Dragon Age Wiki talk:Editing guidelines

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dragon Age Wiki:Editing guidelines article.
General discussions not pertaining to the improvement of the article should be held in Discussions instead. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes! (~~~~) Do not edit another editor's comment.

Template guides

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)

Videos

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

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

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. 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! 23:31, February 12, 2014 (UTC)

Red links and redirects excemption

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. 18:47, July 20, 2014 (UTC)

Editing Guideline Proposal

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 (~~~~). 16:32, October 18, 2014 (UTC)

Change to "when to use the edit summary"

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.

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

Pronouns Guideline Proposal

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.

Ursuul (Talk | Admin)Date12:59 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.
Ursuul (Talk | Admin)Date1:46 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 (talk • contribs) 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.

-HD3 ^(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

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 or 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.
Ursuul (Talk | Admin)Date12:59 AM Monday, August 10, 2020 (UTC)

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.
Ursuul (Talk | Admin)Date5:02 PM Monday, August 10, 2020 (UTC)

I am fine with this change as well. Sir Insomnius (talk) 17:07, August 10, 2020 (UTC)

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.
Ursuul (Talk | Admin)Date5:16 PM Monday, August 10, 2020 (UTC)

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)

Sure, go ahead then. Jack Guerin (talk) 08:52, August 11, 2020 (UTC)

I agree only with Ursuul's proposal. 07:52, August 12, 2020 (UTC)

Agreed with the current proposal, though writers can be as fickle as the wind and their definitive statement can change every month. I'd suggest just sticking to what we are given in the games. The Other Greaves (talk) 08:31, August 12, 2020 (UTC)

Closed
Been a week & we've had no other comments or concerns raised, everything is currently unanimous, so this proposal is considered closed. We'll soon be moving on to real-world article discussion, stay tuned.
Ursuul (Talk | Admin)Date2:37 AM Wednesday, August 19, 2020 (UTC)

Real-world article removal proposal

Following up, I'm here to propose that we narrow the scope of our Wiki to just an in-universe point of view, only documenting extraneous data (e.g. DLC, actors, developers, etc) by how they contribute to the universe; all other data, including personal information about people, will be scrapped.

What would happen

• Between now & 1/31/20, we'll gradually nuke:
  • VA pages & category
  • Developer/Writer pages & category
  • Any IRL people articles I missed
• Dev data will be collated into one megapage, with Admins developing best-practice templates so that the page will be comprised of structured data (e.g. Infoboxes/tables/lists) to cut out fluff & avoid pronouns in totality.
  • Quest contribution & other data can go on their specific pages, e.g. Broken Circle#Trivia.
• Raw dev lists (DAO/DA2) can be incorporated into their main articles, made into subpages of those articles, or nuked if the megapage covers them; whatever's most prudent. No pronouns, just raw data.
• Links going to the nuked pages will be updated either to link to sections of the megapage or use Wikipedia/IMDb interwiki links (VAs).
• No future, dedicated real-world-person articles will be allowed. Their existence will not be acknowledged in any fashion on the Wiki except via their contributions to the universe. Guidelines will update to reflect this.

Why this is proposed

1. Competing with Wikipedia & IMDb. Broadly speaking, articles of this type are defeated by these platforms and readers are better served by such platforms, by every metric. Crossing into this space isn't very good for SEO either, rather than sticking to our dedicated scope & crushing it in that regard.
   • In fact, more links out to these platforms can improve overall health, particularly with the [[imdb:]] & [[wikipedia:]] interwiki links.
2. No more maintenance. In those precious times of high activity during release, we need to get all the content done to last us during the years-long dead periods; real-world, low-view articles shouldn't detract from even a single high-return, in-universe article. In dead times, it's hard to get anything done at all, so working on them with what resources we have would be a waste.
3. None of these articles hit 92 weekly page views, & are mostly well below that. Those we know of only comprise a quarter of a percent of our total pages, so the total view loss is infinitesimal.
4. List pages like the proposed megapage are favored by Google.

This was discussed at length in Discord (we invite all editors to join) & I believe we've satisfied a quorum of people. Therefore, please use or below along with your arguments/suggestions so we can clearly see if this'll pass as-is or if we need further revision. If this passes, this proposal will go into full effect at the same time.
Ursuul (Talk | Admin)Date9:43 AM Thursday, August 20, 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal because it's standard for Wikis to offload these pages to Wikipedia/IMDb, because they have been more trouble than they're worth, & because in principle, the Dragon Age Wiki should not concern itself with real-world people; only their contributions to Dragon Age. It is not our business to involve ourselves with these people or what they think, or to care.
Ursuul (Talk | Admin)Date9:43 AM Thursday, August 20, 2020 (UTC)

It all sounds sensible. Megapage for all the developers seems like a good idea. My only issue is with removing all pages. I think we should have a megapage for VA's too. Whilst imdb and wikipedia will be more fleshed out, we could focus on the VA's work especially for their work for Dragon Age, which imdb and wkipedia might omit as irrelevant. Obviously not all VAs deserve a mention, they would be listed if there was any trivia concerning Dragon Age. As an example, the voice actor for Hawke voiced characters in Origins, and so did Varruc's. henioo ^{(da talk page)} 10:22, August 20, 2020 (UTC)

I think we can reasonably include the VAs into the same megapage, if there’s content worth preserving. This proposal is pretty flexible & based on prudence.
Ursuul (Talk | Admin)Date10:30 AM Thursday, August 20, 2020 (UTC)

No objections from this quarter. The only problem I can foresee is having to deal with is dealing with the inevitable casual editors and fandom vigilantes re-adding the pages that have been removed. - theskymoves (talk) 12:56, August 20, 2020 (UTC)

Let's do this. 13:21, August 20, 2020 (UTC)

I'm in favor, and I don't think a VA megapage is necessary. For one thing, the existing VA pages are very incomplete, there's basically no pages for anyone but DAO voice actors + Solas. Henio0 brought up Nicholas Boulton and Brian Bloom for example, but neither of them has ever had a dedicated VA page here. The roles they've played are still indicated in the infoboxes of the characters they play, and they link to their imdb pages which have all that information collected (they usually have more info actually). --Evamitchelle (talk) 16:40, August 20, 2020 (UTC)

This is the main reason behind all the low traffic in these articles. No-one has ever even bothered to fill these articles up, so no wonder no one is clicking on those. I'm afraid I don't know enough about these actors to create pages for them myself, but I still think the wiki would benefit from just one article on VAs. henioo ^{(da talk page)} 16:49, August 20, 2020 (UTC)

I want to be clear that even well fleshed out pages on other Wikis have incredibly low view counts. The issue is not the lack of data on the pages, it’s the data type.
Ursuul (Talk | Admin)Date7:48 PM Thursday, August 20, 2020 (UTC)

I approve of this. Most of those old 'personality' pages are extraneous and something that can be found on other sites dedicated to authors, graphic designers and whatnot. EzzyD (talk) 18:06, August 20, 2020 (UTC)

I support this proposal as well. Not much point in having individual pages for each writer. Sir Insomnius (talk) 03:51, August 22, 2020 (UTC)

While I agree with getting rid of the individual writer/VA pages, I'm still puzzled how it all ended up like this, especially in light of the frankly ugly arguments over the "proper" usage of pronouns. I'd say keeping list of devs/writers as well as VAs with links to imdb/wikipedia. Nuking VA mention completely seems like a bad call to me. Buckeldemon (talk) 01:11, August 25, 2020 (UTC)

To clarify, a list of writers & devs will exist on a megapage. VAs will still be displayed on character pages that they acted for in the form of Infobox links to Wikipedia (if available, otherwise IMDb). In fact this is already the case for pages like Dagna. Given all that, your concerns should be completely addressed I think.
Ursuul (Talk | Admin)Date1:18 AM Tuesday, August 25, 2020 (UTC)

My name is DaBarkspawn and I endorse this message. DaBarkspawn (talk) 01:52, August 25, 2020 (UTC)

I can see potential value in having a separate megapage for VAs, if it's necessary to keep one page from getting unwieldy? But I've noticed if I'm looking for information on writers, I'm often trying to find out a) who/what that writer has been 'in charge' of or b) which members of the writing team worked on different aspects of a specific game. In conversations elsewhere, those seem to be the main 'categories' of reason to use them - and the second is very difficult to piece together with the individual pages. Even outside the pronoun issue, I think a megapage with collated information is going to be more useful for the community as a whole, and would be more than willing to take a day or two off of work to help peel out all the information and set it into the megapage. ToshiNama (talk) 05:44, August 29, 2020 (UTC)

Closed

Been over a week & we have no outright objections, most in agreement, so this has passed along with the revised Pronouns Guideline Proposal. Going to be a bit before I can coordinate implementation, but the biggest thing to do right now is come to an agreement on how to present the data in the megapage. Then, I'll create templates to do so, & we can all commence with the megapage creation & content moves to that page. As pages are successfully added & links are updated to point to IMDb/Wikipedia/the megapage, those pages can slowly be deleted. Peripheral pages such as Dev lists can also be handled & slowly deleted, & eventually we can wrap up by nuking the categories once everything is done.

We have until end of January, so I'm not rushing. I will, however, update the policies presently.
Ursuul (Talk | Admin)Date4:51 PM Thursday, September 10, 2020 (UTC)

Policy updates done.
Ursuul (Talk | Admin)Date5:54 PM Thursday, September 10, 2020 (UTC)

FYI, the deadline has been moved back to March 31st, to give our editors more time to migrate the last few pages.
Ursuul (Talk | Admin)Date7:35 PM Monday, February 1, 2021 (UTC)

When this is completed, it would be helpful to have this discussion updated with links to the pages that were migrated to. DaBarkspawn (talk) 14:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

It has taken far longer than anticipated, a year & a half largely due to me being busy, but we've now essentially completed this project. Thanks to everyone who helped work on it, & as a note, we ended up not deleting Category:Developers (the last two developer list pages) as they don't seem to have the problems associated with the actual-person articles & are somewhat beneficial. Feel free to discuss whether they should stay or not if anyone feels they too should be removed, but things seem fine as-is.

As a result, all these deleted articles have been moved to Dragon Age/Credits, with Developers (Origins) & Developers (Dragon Age II) remaining around as last vestiges. We can officially bring this project to a close.
Ursuul (Talk | Admin)Date8:06 PM Sunday, January 16, 2022 (UTC)

Mods Proposal

As the Wiki's stated goal is to provide information to the player on the original games, there are some mods which offer the player that ability. I am referring of course strictly on Bug Fixing mods which do not add or alter anything to the player's experience, they merely fix coding errors and allow us to experience the game as BioWare intended. It should also be noted that BioWare itself has also released (and is still hosting) the Dragon Age Toolset so that players can mod their games.

Per Editing guidelines, the wiki already allows links to Bug Fixing mods. However I find that method insufficient, it lacks centralization, and is prone to disputes because of the lack of clarifications.

My proposal is to centralize that information into the Mods page. It will be divided into 3 sections, based on the game under the following rules:

• Only Bug fixes: Mods which fix something that is already fixed by a mod that is already listed should not be posted unless 1) provides a better solution, or 2) the new mod fixes more things, or 3) after a talk page consensus.
• Links only to NexusMods or ModDB: Mods posted there have been filtered and scanned by dozens of anti-virus programs so they are safe for download. The only exception is the Tools (eg. Mod Managers) as they are not usually hosted there.
• Modding problems: If a user has a problem with their modding list, it does not mean the mod has a problem, but rather they have installed something incorrectly or their list has conflicts. In any case, if a mod is verifiably working for the majority, it should remain on the page and no comments or bug reports should be posted there. If a user requires assistance or wants to offer troubleshooting tips there will be a dedicated section in the Talk page for that.

There are some bugs whose solution is ambiguous, ie. we do not know with absolute certainty what BioWare originally intended (due to lack of scripting comments, etc.). In those cases the Mod authors take the liberty to interpret BioWare's original intentions. The most notorious of them is Qwinn's Fixpack which fixes 850 bugs but takes certain liberties as previously iterated. I believe such mods are still worth mentioning but because of the strict rules of the mainspace page, we could list them instead at the top of the Talk:Mods instead.

Thus my proposal for the top of the Talk:Mods page is as following:

• Bug fixes that provide opinionated solutions as described above.
• Mods which improve the quality of the graphics but not deviate from the original game style. (eg. 4K Map Textures mod)
• After that, two sections one named 'Troubleshooting' and the other 'Disputes'. The first is for people to ask for help or simply state the problem they experience and the other is to discuss disputes about the listed mods.

Finally, I would also propose to eliminate direct links to mods on individual pages (outside Mods) and instead create a simple template which would be posted on those Bug sections and inform the player that there is a modding solution and provide a link to Mods instead. That way the information will be centralized and more editors will be able to monitor any changes or recommendations that would otherwise be posted on obscure, individual pages. 12:51, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Overall I think this is a really solid idea and am in favour of it. I like the idea of all the external mod fixes being consolidated onto one page. But personally, I would keep it just to "these are known bugs, here are links to known fixes". I would actively discourage against including mods that aren't just direct bug fixes, even on the talk page, as that goes beyond the scope of the wiki's general approach of "this is a known glitch, here is how to fix it." While other mods might be really incredible for quality of life / improving the game that goes beyond the current policy, I'd still think that would be best suited to a wiki discussion than on the talk page.

I'd also suggest directing people who have troubleshooting problems to the respective forums. The talk page should be for about the content on the page, whereas the modding forums are more well suited for people having issues. Of course, users might still issue disputes claiming the mod doesn't work just because they can't figure out how to make it work, but the wiki isn't the place for them to be walked through how to properly mod their game.

The page itself should be the least editorial as possible, so while I agree that it's worth noting some things like Qwinn's Fixpack have liberties taken with the approach, and might include non-canonical changes, I think it might still be worth including on the base page with a note as such, and link to more discussion on the talk page (where editorial commentary is allowed to go). But maybe other people disagree, who knows.

I don't know how common it is in the DA modding scene to have multiple mods that do the same thing, but I'd also suggest taking an inclusive approach to list all mods that fix the intended bug rather than only one, to reduce the idea of it being one being the "wiki endorsed" bug fix list or whatnot. That's not to say that we need to constantly check nexus to include a comprehensive list of all bug fixes there (I'm fine with us starting off with just the ones we currently have linked), but that if a user wants to add a new mod that does the same thing while the previous mod still exists and is functioning, that it would be fair to include both as options. Wiki readers can decide themselves which they want to download and can use Nexus mods comments / ratings to judge the quality. Making it a resource tool rather than endorsement of "this is the best mod to fix this" would reduce the likelihood of editing wars for which mod to include.

With all that said, it's probably a good idea to have a comment at the top of the page's source code to tell editors to read the talk page before editing to follow whatever guidelines we settle on (only Nexus / ModDB links, only bug fixes, don't replace mods if they still work, start a new talk discussion before claiming a mod is outdated / broken, etc). NotYourParadigm (talk) 17:52, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

It's not uncommon for multiple mods to address the same bug. There are at least four mods, for example, that bugfix the Ancient Elven Boots not appearing in the Lothering chantry. There are at least two mods that fix the Jowan 'random encounter'. There are multiple mods for the Awakening Silverite mine bug. Etc, etc... Some of the mods are 'standalone'; they just address the one bug, without affecting anything else. Other mods are 'compendiums', with multiple fixes/tweaks packaged together. And of the 'compendiums', some mods are packaged as loose files, so the end-user can choose what fixes to install. Others are packaged as DAzip/addon mods, and the end-user has no choice but to install all the files. (I'm not going to offer any opinion on how the wiki should handle bugfix mod suggestions, as I am a mod author, with several bugfix mods that may be affected by the policy.)- Theskymoves (talk) 03:38, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Broadly speaking I agree with Paradigm insofar as including multiple mods per-issue provided they all meet general standards of satisfaction (i.e. no modding problems etc), & I would add that careful pains should be taken to ensure succinctness of mod descriptions — both for page length & because the mod pages on Nexus exist for a reason. Additionally, I agree with Paradigm regarding Quinn's Fixpack et al.

Beyond that, I agree with all particulars proposed except removing mods from individual pages, as per-page sections do keep things relevant to what readers are interested in / the issue they're dealing with, even if it's a bit of a pain to maintain. Therefore I recommend some form of templating system or content-generation mechanism such as DPL which can transclude the relevant section from the centralized page regarding a specific item onto the appropriate page(s). This way editors need only maintain one page but all articles would be updated with specific useful data. I would volunteer to help create such a system if it is desired.
Ursuul (Talk | Admin)Date7:43 PM Sunday, November 13, 2022 (UTC)

I'm generally of the same mind as the other two. I'm extremely reticent to change rules about mods because I don't want us to get to a place where the decision to include one or not is legitimately subjective and then we get into all kinds of arguments about that. As for multiple mods doing the same thing, this is most common with texture mods, e.g., the 4,000 different versions of Leliana people have done and those are definitely not bug fixes except possibly the texture mods that fix clipping issues and the like. DaBarkspawn (talk) 03:38, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Following the input provided here, I made the changes accordingly 21:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Zj24's article style changes

Heya! Zj24 has made a number of changes to the Wiki which are contrary to the established conventions and our guidelines (which require us to have a vote before someone starts changing thousands of pages). As a Wiki patroller, I undid a few of those which caused Zj24's objection. Complying with his wishes I am not going to revert more of them until the community has a vote on them. 08:05, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Hyperlinking additional words

The infobox of Denerim contains the location of the city within the kingdom. Zj24 edited that to say [[Ferelden|Eastern Ferelden]] Eastern Ferelden thus hyperlinking the 'Eastern' word as well.

I objected because it creates the wrong impression on the average reader as they expect to read about 'Eastern Ferelden' instead of where they are actually redirected.. Ferelden. Our hyperlinks need to be precise and not create wrong impressions just because it 'looks better' if both words are hyperlinked in the Infobox. In addition, this is not a practice that other Wikis follow. 08:05, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Cardinal locations – as of now all DA locations articles featuring a "cardinal direction" (in an article's info box) are merged, i.e. the Fallow Mire. The location is situated in "Southern" Ferelden and as such the info box currently diplays: Southern Ferelden (a merging of Southern & Ferelden). Please note that all location articles have been formatted in this manner starting with 'A' all the way through 'N' (and most of 'O') ...plus all newly created locations articles. I understand Victoria's argument that this format "may" creates an illusion that there is a separate article with info on ‘Southern Ferelden’ and as such the location shouldn’t be merged as there is no benefit of linking the word 'southern' with the location proper. And as she mentioned above prefers the location be listed as: "Southern Ferelden."

I disagree and feel it should remain as is. Viktoria has had several years to object to this formatting—as I mentioned I would be cleaning up the wiki back in 2019 so that all articles that are similar in nature would look the exact same (weapons, armors, items, objects, codex entries, locations, characters, etc.). Her stating that she is a "wiki patroller" has no validation on this topic and the following topics as she has had 4 years to object ...plus as there are only a handful of us that make regular changes to the wiki to improve user interface no one else seems to have an issue with this format. Please keep in mind that I didn't "come up" with cardinal location merging. It was already in place on multiple articles and I used that as the standard moving forward. Please see the Fallow Mire’s & the Storm Coast's info boxes for a clear comparison. —Zj24 (talk) 21:25, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Is the usage of such terms supported by either in-game or World of Thedas references? Technically, there is no such place as "Northern California" but usage supports that. I don't remember reading or hearing a reference to "Eastern Ferelden", for example. DaBarkspawn (talk) 21:36, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Bumping topic to get additional users involved. —Zj24 (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

For the example mentioned by DaBarkspawn: Northern California on Wikipedia – if not at sentence start or part of another proper noun/name, with lower-case "northern", btw.

I also support DaBarkspawn's question of official support of such terms.

I can understand both opinions, though. So here's a compromise: Both articles, referenced as examples by Zj24, have "Ferelden" linked as is in the lede, accompanied by an unlinked description of where 'exactly' in Ferelden the region is located, "southern most part" (should be "southern-most part", with hyphen) and "northwestern-most part". So, having this info already on the article, I propose to just omit the controversial part from the infobox – as we only have Ferelden itself as an article, that's what should be in the infobox, no "Southern", no "Northwestern", be it linked or unlinked. Such details should go into the lede. -- -- You talkin' to me? -- cCContributions -- 20:49, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

P.S. Having had a night to think about it, I make this, rather than offering just a compromise, a true proposal and third alternative to the above two: omit things like "southern" or "northwestern" from given locations in infoboxes if there's not a (planned) article about them, and reduce them to what we have, putting such details into the lede. (This also affects Ferelden itself, btw.; there we have [[Thedas|Southeastern Thedas]] at the moment. As "southeastern" is present in the first sentence of the article, I'd say, reduce this to [[Thedas]].) -- -- You talkin' to me? -- cCContributions -- 08:38, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

P.P.S. No matter how decision is taken upon this, but combining this one with the topic #In-game location names and the consistency of having a direct and an upper location listed in the infobox, this would mean for e.g. the Fallow Mire to state "(Southeastern) Ferelden, Thedas" there. -- -- You talkin' to me? -- cCContributions -- 08:36, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Hyperlinking 'the'

Zj24 started hyperlinking the word 'the' on pages which don't have it, such as Fade. So on other pages he would change the link to the aforementioned page by writing [[Fade|the Fade]] which appears as: the Fade

I objected because I do not see the usefulness of this practice. We only do it on pages which contain this article on their page name already, such as the Warden or the Stone. 08:05, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Articles that should include the in an article – no doubt everyone on the DA:Wiki agrees that “the Warden”, “the Inquisitor” and “the Stone” need to include ‘the’ prior word to the noun to specify if we are talking about a particular Warden or “the Warden” from Origins …same with Inquisitor, are we talking about a specific Inquisitor, like Ameridan …or “the Inquisitor” from Inquisition, etc. The word "the" is an article that functions as both an adjective and an adverb, depending on how it's being used, and in this case without using “the” we can’t specify who (or what) is specifically being referenced.

I again understand Vitoria's point that “the Warden” of Origins, “the Stone” that the dwarves worship, “the Inquisitor” of Inquisition speak for themselves …however, she feels that “the Fade”, “the Veil”, “the Arishok” (from Dragon Age II), “the Gallows”, “the Breach”, “the Maker”, etc. have no other context and do not require "the" in order to specify what the subject is being referred to. I disagree with this as well and feel the aforementioned require “the” to validate “the Fade”, “the Maker”, “the Breach”, etc. as these words are never used on their own (pending how it is used in a sentence—I'm not here to argue various sentence structuring). —Zj24 (talk) 21:25, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I have no objections to Zj24's inclusion of 'the,' especially given that outside of the context of Dragon Age, fade, veil, gallows, breach, and maker are all generic nouns and even within the series could be used generically or in a context where they aren't referring to the Capital Letter version. I do think the Arishok in particular warrants a 'the.' If you search 'Arishok' the fact the Arishok is what comes up and not generic Arishok (title) strikes me as potentially confusing. While it's certainly personal preference, I think having 'the' before important concepts like 'the Veil' helps signify this a key, unique concept, within the Dragon Age canon. Maxbroforce (talk) 01:16, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Bumping topic to get additional users involved. —Zj24 (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

In general, I hate article names starting with "The". When linking, I'm always asking myself, should "the" now be capitalized in the middle of a sentence or not … another, not already mentioned issue with this thing.

But that wasn't the question. I have to agree with Viktoria, "only do it on pages which contain this article on their page name already." However, and not regarding my introductory, personal issue, I wouldn't oppose to rename the relevant articles to include "The", thus making Zj24's linking practice valid. Just … please refrain from using possible already-existing such redirects, as using redirects – as I've heard from trusty folks – is bad for SEO (a very small price to pay for this ;). -- -- You talkin' to me? -- cCContributions -- 21:00, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

In-game location names

Some locations in-game are named as Vigil's Keep - Throne Room or Arl of Denerim's Estate - Dungeon. Zj24 deconstructed those names in the infobox featuring them as:

• [[Arl of Denerim's Estate]] [[Arl of Denerim's Estate - Dungeon|Dungeon]] which appears as: Arl of Denerim's Estate Dungeon
• [[Arl of Denerim's Estate - Dungeon|Dungeon]], [[Arl of Denerim's Estate]] which appears as: Dungeon, Arl of Denerim's Estate
• [[Arl of Denerim's Estate - Dungeon|Arl of Denerim's Estate ''Dungeon'']] which appears as: Arl of Denerim's Estate Dungeon
• [[Arl of Denerim's Estate - Dungeon|Arl of Denerim's Estate Dungeon]] which appears as: Arl of Denerim's Estate Dungeon

I objected because I believe it is important to preserve the precise in-game location name on the Infobox. 08:05, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Character, item, object, weapon, armor, quest, location, codex (any article that contains an info box) “locations” – currently the DA:Wiki features the locations in these info boxes listed as: ‘sub-location (comma) primary location’ …example 1, “Taniel” (character) - her info box displays: ‘Dalish Encampment, Exalted Plains’ (the encampment is a sub-location of the plains) …example 2, “Mystery Box” (object) – the object’s info box displays ‘Summer Bazaar, Val Royeaux’ (again we see a sub-location of a larger location).

This isn’t being disputed by Viktoria; what is being disputed is when a location has both the ‘sub-location & the primary location combined’ and I alter how it is visually displayed in the info box. Please see the following example for the ‘Vigil's Keep - Throne Room’ (location). Instead of the info box simply listing: Vigil's Keep - Throne Room, I have modified the location to display as either: Throne Room, Vigil's Keep (or) Vigil's Keep Throne Room. I prefer either of the aforementioned, as both the ‘sub-location’ and the ‘primary location’ are referenced. This allows users to simply naviagte from the info box to either the throne room or Vigil's Keep directly. —Zj24 (talk) 21:25, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I feel for potential accessibility issues on top of clarity/ease of navigation, that having the locations done as [sub-loaction], [location] is the way to go. If someone clicks on the article links they'll be taken to the page with the full title/precise in-game location name, so that information is retained.Maxbroforce (talk) 01:58, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Bumping topic to get additional users involved. —Zj24 (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, Maxbroforce, I don't understand what you're saying – is this pro or contra Zj24's opinion?

And again "sorry," for I currently don't know what the common practice on the wiki is, if there's more articles with sub-, main-location or more that only give one location.

I think, the concept of having it listed as "Sub-location, Main-location" (with comma) is not bad. Having both links available for the reader, so they can choose which one to visit, seems to be a good idea. For smaller locations, consistency would be key, here – no matter if one thinks, one could spare the estate when we are already in the dungeon. What I find important, though, is that both links are clearly distinguishable from each other, so from those four examples given by Viktoria, only the second one would do it. That's the first of the two options given by Zj24. I never like having a chain of words, all links, but linking to different pages – which is recognizable for the reader only by hovering the mouse over them, else they appear to be just one link. -- -- You talkin' to me? -- cCContributions -- 21:16, 27 February 2023 (UTC)