Prima Guide disclaimer[]
I'd like to propose making a disclaimer for the Prima Guide material, similar to the disclaimer that we already have for the Tabletop material - and for similar reasons. Some of the info from that old guide has not been reiterated in newer sources and often doesn't quite fit with the current lore, as things likely changed during development. A disclaimer could help warn the users that this material might be outdated/not fully canon. For example, the timeline featured in the Prima Guide mentions a destructive civil war in Tevinter lasting between 620–640s TE (-575 to -555 Ancient) that almost split the Imperium in two, and to my knowledge this conflict is not referenced in any other source. It doesn't necessarily contradict anything, but it's just unclear whether the events are still part of the canon as they haven't appeared in the World of Thedas timeline, which reiterates a lot of point from the Prima Guide, with some notable exceptions such as this. So I think that unless something is clearly corroborated by newer sources, it could use a disclaimer. There are things in the Guide that are obviously not canon anymore, for example, the account about the supposed son of Andraste, Andral.
To sum up, I think the stuff from the Prima Guide should be approached in the following manner:
- lore that is corroborated by newer sources - no need for a disclaimer, just include a citation from the newer source
- lore that's not corroborated by newer sources but doesn't directly contradict anything - add a disclaimer
- lore that contradicts currently established lore - most of it has already been removed from the wiki, but IMO it sometimes makes for an interesting piece of trivia, so I'm in favour of having that stuff on the wiki, just with proper disclaimers (like that Andraste was born in a village called Luighdor that now is a part of Denerim, or that the Qunari had contact with their homeland for a century or so after landing in Par Vollen).
Ammocharis (talk) 20:17, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed and I think your approach is a good one. When you say disclaimer, do you mean like the ones we use for the ttrpg? So we'd have to create a new template for it?
- As for the Tevinter civil war, I wonder if there wasn't confusion because of the dates because newer sources mention a destructive civil war in -640 and -620 Ancient. Evamitchelle (talk) 02:01, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
- Yup, I meant making a template similar to this one {{Tabletop RPG material}}. I haven't created any new template yet so I'm not sure where to start.
- Damn, I think you're right about the civil war mix up, they probably meant the one where Tidarion became an Archon and then died without an heir, someone at Bioware and/or Prima must've missed it when converting the dates. The description of the war sounds very similar, just without naming the key figures. Also, a large section of the Prima Guide timeline is off by 20 years for some reason. This multiple calendar conundrum is giving everyone headaches :P Ammocharis (talk) 13:23, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
- Here's my idea for the disclaimer text: "The following information comes from Dragon Age: Origins: Prima Official Game Guide and may represent an early stage of the game's development that has been subject to change in the final product. Unless corroborated by newer sources, the following information should not be treated as canon because it may be outdated." Ammocharis (talk) 09:42, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Agreed in all regards. Corroborated lore doesn't need to be changed, not corroborated but not contradictory with a disclaimer, contradictory lore worth mentioning can be included as a note. No information is lost and readers can make what they will of the guide as a standalone source for lore. NotYourParadigm (talk) 06:26, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Excerpts[]
To provide further context for the above discussion, here are some excerpts from the guide. I will bold the pieces of information that (to my knowledge) are either not corroborated by other sources, or are contradicted by them, which in my opinion would warrant a disclaimer.
- 1050 TE (-165 Ancient): The Alamarri tribes begin a long series of internal wars as various powerful banns step up to attempt to replace Maferath, starting with Andral, the supposed son of Andraste. Andral manages to unite Ferelden briefly before it is proven that he is not Andraste's son and the union falls apart. Several more "sons" of Andraste step forward, each fracturing the valley into bitter feuds. Andraste's ashes are recovered from the Imperium by her disciples and interred at the Silver Temple in Highever; however, after several attempts by the sons to take them by force to lend credence to their claim, her ashes are secretly moved to an unknown location and are lost.
- 981 TE (-234 Ancient): Andraste is born a peasant commoner in the village of Luighdor (today part of the city known as Denerim), on the eastern coast of Ferelden. She is captured by Tevinter forces at a young age and becomes a slave.
- 1020 TE: A massive horde of barbarians cross the Waking Sea from the south led by the warlord Maferath and Andraste, the Betrothed of the Maker. Some records claim the barbarians were driven north by the darkspawn, others that Andraste was bringing freedom to the people of the Imperium who had been long oppressed by the depravities of the magisters.
- 1024 TE (-191 Ancient): The Archon declared a truce, while Maferath allowed his wife to be captured by Imperial agents and subsequently publicly burned to death in front of a large crowd at the Proving Grounds in Minrathous.
- 2:10 Glory: The grandson of Hafter, Teyrn Caedmon, seeks to raise himself above the other teyrns. He declares himself king of the Fereldan people and officially establishes the presence of the Andrastian Chantry in Denerim. A civil war erupts to oppose him, and while he has great success at first, his downfall occurs when he commits too much of his power toward the Exalted March of the Dales in the west. In the end, the great Battle of Valmorn Hills results in Caedmon's death. Three more claimants to the title of king emerge, including Caedmon's son, Talemal, but all suffer quick ends as the civil war consumes the land. No more attempts to claim the king's title are made, though the various teyrns struggle for dominance during a long period known as the War of Crowns, named for the sudden rise of the various teyrns adorning themselves with royal crowns even if they did not call themselves kings. Centuries later, King Calenhad rounded up these crowns and destroyed them, though legend says some are still hidden away.
- Every nobleman appointed his arbiter. A bann had men who resolved the disputes on his land while a teyrn did the same. This led to inevitable disagreements as arbiters conflicted each other based on the rank of whom they served as well as the differing laws in each land. King Vortigeyrn in 4:85 Black reformed this system by decreeing that "every man had the right to be heard by the king." After that point, all arbiters represented the king and the king's law only. This did not go over well with the Fereldan nobles, especially in the Bannorn, and it was not until the various lords were given the power to collectively determine the king's law in the Landsmeet that this was deemed acceptable practice throughout Ferelden.
- 3:10—3:25 Towers: Toth is awoken and the Third Blight begins. Cormac plays a major role as he journeys north and fights alongside the Marchers against the darkspawn hordes, dying in the final fight, the Battle of Hunter Fell.
- 8:99 Blessed: The previous several years have seen two dragon flights ranging out of the Frostback and Orkney Mountains, even though it was thought that dragons had been hunted to extinction by Nevarran dragon hunters during the Steel Age.
- Now they have been part of the Qunari culture and Qun philosophy for so long that they could not even imagine going back. For their part, the Qunari treat Par Vollen as their homeland. Contact with their original homeland was intermittent at best across the turbulent Northern Ocean before it finally ceased altogether two centuries ago. Several ships have been sent home to restore contact, but they have not returned.
These excerpts are mainly from the "Traveler's Guide" included in the Collector's Edition, because, well, that's the lore section of the guide. Most of the DAO Prima Guide references featured across articles on this wiki can be traced to the Traveler's Guide. Imo, the Collector's Edition is an extension of the regular version, so if we were to deem the Traveler's Guide information as dubious, I'd imagine the same goes for the rest of the guide (with the same conditions for applying disclaimers as I suggested above regarding corroborated/not corroborated/condtradicted elements). Ammocharis (talk) 08:10, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
I disagree with this assessment, firstly with this attachment I want to depict that the regular (standard) version of the Prime Official Guide contains bits of lore, it is not exclusively about gameplay as it is implied. Otherwise the topic author wouldn't explicitly insist on including it on the proposed disclaimer scheme.
- Secondly, as I have scanned in the past the Official Prime Guide in all 3 games for bits of lore and information, I haven't found information which I would consider suspicious and arguably wrong (ie. outdated/retconned). Subsequently, I am not convinced that the standard version should be treated in an identical manner as the Traveler's Guide (Collector's Edition).
19:08, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- Very well. What about a disclaimer solely for the Collector's Edition content? Ammocharis (talk) 20:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- The distinction seems arbitrary at that point; if what you say is true and there is nothing in the Prime Guide that raises suspicions, then the disclaimer would not need to be used for that content, yes? Restricting the warning to only the Collector's Editions of Prima Guides feels arbitrary at that point and far from future-proof if there's discussions in the future where the base guides do have content of dubious nature. NotYourParadigm (talk) 20:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree with the rest of what is proposed.
- As for this distinction not being future proof, you are both right and wrong, Paradigm. As a Wiki community we are in fact encouraged to re-visit and challenge previous decisions based on new data and findings and that applies not just in this particular case but in all our editing guidelines and conventions. So, should new data or findings surface then I will be more than happy to reconsider my previous position.
21:42, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
I agree with the proposal as a whole. It is a way to ensure all lore canon, out-dated, or otherwise is available to readers and allows for the archival of all information.
To address some of the concerns with applying the disclaimer to both standard and collectors, I feel it is best to add it to both versions of the guide as the disclaimer isn't saying nothing is canon like the tabletop, but merely suggesting caution of it's status in lore. It also allows for easier up-keeping of information should the status of any guide lore be reiterated in new media or if it becomes contradicted by new media.
So along with the ease of management, it also is easier on the editors to have both version of the guide under the disclaimer. Because unless someone has the pdf copies of standard and collectors for any of the games, it is difficult to discern if it is shared information or exclusive to one version. The distinction between version is best left to the citation should anyone seek for further clarification of the information.
Which, given that the age of the Origins Prima Guide (Standard and Collectors) and that it contains some information only echoed in the tabletop. I feel gives further reasoning that the guides as a whole should be given the disclaimer as it may contain out of date for information that isn't echoed else where, given it might only be echoed in the tabletop which has been labeled as a non-canon source of lore. ExhaustedArchivist (talk) 06:28, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- I don't understand why should we should treat two different releases in the same manner while only one has given us a cause for concern. I also don't agree that it's "not a big deal". Without having solid proof, expressing suspicion on bits of lore in the form of disclaimers is a significant departure from how the Wiki operates and processes official content. It will set a precedent.
- It is true that it is 'easier' for us to just put a disclaimer marker everywhere, however a bot can easily locate any source and by filtering terms such as "Traveler" or "Collector" we can quickly discern the version. Also since I have the standard version I can manually verify a source as they usually state the exact page so yeah, we can certainly work this out. 10:37, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Compromise[]
It appears we are in agreement that a disclaimer is needed at least for the Traveler's Guide section from the Collector's Edition, if not the Prima Guide as a whole. Therefore, I present a new suggestion for the disclaimer text: "The following information comes from Dragon Age: Origins: Prima Official Game Guide: Collector's Edition and may represent an early stage of Dragon Age: Origins development that was subject to change in the final product. Unless corroborated by newer sources, the following information should not be treated as canon because it may be outdated."
To reiterate, I think that the disclaimer should only be applied in two specific cases:
- lore that's not corroborated by newer sources but doesn't directly contradict anything
- lore that contradicts currently established lore
In my opinion, non-contradictory lore should be placed in an appropriate section of the article: background, characters, locations, etc. Contradictory lore, on the other hand, should go into trivia. Individual application may vary depending on the structure of the article. The main goal is to let users know which bits of information fall outside of the currently established lore.
Lore points corroborated by newer sources do not require any disclaimer, of course, as we have proof that they are in line with the current version of the lore.
The topic of reliability of the Prima Guide as a whole may be revisited in the future. Ammocharis (talk) 16:16, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
I am firmly of the position that the disclaimer should not be restricted to specify it is from the Collector's Edition. The Collector's Edition lore isn't getting a disclaimer because it's from the Collector's Edition, and the non-collector's Prima Guide isn't being given a pass because it isn't collector's edition. We are creating the disclaimer because the Prima Guides have, on multiple occasions, contradicted in-game lore, but are still data sources worth mentioning and including. The logic right now is that the non-collector's guide shouldn't be included in the disclaimer because none of the lore in it is contradictory or dubious. However, that simply means that this disclaimer won't be added to that content. But that isn't a reason to pointedly exclude it from the disclaimer. If there was a city, person, event etc. only ever mentioned in the Prima Guide, or only the Collector's Edition guide, both would warrant a disclaimer. This template suggests that uncorroborated lore is allowed from the Prima Guide but not from the Collector's Edition. NotYourParadigm (talk) 13:57, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
From the outset I felt such disclaimers might only reasonably be justified on a case-by-case basis. As a guiding principle, it is prudent that we as a wiki exercise the utmost caution when holding court over the canonicity of any item of Dragon Age content, simply because we are not the authority behind the lore: we only chronicle it. While the tabletop material as a whole is in contradiction, the grievance brought against the Prima Guide is that it suffers from individual inaccuracies. In my personal view, this means we should not be adding disclaimers to anything as a blanket — the entirety of or whole sections of either edition — & should instead disclaim it only where a given piece of lore is individually shown to be in contradiction. Ergo, remove item 2 of Ammocharis' initial proposal.
That said, beside our duty of care to the lore is a duty to seek reasonable compromise, & while this compromise involves too much blanket-application of declarative statements about lore for my own taste, it is a reasonable position where I am at once not happy & yet am partly mollified by the limitation to only that portion which is particularly egregious. I believe this should allay Vic's concerns as well, & while it does not satisfy Paradigm's contentions, from my reading of the arguments put forth in this discussion it does very much seem to satisfy some of them. I think this is a reasonable compromise.
Beyond my opinion as an editor, as an admin this conversation here & on Discord does not seem to have arrived at consensus quite yet. I would ask for patience from everyone before implementation. I don't believe there's any rush.
Going back to the drawing board[]
As pointed out by Ursuul, it is not the wiki's role to declare canonicity of any piece of media, regardless of its perceived quality and reliability, without an official statement from the authors of said content. I do agree with that wholeheartedly and admit that the inclusion of "should not be treated as canon" was a mistake on my part. My main goal was to create a disclaimer that could caution the users when dealing with information from the Traveler's Guide.
In response to the suggestion to remove item 2 of my initial proposal — I believe that it would be beneficial to place a disclaimer over lore points from the Traveler's Guide that are not corroborated by newer sources, as much as it would be for the contradictory points. Otherwise, some potentially outdated information could be presented to the users without any sort of warning. Some parts of the Traveler's Guide were reiterated in newer sources (primarily, The World of Thedas) without any major changes, asserting the accuracy of those passages. Some things were changed, and that may have resulted in contradictions that we can observe and assess more easily. But I would argue that the omission of certain pieces of info previously featured the Traveler's Guide is important to point out too, as in my opinion, there is a possibility that they are not in line with currently established lore and their disappearance was an intentional exclusion of lore that was phased out/altered but the new version has not been revealed yet.
For example, the Traveler's Guide posits that the Qunari have had contact with their homeland for a time after landing in Par Vollen: "Contact with their original homeland was intermittent at best across the turbulent Northern Ocean before it finally ceased altogether two centuries ago. Several ships have been sent home to restore contact, but they have not returned." This piece of lore has not been included or even hinted at in any DA media besides the Traveler's Guide (at least to my knowledge). Do Bioware writers continue to develop the setting with this piece of lore in mind? If the Qunari have indeed had occasional contact with their homeland, a part of their history could be viewed through a different lens. If I were reading the article about the Qunari and came across this piece of info without any prior knowledge of the Traveler's Guide as a lore source, I would appreciate a warning about dealing with potentially outdated lore.
Another example of non-contradictory lore that is nonetheless not corroborated by any newer sources: King Vortigeyrn who ruled Ferelden (or at least a part of it) prior to Calenhad, circa 4:85. His existence technically doesn't contradict anything in the lore, there were denizens of the Fertile Valley who declared themselves as kings before Calenhad ever did, for example Caedmon, Hafter's grandson. Calenhad was simply the first recognized king of united Ferelden. Vortigeyrn might be a part of DA lore... but he is pointedly missing from any DA media that could have addressed his reign. The Traveler's Guide says he did a significant thing: he reformed Fereldan law by decreeing that "every man had the right to be heard by the king." Yet he's not mentioned in any DAO codex entry, he's not listed in the World of Thedas, he appears only in this one, peculiar lore source.
Or let's look at the civil war in ancient Tevinter that, according to the Traveler's Guide, happened between 620-640 TE (-575 to -555 Ancient). Apparently, it was the largest civil war in Tevinter that marked its decline from golden age. Magisters fought to take control over the Archon's throne. And yet this event is never adressed in any other piece of DA media... But as Evamitchelle pointed out, another Tevinter civil war is mentioned. The civil war that first broke out in -692 Ancient when Almadrius was assasinated and Tidarion inherited the throne, then continued through -640 Ancient as Tidarion died without an heir, and finally ended in -620 Ancient when Parthenius claimed the throne. -640 to -620 Ancient vs. 620-640 TE... Could it be possible that someone at Bioware or Prima mixed up the dates when converting the timeline back and forth between the Age system and the Tevinter calendar? There are other inaccuracies in the timeline supplied by the Traveler's Guide (like some events being off by 20 years from how the currently established timeline lists them), which in my opinion makes it likely that this civil war is in fact not a separate, nowhere-else-addressed event, but the same civil war as delineated by the World of Thedas. Should the Ancient Age page continue to list the civil war of 620-640 TE without any sort of warning to the readers?
So to sum up, I maintain my initial proposition about applying a disclaimer to both non-corroborated and contradictory lore points, but I do agree that the disclaimer text should avoid making any definitive statements about the canonicity of the Prima Guide, be it the Collector's Edition or the base guide. The disclaimer's main purpose is to inform the users that they would benefit from approaching the Traveler's Guide information with a higher degree of caution, and that they should weigh it against other, more recent sources of lore if possible.
Here's a revised suggestion for the disclaimer text: "The following information comes from the Traveler's Guide and might not reflect currently established lore." Ammocharis (talk) 21:42, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
As long as canonicity isn't in play, a disclaimer to that general effect for the Traveler's Guide is quite amenable to me — even when including item 2. It doesn't have to be that exact phrasing, e.g. the full title might be helpful, but in principle I am fully satisfied with this proposal.
11:36, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
I'd change from "comes from the Traveler's Guide" to "is only mentioned in a Prima Official Game Guide", for the reasons I have stated above. The issue isn't that the lore comes from the Traveler's Guide, it's that it's only mentioned in a game guide and hasn't yet been corroborated in-universe, such as a game or book. Otherwise I agree whole heartedly that it doesn't need to say the material is or isn't canon or postulate on the canonical status. Just "this hasn't been mentioned anywhere else, take what you will of it." NotYourParadigm (talk) 20:54, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
I agree that as long as canonicity isn’t in play the general disclaimer as well as the second item of your original proposal, is good. ExhaustedArchivist (talk) 04:18, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Evamitchelle (talk) 04:29, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Broadly speaking it appears we have reached consensus. The only items in lingering doubt are the exact wording of the disclaimer & whether it shall apply to the guides as a whole or only in part. In an attempt to address everyone’s concerns at least partially, I asked Ammocharis to come up with this final disclaimer text:
The following information is mentioned only in Dragon Age: Origins: Prima Official Game Guide. Certain portions of this publication, particularly the Traveler's Guide featured in the Collector's Edition, might not reflect currently established lore.
I believe this partially addresses Para’s concern regarding verbiage to the effect of “only being mentioned in” the guide. I believe referring to the entire guide by full title also partially addresses Para’s concern about applying it to the whole guide. Contrastingly, placing particular emphasis (if not exclusivity) onto the Traveler’s Guide I believe partially addresses Vic’s concern about limiting scope to that particular area. It also upholds general consensus for avoidance of declaration of canonicity.
Given how many times this proposal has been refined, & the current state of general agreement, I’m going to consider the matter settled; you may begin implementation.