I've noticed many of the pages have a "Relationship with Companions" section. I think their inclusion degrades the quality of the wiki. Shouldn't the wiki be used to report facts, not speculations over how characters feel about one another? These sections seem to run more into the realm of essay writing and interpretation over stating the facts of what we know about these characters. It's rather like having a "Character Analysis" section. HelterSkelter (talk) 21:20, April 5, 2011 (UTC)
Speculation? It's hardly speculation to say Fenris hates Merrill because she's a blood MAGE, or that Aveline later warms to almost everybody starting from Act II, or that Anders is well aware that Varric helps out other characters using his contacts. You don't need to be a psychology professor to discern what the inter-party relationships are. They're just more obvious in DA2 than in DA:O, just like it didn't take a genius to figure out that Morrigan holds Alistair in contempt, and that Alistair hates Morrigan.
I don't think the "Relationship with Companions" section degrades the Wiki. Besides, reading that gave me a "oh, I missed that" moment about Carver fancying Merrill.Quirkynature (talk) 22:17, April 5, 2011 (UTC)
- But it forms a definite opinion on something that can only be interpreted. It uses the entire wiki's voice to declare that "this is how these characters feel about each other", when it's all opinion and extrapolation. Yes, some are pretty obvious, but that's not an excuse. HelterSkelter (talk) 22:36, April 5, 2011 (UTC)
- Fine, but is getting rid of it all really necessary? Put the information in trivia, if you want. The spongy facts can go but the iron facts should remain. Getting rid of it all just seems wasteful. Arishok: rivalry (-15) Quirkynature (talk) 00:54, April 6, 2011 (UTC)
- I think we should leave character interpretation out altogether. The presence of the very obvious ones are probably going to encourage people to post their own theories, anyway. Mostly I have an issue with extrapolation. It seems best to not any presumptions, simply stating facts, and allow the reader to form their own opinion. HelterSkelter (talk) 02:21, April 6, 2011 (UTC)
- Fine, but is getting rid of it all really necessary? Put the information in trivia, if you want. The spongy facts can go but the iron facts should remain. Getting rid of it all just seems wasteful. Arishok: rivalry (-15) Quirkynature (talk) 00:54, April 6, 2011 (UTC)
I agree with HelterSkelter, to a degree. Do we really need these "Companion Relationship" sections? Do they add anything to the page that isn't already there? Some of the information shows up as trivia anyway, or in the companion's involvment in the story. Its unnecessary and just repeats information. --Madasamadthing (talk) 22:28, April 5, 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks HelterSkelter for starting this topic. Since I didn't manage to finish DA2 yet, I am staying out of the companion pages or quest specific pages as much as possible. But after seen this topic I took a look at the Merrill page. I think we can consider most of them as speculations. If they are not, they definitely need some referencing/ citations. Also for me the available information is pretty much useless too.
- If these information are based on dialogs, then we have a information duplication; because we have a separate section for dialogs. If not, I wonder what is the source for these information. It seems like through this section anyone has a opportunity to add speculation.
- Lets take an example from the Merrill page: "Merrill and Sebastian are very friendly and seem very playful about the others beliefs." and if I change that to "Merrill and Sebastian are very friendly and seem very playful about the others beliefs. Also it seems that they have a great respect to each other." Can anyone point out clearly that my modification is incorrect? If you are going to use a "dialog" to prove that the modification is incorrect, then you are proving my point that there is an information duplication due to this section. -- Snfonseka (Talk) 05:06, April 6, 2011 (UTC)
- Touché. Fine, HelterSkelter wins this round. I won't post guard over them anymore. Quirkynature (talk) 13:28, April 6, 2011 (UTC)
- Is it decided then? Should we remove them now? HelterSkelter (talk) 19:34, April 6, 2011 (UTC)
I actually think it does add something, though I think in some cases it may go a bit too far with the speculation. For example on the Merrill page, it says "Merrill and Varric share a father-daughter relationship". While I think this is true, the actual dialogues just show that "Varric is protective of Merril". Saying the second is fine, the first makes a few too many assumptions IMHO. Tivadar (talk) 20:29, April 6, 2011 (UTC)
- That's why I am considering this as a gateway to adding speculations. There is no proper filtering mechanism for this. So if someone modifies/ adds something then another can argue that it is not the case, but the thing is that their (both of them) argument based on their own view on some dialogs. -- Snfonseka (Talk) 06:47, April 7, 2011 (UTC)
- Sure, but I'd argue (pun intended) that a lot of "information" on the wiki is argument-based, including on the character pages themselves. I understand we don't want ridiculous speculation, but can't we clamp down on that without removing the section as a whole? I for one enjoy knowing what sorts of reactions I can expect between the character pairs. If I'm the only one who feels this way, then fine, but wanted to at least voice my opinion.
- Such as? If there is information that's mostly just speculation and theory, then it doesn't belong. Looking at, say, the Merrill page, none of the categories lend themselves to speculation--if people are adding it anyway, that's just poor editing, but not the fault of the wiki's content. But in this section, as Snfonseka said, we have either information duplication or speculation.
- Sure, but I'd argue (pun intended) that a lot of "information" on the wiki is argument-based, including on the character pages themselves. I understand we don't want ridiculous speculation, but can't we clamp down on that without removing the section as a whole? I for one enjoy knowing what sorts of reactions I can expect between the character pairs. If I'm the only one who feels this way, then fine, but wanted to at least voice my opinion.
- You can't properly edit these pages, because it comes down to how you feel about the characters and their relationship with each other. Take any relationship in the game, and I could come up with an alternate theory for why they act like that. You can't disprove it, because they're not fact--only theories extrapolated from facts. HelterSkelter (talk) 17:07, April 7, 2011 (UTC)
- (Devil's advocate a bit) "Back in the Alienage, Merrill is crushed. She either bemoans the fact that she was too "stupid and ignorant" to listen or that they were." The fact that Merril is crushed or that she is bemoaning is speculation. It's obvious by the dialogues, but speculation none-the-less. To me, it's really no different from saying Varric is protective of Merrill, or that Isabela teases Aveline... Tivadar (talk) 00:21, April 8, 2011 (UTC)
- And, as I said, it should be reworded. Someone added speculation that they shouldn't. But the category itself isn't a speculation category. I could misuse any of those categories, but it doesn't make the existence of them wrong. Unlike a Relationship with Companions section, where all of it is either information duplication or speculation. HelterSkelter (talk) 01:36, April 8, 2011 (UTC)
- Would it still be incorrect if it was "interaction with other companions"? 98.216.97.13 (talk) 01:49, April 8, 2011 (UTC)
- Well, yes, I imagine. Different label, same soup. Even if you stated as clinically as possible what they said, that's plain duplication of dialogue and events, just reworded. HelterSkelter (talk) 01:56, April 8, 2011 (UTC)
- Would it still be incorrect if it was "interaction with other companions"? 98.216.97.13 (talk) 01:49, April 8, 2011 (UTC)
- And, as I said, it should be reworded. Someone added speculation that they shouldn't. But the category itself isn't a speculation category. I could misuse any of those categories, but it doesn't make the existence of them wrong. Unlike a Relationship with Companions section, where all of it is either information duplication or speculation. HelterSkelter (talk) 01:36, April 8, 2011 (UTC)
I checked few more pages (regarding this) and they proved my point; that this is indeed a gateway to adding speculation. I think that everyone knows that we don't allow speculations in the articles. These sections should be removed to a forum page. -- Snfonseka (Talk) 04:45, April 8, 2011 (UTC)
- Decided, then? I can do that now, if so, and open a forum page to house them. HelterSkelter (talk) 05:00, April 8, 2011 (UTC)
- Let us take another day, in order to provide anyone some valid reasons (if there are) to keep these sections. Regarding moving into the forums, it is not absolutely necessary but if someone (apparently there are) wish to keep them there is no harm in keeping them in forums. -- Snfonseka (Talk) 05:41, April 8, 2011 (UTC)