Can you add some basic information about the basic templates and how to use {{See}}, {{See Also}} and {{Note}}. As our wiki grows, there will be a shift in focus from creation of new pages to cross-linking. Plus, I stole them from Wikipedia. And I am trying to see what the inside of the Dean's office is like. --Tierrie 06:46, December 17, 2009 (UTC)

Ah Wikipedia, so full of tempting goodies, I hope that the inside of the Dean's office is everything you dream. To the topic at hand, how will the See Also template be used? On the top of pages, in place of the See Also heading, under the See Also heading, or some other way I haven't thought of? Loleil 08:12, December 17, 2009 (UTC)
See Also is used for a subject that is unrelated to the current subject, but might of interest. For example, on the page Longbows you might {{See Also|Damage Calculation|how damage is calculated}}.
See, on the other hand is for a subject that is related. For example. In Longbow it would be {{See|[[Arrows]]|information ammunitions used in longbows}} ::Notes is used as a FYI and doesn't link to another article.
Main should be used to emphasize that this current paragraph is a stub. For example in Warden's Keep#Soldier's Peak, it is used {{Main|[[Soldier's Peak (Quest)]]}} to denote that there's more information --Tierrie 23:09, December 17, 2009 (UTC)
I know what see also is :p, I was just wondering how the template would work in with the heading. Loleil 23:15, December 17, 2009 (UTC)
Could you describe what you mean by "work in with the heading"? I missed the point in both your comments. --Tierrie 23:17, December 17, 2009 (UTC)
Let my try again then. As I'm sure you've seen on pages like Caridin there is a heading for "See Also" at the bottom of the page, while a page Medium Armor uses the See Also template at the top of the page, two quite different styles of presentation. I suppose we need to decide whether we want to pick one style and use it consistently, or decide on a case by case basis. Loleil 23:24, December 17, 2009 (UTC)
I see what you mean. I say to pick one style and use it consistently. I haven't used it consistently myself - being more concerned with completeness than accuracy for the first round. I'm with your call on its proper usage. --Tierrie 23:32, December 17, 2009 (UTC)
I think I prefer a using the heading rather than the template, mainly as it's already used on a lot of pages, but I'll take this to the forums, just in case there is an amazing reason not to. Loleil 07:40, December 18, 2009 (UTC)


Still some users are adding videos directly (embedded videos) and the worst thing is that some of them are not working properly. -- Snfonseka 17:02, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

Those are the fortunes of adding external links. Sometimes, they break after you add them. If you come across any, perhaps the best thing to do is to remove it, or find another that can be embedded, or change it into a hyperlink. Though, this is neither here nor there as far as Editing Guidelines is concerned. --Tierrie 17:54, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

Moving the page Edit

An administrator should move the page to "Dragon Age Wiki:Editing guidelines" (lowercase). --D. (talk · contr) 21:50, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Unobtainable items or cut content Edit

I was wondering if this paragraph:

Pages can be created for items that are within the game files as long as the item in question was not solely created for cutscene purposes or for a NPC. This is regardless if the player can obtain them through a mod. Generally, those items should be considered cut-content, and may not be considered canon material.

(bolding mine) needed to be rewritten slightly. Cut content is described as "material that was removed from a game in the DA series", whereas unobtainable items are described as items that "are unobtainable in the game due to bugs or failure to be placed in-game. This category contains objects that are suspected of being (or confirmed to be) unobtainable in-game without use of the toolset or repair mods". Should the bolded phrase in the quote above be changed to "unobtainable items"? This would make it consistent with the category that is currently used on those articles' pages. -Sophia (talk) 12:37, February 2, 2014 (UTC)

I think so, yes. Viktoria Landers 16:19, February 12, 2014 (UTC)
Unobtainable content is part of being cut content though (we have Category:Unobtainable items‎ categorized under Category:Cut content). Generally speaking, we don't really know if unobtainable items are that way because they are bugged our cut from the main game (since they were never patched), hence why anything that is not in the main game should be considered cut content and cannot be used as a source for other pages. ··· D-day sig d·day! 23:31, February 12, 2014 (UTC)

Red links and redirects excemption Edit

I would like to propose an excemption in Dragon Age Wiki:Editing guidelines#Red links and redirects: Redirects which have possibility to become articles in the future can be excempt from this rule and other pages can link to them instead of directly to the page of the redirect.

An example of the excemption mentioned above could be an Orlesian city which is officially verified that it can be visited in Inquisition, yet the information we have about it right now is extremely small to constitute a separate article at the moment. Viktoria Landers 18:47, July 20, 2014 (UTC)

Editing Guideline Proposal Edit

If a named minor character (3 speaking lines or less) has an existing wiki page and picture, could that character be an exception to the minimum standard for pages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:40, October 5, 2014

That doesn't make any sense. Whatever applies for future pages should also apply to the already existing ones. Also, please sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Viktoria Landers 16:32, October 18, 2014 (UTC)

Change to "when to use the edit summary" Edit

I'd like to propose an addition to the section Dragon Age Wiki:Editing guidelines#When to use the edit summary:

If you are using the "undo" function to completely undo the previous edit, you should leave a detailed summary as to why the edit is being undone, with a link to the guideline being gone against if appropriate.

With new editors coming in now who do not always know the wiki guidelines in full, I think it shows a good faith effort to specifically explain why a user is completely undoing a previous edit, and helps to reduce the chance of edit warring. --Kelcat Talk 01:30, November 11, 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan to me. This could help prevent some confusion and hopefully some edits wars in the days ahead.

-HD3 Sig 02:04, November 11, 2014 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.