This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Role-playing games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofrole-playing games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Role-playing gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing gamesTemplate:WikiProject Role-playing gamesrole-playing game
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Podcasting, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of notablepodcasts andpodcast-related information on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.PodcastingWikipedia:WikiProject PodcastingTemplate:WikiProject Podcastingpodcasting
It might be a bit early, but I think thatCandela Obscura should be split in an article for the game and one for the series, as I think it might become confusing in the long run, especially when more reviews start popping up. Or at least, the reviews talking about the game should be moved to its game system sub-section. @Sariel Xilo, what do you think?Poirot09 (talk)22:18, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think actually that they should be kept as one article as it appears reviews are trending towards reviewing them (show & game) in concert and we would be duplicating a lot of information between the two. But we could create a sub-section. We should also create a redirect "Candela Obscura (game)" toDraft:Candela Obscura#Game system when the article moves to the mainspace.Sariel Xilo (talk)22:33, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think reviews actually merge too much? The CHG and Dicebreaker review only talk about the game, while Polygon talks about both but distiguishes between the two. Only one that mixes a bit is io9. However, if the game and the show are to be integrated in the same article, maybe this could be turned in a franchise article instead, with sections for both.Poirot09 (talk)22:42, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I thought stuff like setting would need to be duplicated. I was mostly looking at reviews that aren't really great sources for wikipedia but tend to indicate how the more legitimate outlet articles will go when they pick up the thread (assuming Candela Obscura gets sustained coverage). But I do like the idea of a franchise article!Sariel Xilo (talk)22:53, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh okay, then it's better to wait for more in-depth reviews to come out. I think they might be released at the end of the first arc if it does well.Poirot09 (talk)17:12, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a start. However felt I should drop the link to the page version before I beganhere, to make the rollback easier should we not be happy with the final result.Little pob (talk)12:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FUTURE prevents adding now, but there's a CO panel planned for SDCC 2023 on 22 July.[1] Hopefully it'll turn up on YouTube at some point, ideally gaming press will cover it.Little pob (talk)18:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can just upload it over the existing one, tag it, and then a bot will come by to delete the old version. There's a chance that the logo doesn't meetWP:Threshold of originality anyway, but also I question the need to have two images of the logo on the page. Not all infoboxes need an image. ~Cheers,TenTonParasol15:35, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oop, I had to upload an entirely new one to get the transparency, but I've done the swap and labeled the other one for deletion. I'm still not convinced we need both the logo and the title card, since they're functionally identical. ~Cheers,TenTonParasol15:47, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the show goes into a fourth chapter, it'll likely make the infobox push into the episode table (doubt it'll actually clip into it, but will more likely cause the episode list to be narrower). As such I've made a preemptive start onDraft:List ofCandela Obscura cast members. That way we can link to it instead of having an ever growing cast list in the infobox (see:American Horror Story for an extant example of what I'm suggesting). In the event CRP cancel the show at the end of Chapter 3, however, the draft will autodelete after 6 months of inactivity.Little pob (talk)13:02, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think even with a fourth chapter there IS enough content for a whole separate article anyway and it's a violation ofWP:ARTICLESIZE. It should just be put into the "Casting" section and linked as a section there. ~Cheers,TenTonParasol17:27, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The draft table might be useful in the future for this article. I went with the prose style over a bullet list for casting because it changes each season but we could put the table at the top of the casting section?Sariel Xilo (talk)20:19, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need both a table and prose, I don't think. But it's like, if one really wants a table, there isn't enough material to split it off, so any table should go directly onto the article instead. And I don't consider "violation" that strong, I simply interpret it as "going against a particular guidance", but I'll note that in the future. I didn't mean it as a dire verb. ~Cheers,TenTonParasol21:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TenTonParasol: I could be wrong but my understanding of the episode table format is that once the episode has aired the episode itself is a primary source for the date it aired. So the template includes a ref option for upcoming episodes because ofWP:CRYSTALBALL concerns. In this case, that source only provides dates for the third chapter ("The Circle of Tide & Bone") and not the first two chapters; if chapter 4 is announced, then a source would be included when those upcoming episodes are added to the table. I also thinkWP:VERIFY is satisfied because the sources are in the Broadcast section. Thoughts?Sariel Xilo (talk)19:17, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted it because the broadcast section does not currently, in fact, verify any of the third chapter airdates. I would agree that if the section did discuss and source it, it isn't necessary on the table itself, but the section does not at the moment, so the reference needs to besomewhere until it is. (Alternatively, can always add in an aux4 just for the reference, likeList of Yuri on Ice episodes does.)
Also, honestly, now that you say it, I feel like reference for just chapter 4 shouldn't be in the table header either; it should reference the entire column. It should be in broadcast as well, which should be updated as the information becomes available. ~Cheers,TenTonParasol19:32, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for linking to that list! I hadn't seen a table which combined multiple formats like that (it isn't of the examples atTemplate:Episode table). Looks like they announced C4 in the last episode of C3 so I'm going to verify that & then add it to the table if it includes a date. Feel free to change the C4 color from whatever I pick; I tend to just pull colors fromList of The Simpsons episodes because I know they meet the accessibility requirements.Sariel Xilo (talk)18:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DoneLittle pob (talk)20:24, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
