Dragon Age Wiki talk:Manual of Style

Additional points
This page still needs more work to fully orient it around this wiki, but at least it actually has some references to Dragon Age: Origins now. However, there are a few points that could be resolved.

1. Spelling

After a couple of months attempting to write in American, I honestly feel the wiki should accommodate both American and British English. The site has users from across the world and I think everyone should feel free to write in the dialect they feel most comfortable with. Perhaps the only exception should be when the game specifically writes something in American English in-game. Any armors, quests about honor etc., should be spelt how they are spelt in-game.

2. Capitals for Sub-headings

I’ve noticed there has been a bit of variance in whether sub-headings are capitalised or not. The article recommends first letter only, but personally I prefer them written with capitals for each new word. Maybe this is something where the policy should just be “use whatever style you feel is appropriate for your page, but be consistent”, though I’m not sure.

3. Referencing

After a bit of thinking, my personal standing is to try and reference things that players will likely not know after playing the game, so things like influences and trivia quotes, and to also provide a source where the article borrows heavily from developer quotes, or uses their words verbatim. As I think that a developer might feel a bit annoyed to see their words written down without any acknowledgement of who wrote them. I think when a page borrowing from the official page’s write-ups on creatures, characters and the world, it is less of an issue. Firstly no author is given and I also feel they were always intended to be a show-piece seen by a lot of people. I’m interested to see what other people think about this issue.

They’re the three main things I can think of, but there are also things like italicising titles of works, and we may as well get this page, and the wiki's rules, in order before the bulk of articles are written, so what do people think? Loleil 07:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Spelling: Definitely agree with that. American and English spelling should be allowed, with the exception of names and such.

Capitals for sub headings: I prefer all words capitalised

Referencing: Agreed 100%

--Selty 08:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Re: Spelling


 * I have no problem with pages written in BrE (British English), as long as they're entirely written that way. I do not want to see articles that look like pages out of Overlord 2's user manual. (e.g. Using 'armor' and 'defence' in the same sentence.) It looks horrible, and is entirely unprofessional. If I see stuff like this, I'll make the articles comply fully with AmE (American English).
 * Once you go American... you never go back. ;)
 * -- Xavier Grimwand on Sunday, August 9, 2009 @ 8:12 am (ET)


 * Personal preference: title standards (first-letter-capitalize first word and all other words excepting 'and', 'the', 'in', 'of' et al.) Is the official style still "no non-proper-noun capitalization after the first word"? --Yeti magi (talk) 11:00, January 16, 2012 (UTC)


 * The current style has not changed. --D. (talk · contr) 21:04, January 16, 2012 (UTC)

The Warden
I was visiting the KOTOR II wiki and they use "The Exile" or "the Exile" to describe the protagonist. Mass Effect uses "Commander", Fallout, "The wanderer". I propose this is something we should add to the manual, seeing as I have stumbled upon many articles referring to "the Warden/The Warden" as "you", "PC", or "the player". I think it should be uniform when referring to the Warden.

These other wikis also have a separate article devoted to style in their respective universes, i.e. Mass Effect:Style Guide, discussing gender neutrality or lower-case races. I feel if it grows to the point where we need one, it should be considered.


 * Good idea. I will add something in. A DA:O specific guide us something I'd like to consider, as is some sort of Code of Conduct, but there's so much to do and so little time :(. Loleil 05:59, November 23, 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, the game was only released a weeks ago. I know I haven't even finished the game yet, I'm sure as time goes on.  Things will improve.


 * Not sure if anyone's still checking in on this, but if we need to use a possessive adjective to refer to the Warden, should we use the clunky but gender-inclusive "his/her" or should we use the gender neutral but incorrect plural "their"? Obviously neologisms like xe don't fit the universe, and I don't like using "his" though that is technically the gender neutral pronoun in English.  Similarly, how do we address gender of the player?  I see a lot of second-person use (e.g., "you control the Grey Warden"), which is somewhat casual but I think I prefer it in this case.  I'd like to go through a handful of general articles for consistency but need to determine the course of action first. -- Metaneira (talk) 03:16, November 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * Any further developments here? I find I appreciate 'The Warden'... except in Origin/pre-Joining contexts, when I try to get by with minimized uses of 'the protagonist' (or 'you' in the case of walkthroughs)...--Yeti magi (talk) 11:01, January 16, 2012 (UTC)


 * You should look at the timestamps of these posts. See LEAD. --D. (talk · contr) 21:04, January 16, 2012 (UTC)
 * I always notice them... but when I haven't yet seen a resolution, or a more recent comment or iteration of the question, should I always start a new discussion of an old topic?--Yeti magi (talk) 11:58, January 17, 2012 (UTC)


 * For old and new topics, unless you don't think it's necessary to make a new one (e.g., a month later is generally acceptable), I would suggest making a new topic in the forum rather than here (it's not that no one looks here—but your topic is given more exposure than here).
 * Regarding this particular discussion, it's been resolved as per the addition of DA:LEAD, it's just that no one "closed" the discussion. Before Metaneira's post, it wasn't as clear. It was expanded in another discussion (scroll to "Some questions" on this page). --D. (talk · contr) 14:53, January 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a note: the err-"issue" wasn't about reviving an old topic (to be honest, I'm fine with them). It's just that these posts were, well, really old! :P You do not have to create a new topic, but if the related page has been updated, it's generally safe to say that it's been resolved. --D. (talk · contr) 15:01, January 17, 2012 (UTC)

Characters and Minor Characters?
Is there a guideline for which minor characters should be a different page. For example, I thought Kaitlyn in Redcliffe was significant because she is the quest giver and ender, despite not having any great significance as opposed to Valena who is a part of "Lost in the Castle" quest, and not seen much afterward.


 * Nothing official. I think we have to use our own judgement to some extent. If everything we know about a character can be said in one or two sentences it is a good sign that there shouldn't be an article. Loleil 05:59, November 23, 2009 (UTC)


 * I dunno, I'm still nursing a craving for a Dying Soldier page... ;) --Yeti magi (talk) 11:03, January 16, 2012 (UTC)

Tables
I think we should include some of the styles, especially css classes, currently in frequent use. For example, User:Hollowness (among others) has made good use of a standard info presentation table (e.g. in Merchants at-a-glance table), to wit, {| class="wikitable sortable daotable"
 * - style="background: #333333; text-align: center; vertical-align:bottom; "

For this article, would it be okay to replace to boilerplate wikia table styles with various permutations of wikitable, daotable, sortable, collapsible, etc? &mdash;Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 02:49, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

Question about Quest Walkthroughs
In reading through various quest walkthroughs I am noticing that some use the second person (you) and others don't. After scouring both the style guide and editing guidelines, I couldn't find a decision one way or another. My preference would be that walkthroughs are written in the third person, but the consistency of person (and tense) in the walkthroughs is more important to me. Is there anyway we could get some sort of declarative statement either way so I don't feel guilty about going in and making changes based on personal preferences alone? Thanks! Sophea 04:56, March 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * There isn't a definitive rule about the use of second person in walkthroughs. I personally prefer third, but with our nameless, genderless, race-less protagonist in can be quite difficult to produce smooth flowing sentences without resorting to "you". So both second and third person are allowed, but if in the course of improving the readability of a page you remove second person you don't have to feel bad ;). 00:11, March 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * You just said the magic words! :) And thanks for getting back to me. Sophea 00:37, March 20, 2010 (UTC)

Some questions
Italics for titles. Are "Origins" or "Awakening" supposed to be in italics? It isn't the full title, but it has sometimes been italized in some pages (e.g., companions). Also, do we italize the titles if they are the section header?

Links in section headers. It's specifically said that section headings should not use special characters, in particular the squares braces. They are sometimes used for linking. I'm just wondering if it's an acceptable use or section headings should not have links? --D. (talk · contr) 04:16, October 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * Would love for someone to give input on this. I'm in favor of italicizing it, though it would be some work to do.  Unless someone's gifted at writing bots, of course. -- Metaneira (talk) 03:18, November 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * @Metaneira, D-day has a bot and he's usually very good with these sort of things. I also have one but I'm usually very bad with these sort of things :) As for the style, I'm going to find Loleil because she's the best of us and knows everything there is to know about style. She'll know. -- 03:36, November 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay! While Loleil is being awesome and looking at that, perhaps she can also look at my other question about possessive adjectives with respect to the Warden and the player?  -- Metaneira (talk) 03:48, November 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * I can answer that question. Dragon_Age_Wiki:Editing_guidelines says that the protagonist should be referred to as "the Warden" or "the Warden-Commander" in DAO and Awakenings respectively. In DA2 I believe it is alright to refer to the protagonist as "Hawke". -- 04:11, November 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * Right, but do we say "The Warden and their companions" (using a plural adjective for a singular subject) or "The Warden and his/her companions"? We try to avoid using a gender to refer to the Warden but in some cases we say "his" and some cases we say "their" -- I'd like it to be consistent.  Similarly, do we say "The player may choose his or her appearance" or just try to keep it in the second person (e.g., "You may customize your character's appearance")? -- Metaneira (talk) 04:13, November 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * I would say "The Warden and companions". There should be gender neutral pronouns available. -- 05:46, November 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * I would say "their" instead of "his/her" in my opinion. Using "his" or "her" should only be used when a certain action can only be done by a female or male Warden (e.g., romancing Alistair).
 * As for the usage of "the Warden" (and others), in my opinion, walkthroughs and guides should use "you", but other articles that are of an encyclopedic nature should use "the Warden". Also, "the player" should only be used when it's specifically refers to the player (still for encyclopedic articles), e.g., "The player may customize their character's appearance". There's currently a lot of inconsistencies in regards to that, e.g. The Battle of Denerim uses "the Warden" in the first section, but switches to "you" for the rest of the article. --D. (talk · contr) 16:32, November 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * That's my view too D-day, I'll alter the Manual to include that. 02:19, November 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * I see I've been paged, so allow me to say that I believe that we should italicize titles in both the full and short form, because it's technically correct, the best kind of correct . 06:13, November 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm still wondering if we should or not use the bracket braces for the section headers as they are special characters. If we do, the MoS should be updated to reflect this change. There's no pros or cons to use it, other than the section header being in a different color when it is a link. --D. (talk · contr) 16:32, November 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * As you suggest, there's no real pros or cons either way, but as quite a few of our pages use links in headers I think it makes sense to allow headers to be links. 02:19, November 7, 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Head Quotes
At present, the rules regarding head quotes state they can be used only on main quest pages and character pages. In my view, these rules should be expanded upon to include the following:  King Cousland |  Talk  22:30, July 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * Groups, such as the Grey Wardens (a logo and the motto was removed, but I felt that it added flavour)
 * Races (The elves have a quote)
 * "Dialogue" Objects (Such as the Anvil of the Void (which has a headquote) and Eluvian)
 * History pages (which are basically conflicts).


 * Pages with a head quote that are not main quests and characters are simply not updated with the MoS, as this was decided a while ago. I suggest making a post on the forums instead to re-open this issue since there wasn't really an elaborated discussion as to why head quotes should be limited to these articles. --D. (talk · contr) 02:09, July 25, 2011 (UTC)

Uncertain information
I often come across details in walkthroughs that are incomplete or occasionally even contradictory to what I see in the game. I'm hesitant to simply "correct" them because, just casually playing through the game, I don't know what conditions might affect what I see; I can include obvious variables like platform and patchlevel, but there are plenty of others like previous game actions that I cannot exhaustively describe. So far I've just tended to add my observations parenthetically beside the relevant section, but is there established criteria for when something should be stated as unqualified fact? For example, must article authors decompile the game scripts to determine the effect of actions? (That would seem necessary to establish certainty, but the quality of what I see suggests that practice is not universal, and perhaps not even common.)

No, we are not expecting authors to do any kind of decompiling the game scripts. -- 08:27, August 19, 2011 (UTC)


 * Certainly inaccuracies make their way into articles and if something is clearly incorrect, please go ahead and correct it. If you are unsure what has caused the difference between your observations and the page there is always the talk page to discuss the discrepancy. Not all editors have the ability to decompile game scripts, but if you are able to do so to provide more complete information, it would be welcome. One quick tip for the future for your edits is not to use first person in articles. 01:18, August 20, 2011 (UTC)

Formatting extraordinarily long articles
I understand the need for consistent wiki formatting, but perhaps a special variation could be used in rare instances when an article is both extraordinarily long and contains massive amounts of text. For example, The Urn of Sacred Ashes: Articles such as these are, in my opinion, monotonous, and somewhat intimidating and/or unpleasant to the eye. I suggest breaking up the text a little bit by including two blank lines between subsections rather than one. Even if the overall page length would appear longer, some blank space and/or relevant pics within a lengthy article is far more reader-friendly. 18:13, July 31, 2012 (UTC)

I agree. A quick solution which I have seen it elsewhere is that sub-quests have their own pages where they will be listing all the needed details while the main quest page will just list them along with a quick summary. Afterall all these long quests usually entail lots of smaller quests inside them. 00:32, August 1, 2012 (UTC)


 * I find it ironicaly unfortunate that the wiki articles with the most content & that have received the most hard work by community members also appear as condensed & unpleasant to read as they do. I'm not trying to troll or step on anyone's toes here; the standard formatting works well for 95%+ of the wiki articles, it's only the most rarely voluminous ones that are of concern and could use additional spacing (or other modification).
 * 04:21, August 1, 2012 (UTC)

Tenses
The MOS says nothing about tenses to be used in writing, specifically in character biographies. I know some wikis follow the Wikipedia example and use present tense in summaries, while others, like Wookiepedia, specifically use past tense. What is the policy on this wiki? --Koveras Alvane (talk) 16:18, January 8, 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no policy about it, so it's assumed to be up to the editors (and the tense should be kept roughly the same on the article to keep the article's flow). Perhaps it is worthy of a discussion on the forums if you'd like to add it in the MoS, since that's a lot of things to change. 17:47, January 8, 2013 (UTC)


 * I've never used Wikia forums before. Where would I ask such a thing? --Koveras Alvane (talk) 20:29, January 8, 2013 (UTC)


 * Go on Forum:Wiki Discussion to create a topic. You can either ask start a discussion, or propose to choose one tense over another (with reasons for doing so). We give about a week for discussing changes like these, but it can be longer if there's not enough activity or the discussion is particularly stagnant. 22:30, January 8, 2013 (UTC)


 * Started the discussion: Forum:MOS: Tenses... --Koveras Alvane (talk) 18:18, January 9, 2013 (UTC)

Quote Limit Exception
Considering the fact that Orzammar Crier (Harrowmont) and Orzammar Crier (Bhelen) have a bit more than 10 phrases, could we add an exception to this policy about these two characters? 14:18, February 8, 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the point of that policy is to avoid overloading the character pages with quotes. Considering that the criers don't have any other involvement except spouting their quotes, I'd say their pages are already quote-overdosed. However, if it's only about these two characters, I don't see a need to change the policy: if more editors agree that their quote lists can be longer than usual, it should be properly documented as a consensus and linked from their respective talk pages. The quotes lists can then be expanded to the desired length. --Koveras Alvane (talk) 15:41, February 8, 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually I think the opposite. The fact that criers have no other involvement makes their quote paragraph more central and important than that of other characters which can also explain why they need to be added as an exception. 16:08, February 8, 2013 (UTC)
 * I am in agreement that the quote limit should be adjusted in the case of the criers. As Viktoria said, the criers' entire purpose in DA:O is to produce these quotes. The wiki is the source for all information we can compile about the DA games. If we cannot properly list and compile these quotes, that would be an unfortunate loss to our mission of being thorough and diligent in our work. These particular characters are their quotes, that is their function. If we cannot list them all, we are losing information for the sake of an arbitrary quote limit restriction. I would like to see all their quotes listed in the interests of being completely thorough in compiling all known information about these characters. The quote limit may seem a small matter, but when a character has nothing but quotes, then it becomes very important. Therefore, I offer my support in increasing the quote limit, at least for these special characters. Very best, LadyAeducan (talk) 02:09, March 10, 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I see the need to add specific characters as exemptions. These are guidelines and, like the page says, they "should be treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". I think the key to justifying the criers as an exemption is to demonstrate that it's not just a random selection of quotes, but that there's something special about them. Possibly changing the heading from quotes to "Cries" and mentioning under it why these cries are unique/important would address this. Another editor mentioned the gossip that some of the bartenders deliver, I feel that the same sort of logic could apply to those too. 01:24, March 12, 2013 (UTC)


 * What Loleil said. There is no need to amend the policy just for a couple of special cases. It's enough if we explain why those cases are special and suspend the policy for them. --Koveras Alvane (talk) 07:44, March 12, 2013 (UTC)


 * This is possible. I was just not interested to circumvent the guidelines by naming the quotes as "cries" and instead bring the matter to discussion. As for the value of these cries, I can mention that the cries are very good examples of how dwarven politics are. 12:30, March 12, 2013 (UTC)

Adding Head Quotes to Pages Beyond Main Quests and Characters
I am proposing changing the policy regarding the use of head quotes. Currently, they are restricted to character and main quest pages, but I think they can be used effectively--evocatively, even--in pages beyond these. I am therefore asking that the regulation be relaxed to allow for more widespread use of head quotes, in group pages and beyond. For example, I placed a head quote in The Stone page. It is against regulation but to me it adds an element of atmosphere, as quotes do in character and main quest pages, that helps to bring the subject more to life, much as an image does. I don't see that it clutters the page or that it is an unnecessary addition. I think it helps to make the topic more accessible and the page more attractive. Quotes draw one into the DA world, demonstrate the lore, and so long as they are not excessively long quotes or are otherwise inappropriate, I see no reason to limit their use. I am hoping others will agree with my proposal. Very best, LadyAeducan (talk) 01:58, March 10, 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ In support. As a page about a character can get a main quote, it only makes sense that a page about a group of characters can get one as well. Another example of where a main quote finely works is the Kings and Queens of Orzammar page. 18:00, March 10, 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ Under condition that the new policy will be worded in such way that does not require each page to have a quote on top, as that would invite slapping barely relevant quotes onto articles that don't really contribute to them. --Koveras Alvane (talk) 19:45, March 10, 2013 (UTC)


 * I support this too. The Grey Wardens page used to have a quote which I thought worked quite nicely and I feel that the one on the Stone adds depth to the page. For the addition to the MoS, I would suggest keeping it simple and just adding "lore pages" to the allowed pages section. 01:24, March 12, 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ I agree. I also oppose the restriction of quotes to lore pages. For example, Gem of Keroshek used to have Gamlen's quote "I thought it would be more impressive" on top. I fail to see what's wrong with that. 08:27, March 12, 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅I also support this. I have added quotes to Dragon Age: Redemption episodes (i.e. Tallis (episode) or Nyree (episode)), where eachof the quotes is either describing the plot of the episode or is said by the character from which the title comes from. Henio0 (talk) 22:13, March 13, 2013 (UTC)

Considering that there is an unanimous support of this proposal, while it was open for sufficient amount of time (19 days), I'll go ahead and make the necessary amendments in the main page. 14:52, March 29, 2013 (UTC)

RE: grammar
"Races such as elf, kossith, human and dwarf should not be capitalized except when used as a proper noun or at the beginning of a sentence. It should be noted that Qunari is not a race and should start with a capital letter regardless of how it is written in Dragon Age: Origins."

I believe this comes from before the change back to Qunari (as it mentions kossith). We now use qunari as race and Qunari as culture, and it should be edited accordingly, yes? If not, I don't get the point about disregarding Origins' spelling. 195.194.89.13 (talk) 08:25, May 24, 2013 (UTC)


 * The term "kossith" is still used in some very rare cases and thus this regulation is applied on that term. 08:48, May 24, 2013 (UTC)
 * that was me, unsigned in. What meant was, I think we should change this so that we do in fact use the proper spelling from the game. Which the quoted line disapproves of. Henio0 (talk) 09:03, May 24, 2013 (UTC)

June - July '13 - MoS discussion - completed
I have taken the liberty to pile up all the active discussions in order to highlighted. If there is enough participation in the voting, we can expect that the changes in MoS will be applied by July 1st. 16:03, June 24, 2013 (UTC)

"Also" and "later"
Can we ban those two words from the article texts, please? :D But in all seriousness, what I am sick of are edits wherein events not immediately following each other are stringed together by endless "alsos" and "laters". Isn't it much more informative to just specify a reference point in the overall timeline for each described event? I think this belongs in the MOS, at least as a recommendation... --Koveras Alvane (talk) 12:13, June 8, 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think it'd be wise to ban words. If the words are not applied correctly, we can just re-word the text. 16:03, June 24, 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, "ban" was too strong a term in this case. What I want is explicit encouragement for editors to avoid using those two conjunctions whenever they can string sentences without them. All (literary) editor's guides I've read point out that you can drop 95% of all "alsos" and "laters" from most English texts and they'll be better off that way. --Koveras Alvane (talk) 16:51, June 24, 2013 (UTC)

Notability of historical characters
Based on the discussion here, I think we should code in the "Editing guidelines" which historical characters can have a separate page.

Firstly, I need to explain the term "historical characters":
 * They are the characters which are not encountered in the books, media or games but are rather referenced by others.
 * Furthermore, they are dead, presumed to be dead or lost (eg. Calenhad) by the time of the earliest Dragon Age setting (based on the timeline), which as of now, is 8:96 Blessed (beginning of The Stolen Throne). That's why they are "historical".

My proposal for which historical characters can have a separate page is listed below. Feel free to make your own suggestions/improvements/additions.
 * It is not referenced by just one source (eg. codex entry, or an in-game character), but by multiple sources.
 * We know some very basic things about that character, other than the stuff he/she/it is notable for. That would be the gender, race, nationality. 16:03, June 24, 2013 (UTC)


 * I think it's a good idea to accept some notability guidelines for stuff not appearing directly in the games/books/comics. I am not sure whether you meant your criteria ANDed or ORed (i.e. whether all criteria must be met to make an article or just one), but that would be important to said guideline. Moreover, I find "done something notable and important" too vague. E.g. Enchanter Illana became probably the youngest First Enchanter in history, would that fact alone make her notable? I'm not nitpicking, I am just in favor of defining the scope of the impact a historical character must have on the setting to become notable. The other two suggestions are very sensible, on the other hand: the requirement of at least two unrelated mentions and of some basic person info is easy to cross-reference and and just makes sense, so I'd suggest that they both be required to establish notability of a historical character. --Koveras Alvane (talk) 16:51, June 24, 2013 (UTC)


 * I've thought about it and a good explanation on making "notable" less vague is this: The historical character who has influenced or made a considerable impact on a society is considered to be "notable". 19:40, June 24, 2013 (UTC)


 * Can you give an example of a historical character who is not notable/important but satisfies the other two criteria? I can't think of one and I'm not sure that this requirement is needed. 17:24, June 24, 2013 (UTC)


 * If, for example Brona, Andraste's mother, is referenced by two different sources, then she will be able to have a separate page based on the last two requirements. Which based on what we currently know about her, the page would be really unneeded. 19:40, June 24, 2013 (UTC)


 * But... playing the devil's advocate, one could argue that by giving birth the future greatest prophet of Thedas, Brona did make a massive impact on the history of the world. :) --Koveras Alvane (talk) 06:26, June 25, 2013 (UTC)

Well, Brona was a bad example since she is featured in The Gauntlet. Anyway, I have removed the first requirement. I would also like to give a nudge to this conversation, in case anyone else would like to express his/her opinion. 09:53, August 17, 2013 (UTC)

References layout
Considering that the Origins PRIMA guide, Dragon Age RPG and The World of Thedas have lots of information which are transferred into the wiki and referenced in the articles, I think there should be a single, universal "layout" about how the reference should look like, for consistency reasons. Thanks to mostlyautumn who brought this up as well as the previous topic.

My suggestion for Dragon Age: The World of Thedas is this: Which would turn into an article like this:
 * Dragon Age: The World of Thedas vol. 1, p. 64
 * Dragon Age: The World of Thedas vol. 1, p. 64

For the Dragon Age (pen and paper RPG) is this: Which would turn into an article like this:
 * Dragon Age RPG, Player's Guide, set 2, p. 10
 * Dragon Age RPG, Player's Guide, set 2, p. 10

For the Dragon Age: Origins: Prima Official Game Guide is this: Which would turn into an article like this:
 * ''Dragon Age: Origins: Prima Official Game Guide', Collector's Edition, p. 370
 * Dragon Age: Origins: Prima Official Game Guide, Collector's Edition, p. 370 16:03, June 24, 2013 (UTC)


 * I was going to create templates similar to Template:BSN – (World of Thedas),  (Traveler's Guide), not sure how to name the Green Ronin thing. As for the actual style, I think there should be a comma before "vol.", everything else is fine by me. On some pages with a long list of references (timeline) it might be beneficial to adopt reference pages template.  16:40, June 24, 2013 (UTC)


 * That's a great idea, but it's still imperative that we should have a universal, followed style for listing references. 19:40, June 24, 2013 (UTC)


 * For completion's sake, I'd suggest standardizing Codex references, too. --Koveras Alvane (talk) 16:51, June 24, 2013 (UTC)


 * It's always Codex entry:, isn't it?  17:16, June 24, 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'd like ask for some elaboration :-P 19:40, June 24, 2013 (UTC)


 * I've seen a couple of pages where the codex refs are not wikilinked in the refs themselves, but instead listed again and linked in the See also section. Can't list any specific articles at the moment, but I'm sure about it. --Koveras Alvane (talk) 06:27, June 25, 2013 (UTC)

The World of Thedas excerpts
A user has been adding some excerpts (here and here) which are found in The World of Thedas but tagged them as codex entries. This however is inaccurate as they are not codex entries, but yet these excerpts should exist in the wiki. This means that we need to agree where these texts should exist and code this in a MoS note.

My suggestion is to feature them in a separate paragraph in the article which deals with the subject in question. In this case "A missing slave" should be featured in Slavery page and "A magister's needs" in the Magisters page. 13:02, July 20, 2013 (UTC)


 * On a slightly irrelevant topic: won't we get into trouble for re-posting texts from copyrighted works of fiction verbatim? --Koveras Alvane (talk) 18:12, July 20, 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that's the same thing with re-posting codex entries. And apparently there wasn't any problem with it either.

"I think that's the same thing with re-posting codex entries. And apparently there wasn't any problem with it either." I agree. I think it will be better if we give WOT notes special category similat at Codex.


 * It's not the same. Codex excerpts are not a primary content of the game and posting them online won't reduce a number of sales. I'm against posting any texts from the books verbatim, this is just asking for problems. 04:56, July 21, 2013 (UTC)


 * So the argument is that the codex entries were not a primary content of the game. According to this logic, then the few excerpts found in WoT are also not a primary content of the book as well. 11:08, July 21, 2013 (UTC)


 * No, the argument is that even if you posted all codex entries onto the wiki verbatim, the reader would still have no idea what the games played like. But if you posted the entire TWoT onto the wiki, the reader would have no reason to buy the actual book because text is the only type of creative content in it. This is exaggerated, of course, as we are talking about excerpts, not the complete text, but I think that explains mostlyautumn's point.
 * Another way to approach this question is the ease of verifiability: to verify a Codex entry, a reader would need not only to own a copy of the appropriate game, but also to have played it in a specific way to reach the only point where said Codex entry is obtained. Therefore, for the ease of reference, these codex entries are copied onto the wiki. With TWoT, a reader who owns a copy of the book only needs to look up the specified page to verify an entry.
 * For the record, I am an staunch hater of the copyright legislature in its current form, but I also don't want this wiki to have trouble because of the crappy laws on the subject. --Koveras Alvane (talk) 19:03, July 21, 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not a staunch hater of the current copyright legislature, and I think the problem with the use of excerpts from WoT is not because this wiki might get in trouble, but because it's legally and morally wrong to use them. The template for images used on this wiki includes this line: "Such display does not significantly impede the right of the copyright holder to sell the copyrighted material".  I believe this is true for images taken from the game, but for images and articles taken from WoT, it is debateable.  Users of this wiki are among the target audience for WoT.  What will be the limit on excerpts?  There are a lot of images taken from WoT already uploaded to this wiki.  Has any moderator checked whether the amount of content has exceeded the limit covered by Fair Use?


 * I started this thread (http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Forum:Copyright_violations_relating_to_World_of_Thedas_images?t=20130608152838) in the forum to discuss this, but it seems nothing was actually done. So, because I'm angry, here's my honest suggestion for a new template that I believe is a 100% accurate summation of the attitude of users who think it's A-OK to upload as much content from WoT to this wiki as they like:


 * "This content was taken from the book The World of Thedas, the copyright of which is held by Dark Horse. We acknowledge that the amount of content on this wiki far exceeds the amount allowed under the doctrine of Fair Use.  We don't give a shit.  Dark Horse is an entity; it's not like it's people, with homes, and bills, and families, and fears of losing their job in a bad economy.  The content was created, and made available to buy, and we are making it freely available to Dragon Age fans, because all created content was meant to be FREE!  We're liberators.  We're fucking heroes, man."


 * Or not. Do whatever you're going to do.  I think doing this is dishonourable, and it makes you the bad guy, but I also know you don't care, and are reading this with scorn and derision.  I'm not staying where I can't respect people, however, for whatever that's worth. -Sophia (talk) 00:49, July 22, 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest to move such topic about the possible inclusion to the forums instead. The MoS talkpage isn't the ideal place to discuss this issue in my opinion (the topic Sophia has started may be brought back).

That being said, I agree with Sophia and Mostlyautumn. We do include codex entries, but they don't make up the entirety of the game (or the point of playing the game), and I think that's probably the most we can do and get away with including copyright material (for text). Moreover, those codex entries were posted first and foremost for the game rather than for its lore (e.g., what can be missed by players). As such, I treat them differently. The question is: are those excepts needed? If it's a question of adding the information on the wiki, it can be done through paraphrasing, and simply properly sourcing them.

As for pictures, I would say that only images that are made available on the web by BioWare or their artists (such as samples, concept arts they upload, etc.) may be used. It can be okay to scan a few from the book itself (as long as it's reasonably resized), but certainly not everything.

Regardless how you feel if it is moral or not, the point is that there's too much copyright issue with that. We do not need to include every image or every text on articles anyway. I don't know much about copyright laws, but I'd rather play cautious about what gets included here. 03:11, July 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * As would I. I'd suggest that anybody reading this with an interest in the matter should also look this and use it as a basis for any further discussion relating to copyrighted text, since I don't think there's sufficient agreement here to say we've reached a consensus. 17:40, July 25, 2013 (UTC)

Standardization of appearances of item pages + Image guidelines on characters
I'd like to propose the following changes on the wiki's guidelines:

Standardization of appearances on item pages
There are issues with items appearing in multiple games. If we're going to add all the appearances of every item, then Health poultices for example should be listed in each and every DLC and expansion. Obviously this would look really confusing to most readers. Subsequently, my proposition is for the items that appear in Origins and in other DLCs or expansion to be listed/categorized only as Origins items. Similarly if an item appears in Awakening and in some other DLCs, to be listed/categorized only as an Awakening item. This listing/categorizing is happening in three ways in each item page:


 * line in the ItemTransformer.
 * The leading paragraph: [ X is an  in   ]
 * The category: eg. Category:The Darkspawn Chronicles armor

This style is also followed by the game itself since an item which appears in Witch Hunt for example but it is also in Origins, its item ID code would usually start with "gen".

Furthermore unique DLC/Awakening items would remain unaffected as they will continue to be listed/categorized as such. 16:23, November 21, 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that not everything that appears in the DLC's would require that DLC be listed in Appearances, but I do like the idea of notable items having the DLC listed. Specifically things such as armor, weapons, accessories. If we don't list the DLC as a category on those pages (which I agree that we shouldn't) having it in the appearances section is the easiest and quickest way to identify that the items are available.Kelcat (talk) 00:54, November 22, 2013 (UTC)

Image guidelines on characters
I believe that it is quite clear to notice the visual differences of character images taken during a cutscene, specifically when the camera focuses on the character and blurs the background and when a screenshot is taken in 3rd person view.

eg. File:Ferdinand Genitivi closeup.png and File:Genitivi.jpg

Subsequently, given those advantanges, I think we should recommend users to capture screenshots during cutscenes when they are meant to be used as profile images for characters. 16:23, November 21, 2013 (UTC)


 * Images taken during the cutscene are infinitely preferable. It's hard to get a close-up of the character's face when taking the screencap outside of a cutscene, and the lighting is often of lower quality as well. So long as it's a recommendation and not a requirement (since I'd prefer a somewhat lower quality image over no image at all) I'm in support of this. Kelcat (talk) 00:54, November 22, 2013 (UTC)


 * I think I saw a recommendation that profile pictures be taken at the point where the character is first encountered (particularly for potential companions). If that is in a cutscene, then it seems reasonable that that is where the image should be from. I'm against making it a Wiki-wide recommendation, though, because doing that suggests that more weight will be given to cutscene screenshots. My thinking has always been that it should be as easy as possible for well-meaning people to contribute to this Wiki, and also that the images be familiar, and examples of what players would typically see as they play the games.  Not having background blur seems an unnecessary restriction as during normal play and dialogue, the background is not blurred.  I'm also against this because close-ups sometimes cut off part of the person's head (as in the Genitivi close-up).  If the profile picture showed the character's head with no bits missing, and their upper torso, then that would be the ideal, for me, whether that was from a cutscene or not. -Sophia (talk) 12:35, November 22, 2013 (UTC)

I am moving the conversation to Forum:Guideline additions in hope that it will receive more attention. 23:50, November 28, 2013 (UTC)

"Relationships" in character box?
Hello! I was just wondering if an additional field in the character infoboxes--at least for certain characters who have strong non-family relationships with other characters--would be something that might be useful in some way? For characters like Celene and Lady Mantillon, Briala and Felassan, or Merrill and Marethari, for example, they are not related but have an important connection that seems just as formative as those in the "family" field and seems worth mentioning outside of the article itself. This might not be useful; I just noticed that for some characters the existing family field doesn't necessarily cover significant relationships that readers might be interested in..? Thanks! :) --WardenWade (talk) 22:19, May 18, 2014 (UTC)
 * While it sounds like a good idea, I sense a major potential for misuse, because "relationships" is just too vague. For instance, I could see people listing every potential love interest in the Warden's and Hawke's infoboxes because that's a "relationship", too, after all.
 * However, what you're thinking is more along the lines of specifically mentor-student relationships. That is a lot clearer and I think adding a "mentor" and a "students" parameter to the infobox would work just as well for all three examples you brought up. --Koveras Alvane (talk) 06:39, May 19, 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the input, Koveras! It's something I've been toying with for a while and your suggestion makes sense. Maybe certain canonical NPC/NPC romantic relationships, such as Jowan and Lily, for example, could potentially be workable (as long as it did not become spoilery)..? However, characters with whom the PC can initiate a serious romance might indeed be best to keep a bit more limited with this sort of field. I'll leave this up a bit longer and see what others have to say one way or another, but failing that I believe I will make the additions you mentioned to applicable articles. I appreciate your suggestions, and thank you again, Koveras :)--WardenWade (talk) 01:38, May 20, 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure we should go down the path of adding additional parameters in the character infoboxes. If we add mentors, and students, why not lovers, enemies, associates, and so on? I could see it leading to cluttered infoboxes very quickly. Plus some potential issues with spoilers. 16:16, May 20, 2014 (UTC)
 * That makes sense :) Koveras Alvane mentioned the same, and it's a good point. I have noticed the family field doesn't always encompass other significant relationships characters might have, and just wanted to note it. As you mentioned, it's best to keep it as is right now. Thank you for your input, Loleil!--WardenWade (talk) 00:32, May 21, 2014 (UTC)