretum, Mercer acknowledged that he did it deliberately to give Jaffe a plot thread to pull on. Whether or not he decides to follow through—and Mercer was surprised by Jaffe's reaction to it—remains to be seen. That does not mean that the arboretum should be ignored in the article.
"I do think the setting section is in a good place right now, but I generally agree that it should not get too into the weeds."
I'm of the same opinion, but would leave the door open to an expansion if need be. Say for the sake of argument that the Nein go from Eiselcross to Tal'Dorei and spend several episodes there (the other shackles binding Tharizdûn have to be somewhere), then extending the section to mention where in Tal'Dorei they go would be entirely justified. 1.144.109.66 (talk) 06:36, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My Firefly example is more for overall article structure, not for length of summary. If something later becomes relevant, then we do as other ongoing television articles do and insert earlier mention. It's not up to us to include every single detail in attempt to predict what may or may not become relevant. I think that makes me in agreement with you, 1.144.109.66. However, think the plot summary could be cut down a little bit more, but I don't think that's necessarily a big, big priority right now given Sariel did do a decent cut down already. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 06:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/1.144.109.66 & @TenTonParasol: if either of you enjoy writing plot summaries, Critical Role (campaign one) still needs summaries for episodes 39-115. I did a chunk of them but in general, it's not my cup of tea. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't actually seen the first campaign, so I cannot be of any help there, unfortunately. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 19:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen it, either. I probably won't get around to it any time soon. 1.129.108.26 (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Critical_Role_campaign_two&oldid=1005676194"