FANDOM


Additional points Edit

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 Edit

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 DA: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? Edit

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 Edit

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?  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 02:49, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

Question about Quest Walkthroughs Edit

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 ;). Friendship smallLoleil Talk 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 Edit

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. -- tierrie talk contr 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#What_to_Call_the_Protagonist 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". -- tierrie talk contr 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. -- tierrie talk contr 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. Friendship smallLoleil Talk 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 Icon wink. Friendship smallLoleil Talk 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. Friendship smallLoleil Talk 02:19, November 7, 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Head Quotes Edit

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:

  • 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).

Elementalist King Cousland | Talk 22:30, July 23, 2011 (UTC)

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 Edit

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.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.9.236 (talk) 08:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

No, we are not expecting authors to do any kind of decompiling the game scripts. -- Snfonseka (Talk) 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. Friendship smallLoleil Talk 01:18, August 20, 2011 (UTC)

Formatting extraordinarily long articles Edit

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.
──┤ 22px-5308644.png Eganogard talk ├── 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. Viktoria Landers 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).
──┤ 22px-5308644.png Eganogard talk ├── 04:21, August 1, 2012 (UTC)

Tenses Edit

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. ··· D-day sig d·day! 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. ··· D-day sig d·day! 22:30, January 8, 2013 (UTC)
Started the discussion: Forum:MOS: Tenses... --Koveras Alvane (talk) 18:18, January 9, 2013 (UTC)

Quote Limit Exception Edit

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? Viktoria Landers 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. Viktoria Landers 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. Friendship smallLoleil Talk 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. Viktoria Landers 12:30, March 12, 2013 (UTC)

Adding Head Quotes to Pages Beyond Main Quests and Characters Edit

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)

Yes 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. Viktoria Landers 18:00, March 10, 2013 (UTC)
Yes 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. Friendship smallLoleil Talk 01:24, March 12, 2013 (UTC)
Yes 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. – mostlyautumntalkcontribs • 08:27, March 12, 2013 (UTC)
YesI 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. Viktoria Landers 14:52, March 29, 2013 (UTC)

RE: grammar Edit

"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. Viktoria Landers 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 Edit

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. Viktoria Landers 16:03, June 24, 2013 (UTC)


"Also" and "later" Edit

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. Viktoria Landers 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 Edit

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.
    Viktoria Landers 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". Viktoria Landers 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. – mostlyautumntalkcontribs • 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. Viktoria Landers 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. Viktoria Landers 09:53, August 17, 2013 (UTC)


References layout Edit

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:

  • ''[[Dragon Age: The World of Thedas]]'' vol. 1, p. 64

Which would turn into an article like this:

───────

For the Dragon Age (pen and paper RPG) is this:

  • ''[[Dragon Age (pen and paper RPG)|Dragon Age RPG]]'', Player's Guide, set 2, p. 10

Which would turn into an article like this:

───────

For the Dragon Age: Origins: Prima Official Game Guide is this:

  • ''[[Dragon Age: Origins: Prima Official Game Guide]]', Collector's Edition, p. 370

Which would turn into an article like this:

I was going to create templates similar to Template:BSN – {{cite wt|64}} (World of Thedas), {{cite tg|370}} (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. – mostlyautumntalkcontribs • 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. Viktoria Landers 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: <title>]], isn't it? – mostlyautumntalkcontribs • 17:16, June 24, 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd like ask for some elaboration :-P Viktoria Landers 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 Edit

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. Viktoria Landers 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Viktoria Landers (talkcontribs)

"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.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Леди боли (talkcontribs)

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. – mostlyautumntalkcontribs • 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. Viktoria Landers 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. ··· D-day sig d·day! 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. Chantry symbol King Cousland | Talk   17:40, July 25, 2013 (UTC)

Standardization of appearances of item pages + Image guidelines on characters Edit

I'd like to propose the following changes on the wiki's guidelines:

Standardization of appearances on item pages Edit

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:

  • |appearances line in the ItemTransformer.
  • The leading paragraph: [ X is an <type of X> in <appearance> ]
  • The category: eg. Category:The Darkspawn Chronicles armor
Note: If an item is dropped in a particular DLC for example, then the "Acquisition" paragraph would still mention it. That means no information is being lost.

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. Viktoria Landers 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 Edit

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. Viktoria Landers 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. Viktoria Landers 23:50, November 28, 2013 (UTC)

"Relationships" in character box? Edit

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. Friendship smallLoleil Talk 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)
You're very welcome. Thank you for all the hard you do for the wiki. Smiley Friendship smallLoleil Talk 04:02, May 21, 2014 (UTC)

Tense Edit

Our current rules on tense state that "present tense should be used to describe the involvement of any character, inanimate object, location, group, country, etc. in the plot of a particular installment of the Dragon Age series". Personally, I feel that as more and more installments are released, it makes sense to abandon the perpetual present tense for the Involvement section of character pages and adapt that section to fit with the most recent installment.

The primary reason for doing this is to create a sense of an interlinking narrative through several installments (and thus, in my view, improving the general readability of an article), though I feel that implementation of the suggestion would also fit better with the "in-universe" perspective which is required of character articles.

So, to summarise, present tense should be used for the most recent installment, past tense for previous installments. For example, Leliana's Involvement section would use present tense for Dragon Age: Inquisition, past tense for Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age: Awakening, Leliana's Song and Dragon Age II. All other sections and articles (i.e, quests, locations etc.) would of course remain in the present tense.

Note: I had been meaning to publish this discussion but, as pointed out by Koveras Alvane, this slipped my mind and I went ahead and edited Leliana's page to fit with the suggestion ahead of discussion. Still, use it as an example if you wish. Chantry symbol King Cousland | Talk   22:05, June 26, 2014 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from, but I also see following issues with your proposal:
  • Such policy change will require editing every single article that pertains to a past game not just once, but every time a new game is released, drastically increasing the amount of work needed to keep this wiki compliant with its own MOS. Said work will also come on top of the massive undertaking of cataloging the new characters/items/quests/etc. from the most recent game. I fear that, realistically, such alteration to the MOS will only bring about more style inconsistency across the wiki, as some articles will be updated according to it, some will be kept with the old style, and some will disregard the guidelines completely.
  • The real-world timing of the present-to-past-switch is not clear. For instance, you have edited the DA2 section of Leliana's article to be in the past tense while DAI was still in development. Furthermore, the term "most recent installment" is vague: does it include only core games, or games and add-ons, or games, add-ons, and DLCs? What about novels and comics? A sizable portion of the fandom does not keep up with the release of tie-in books, so they may not even know that the most recent game they played is not the most recent installment anymore, because a DLC (such as Witch Hunt) or a tie-in comic has been released in the meantime. This, I fear, will cause even more confusion and unnecessary editing work.
  • With this alteration, we would effectively enforce a specific now upon the series' continuity--namely, the finale of the "most recent installment"--which has a way of implying that only the most recent installment is mutable and has impact on the future continuity, whereas the previous installments serve only as a backstory. By contrast, BioWare has always maintained that the Dragon Age series is a continuous epic story of a world and its inhabitants, and the introduction of Dragon Age Keep shows that they consider the events of the past games just as variable and continuity-relevant as those in the "current" installment and that for them, at least, there is no definitive "now" in the series.
To summarize, I believe that in addition to contradicting the original creator's vision for the series, making the style guideline dependent on an out-of-universe timing factor will bring with it a lot of unnecessary editing work, a lot more reader and editor confusion, and as a result, even more avoidable edits. --Koveras Alvane (talk) 06:49, June 27, 2014 (UTC)
I'll start with your second point first, if you don't mind. I'm not quite sure why the real-world timing would be unclear - chronologically, DA:I takes place after DA II both in the real-world and according to the in-universe timelines. As for "most recent installment", it would of course extend to non-game media (books, comics etc.), I'm not quite sure where the vagueness occurs. Since the most recent installment will be displayed as a subsection on the page itself, I disagree that it would cause any kind of confusion - fans would be able to see it quite clearly and have easy access to news about it.
I also disagree with your third point. Involvement subsections should and do reference branching narrative paths. Sticking with the Leliana example, her page shows that she can be turned down at Lothering, can either spare or kill Marjolaine etc. Indeed, her Awakening subsection then shows that romancing can have an effect on that story. I don't feel that any of this is diminished by using the past tense. On the contrary, it shows that decisions can have a varying effect on the plot, but that those events have indeed took place. I also don't think we should be using BioWare's "original vision for the series" as an argument either for or against, since such a vision is extremely subjective and is formed with the intention to tell a story, not to fit in with style rules on a wiki.
However, I'll concede that your first point is well-made and very true. Switching between tenses would indeed seem like unnecessary work with each new release. However, I'd like to therefore suggest that for the Involvement subsection on character articles, we move from using the perpetual present tense to the perpetual past tense. As I've stated above, I feel that this better gives the impression of a connected, interlinking narrative which is far more in concord with our other oft-forgotten rule that articles should be written from an in-universe perspective. Using the perpetual present tense can often make sections intended to be written from this perspective somewhat clinical, in almost akin to a walkthrough where the perspective is broken.

Note 2: I'm moving this to forums since it's becoming rather lengthy Chantry symbol King Cousland | Talk   23:38, June 29, 2014 (UTC)

Nope I agree with Koveras. We should use the same tense for all involvement (sub)sections. I don't think using mixed tenses improves readability, and with so many games and addons, books and comics keeping up with this rule would be hard for little to no gain. Besides that, some titles released later actually happen earlier (Dawn of the Seeker happens before Dragon Age II). Using present tense for past events while using past tense for the latest doesn't sound particularly exciting. – mostlyautumntalkcontribs • 07:29, June 27, 2014 (UTC)

Nope Not sure if my opinion matters in this (I have like no edits, so I would understand if it didn't), but I also disagree with this change for the reasons already mentioned. Norqi (talk) 07:47, June 27, 2014 (UTC)

Soft redirects Edit

I think we need a policy regarding potentially spoilery redirects. I am specifically thinking about Elder One - imagine someone starting Inquisition clicks on it and unintentionally spoils the identity of the villain long before they learn it in-game. I have also heard similar concerns regarding Sister Nightingale and Revered Mother Dorothea. I suggest that redirects that spoil hidden identities (like that the mysterious Nightingale is Leliana) or future plot developments (that Dorothea eventually becomes the Divine) be formatted as "soft redirects" of following template:

Hidden Identity plays a particular role in Dragon Age: A Particular Installment. Their identity is revealed in "Whatever Quest It Is Revealed In".
==Involvement==
{{SpoilerTemplate|
In "Whatever Quest It Is Revealed In", it is revealed that Hidden Identity is actually a [[Well-Known Character]].
}}

What do you think? --Koveras Alvane (talk) 08:20, January 5, 2015 (UTC)

I think it'd be a good idea and very useful, especially for Corypheus. Template looks good to me, but they're not my forte :D --Kelcat Talk 02:41, January 6, 2015 (UTC)
Well, since nobody else provided any commentary in a month, I went ahead and implemented my suggestion. --Koveras Alvane (talk) 20:49, February 8, 2015 (UTC)

Redirects Edit

I think it would be worth adding #REDIRECT in the "Article message boxes and tags" section (or wherever appropriate). --N00bKing (talk) 16:57, January 27, 2015 (UTC)

Redirects are a basic MediaWiki functionality, that's why it's not listed anywhere in the MOS, I think... --Koveras Alvane (talk) 07:32, January 28, 2015 (UTC)

Giving Directions Edit

I just removed a relative reference (left) with an absolute reference (south) in the page about the mosaic 'The Fall'. This brought my attention to the issue of giving directions in general.

Do we want to make it a guideline that people use the map and give absolute directions (North, South, East, West, etc) rather than relative (left, right, forward, back) as a general rule?

If so, what do we decide about maps (such as the map of skyhold) which don't have a compass rose? Do we decide - as I did - that the top is North unless otherwise specified?

First of all, it must be made clear that this proposal only concerns walkthrough articles, since exact directions are rarely of any importance to plot and lore.
Secondly, I see no issue with giving directions in relative terms, as long as it's unambiguous, and there are cases where absolute directions are actually more difficult to follow without calling up the map every five seconds. IMO the guideline should instead encourage the least ambiguous directions, whether they are absolute or relative, in each specific case.
Lastly, I think that while assuming the top of the map screen to always point north is a major conjecture, it is a common enough working theory that we will just have to accept in absence of better ideas. --Koveras Alvane (talk) 21:01, February 14, 2015 (UTC)

"Possibly" vs. "conditional" Edit

A lot of times, the contents of the infoboxes depend on the player's decisions (e.g. the allegiance of the mages and Templars in Inquisition). The prevailing convention right now is to add such contents to the box, but with a "possibly" in brackets behind it. I have a problem with that because "possibly" implies canon ambiguity, in the sense that different in-universe sources claim different things. However, there is a difference between in-game sources contradicting each other and the player unambiguously choosing their personal canon. I therefore believe that the term "conditionally" is much more appropriate for such contents than "possibly", because it gives a clear indication that a given piece of data is only valid under certain conditions, i.e. if certain story choices are made. What do the others think? --Koveras Alvane (talk) 06:37, March 27, 2015 (UTC)

Seeing how I'm one of the people who perpetuates this, I concur. To me, "Possibly" means unknown; it may or may not be true. "Conditional" means it definitely happens, but only under certain circumstances. --Dragonzzilla (talk) 00:37, April 10, 2015 (UTC)
You make a good point Koveras, I would support changing from "possibly" to "conditional" as well. Friendship smallLoleil Talk 00:57, April 10, 2015 (UTC)
Me too. Asherinka (talk) 01:47, April 10, 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. The last thing we need is to wind up with more ambiguities and thus leave the whole situation a confusing mess like the dragon age tv tropes articles. -Seekers of Truth heraldryHD3 (Talk) 03:34, April 10, 2015 (UTC)

Seeing how there seems to be an agreement on the issue, should I start a new "Infobox" section in the MOS? I was thinking of placing it between the "Lead section" and "Table of contents". --Koveras Alvane (talk) 07:08, April 10, 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I'll put Lol-bot to work updating the infoboxes once you're done. Friendship smallLoleil Talk 22:50, April 10, 2015 (UTC)
I'll get on it later today. RL keeps getting in the way. :( --Koveras Alvane (talk) 07:27, April 11, 2015 (UTC)
I made a first draft write-up. Tell me what you think or just correct it directly in the MOS. --Koveras Alvane (talk) 19:09, April 11, 2015 (UTC)
Looking good! Lol-bot has made its first run of changes, so we should be all good moving forward. Friendship smallLoleil Talk 00:18, April 12, 2015 (UTC)

Dragon Age: Inquisition item verbiage clean up & consistency Edit

Hello all, I was an avid contributor to the wiki in 2015/2016; I worked with Kelkat to create/clean up: Armor Upgrades (Armor Arms, Armor Legs, Sigils), Weapons Upgrades (Hafts, Grips, Pommels, Staff Blades), Schematics (Armor Schematics, Weapon Schematics), Weapons (Axes, Bows, Daggers, Greataxes, Greatswords, Maces, Mauls, Shields, Staves, Swords), Armors (Light Armors, Medium Armors, Heavy Armors), Accessories (Amulets, Belts, Rings), Miscellaneous (Bianca Upgrades, Helmets, Vitaars, Unique equipment (Inquisition), Crafting Materials) as well as the pages linking all the items.

Basically any item found on the wiki in regards to Dragon Age: Inquisition including DLC's either myself, Kelkat and a handful of others spent the time putting the pages together. Please see my talk and contribution page if verification is needed. I recently decided to finish what I started but was not met with open arms. I am looking to clean up minor inconsistencies for the aforementioned items and categories. The edits I am making are already present on about 90% or more of the wiki. To clarify I am not adding anything new, nor making any drastic changes; I merely want every item page to look uniform with one another.

May I proceed without having edits undone? Thank you for your time. Zj24 (talk) 23:34, August 26, 2019 (UTC)

As an example please see the Crafting materials cloth section compared to that of leather. There's not a significance difference however the cloth section & items now have a bit more uniformity. Zj24 (talk) 01:14, August 27, 2019 (UTC)
I think you are going about this the wrong way, this should not be about you, your edit history or anything personal like that. Rather, you should present why the policy we have should be changed. We have a policy which, by inclusion, includes the normal rules of English grammar. In English, the phrase DLC would not be italicized because it is the medium, not the title of the work. By way of example, one might write a sentence like "The Dragon Age: Magekiller comic book..." in which comic book would not be italicized either. Same goes for DLC, book, film, anime, CD, soundtrack and so on. I also want every page to look uniform, but uniform in the rules of English grammar, not uniformly wrong everywhere. So, please speak to why you believe DLC should be italicized and let's debate that and not who wrote what. DaBarkspawn (talk) 02:14, August 27, 2019 (UTC)
Hi DaBarkspawn, I actually am not disagreeing with you or Viktoria, I completely agree that DLC should not be italicized, but 90% or more of the pages that were created already look as follows:
Instead of:
My preference would be to mirror what was already in place versus making new adjustments to a majority of the wiki. In turn this would allow there to be sense of uniformity amongst all the items. I am not looking to make any new policy amendments.
But technically does the word DLC even need to be included, for example:
Zj24 (talk) 03:13, August 27, 2019 (UTC))
So, I don't see the way (assuming your data is correct) the majority of the wiki is now as being an important consideration. Wikis are infinitely mutable by nature. I see consistency with policy as the important consideration. I also don't see reverting everything back to policy as a lot of work, because Ursuul has a bot that can do this sort of thing. That said, of the alternatives you present above, I like the last one the best. One can make the argument that DLC is redundant to Trespasser as there is no other thing with the same name. The only time this might become a problem is with distinguishing between something like Hard in Hightown the notes in game and the published book of the same name. DaBarkspawn (talk) 03:59, August 27, 2019 (UTC)
Sounds good, I will make the proper adjustments for Trespasser, The Descent and Jaws of Hakkon items. This should not affect anything else. If I have any questions I will address them on your talk page, or vice versa if you have any follow up questions please let me know. Zj24 (talk) 15:11, August 27, 2019 (UTC)
Excellent, I'm glad we could come to a mutually satisfactory solution. DaBarkspawn (talk) 16:26, August 27, 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the word "DLC" is reduntant. It should stay for consistency. Viktoria Landers 22:49, August 27, 2019 (UTC)

Did you already consider the discussion as concluded and jumped to the changes before waiting at least 24 hours for everyone to chip in? Right now I see +100 new edits with the hastily-made agreement. Viktoria Landers 22:52, August 27, 2019 (UTC)

Hi Viktoria, I'm not removing the word DLC from the main page of any of the items I am editing; I am only removing it from the item list page, please see: Amulets (Inquisition) compared to Rings (Inquisition). I thought I was given the green light by DaBarkspawn and Ursuul as long as I adhered to wiki policy. I will hold off on any more edits until I hear back from you. Zj24 (talk) 01:06, August 28, 2019 (UTC)
Okay so when we start a talk page discussion and seek to reach an agreement, we wait long enough so that enough people have the opportunity to participate and chip in. Only when a consensus is reached, we go ahead and implement the changes. Usually in the end this involves voting too.
Maybe And here is my vote. I am personally indifferent to this change, I don't mind either version.
Finally, I would strongly recommend using a bot to do these mass edits. That won't only save you lots of hours but will ensure that no mistakes are made. If you are interested in this solution, I would also suggest to join the Wiki's Discord and figure things out together. (the bot's parameters, etc) Viktoria Landers 12:30, August 28, 2019 (UTC)
Hey Viktoria, I wanted to make sure everyone had enough time to respond before I proceeded to make any more edits. I know you proposed using bots to make all the necessary edits but I actually enjoy doing manual edits; this allows for grammatical and punctuation corrections when needed. If anyone has any further questions please let me know.Zj24 (talk) 21:25, September 5, 2019 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.