Talk:Romance (Inquisition)

Red background
Am I the only one who thinks this red background looks really out of place? If I'd want to go far with my personal opinion, I'd say it looks pretty bad actually. The positioning is alright but I don't think this bright red background is necessary. Thoughts? -- 21:29, July 13, 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh and what just occured to me - I think such a change being implemented should've been asked about, first testing it in a Sandbox and introducing it or something. Again, my opinion though. -- 21:32, July 13, 2014 (UTC)


 * Which I did so.Henio0 (talk) 22:26, July 13, 2014 (UTC)

The page as a whole is a bit of an eyesore, yeah. --173.29.45.24 (talk) 21:31, July 13, 2014 (UTC)

I agree the colour should be changed. Black I think. Also maybe the Origins and 2 romance pages should be updated to the same outlay, but not red. Xsari (talk) 23:15, July 13, 2014 (GMT)

No one answered my talk page besides Kelcat, so i left it red, as is the wikia user profile in this skin. I did express my worries about the colour, but it was nearly two weeks without any feedback. Plus King Cousland left a message on my wall saying he prefers red over black. But as I said, I don't like it myself. Henio0 (talk) 22:25, July 13, 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this is why I find talk pages problematic, they are easily lost and can rarely gain enough attention (hence my message on KC's page as well). Now I see there were actually preparations for this. However, my opinion still stands, I find red pretty bad. Is transparent really not an option? If so, then I personally would prefer the black one as well. -- 22:35, July 13, 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm curious as to where you think discussions should take place, if not for talk pages. This is what they're for, after all. --Kelcat (talk) 01:07, July 14, 2014 (UTC)


 * I said I find it problematic, not that it's not the right place to discuss things. These discussions belong to talk pages, and I'm quite aware of it - all I meant is that it doesn't flash with bright colors everywhere I go on the wiki that "hey, you might be interested in this!", and thus the mistake of not noticing something previously can be easily made. I hope I don't have to apologize for an honest mistake more than I already have, though.
 * Also as I understand, there weren't many feedback originally on the appearance of this page. Now's the chance though for getting more input on what would the majority prefer, well at least that'd be really nice if this time more people noticed this, anyway. -- 15:58, July 14, 2014 (UTC)


 * You don't have to apologize for anything, it was a genuine question. Getting anything beyond blogs to be noticed right now is an issue, and I interpreted from your tone that you had an alternate solution. No offense was meant :) --Kelcat (talk) 19:05, July 14, 2014 (UTC)


 * In that case sorry for misinterpreting, hard to decide how to understand something in writing. -- 20:05, July 14, 2014 (UTC)

Transparent is certainly preferable, is following the colour scheme of the various other infoboxes not possible? Ie, #1c1c1c for the image background space, and that redish texture for the text space. Alexsau1991 (talk page) 22:49, July 13, 2014 (UTC)

I like the red background personally. It's a nice change from other articles like this which look rather plain in my opinion. --Kelcat (talk) 00:48, July 14, 2014 (UTC)

So just to conclude it - though this might still not be enough input, not really sure - what if the ones who find this red too bright are the majority? Though I'm especially confused as Xsari just said she would prefer at least another color, but went ahead and applied this same appearance to the Origins romance page. By the way, I would even be okay with something darker or less vivid personally, if we really want to implement something new and "extraordinary". -- 13:26, July 15, 2014 (UTC)


 * I just copied the set up, I don't actually know how to change colours myself. Also there's a problem where everything underneath it shows up red as well. I don't know why. Xsari (talk) 15:50, July 15, 2014 (GMT)


 * Ah alright, I saw the message on KC's page but I thought you liked the color and that's why you kept it. Understood now. -- 19:17, July 15, 2014 (UTC)

I propose a more traditional version: User:Mostlyautumn/Sandbox 16:40, July 15, 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ That looks much better. Also thanks for fixing the problem on the Origins page. Xsari (talk) 17:50, July 15, 2014 (GMT)


 * ✅ I like this more traditional appearance as well, thank you Mostlyautumn for making it. -- 19:17, July 15, 2014 (UTC)

Distinction between Companion and Advisors
For the purposes of listing them on this page, I don't think that advisors should have a separate section. It seems rather unnecessary, since their romances are said to be just as fleshed out as those of companions. Since this whole article seems very much inspired by the one template on the Mass Effect Wiki, it's worth noting that they do not make any distinctions between squad members and non-squad members. I feel that's a better way to format things, since it requires less scrolling and is more to the point. Want to know how many people a female inquisitor can romance? Now you don't have to look at two sections. They're just together. Mr. Mittens (talk) 00:09, July 14, 2014 (UTC)
 * That can work.--Mike Gilbert 00:10, July 14, 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅I created the template before it was announced there'd be 8 romances. Back then BuoWare talked about there being lots romance options, and race restricted too, and not only companions. I thought there'd be romances with civilians and so on, and thus a distinction would have yo be made. That is not the case and there's no reason to put them in sections any more. Henio0 (talk) 03:09, July 14, 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, it's totally possible that there will be romantic encounters with characters outside of the official list, like in the past games. In that case, those characters should be listed separately, since that's the precedent that we've established. Anyways, I'm going to make the change since you endorsed it. Mr. Mittens (talk) 05:05, July 14, 2014 (UTC)