| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Danarius article. |
|---|
|
Danarius' race?[]
If you look at Danarius' ears, they are pointy. Not as much as an elf's ears, but they look similar to Feynriel's. Would that mean that he's a half-elf as well? They certainly don't look like human ears. Nilfalasiel (talk) 01:27, October 22, 2011 (UTC)
I guess I see your point, but this really belongs in a forum or a blog post.Ser Derek of Highever (talk) 02:18, October 22, 2011 (UTC)
Oh, ok, sorry. I thought that, since I was asking a question about an information that's actually on the page (says he's human in his infobox), then it belonged here. I should probably have made that clearer.
EDIT: Ah, I didn't notice that it was mentioned in the Trivia section, my bad. Still, the infobox states that he's human, which is confusing. Nilfalasiel (talk) 10:38, October 22, 2011 (UTC)
Danarius' name[]
Danarius' name - Latin reference.
The Roman currency was NOT named "dAnarius", but "dEnarius" (plural, "dEnarii"). Someone should remove the note at the bottom of the article since it's all wrong and what's more important, completely irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mouan (talk • contribs) 18:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I've removed it. ··· 
d·day! 18:59, May 2, 2012 (UTC)
Danarius' Ears[]
I just removed a piece of trivia about Danarius having pointed ears was perhaps linked to him having elven ancestry. If my memory serves, it was already stated ages ago that humans born from human-elf unions retain ONLY the human traits, thus no pointed ears. EzzyD (talk) 16:50, July 16, 2012 (UTC)
- Gaider said so on one of the BSN forums a while back- I don't have a link though. ----Isolationistmagi 23:58, July 16, 2012 (UTC)
- In that case, what about Feynriel? He's half-elven, and he has distinctly pointy ears. So he clearly didn't retain ONLY his father's human traits. And Danarius has the same kind of ears. There's some contradiction here...Nilfalasiel (talk) 14:10, September 16, 2013 (UTC)
Recent edit[]
160.39.34.120, if you wish to remove a part of this article, please provide a reason on the talk page. 
20:49, January 1, 2018 (UTC)
Revert and Locked every wiki because they don't fit your headcanon？[]
About Danarius and Fenris' relationship's headcanon
The "source" was from tumblr of two cosplayers' vague and second hand interpretation ("headcanon") which did not even involve any direct citation from david gaider, and being even more intentionally over-interpreted in the removed sentence. Dgaider never said anything even slightly related to that, even when explicitly asked on the internet. But, sure, it's just easier for someone to lie and try to shut people up when their headcanons and perverted imaginations are being removed.
Also, it seems quite sarcastic that the admin who protected the wiki term shows a significant personal favoring when alleging that they are doing so to stop the "War" while they themselves keeps reverting back the term to their "favored" version first and then lock the item. LMAO. A bunch of perverted twisted minds gathering together to solidify their imaginations and abusing any pathetic "authority” does not make headcanons to be fact. And I suppose, this "incident" definitely tells a lot about the actual validation and credibility about the Dragon Age Wiki, ROFL.
- Is any of these accounts the tumblr of David Gaider or is the tumblr user featuring a direct quote from Gaider's handle? I am not familiar with tumblr, that's why I'm asking.
14:35, January 7, 2018 (UTC)
- No, the source on the article in question was some cosplay enthusiast who spoke with Gaider at one point. I was under the impression that the information which was used as a citation was from Gaider's own former blog. Having now checked the archive of said blog, I cannot find anything in Gaider's own blog which supports this. Can anyone provide a more direct source to support this?
- Also more broadly, I'm sure I'm not alone in being uncomfortable using third hand accounts to support bits of material like this. This may warrant a re-evaluation of our citation procedures in terms of what we accept.
-
HD3 (Talk) 14:39, January 7, 2018 (UTC)
- To help move towards consensus, I agree with HD3 that this reference is too removed to provide a reasonable basis for supporting material. There is no direct citation to Gaider or anyone else who could be considered an authoritative reference. I think the edit and the citation should both be removed. DaBarkspawn (talk) 16:46, January 7, 2018 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Bark, the source is questionable, we have no confirmation from any one in writing or development. I'm happy to have it restored if there is a statement or anything but on the current information, I would have to say it should probably be removed.
-HD3 (Talk) 06:30, January 10, 2018 (UTC)
- Let's have it removed, the anon who was claiming it was Gaider's tumblr and was undoing the removal for days does not seem to be interested in participating in the discussion and providing his counter-claims. HD3, the quote is also on Fenris' article by the way. 06:36, January 10, 2018 (UTC)
- Let's have it removed, the anon who was claiming it was Gaider's tumblr and was undoing the removal for days does not seem to be interested in participating in the discussion and providing his counter-claims. HD3, the quote is also on Fenris' article by the way.
- Noted, thanks Viktoria.