FANDOM


This Forum has been archived

Visit Discussions
Forums: Index > Wiki Discussion > New changes to the pages due to upcoming DA2
Note: This topic has been unedited for 3187 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not continue it unless it really needs a response.

Page split

As we all know DA2 is coming soon and due to this we are thinking of some changes to the pages due to this. I'll explain this using an example,

If we take Companions page, I think it would be nice if there are separate pages for Companions in DA2 and Companions in DA:O. Then the Companions page should act as a gateway to these two pages. So the Companions page should contain general description about companions (rather than giving specific details related to any of the games). Also the Companions page should contains the links to both Companions in DA2 and Companions in DA:O. Currently, the Companions page being devoted to the companions from Origins and there is a link on top of that page which for Companions in DA2.

This issue is not only valid for companions, we can follow the same procedure for Dragon Age II classes, spells, skill etc.

The following conversation is copied from Loleils' talk page, regarding this matter:


Greetings and salutations! Dragon Age 2 is getting a bit of an overhaul when it comes to mechanics. We know there are new derived attributes (such as fortitude); changes in how some attributes work (cunning now adds to defense); changes in class (warrior can no longer DW or do archery); as well as new skills, specialization, the upgrade system... Well, you get the idea.

My question is, how do you think we should handle this? We could insert it into existing articles but that could get messy. We could change the existing articles to have Dragon Age: Origins and Dragon Age II section. We could create new articles altogether. I'm leaning to the 'new articles altogether' route as it means the user can focus on the content they desire. If so, we might want to rename the current articles so that the current Warrior is 'Warrior (Dragon Age: Origins).' Warrior would function as a redirect to 'Warrior (Dragon Age: Origins)' until we felt the 'Warrior (Dragon Age II)' section was up to par.

I don't want someone hopping into the wiki on release day of DA II, searching for Classes or Attributes and getting shuffled to the old information. Alternatively, it will take a while for the DA II articles to be has comprehensive as the current ones.

I'm also thinking about doing this to Companions as Chris Priestly confirmed that all regular companions would be revealed prior to launch.

Anyway, those are just my thoughts. We still have some time. -- Maria Caliban (talk) 15:28, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

I also think this is very valid issue. Also as Maria Caliban mentioned I also like the idea of separate pages for separate games, rather than keeping all the information in a single page.
If we take Companions as an example, I think it would be nice if there are separate pages for Companions in DA2 and Companions in DA:O. Then the Companions page should act as a gateway to these two pages. So the Companions page should contain general description about companions (rather than giving specific details related to any of the games).
Finlay, the Companions page should contains the links to both Companions in DA2 and Companions in DA:O
These are my thoughts regarding the matter and I hope to hear your ideas too. -- Snfonseka (talk) 07:36, January 10, 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I've given this one a bit of thought too and while I'm not quite sure on the best solution, I too think that we should create new pages for the Dragon Age II classes, spells, skill, and whatever else we need. To take companions as an example, think that we should have a page called Companions, but rather than it being devoted to the companions from Origins, I would make it either a disambiguation page or a page explaining the basic mechanics of the concept and how it's changed through the series, then we would have Companions (Origins), Companions (Dragon Age II) and then use the same format for any future games in the series. Friendship smallLoleil Talk 08:34, January 10, 2011 (UTC)
Sounds like we are all in agreement Smiley. But it might be worth running by the forums Friendship smallLoleil Talk 08:36, January 10, 2011 (UTC)

We wish to know your ideas regarding this. -- Snfonseka (talk) 03:32, January 11, 2011 (UTC)

Change is coming to this wiki. Some fear change and will fight it with every fibre of their being. But sometimes, change is what wiki's need most. Sometimes, change is what sets them free.--TheGreyestWarden (talk) 04:05, January 11, 2011 (UTC)


Thanks for letting me know about this thread Snfonseka. I believe we can continue to use Wikipedia's style on this matter. For all intent and purposes Companions can be redirected to Companions (Origins) (the current disambiguation tag for DAO is "Origins"). In that page, we can use a {{For}} template to link to Companions (Dragon Age II).
In addition, Companions (Dragon Age II) should also have a {{For}} link back to Companions (Origins) in case the user ends up there by mistake.
In future Dragon Age II articles, the link should be [[companions|Companions (Dragon Age II)]] but if the user some how screws up, it will take them to the DAO companion page where they can see the {{For}} template at the top.
I think we can all agree that we should maintain separate pages for DAO and DA2. I also believe that there should be an exception to this rule for story or lore. In other words, we have a page for Companions (Origins) and Companions (Dragon Age II) but only one for Isabella or Hurlock. What does everyone else think about this? -- tierrie talk contr 10:02, January 11, 2011 (UTC)
So I just saw Loleil's post. I think I could have saved myself heaps of trouble and said that she nailed it. Her solution is consistent with wiki's style, elegant, and consists of content separation where required, and content integration where separation is not required. What would we do without her? -- tierrie talk contr 10:04, January 11, 2011 (UTC)
I believe that Maria also makes a great point in making sure that we don't want users editing the old pages on the release date. However, I'm not sure I support this entirely: "Warrior would function as a redirect to 'Warrior (Dragon Age: Origins)' until we felt the 'Warrior (Dragon Age II)' section was up to par". Instead, I'm in favor of doing disambiguation immediately so we won't have to scramble to split the pages in the middle of an edit fest. But, I don't feel particularly strongly about this so someone makes a good case for keeping the pages together for a while, I might be persuaded that that's a good idea. -- tierrie talk contr 10:10, January 11, 2011 (UTC)
I actually would love to hear from D-day on this subject since he has been doing a lot of the categorizing on this. I value his feedback so I will see if he's around and if he will leave some feedback on this thread -- tierrie talk contr 10:15, January 11, 2011 (UTC)
You could have generic links like "Warrior" link to a stub page that simply has links titled "Warrior - Origins" and "Warrior - Dragon Age 2". That way there's very little confusion. People will click the link and then choose which game they want to reference. It could be a bit of work to make a stub page like that for each link that references something in both games, but it will cut down a lot on confusion. Valadeus (talk) 11:16, January 11, 2011 (UTC)
I also think new pages are the way to go, not only because it's less confusing, but also because of the use of tooltip. That's why there's been a split regarding weapons sharing the same name (e.g. The Reaper's Cudgel). For the disambiguation word, I would suggest to stick with "Origins" and "Awakening", simply because it's shorter. A very short description of what the article is about, e.g., what is a companion), but it shouldn't go further than this. All the mechanics on Origins should be on the Origins article, the same for Dragon Age II. This will reduce possible redundant information that would need to be updated on two articles if a change is required.
Like Tierrie has said, pages like Isabella or Hurlock should not be changed as the reader may want to look into the history of the character or creature. The only possible problem comes with location articles. We know Lothering and the Deep Roads will be included in DA2, as both pages contain lore (the latter isn't a long page, the former is). We could only list the lore on Lothering, and make "Lothering (Origins)" and "Lothering (Dragon Age II)". The link to the proper version could depend on the context of the article linking to Lothering, I guess. That requires a bit more thinking than linking to the correct companion page for example.
And there's the problem with items. Currently, there's little disambiguation pages with items when there's only two versions available (Reaper's Cudgel have three known versions). I had moved some of them, and Origins would usually take precedence over Awakening, e.g., Blightblood vs. Blightblood (Awakening), although it's also depending on the primary topic or whichever is the most likely to be the most searched on, and the most linked. Should item pages follow the same pattern as like companions and talents, or should it be an exception?
(Also, "he" is a actually a "she" :]) -- D. (talk · contr) 14:21, January 11, 2011 (UTC)
I think it is better to go for separate Warrior, Rogue and Mage pages. Because it is obvious that BW is going to use new approach for these classes. I am not very fond of splitting location pages into two pages, because for example "Lothering is always Lothering" either in DA:O or DA2. It is a single location not two different locations; only the events that have taken place in Lothering will be different from each other in DA:O and DA2. Also I think it is better if we don't split the individual companion pages, as mentioned by Tierrie. Regarding the items, we can use different pages for an item if that item appears with the same name in DA:O and DA2. Those are my thoughts regarding this matter. -- Snfonseka (talk) 15:40, January 11, 2011 (UTC)
If I may suggest something as well regarding talents and spells, I think it's best to make new pages for each talent in DAII even if it was on Origins, there are new talents introduced in DAII anyway so we'll be making new pages for those, overlapping talents (i.e. those that exist in both Origins and DAII) should have separate pages because some of them are in entirely different trees, take whirlwind for example, it was in the dual weapon tree in Origins and it's in the 2 handed tree in DAII, I have refrained from adding descriptions to the skills so far because I don't know whether to create a new page or update existing ones, also Weapon trees are now entirely class locked so I think it'd be better if they were placed under their respective classes, for now I've followed the old convention in separating class talents and weapon talents but I think it's better if they're modified to express the exclusive nature of each tree to its respective class. VeNiX (talk) 16:37, January 11, 2011 (UTC)
Sounds like we consensus here - mechanics should be separated while lore should remain integrated. If everyone's on the same page, I'll bug Loleil and see if she will make an addition to the Dragon_Age_Wiki:Manual_of_Style. -- tierrie talk contr 02:29, January 12, 2011 (UTC)
Yea, it seems so. BTW your suggestion is good, VeNiX. -- Snfonseka (talk) 03:21, January 12, 2011 (UTC)

I've just been thinking and... it's not that I oppose of splitting classes and specializations pages, but how is the lore going to be split from the class and specialization pages, e.g., Blood Mage has information on mages practising blood mage? Some information like, "Notable warriors" are listed on the warrior article; will they be split? I'd suggest to make Blood Mage as a page about blood mages, then make pages for the classes in Origins and Dragon Age II. This isn't necessary for every page, as it depends if it's needed.

For the location pages, I did not suggest to split into two pages, but rather in three, e.g., Lothering is about the lore, but all specific information on Origins and Dragon Age II would have their own pages such as items, quests, characters. I can see why this may be too much though. If it's kept on one page, how would the page be split? --D. (talk · contr) 21:03, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

I don't think locations and lore related places needs to be split. For example, if we're reading an article on Britain we expect to see the entire history with notable highlights in it's history. If there are main articles they can be linked via {{For}} templates. Similarly, Lothering can be about the place, and it's apperance in DAO and DA2 (sorted chronologically or by game apperances?).
On the other hand, Blood Mage is both a noun and an adjective. There's Blood Mages which is a piece of lore. And then there's Blood Magic the skill. In my opinion, these should be split with cross links. Blood Magic can be further split into the skill pages for Blood Magic (Origins) and Blood Magic (Dragon Age II).
Does that make sense? -- tierrie talk contr 21:31, January 17, 2011 (UTC)
I'm kind of confused now. D: I'll start over in more details.
Since we suspect that the mechanics are different, Blood Mage would keep the lore information, while in-game information are split like "Blood Mage (Origins)" and "Blood Mage (Dragon Age II)", which would list skills and equipment available to them only. As for "Blood Magic", it does not need to be a disambiguation page, unless it's a confirmed DA2 skill as well. In that case, there'll be "Blood Magic (Origins)" and "Blood Magic (Dragon Age II)", with "Blood Magic" as the disambiguation link.
The split for "Blood Mage" is because we're splitting "Warrior", "Mage" and "Rogue", all of which also have lore information, but will also have in-game information ("Mage" has more lore though), like skills and equipment. So we have, "Mage" (which I think it shouldn't act as a redirect or a disambiguation, but as an actual article regarding mages), with disambiguation regarding the classes "Mage (Origins)" and "Mage (Dragon Age II)". Currently, the consensus is make "Mage" a disambiguation page, but I think it should be an article with the lore only. It can very well include all information regarding mage, regardless if it's in Origins or Dragon Age II.
Following that logic, I'd be in favor of still splitting the pages for the locations. If I want to read lore about Lothering, I'd read "Lothering". If I want the list of all quests in DA:O, I'd go to "Lothering (Origins)". I'm just using the same argument used to split "Warrior" and other pages. --D. (talk · contr) 23:27, January 17, 2011 (UTC)
I think Mage should apart from the lore contain links to the other primary topics Mage (Origins) and Mage (Dragon Age II), it can't be a disambiguation page because we can't have the lore in both pages above, as for places I'm in favor of splitting as well, just look at Lothering's page, it has characters, codex entries, quests, if we keep it for both DA2 and Origins the page is gonna become huge with every section split in two, we'll have to provide a second map of the area (if available)... this would be too much information regarding two games in the same place. VeNiX (talk) 07:40, January 18, 2011 (UTC)
Seems like Tierrie and I are in the same page and as per my understanding we all agreed to split the Companions page.-- Snfonseka (talk) 15:20, January 18, 2011 (UTC)
Wait, I understood that the disambiguation word was agreed on "Origins", rather than "Dragon Age: Origins", unless you guys prefer to have the full title. I prefer "Origins" , since it's shorter, heh. If we decide on "Dragon Age: Origins", this means that we should be moving all disambiguation words to full titles, meaning "(Awakening)" becomes "(Dragon Age: Origins - Awakening)".
That being said, are the categories supposed to be the shorter or full titles? I've discussed this with Loleil a while ago, and both preferred the full titles, but preferred the shorter alternative for disambiguation words. I'm not sure if that's how she still prefers it though. I'd like some feedback regarding this, because I'd like to make the categories ASAP. --D. (talk · contr) 15:40, January 18, 2011 (UTC)
I thought that we need to follow one standard, even for naming. That was the reason behind the naming. What I thought that we shouldn't use a short name for one and long name for another. Anyway if others think it is OK to do so, then we can move the page to Companions (Origins) -- Snfonseka (talk) 15:58, January 18, 2011 (UTC)
This is the actual new Companions page and this is the Companions page that I like to suggest. Please let me know what your thoughts about the suggestion. -- Snfonseka (talk) 17:11, January 18, 2011 (UTC)
If that slideshow generates random companion pictures then this indeed is a better version. VeNiX (talk) 17:14, January 18, 2011 (UTC)
I believe that disambiguation can retain it's shorter "Origins" as opposed to the full "Dragon Age: Origins". Words within disambiguation just needs to convey context. For example, in Wikipedia, the word gem's disambiguation has enough to convey the context of the page. In that regards, I think "Origins" and "Awakening" suffices. Similarly, if we switch to "Dragon Age: Origins", consistently we should also change it to "Dragon Age: Origins - Awakening" and that is simply too long to type if someone is seeing a particular disambiguation page. -- tierrie talk contr 03:59, January 20, 2011 (UTC)

Categories

Regarding the categories: I like full titles and I am hoping to hear others thoughts regarding my suggestion. -- Snfonseka (talk) 13:02, January 20, 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a strong preference where categories are concerned, but I know that D-day has been working to make it more consistent. In that regard, I defer to her experience and what she wants to do with it. -- tierrie talk contr 20:24, January 21, 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to think there's a consensus that all categories should be in full titles, per this and previous discussion. Unless there are clear objections, I'd like to start moving and creating categories a week from now, as I'm currently taking this lack of replies as a silent "yes".
I'll also be changing categories in lowercase and in plural when appropriate (e.g., "Gift" becomes "Gifts"). --D. (talk · contr) 16:23, January 23, 2011 (UTC)
If there any objections, please let us know and explain why you feel that categories should not be full titles. -- tierrie talk contr 23:39, January 24, 2011 (UTC)
It's been a week now, and since there's been no objections, I'll start to move pages to full title categories. If the categories are linked within talk pages/forum posts, I'll create a redirect (to reduce red links). Otherwise, I'll mark them for deletion. --D. (talk · contr) 02:29, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

Classes and specialization

The following section was copied from Talk:The Templar Order. -- Snfonseka (talk) 02:48, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

<copied content>

Starting up a page to discuss the lore elements of templars, mages, and blood mages has come up before, but at time it came up it was decided to keep all the information on page so it would be easier to find. I don't mind if we change that style, but we will need to be consistent. So, would people rather have separate pages discussing the lore elements of classes or continue with the current style. Friendship smallLoleil Talk 19:56, January 28, 2011 (UTC)

I think this is going to depend on a few things. As you know, there's been discussions for splitting pages, but there was the problem with keeping the lore somewhere along with the split (which has not been resolved yet).
My opinion changes depending on whether templar is a specialization in Dragon Age II (I don't know if it was confirmed). If "templar" becomes a specialization in DAII, I'm in favor of moving this page to Templar, and specialization pages then become (Origins) and (Dragon Age II). If it is not a specialization for DAII, I'm in favor of the statu quo.
For other pages, since blood mage is a confirmed specialization, I'll echo my reply on the forum post: "Blood mage" has the lore information, while the specializations are (Origins) and (Dragon Age II). This is the same for "Mage". Unlike templars, there are no known unified group.
I think this is case-by-case, so I think it's okay if it isn't like the other pages. --D. (talk · contr) 22:57, January 28, 2011 (UTC)
My opinion is, whether Templar is a specialization in DA2 or not this page should remain separately. Because this page is about the Templar order not the Templar specialization. It is clear that The Templar Order will play a major role in DA2. So we will have a lot of content to add to the Templar Order. If we merge these two pages together, that will end with a page that has all the lore info, story info and spec info in a single page and I think that will be a mess. We don't need to mix Templar specialization with Templar Order; they are clearly two different thing. -- Snfonseka (talk) 02:44, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

</copied content>

If we are going to move the info on the specializations to separate pages then the rest of the info on the Blood Mage page should be moved to Blood Magic. The Blood Mage article (minus the specialization info) is all talking about Blood Magic itself. Even the section headers are about blood magic not mages; Blood Magic in Thedas, Blood Magic and the Grey Wardens, and Blood magic items (which was formerly called blood mage items despite being about items made with blood magic). The only sections not about blood magic itself are the specialization info and the Notable blood mages section which could still go in the Blood Magic article. Bastian964 19:23, February 9, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this. Blood Mage can serve as a disambiguation page for these three pages. --D. (talk · contr) 16:19, February 13, 2011 (UTC)

Linking

Should pages link to the "main" article or to the game-specific article, e.g., warrior or warrior (Origins) for Alistair? Some pages do link to the game-specific ones, like Warmonger talents for example, because they deal with game mechanics and would make sense that they link there rather than the main article. --D. (talk · contr) 16:19, February 13, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that. If Alistair is a warrior in DA:O there is no point in linking his page to the warrior page. -- Snfonseka (Talk) 01:43, February 15, 2011 (UTC)

Section splitting

Should pages like Anders have their sections split like "Dragon Age: Origins - Awakening" and "Dragon Age II"? Currently, the sections are named with the game's title. --D. (talk · contr) 16:19, February 13, 2011 (UTC)

I think we should use the game's full title when doing appearances. We'll use the abbreviated disambiguation only when dealing with page titles. -- tierrie talk contr 02:39, February 14, 2011 (UTC)
Yea, we need to use abbreviations only when they are absolutely necessary. -- Snfonseka (Talk) 01:37, February 15, 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I was referring to how the sections are being split, e.g. "Gifts (Awakening)" or "Gifts" then "Awakening" as subsection of "Gifts", or completely split the article in DA:A and DAII for that kind of stuff. --D. (talk · contr) 05:30, February 15, 2011 (UTC)
Personally if I was looking up Gifts I'd mainly be looking to see what gifts they are, who to give it to, etc, in the context of the game. When I am playing DA2, I don't really want to be scrolling through all the DAO stuff just to find out that yes, Isabela does like roses. So I say we split that page. And do the same for any page that is mechanic/references. -- tierrie talk contr 06:38, February 15, 2011 (UTC)
There may be a way to deal with this without splitting (I am currently looking into it). So I will tell you if my attempt results a successful outcome (within next two days, hopefully :) ). -- Snfonseka (Talk) 05:12, February 16, 2011 (UTC)
I have been looking into the possibilities of implementing hidden text/ collapsible tables/ collapsible content in Wiki. But based on the information I gathered so far, this is not a very solid solution (yet) where it needs some improvements. Initially I was hoping to implement this technique in this Wiki also, but after going through some stuff regarding the subject, I believe that it may need to treat separately as a test project and then later we can consider implementing it in the actual pages (specially because we have many different types of content in the pages such as, text, images, tables and template based tags etc.).
So I think we should go for splitting (at least for now). -- Snfonseka (Talk) 09:19, February 16, 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the suggestion to split the sections to other pages (by just linking them), although it would make more sense to do that. This is just a guess, but I think people prefer to have all information on one page rather than having to click on a lot of links. The only exception is the dialogue page since it's really big (and generally have consistency issues). There's also quotes on the character's page that could be split by games.
To Snfonseka; which type of splitting were you referring to? --D. (talk · contr) 18:37, February 16, 2011 (UTC)
What I am saying is that for gifts, armor and items etc we can use separate pages for each game. Such as Gifts (Origins) and Gifts (Dragon Age II). -- Snfonseka (Talk) 01:45, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if my opinion matters much on this discussion, but I think splitting the article in to sections lique Gifts(Dragon age II), Quotes(Dragon Age:Origins) is a good idea. For example, the Anders page is already getting really large and we haven't even recieved all the info on him from Dragon Age II. This gets speciallly confusing if someone is playing Dragon Age: Origins and they go to say, Isabela and see all this stuff about Dragon Age II. Clicking a lot of different links may be annoying, but I think if we don't seperate the pages, there will come a point where it will be preferable to click a bunch of links rather than scrolling down a huge page with info from different games mixed up. I know that the iminent release of Dragon Age II is giving a a lot of people a lot of work, but it is something to consider. --Davilimap (talk) 03:15, February 25, 2011 (UTC)

Anyone is welcomed to offer their opinion. :]
It's been over a week now and there hasn't been much feedback, so the current consensus is to split them to other pages (we should get this done before the game is out). I'm just wondering how do we split off the initial statistics and gear though; what would be the name of the articles?
For quotes, I'm inclined to keep only a few on the main article (about 10 or so, including dialogue), so only the interesting ones that define the character should be included. The rest could be moved to /Dialogue, although I personally think quotes and dialogue between other characters should really have own pages due how big the Dialogue subpage can be (I see that page more as an approval guide for the player character). --D. (talk · contr) 22:32, February 25, 2011 (UTC)
I like the idea of splitting mechanics. Clearly if someone was interested in Anders as a companion, they would like to see a distinction between Anders in Dragon Age: Origins' vs Anders in Dragon Age II. However, Ander is also a character, with associated lore and a story. When you split a character page like so, it splits the character's biography as well. I prefer to keep all the biography in a single page. At this time, I don't have a good solution yet, so any opinions on this is very much welcomed. -- tierrie talk contr 11:00, February 26, 2011 (UTC)
So we are not going to split the pages that associated with lore (such as characters, locations etc) and split the other pages accordingly. Am I wrong? -- Snfonseka (Talk) 13:46, February 26, 2011 (UTC)
I think that when people want to learn about a character as a person, they go to see that character's lore and biography, but sometimes people go to see their stats, their companion quest and so on. Maybe we could divide the pages in these two 'categories'. On one page, that character's biography, some important quotes and such, and on other pages his gear, his quest, his dialogue, etc. The page that has that character's bio would have all the info from all the games that character is in that is relevant to that page, while the other pages would be divided up for each game. An example of this would be Anders. The main page would be called Anders and that would feature basically his story and a little bit about his involvement in DA:A and DA2. Then other pages such as Ander/Dialogue(Awakening), Freedom for Anders and Anders Info (Dragon Age II) would have more details based on what game the person is playing. --Davilimap (talk) 17:36, February 26, 2011 (UTC)

Spell/Talent Trees

I posted a second topic on this, but it probably makes more sense to post it here. I really think we need an effective way to spell out upgrades as part of the spell/talent tree pages. Right now, one of two formats is being used, either upgrades are completely left out and skillspelltreerow is being used, or the upgrades are also being listed using the same format. What would make sense would be to have another template for this, say upgrade row, which wouldn't have a picture associated with it (since the original ability's picture is identical, but would list the name and description at least, perhaps the info box too. It would also probably make sense to have this "tabbed in" so it looks indented from the original ability. Not sure how manageable this is given what I know about HTML formatting and tables, but something at least needs to be done. We could also forgo the first column entirely and add the upgrade name as part of the second column above the info. Tivadar (talk) 16:39, March 2, 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I'd be happy to take a shot at creating the template if I could figure out how and see some examples of how existing templates work. Not sure if I can do this, being a lowly user :-P. Pretty sure I could handle it if I had access. My background is computer programming anyways and I've done my fair share of web design. Tivadar (talk) 16:43, March 2, 2011 (UTC)

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