This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the De Chalons family article.
  • General discussions not pertaining to the improvement of the article should be held in Discussions instead.
  • Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
  • Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes! (~~~~)
  • Do not edit another editor's comment.

Delete Edit

YesI'm not convinced that there is enough information here to warrant a full family page. I mean even Harimann family has more information than this. The only unique information I can see is the thing about Comte Brevin being a member of the de Chalons family which is already covered on Ser Michel's post and the relationship could easily be covered with a trivia note on Gaspard's. In light of this and some other reasons, I move for deletion.-HD3 Sig 07:07, May 23, 2014 (UTC)

I think about leave it. We have heraldy, we know about two members and there will be more info soon.

Maybe I haven't read the Masked Empire, so I don't know if there's enough info in the book to justify the article, but I have to say that as it stands right now it's utterly unintelligble. I have no idea what that single sentence in the history section even means, which makes this a fairly unhelpful article. Maybe there's enough info to flesh it out, I don't know. --Kelcat (talk) 23:32, May 24, 2014 (UTC)

Nope Incredibly poorly written, but I'd say there is enough information that can be added from Masked Empire that makes this worth having, even more so with the likelihood of more in Inquisition. Alexsau1991 (talk page) 00:37, May 25, 2014 (UTC)

YesI am not too informed about the whole thing, as I've not read the book, but since there are only two known members for now, I don't see the point. It is a bit of a leap to assume there will be more De Chalons in Inquisition, unless it was confirmed that they have more notable family members still to be revealed. Henio0 (talk) 05:58, May 25, 2014 (UTC)

I should mention I have read The Masked Empire and I still support the deletion. I just can't see what unique information contribution this page would make that isn't already better covered on Gaspard or Ser Michel's page respectively. Like Henio0 said, it seems a bit of a leap to just assume there will be more members later. I really think deletion would be the best option.

-HD3 Sig 06:07, May 25, 2014 (UTC)

I don't actually recall suggesting, or indeed 'assuming', that there would be more members later. I don't think number of members has relevance on determining whether an article of this type exists or not; the Mac Tir family, for example, only has two members, as do most of the family articles on this wiki. What I actually suggested, or 'assumed', was that more information on House de Chalons would be revealed in Inquisition. Is this a bit of a leap? No, I don't believe so given the fact that BioWare has just displayed De Chalons heraldry on their site.

Yes it is true that this information could be placed elsewhere, the same could be said about most articles here. I would argue notability is the key here, this is a major Orlesian family whose head is challenging Celene for the throne of Orlais. Sadly DA:NOTABLE doesn't cover anything more than characters, however using it as a broad guideline I maintain that House De Chalons is notable enough to warrant an article of it's own. Alexsau1991 (talk page) 15:21, May 25, 2014 (UTC)

Poteyto, potahto. If it is such a big deal, however, I apologise for saying "assuming". As for the family being important because they challenged the ruler, I don't know about that. About the contender, sure, it's important. But if we're to have a page about this because of this reason, we should have an article on Drydens as well. But I don't feel strongly about my vote, anyway. It's just that so far I don't see the notability. Just in case this came off aggressively, it is not, and here's an emoticon because plain text is emotionless. :) Henio0 (talk) 05:43, May 26, 2014 (UTC)

I'm not trying to pick a fight Alexsau by any means. Perhaps I am just missing the point here. Can you explain then, why the family article deserves a page and what unique information it will contribute that is not otherwise best covered by the articles at hand? -HD3 Sig 15:24, May 25, 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if uniqueness is a big issue when it comes to family pages. As I understand it, and from other family pages I've seen, it's more of a compendium of individual character articles of the same family. More like compiling it all in one place to represent the family and their history as a whole, rather than presenting completely unique information. I'm still neutral on this specific proposal, but I'm far more concerned with the lack of information currently shown on the article and the poor presentation, rather than there only being two family members. --Kelcat (talk) 23:28, May 25, 2014 (UTC)

As per Kelcat's point. I don't feel that the qualifier should be whether this article has any unique information, rather a summery of individuals belonging to a single family. In this case on of import. The argument that the information could be placed elsewhere is true here, and most articles on this wiki. Including all family articles. I have tried to avoid justifying this article's existence by comparing it to others, but by the qualification asserted to be necessarily for the De Chalons family the Mac Tir family should also not exist. Your Dryden example Henio0, is essentially this argument in reverse.

The trouble we have is that Dragon Age wiki doesn't have a policy on what qualifies as notable enough for inclusion, apart from characters of course. Meaning these are seemingly judged on a case-by-case basis. This article's case no doubt wasn't helped, as Kelcat mentioned, by it's the dreadful state as it currently stands. Alexsau1991 (talk page) 15:43, May 26, 2014 (UTC)

Who's putting words in whose mouth now. I said that if we decide to keep this article, we should create one for Dryden family as well, not that we shouldn't keep this article because we don't have one on Drydens. But on a side note, if you want to keep this article so badly, why not improve it? It is definitely in no shape right now to stay up. Henio0 (talk) 15:46, May 26, 2014 (UTC)
Then I misunderstood what you meant, for which I apologise. And I did/do fully intend to improve the article to help the case for keeping it, sadly I haven't yet had the opportunity to. Alexsau1991 (talk page) 22:50, May 30, 2014 (UTC)

Yes Personally, I'm in favour of deleting the article for now simply because there aren't enough members of the family we know about for it to be considered notable. If more information emerges in Inquisition it'd very easy to restore and expand, but the fact remains the information we have now is extremely sparse. I'll leave it up for now, but I'd encourage you all to look at this forum. Chantry symbol King Cousland | Talk   11:42, May 30, 2014 (UTC)

I'd say delete it. As of now, the page consists of an info box, a short list of people and a nonsensical sentence. Not really very useful right now. Sevec 16:26, May 30, 2014 (UTC)

Recreate Page Edit

Now that Inquisiton is out we know a bit more about the family, including members, heraldry, and their place in Orlesian society. I'm proposing we recreate the page, I'd say the fact that they can replace the Valmonts as the ruling house of Orlais is reason enough for them to have their own page. But I want people's opinions before I recreate the page, thoughts?--Swampshade (talk) 18:07, February 27, 2015 (UTC)

Does anybody agree with me? I don't want to recreate the page only for it to get deleted. Any ideas to make it stand on it's own?
I still don't think there is enough information for it to stand on its own.

-HD3 Sig 07:59, March 2, 2015 (UTC)

Didn't see the discussion until I created the page. I think the family passes the standard for notability now. It's potentially Orlais' new ruling familiy, Gaspard and Florianne are major NPCs in Inquisition, Germain also has several lines of dialogue and is involved in one war table mission. --Evamitchelle (talk) 10:51, October 27, 2016 (UTC)
Given how much you were able to write on the topic, I think it's well worth keeping Smiley --Kelcat Talk 18:49, October 27, 2016 (UTC)
I didn't think this needed to be laid out explicitly but was rather self evident but since we're here, I also believe the article should stand as it is.

-Seekers of Truth heraldryHD3 (Talk) 10:00, October 28, 2016 (UTC)

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