FANDOM


Template guides Edit

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)

VideosEdit

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 104.9.97.109 (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)

Pronouns Guideline Proposal Edit

Hello everyone. Frequently, there have been heated disagreements over what pronouns to use for certain characters and IRL individuals covered by this Wiki. Given the way the wind's blowing, and how recently these issues have come up, I'd like to propose a policy that reflects many of the past consensuses that have been reached regarding these subjects, one that will clarify how we already handle pronouns and set an obvious manual for dealing with future disputes (as will inevitably arise), so that we can come to immediate conclusions without disruptive argumentation. This is my proposed addition:

The proper pronouns to use can at times be unclear. When in doubt, follow this procedure:
  1. For protagonists, use DA:PROTAGONIST.
  2. For real-world, use their preference of either male or female pronouns; otherwise, their name.
  3. All other pages: use the most recent authoritative Codex that declares a pronoun (e.g. Shale) or, if there are none, use character-biased Codexes (e.g. Letters and Notes).
  4. Absent Codex clarity, rely on how the in-game elements (e.g. the UI) or narrative elements (i.e. lore, other characters, or objects from games and books) overwhelmingly refer to a character.
  5. In the absence of overwhelming clarity from games, books, comics, etc, use their name.
UrsuulTalkAdminDate12:59 AM Monday, August 10, 2020 (UTC)
Agree except in last case, where it can be awkward English to repeat a name multiple times in a sentence or paragraph. I would therefore suggest "Use their name in the first instance and use the plural pronouns after that." I cite the APA Style Guide as an authority in this. DaBarkspawn (talk) 01:17, August 10, 2020 (UTC)
I included the total avoid avoidance of pronouns because, in the past, "they/them" pronouns (outside protagonists) have also evoked discord. Moreover, "they/them" is itself a pronoun set, so we aren't making no choice (as we should when we don't have information), but rather we are actively selecting a fallback set of pronouns. It seems more effective to me, & has in the past been more conducive to compromise on the Wiki, to simply abandon pronouns when we don't know one way or another. It's awkward, but it can be done fairly effectively, provided that phrasing is precise and the opportunities for pronouns are avoided as much as is grammatically possible. If, despite all that, people still want to go for "they" as the fallback for ease of sentence flow then I understand.
UrsuulTalkAdminDate1:46 AM Monday, August 10, 2020 (UTC)
As I said on the Weekes talk page I'd strongly prefer using people's preferred pronouns, including gender-neutral ones, but it seems unlikely that we'll reach a consensus here either.
For the last one, I agree with DaBarkspawn. Removing pronouns from the Weekes page was feasible because there's not a lot of content on that page, and it's mostly lists of games and books. For character pages, which include paragraphs of plot and background summaries, I don't think it's feasible. Taking Hollix as an example, a character from Tevinter Nights who'd fall in that last category because they use both "he" and "she" interchangeably. If you removed all pronouns from that page, you'd end up with sentences like this: "'Hollix' is the name that Dorian gives Hollix when creating a cover story for Hollix's interruption of the meeting." That's just ridiculous, and not in any way clearer than just using "they/them." --Evamitchelle (talk) 06:42, August 10, 2020 (UTC)
Plurals should only be used when 1) the subject's sex is unknown 2) the subject is a group of one sex or both sexes 3) when the subject's sex in a narrative is determined by player choice. Names are usually the best option for individuals, and operating off assumed sex pronouns is an acceptable grammatical method. That being said, I'd sooner use a plural to refer to a character than use the pronoun associated with the sex they don't actually belong to. EzzyD (talk) 16:15, August 10, 2020 (UTC)

I largely agree with Eva and Barkspawn on this as well. If no pronouns are known, defaulting to "they" is perfectly reasonable and a standard in most writing. The only people who would have an issue with using "they" are those who would have issues with any pronouns that aren't he or she and we shouldn't be catering to those people.

Additionally, if we do know a person's pronouns then we are responsible for using them properly. It's disrespectful to people like Weekes to not use their pronoun of choice. Sir Insomnius (talk)

Adding in my two cents that there is real value in having a clear policy in place as this is something that tends to have very strong emotions attached. My suggestion for the proposal would be this:

  1. DA Protagonist is referred to as DA Protagonist (HoF, Warden, Hawke, Inquisitor, etc). 
  2. If the individual in question states a clear pronoun preference (such as Shale in Asunder, or Weekes with their announcement of what pronouns they prefer). I don't understand why the wiki would recognize two pronoun choices and not a third, if it was clearly stated in a public forum.
  3. Codex entries
  4. How others refer to that individual, if not contradicted by the individual.

In the case of Hollix where the character uses multiple, it should be easy enough to simply use / and list the pronounce in alphabetical order. 'Hollix was the name Dorian helped her/him develop so he/she could...' etc. It's mildly challenging to read, but if there is clear evidence that the individual is like that, then using the pronouns as the character would provides insight into that character and is most accurate from a recording standpoint. Doing otherwise seems to hide information that might become valuable at a later point. ToshiNama (talk) 12:16, August 10, 2020 (UTC)

Regarding #1, do you mean that the protagonists should only be referred to by their name? The policy so far has been to use they/them. Changing that would lead to the kind of awkward phrasing I mentioned above, not to mention require a prohibitive amount of work to change. In my opinion, DA:PROTAGONIST is fine as is.
As for Hollix, the story is told from first person, so there's no way to know what pronouns they'd use for themselves. He/she is what other characters use interchangeably. The fact that they can pass as different genders is stated under Background, and the infobox also states that they're genderfluid, so I don't think using they/them obfuscates anything. For what it's worth, Hollix's writer has used they on Twitter to refer to Hollix. --Evamitchelle (talk) 12:52, August 10, 2020 (UTC)
In that case, I stand corrected! If Hollix's writer has used 'they,' and we use writer statements on Twitter as valid canon, then we have canon evidence. Hollix should be referred to as 'they' in that case, until/unless something of a 'higher' source value is revealed.
My concern is that if the wiki makes determinations on which pronouns it will recognize, despite having evidence that those in the writing team and the characters use other pronouns, then it is the wiki making a determination on what information will be included, rather than following what is canon. If a character uses 'he', then the wiki should state 'he,' If a character uses 'she,' then so should the wiki. If a character uses 'it,' then so be it. If a character - or writer, in the case of Weekes - uses 'they,' then the Wiki should reflect the information available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ToshiNama (talkcontribs) 13:04, August 10, 2020


I can't see this being an issue for real persons, given that the only real person articles we have are all very short bullet points briefly outlining their contributions to DA. There's not really any need to go into their personal life.
For protagonists, I've no objection to seeing a continuation of the current policy. Everyone knows we're forced to use the terminology there because we're dealing with player characters that can be men or women, qunari or dwarf etc.
For all other characters, I would say canon is king. Refer to them by name and whatever pronoun is used in the game/book/comic. Keep it consistent with the text. Hollix is a tough example though because as I recall the story wasn't clear on it as an expression of personal identity or rather the lack thereof as a result of the constant disguise thing. In contrast to say Lisme where its clearly a personal identity.

-Seekers of Truth heraldryHD3 (Talk) 15:32, August 10, 2020 (UTC)

It sounds bad from a writing standpoint if you talk about Hollix as Hollix is talking to Dorian for Hollix's mission just like the Warden sided with Anora because the warden needed Anora's diplomatic skill more than Alistair's compliance.  I don't even need to pull back to the forest overlooking the fallen tree to see how rediculous this sounds because you want to play safe space to justify sacrificing content and writing quality for no sane and justifiable reason.

Dragon Age is a dark fantasy, it is violent and epic and gives free will direction with linear storytelling.  Worrying about pronouns not only robs characters of identity just because a minority doesn't like seeing he from she, but you're now worsening the language needed to convey this information because it feels better out of use, out of improper context, and proper structure.  Use he, she, and they like a normal writer when it's supposed to be used.  Jack Guerin (talk) 16:19, August 10, 2020 (UTC)

I agree EzzyD (talk) 16:41, August 10, 2020 (UTC)

Incorporating feedback Edit

After reviewing extensive convos here & on Discord, several Discord users (Insomnius/Toshi/etc) suggested a compromise that would allay their concerns — the removal of real-world articles in general, which eliminates a point of contention. There are many reasons to do this which are unrelated to this conversation today, & we'll get into those/make a decision on that in a future proposal (i.e. we are not deciding whether to nuke those pages in this thread), but I want people to reconsider this proposal as if real-world articles aren't in play. If we come to a majority consensus on that basis, & if we later approve not having real-world articles, then both proposals go forward — otherwise this proposal will simply be retracted. Here's the """updated""" guideline:

The proper pronouns to use can at times be unclear. When in doubt, follow this procedure:
  1. For protagonists, use DA:PROTAGONIST.
  2. All other pages: use the most recent authoritative Codex that declares a pronoun (e.g. Shale) or, if there are none, use character-biased Codexes (e.g. Letters and Notes).
  3. Absent Codex clarity, rely on how the in-game elements (e.g. the UI) or narrative elements (i.e. lore, other characters, or objects from games and books) overwhelmingly refer to a character.
  4. In the absence of overwhelming clarity from games, books, comics, etc, use their name.

To address DaBarkspawn, Evamitchelle, & Jack Guerin's concerns — First, Hollix has clear pronouns, the final fallback is only for an absolute dearth of data clarity; for Hollix they obviously use both pronouns interchangeably, so there's no reason to use name-only with them. Second, when names are required (very rarely), awkwardness can be resolved in almost all cases with a rewrite, not just a replacement of pronouns. For example, "'Hollix' is the name that Dorian gives Hollix when creating a cover story for Hollix's interruption of the meeting" was suggested, but a proper reworking makes it plenty smooth, such as: "Hollix's name was given by Dorian as part of a cover story for the interruption of the meeting." If you rework you can maintain writing quality without issue, & although this could entail some work to do, there is a reason why Wiki policy changes are supposed to be only for those with an investment in the work that will come as a result of a change.

To address HD3 — Content is indeed king, which this suggestion reflects, it's just a codification of how to prioritize content data, so I don't think you'll have an issue with this.

Since this change in the proposal was made in response to arguments already given, for clarity sake I'd like us all to use Yes or Nope if you'd be ok with this guideline in the absence of real-world articles, along with a clear reason. If we later decide not to offload real-worlds, then this guideline won't be implemented.
UrsuulTalkAdminDate12:59 AM Monday, August 10, 2020 (UTC)

Yes I believe that with the change, & the clarification of how this policy would work to those with grammatical concerns, that it now reasonably addresses the issues brought forth.
UrsuulTalkAdminDate5:02 PM Monday, August 10, 2020 (UTC)
Yes I am fine with this change as well. Sir Insomnius (talk) 17:07, August 10, 2020 (UTC)
Yes Yes, this seems reasonable. One minor addition I'd like to see is the addition of definitive writer statements, in absence of other lore. We use tweets, interviews, and the like for other matters, so it makes sense to do so here as well. ToshiNama (talk) 17:11, August 10, 2020 (UTC)
Real quick: I agree with this, so I'll absolutely support adding that in (in a separate proposal) if this goes through. For now we're just deciding on it as-is.
UrsuulTalkAdminDate5:16 PM Monday, August 10, 2020 (UTC)
Yes I'm fine with this, and the addendum that writer statements can be used as a source. --Evamitchelle (talk) 01:51, August 11, 2020 (UTC)
Yes Sure, go ahead then. Jack Guerin (talk) 08:52, August 11, 2020 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.