FANDOM


Use this page to discuss design and content changes to the main page. For general wiki discussion, please visit the Community Portal or Forums.

GeneralEdit

You know what this wiki needs? More people. x.x --Lazuri 20:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I really hope Part 2 1.30 will be out sometime in the near future. :< I really want to do a playthrough again.

Agreed, on both counts. Anyway, I just decided to go on a huge editing spree. Enjoy correcting my mistakes! :P Seriously, though, I hope I didn't make too many. Anyway, I think there are some things about this wiki that we should standardize. For instance, should we substitute all instances of "you" with "the princess?" Some food for thought. Nom nom. The Smiling Knight 20:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

You did it so fast, I barely had enough time to add them on the Cast lists. I want the stuff you are smoking! I want part3.. where is my fix, ? But seriously, I just hope Valine will show her grace.. listenng to her highpriest Thirdropes very closely. With regard to standartization there are similar pages especialy with regard to henchmen and major NPS's (with tips, trivia and cet), but after all it is all just a suggestions. May be we should put a template for a discussion on guild page and at the end adopt one. Dunno ChernyjDyr 20:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Greetings all! If you haven't noticed my mad-page updating, just to let you know I've been fixing typos and such from A-to-Z. Reading quickly and fixing what I see. Sorry, I hate typos as much as... as... Vico! BTW I also noticed something.... in any of the main pages please refer to any group of women as "women" not "girls"! Or I will officially rename the Isle of Men to Isle of Boys!! <evil grin> --Hobbit of the shire 05:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I did notice it when my email nearly crashed and my computer started begging me for a coup de CRL ALT DEL. I am sorry for the typos , but I guess I have some mild kind of dyslecsia and I also don't really know how to spell well (not being enlgish and all). The other option for me is to write it all in the Office and then copypaste (which also makes the browser crush ocasionaly BTW) and trouble check everything which turns it all into reaaaaalllllyyyyyy slllloooooowwwww process. So I have decided to do check the articles, but not to give a damn about forum and discussion parts. On the girls part I am not sure. Pia does refer to them as girls, and wiki on "girl" states that women can be called girls (and we know that wikis are always right, after all they are written by very serious and authorative people , right? Riiiiight?)ChernyjDyr 10:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I love Vico, he's my favorite character in the module. Regarding "girls" and "women", "girls" are acceptable to use if the majority of the people in question are under adult age (usually 18), or if the writer is in a friendly or relaxed setting with the subjects. For instance a portrait interview. But in serious articles you should always refer to a group of females over 18 as "women". The same goes for men. An article reading "A 22 year old boy robbed a 7-11 yesterday" is just not acceptable.

That's the journalistic etiquette in my country at least. --Lazuri 11:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, I think there are some things about this wiki that we should standardize. For instance, should we substitute all instances of "you" with "the princess?" Or "the Princess" as it seems to be on some of the pages? Yes for standards! I think it's esthetic and supports legibility that texts are coherent (naturally regarding content but also regarding form) within themselves and also coherent to a degree within a collection such as a Wiki is. Guidelines for form would be very useful to me because I can't help myself from making the occasional grammar correction and tend to feel an overpowering urge to apply standards as well :) And as for dyslexia or not being the grammar wonderchild, that's what supporting editors like myself are for! I like to see myself as someone who gently caresses the creases from the text of the brilliant writer, who has so much wonderful creativity but perhaps lacks ever so slightly in the perfecting of the form. I currently have limited time for writing bigger texts (being a new mum) but still want to help where I can. --Moirah 20:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Moirah, and it's good to see that we have both people focused on proofreading and active contributors on the wiki. As for standardization, the correct term for the "you" person in the module would be "the Princess" with a capital P as far as my knowledge of the English language goes, since it doesn't refer to a princess as a noun, but as a substitute name/title. The same goes for similar titles such as president. Here's a paragraph from Wikipedia's article on the President of the United States as an example:

"Among other powers and responsibilities, Article II of the U.S. Constitution charges the President to "faithfully execute" federal law, makes the President commander-in-chief of the armed forces, allows the President to nominate executive and judicial officers with the advice and consent of the Senate, and allows the President to grant pardons or reprieves." --Lazuri 22:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I noticed various capitalizations/spellings on my go-through. "Princess" with a P looks correct and logical how Lazuri explained it. I also saw variants of "The Family". I think both words should be capitalized?? It's treated like a proper name I suppose and it's always referred to with THE. Also seeing some Brit/American variations of spelling. Seeing variations in double words that are hyphenated or put together or separated. I'm nitpicky on spelling/grammar so I suppose I can help with that when most pages are in their near-final form. But maybe we need a guidelines page to work off of. --Hobbit of the shire 01:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Standartization is good (to a certiain degree: we shouldn't choke creativity by too much form). I like the princess better then the player of you, as it still keeps it all inside a story. I think we did establish some general form with description, tips, trivia, notes, pictures and cet. A think writing the Princess with Capital is ok, but I do feel some prefernce towards "the princess". The Princes puts too much attention on her title and past, while IMHO whole protagonist's struggle trough hte module is to become something more, to excede her worthless title, no to be the cartboard Princess, who needs a knight to save her. The Family does sound better. WE really should standartisize it either way.

The issue of women/girls on the other side is an example where standartization can hurt creativity. What if an author on purpose wishes to use less formal term, or just do it to make text more varied. It can be debated on the substance if is a good style or is apropriate at that place, but should no be automaticaly overruled by standard. (Just to make clear I don't really care on this particular issue be it dames, ladies, women, laddets, wenches or whatever). As I has said already I think we should be very careful to respect other's opinions and quirks, even if may be we don't like them (And I also have sinned in being intolerant). We have no monopoly neither on style nor on correct interpretation of Valine's work. The point also is that we don't really have any "decision making" body to decide on standards or what is right. And even mojority of opinion of those who hang here isn't necceserely right and is ultimately accidental.

So I do think we should decide on standards but before that we should establish a way to acctually decide on them, and where and how to discuss it when standard should be changed. I tried to use Guild Forum, since the ultimate result will also reflect on people who are not invlovled in the building of Wiki itself but are important parts of a community. Thus may be we should try post suggestions for standartizations there for general discussion and try to achieve something. I think it is a place where points of contention can be cleared.ChernyjDyr 07:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

In response to what the Hobbit said: Correct. The Family is an organization name, and as such the F should be capitalized. --Lazuri 08:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I boldly suggest that the Wiki itself would be used for working on the standards. I feel it has better functionality for such than the message board (even if here we're discussing the matter in a message board way ;). You know, we could create a page for this matter and start filling the bits and pieces in (could start with "the Princess" and "the/The Family"). While the page is being worked at in an active state (i.e. at first) we could agree that meta comments (suggestions and other variations until the final form is agreed upon) may be written among the actual content in italics (or however they should be set apart from the main content) to allow for a degree of communication also on the page itself and not just in Discussion, so it might be easier to talk about many issues at the same time. The link to that page could be sent on the message board to invite people into the discussion and the Wiki. --Moirah 09:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the Categories are not in use for the pages. Are there plans for using or not using them? They'd be handy for page to page navigation (e.g. returning to the Bestiary from the entry Rat) --Moirah 09:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Argh, sorry about writing so many messages... I'm not familiar with this particular Wiki system so I'm still learning the ropes (and unable to do it without commenting, it seems - I mean well, though, I promise! :). In the Wiki itself there seems to be a Community Portal Discussion page where most of this talk perhaps should be instead of here. Then there's a Forum for ADwR Wiki. The latter feels the natural place for discussion regarding the Wiki, unless a new sub-forum for the Wiki is set up on the Guild Forum (which is not necessarily a bad idea, either). So here are some options: 1) a page for the language conventions and 2) let's move the topics scattered in this discussion to a forum (to discuss them easier), either 2a) the ADwR Wiki Forum or 2b) to a new sub-forum on the Guild Forum. --Moirah 10:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The WIKI forum can be used, I just don't want to have to check too many places every day to see if there is something new, and am feeling bad leaving out many ADWR fans, who are not as active in WIKI project and who wouldn't visit WIKI forum on regular basis. On oher hand not every one who played ADWR and likes it can belong to the Guild and it is a big minus ChernyjDyr 11:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Counter Edit

Discussion moved to Forum:Counter.

adult content notice? Edit

Should we put an adult/language notice on the front page? I don't want or think we should have to include something on every page, because the module as a whole is adult-oriented..

YellowExclamation30.png   WARNING
The A Dance with Rogues series is intended for adults only. It contains adult content and strong language and many pages on the wiki will reflect that.
  YellowExclamation30.png

--Superlgn 04:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Good idea! --Moirah 10:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

What's new / Current releases Edit

I changed the What's new section to list some recent wiki news. We could still list new ADwR releases there, but I'd like to keep it more for the wiki. Maybe a quick mention of the release, a single entry for multiple releases on the same day, with more information documented in Current releases. We don't want the section to become too large, so maybe just the latest 4 or 5 items and the complete history on What's new. The dates have been fudged a bit on the wiki items, more when major updates stopped on those particular pages. If you think of anything that should be noted there, big rewrites of articles and such, don't hesitate. I also changed the date format to match what's commonly used on the wiki (like article history). --Superlgn 18:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Removal of "Contents" section Edit

I removed the Contents section since most of the links were already covered by the buttons directly above it and others on the navigation. You can see what it contained by looking at the previous revision. The only thing not linked on the index now is the Troubleshooting page, which can be gotten to using the FAQ, and the Players' Lounge. Should the Troubleshooting page be linked more prominently? Also, I'm not quite sure what to do with Players' Lounge, if it should go on the nav or the Community page or somewhere else.. --Superlgn 05:40, September 20, 2009 (UTC)

Good idea about removing Contents section. It looks more clear now. As for the questions, I vote "Yes" for the Troubleshooting (maybe with its own button or something) and "yes" for moving Player's Lounge in Community. Also, I would add Community on the first page, in the lower part, perhaps with the Forums, under Talk and more...? And there's an empty space on the right lower side of the page. Maybe we should put another gallery in there...or a Quotes section - there are some nice quotes in ADWR and we could have "Quote of the month" with a voting system or something. Yay or nay? ~~ Songlian 09:19, September 20, 2009 (UTC)
I created a Help submenu with links to the main walkthroughs, FAQ, Troubleshooting, and Download and I linked the word community on the Talk and more... list to community. It's already on the main menu, so I figured that would be enough vs another bullet point just for that. We already have two galleries on the right side and they're both pretty stale at this point, I think a quote or another featured article would be better, maybe something of a specific category type like weapon or area. We can find quotes on the wiki by going to the WhatLinksHere for the Quote template, but there's not much listed there. Maybe they aren't all using the template. There is a poll feature available (builtin or added by extension), you can see a demo of it here. If we did a poll, it should be more visible and not down in the corner, maybe between featured article and the galleries. I think you're able to use the same poll on multiple pages and have it show the same data, so we could have a main active poll and an archive. --Superlgn 15:46, September 20, 2009 (UTC)
The poll implementation is awesome! No worries about the quotes, each of us can pick some from the game. Oh, one mention about the poll, can you modify the dotted line? I think it would look better with another frame. No? ~~ Songlian 17:00, September 20, 2009 (UTC)
Yeah I think it looks pretty good too and it's another way to help keep the index fresh. I changed the style of the poll in Common.css, you may have to shift+reload to get the changes. --Superlgn 17:11, September 20, 2009 (UTC)
Much better. :D ~~ Songlian 17:14, September 20, 2009 (UTC)

Featured items Edit

Vico's been the featured article for about 2.5 months now and the featured media have been up way longer than that. Any suggestions for new content? The featured article doesn't have to be a companion/character, but I think those are the best developed articles beyond some of the quest/walkthrough pages and I'm not sure those are appropriate for a featured article because of the spoilers. I guess I was thinking Bran or Norah for for a featured article. The most interesting images are probably on the Princess' gallery, but there's alot of nudity in those. I hate to plug my own stuff, but maybe "A Day at the Beach" or "Entertaining Guests" would be alright, along with one of the images from Delberg Castle. --Superlgn 04:19, September 21, 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason why you shouldn’t use your own pics if they are good. Personally, I like A Day at the Beach very much and would like to see it put up. Same for Delberg. As for Bran and Norah, aren’t they a bit too short and ...well...classical? I took a look at the character pages that are more substantial: Pia, Anden, Hyath, Bran, Norah, The Princess, Rizzen, Arto Benthur, Christano Arniman, Nathan Geigers , Myra Waynolt...I’m very comfortable with having one of the bad guys on the first page, be it Arto, Christano or Hyath; same for Master Nathan. I favor that, rather than another henchman again on the first page. ~~ Songlian 09:55, September 21, 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I setup Nathan as the featured article and "A Day at the Beach" and Hovazz' Lair for featured media. I couldn't find anything I liked from Delberg Castle. We can use the other suggestions for future featured items. Thanks. --Superlgn 19:29, September 21, 2009 (UTC)
Looks beautiful ! ~~ Songlian 20:42, September 21, 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. :) --Superlgn 22:12, September 21, 2009 (UTC)

Notes on the poll Edit

I've created some special CSS for the poll that hides the "The poll was created on ..." text (in between the selections and the vote button) as seen on the other polls. This only happens on the index and was done to lesson the height of the box. The parent element that contained the text didn't have a unique id or class, so I used the :last-child pseudo selector to get it. This should work on any CSS2 browser, but it's something we'll have to keep an eye on just in case the polling extension ever changes. --Superlgn 22:17, September 21, 2009 (UTC)

Color schemeEdit

Right...so as everybody went nuts about Zevran's character file finally released on Dragon Age: Origins official site, one thing led to another and I came across their wiki. And I noticed that they have a gorgeous color scheme: http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Zevran_Arainai . What are the chances of us going more colored too? Not right now, but sometime in the far far away future, when you'll have time to do this and it doesn't have to be all black like that. Other example would be James Cameron's Avatar Wiki: http://jamescameronsavatar.wikia.com/wiki/Jake_Sully. Though I have to say, I still prefer the way Dragon Age: Origins Wikia looks. Any thoughts on it? ~~ Songlian 22:32, September 23, 2009 (UTC)

I don't care much for dark webpages (especially black), I think it just makes text hard to read after a while. I like the background/nav graphics on Dragon Age wiki, but those are tough to make because they have to tile and/or be very large. Stuff I design is usually extremely simple and generally pretty bland - white background with maybe some blues/greys here and there, and little or no graphics. Avatar seems to have mostly customized the background colors for the outer areas of the page and the navigation. That's pretty easy, it's just a matter of selecting a color scheme. There's really two places to do style changes on MediaWiki, the first is MediaWiki:<themeName>.css and the second is MediaWiki:Common.css. Common.css is applied regardless of the user theme selection, so I've tried to keep visual stuff to a minimum in there because people can select and customize their own theme. Anything in Common.css should be theme independent, like font/element sizes and other such adjustments. The colors I've customized are in MediaWiki:Monaco.css. It's just the purple for the headings right now. Another common thing we could customize is (currently the greyish) area around the top, left, and bottom of the articles with ".color2 { background-color: #xxx; }". Customizing Monaco has lots of documentation on customizing the default mediawiki theme, including the colors. If someone/you wanted to try out some different color schemes, it could be done at Special:Mypage/monaco.css or maybe in the browser if it supports custom user styles (Mozilla browsers -> profile/chrome/userContent.css or Stylish). I like #e2e7ef for .color2, it's kindof a baby bluish. --Superlgn 01:24, September 24, 2009 (UTC)
...And we are partially light blue! Yay! Looks very nice! ~~ Songlian 18:56, September 24, 2009 (UTC)

Featured polls Edit

Ad blocker interference detected!


Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.