The following conversation was copied from the talk page of DA:Manual of Style in order to hopefully receive more responces.
I'd like to propose the following changes on the wiki's guidelines:
Standardization of appearances on item pages
There are issues with items appearing in multiple games. If we're going to add all the appearances of every item, then Health poultices for example should be listed in each and every DLC and expansion. Obviously this would look really confusing to most readers. Subsequently, my proposition is for the items that appear in Origins and in other DLCs or expansion to be listed/categorized only as Origins items. Similarly if an item appears in Awakening and in some other DLCs, to be listed/categorized only as an Awakening item. This listing/categorizing is happening in three ways in each item page:
- |appearances line in the ItemTransformer.
- The leading paragraph: [ X is an <type of X> in <appearance> ]
- The category: eg. Category:The Darkspawn Chronicles armor
From these three ways, my proposition is to list all the appearances only in the |appearances line of the ItemTransformer. In the other two, only the main appearance will be listed.
This style is also followed by the game itself since an item which appears in Witch Hunt for example but it is also in Origins, its item ID code would usually start with "gen".
Furthermore unique DLC/Awakening items would remain unaffected as they will continue to be listed/categorized as such. 
16:23, November 21, 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that not everything that appears in the DLC's would require that DLC be listed in Appearances, but I do like the idea of notable items having the DLC listed. Specifically things such as armor, weapons, accessories. If we don't list the DLC as a category on those pages (which I agree that we shouldn't) having it in the appearances section is the easiest and quickest way to identify that the items are available.Kelcat (talk) 00:54, November 22, 2013 (UTC)
- It is actually the convention due to the reasons you have listed, but we don't have that as a guide since it requires to set up an item layout guide like characters and locations on the MoS. ···
d·day! 21:29, November 29, 2013 (UTC)
- Why not? Standardizing this process would be a positive thing. 15:21, December 1, 2013 (UTC)
- Why not? Standardizing this process would be a positive thing.
I have added Kelcat's recommendation to the proposal. 11:13, December 10, 2013 (UTC)
- This might be a tie-in to the proposal, or it's something I'm not aware of. But currently in the lead-in statement only the main game is mentioned. [ X is an <type of X> in Dragon Age: Origins ]. Then in acquisition, all of the games/add-ons/DLC are listed separately. In those cases, the extras have to be linked in the acquisition header === Dragon Age: Origins - Awakening === which looks messy. I'm not sure what the standard should be: having all the games that the item appears in in the lead (which provides links to all those games upfront) or putting only the main one and then linking the additional games in the acquisition headers. Does that even make sense :D Kelcat (talk) 19:24, December 16, 2013 (UTC)
Image guidelines on characters
I believe that it is quite clear to notice the visual differences of character images taken during a cutscene, specifically when the camera focuses on the character and blurs the background and when a screenshot is taken in 3rd person view.
eg. File:Ferdinand Genitivi closeup.png and File:Genitivi.jpg
Subsequently, given those advantanges, I think we should recommend users to capture screenshots during cutscenes when they are meant to be used as profile images for characters. 16:23, November 21, 2013 (UTC)
- Images taken during the cutscene are infinitely preferable. It's hard to get a close-up of the character's face when taking the screencap outside of a cutscene, and the lighting is often of lower quality as well. So long as it's a recommendation and not a requirement (since I'd prefer a somewhat lower quality image over no image at all) I'm in support of this. Kelcat (talk) 00:54, November 22, 2013 (UTC)
- I think I saw a recommendation that profile pictures be taken at the point where the character is first encountered (particularly for potential companions). If that is in a cutscene, then it seems reasonable that that is where the image should be from. I'm against making it a Wiki-wide recommendation, though, because doing that suggests that more weight will be given to cutscene screenshots. My thinking has always been that it should be as easy as possible for well-meaning people to contribute to this Wiki, and also that the images be familiar, and examples of what players would typically see as they play the games. Not having background blur seems an unnecessary restriction as during normal play and dialogue, the background is not blurred. I'm also against this because close-ups sometimes cut off part of the person's head (as in the Genitivi close-up). If the profile picture showed the character's head with no bits missing, and their upper torso, then that would be the ideal, for me, whether that was from a cutscene or not. -Sophia (talk) 12:35, November 22, 2013 (UTC)
- If it's for infobox images, I think it's okay to encourage users to use cutscene images (we already give certain ideas of how to take a better picture, and I think this would fit), as long as it is kept in mind that not all cutscenes will be the same (e.g., whether it's during a dialogue, or during a real cutscene), unless you specifically want the picture to be during a dialogue. Details like blurry background shouldn't be necessary. ···
d·day! 21:29, November 29, 2013 (UTC)
- I have something I want to both inquire about and point out: the image guidelines say that if a character plays a similarly significant role across games, a screenshot from the latest game they were in should be used. That's fine, except sometimes that means resorting to third-person screenshots. That doesn't really fit with these suggested guidelines, meaning that there are occasions where this would possibly conflict with the actual image guidelines already in place. What should take priority? A good image taken from dialogue/cutscene, or a more recent depiction of a character? 72.196.14.33 (talk) 03:20, December 1, 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's a good point. Since the image is chosen based on the amount of involvement of a character, and in the cases the amount of involvement is the same and subsequently a picture of the latest game is chosen, then the proposed guideline can override the aforementioned rule on the basis of being better quality-wise. 15:21, December 1, 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's a good point. Since the image is chosen based on the amount of involvement of a character, and in the cases the amount of involvement is the same and subsequently a picture of the latest game is chosen, then the proposed guideline can override the aforementioned rule on the basis of being better quality-wise.
- If we disregard the old guideline in favor of this new guideline, then what's the point? It's no longer about keeping a consistent standard, it's about using whatever "looks better". Some images would follow one guideline, while some would follow another. That's not really creating new standards so much as messing up old ones, creating inconsistency within the wiki. 72.196.14.33 (talk) 15:16, December 9, 2013 (UTC)
- The guidelines do not mean they must be followed 100% of the time. For example, we recommend users to not change the images unless there are serious problems with them, but it doesn't mean it's completely wrong to change them (it depends, really). That's why it should only, and only be a recommendation, but not a rule to be followed 100% of the time. Our guideline in regards to which picture should be used for the infobox:
- "This depends on their role in the game, on whichever appearance is most likely to be associated with. As this is subjective, make sure you discuss the changes on the talk page, in particular if your edit has been reverted by another user."
- Sometimes it's obvious when the change should be made, sometimes it is not. As such, I don't think we should think that one guideline overrule another one, and it should instead be at the editor's discretion. If the image is simply not good, it can be reverted or the change can be discussed on the talk page. ··· d·day! 17:08, December 9, 2013 (UTC)
- Sometimes it's obvious when the change should be made, sometimes it is not. As such, I don't think we should think that one guideline overrule another one, and it should instead be at the editor's discretion. If the image is simply not good, it can be reverted or the change can be discussed on the talk page. ···
- Err, I was trying to agree with you that we should stick to using a character's most recent appearance, but the fact is it would come down to one guideline overriding another, since you can't have both. Some pages would follow the standard that dictates you use a most recent appearance, while some pages wouldn't follow that standard simply because a good screenshot wasn't possible. That's my biggest thing - it's a little silly to try and implement something for the sake of standardizing appearances, when it's actually going to make things even less uniform. Just my opinion. Whatever you guys decide... yeah. 72.196.14.33 (talk) 11:07, December 11, 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, this is a guideline (which applies in most (but not all) cases). If a cutscene image is not good enough, it is obvious that it should not be prioritized over a better image. 11:13, December 10, 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, this is a guideline (which applies in most (but not all) cases). If a cutscene image is not good enough, it is obvious that it should not be prioritized over a better image.
It looks like the discussion about image guidelines has been resolved and added to the manual of style, but I'd love to see a resolution about the "Appearances" section. Right now the lack of standardization is causing weapon and armor pages especially to look messy, as the appearances section varies from one item to another.Kelcat (talk) 16:33, December 20, 2013 (UTC)
