Talk:Dragon Age: Origins downloadable content

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Return to Ostagar and possible further splits

@Haleth: - I see that you have created a new article for the Return to Ostagar pack. I don't think it is really that appropriate for individual DLCs for Dragon Age: Origins to get their own article because most of them are really small and insignificant add-ons with the exception of Awakening. Gameplay remained exactly the same, and development barely has any new content. They should be discussed as a cohesive whole in this list of DLC article (like how you handle it with Dragon Age II. Another example is Destiny post-release content (see House of Wolves and The Dark Below). That is the best way to handle all these information IMO. OceanHok (talk) 13:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi @
    WP:POTENTIAL. I also note that at least two sources have discussed the events of Ostagar as a significant element in the franchise as a whole, and the DLC is a direct tie to that. It doesn't feel right for me for that kind of information to be presented in a list or summary style article. Gameplay is the same, but so are a lot of DLC's by nature. That shouldn't be the reason why such articles shouldn't be split out, as long as there is significant coverage to support it. For what its worth, I am actually in the midst of retooling this page to something that flows like the Dragon Age II downloadable content article. Haleth (talk) 14:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I've moved and reworked the page. Not all the DLC's have an aggregate reception score according to Metacritic, though I am still working on the review templates in my sandbox. Haleth (talk) 15:42, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't think this needs a separate article. Both the DLC and the Return to Ostagar articles are really short and it would be better if they are located together for navigation purposes. The Ostagar moment is still in-universe and has very little real-world relavence. The botched release schedule are mostly routine mentions, and really isn't anything controversial. I honestly don't feel that the page has much potential. (For the record, I want to say that I really appreciate your work on this franchise, even though it renders my GT plan nearly impossible. However I really disagree with how the information is presented). OceanHok (talk) 13:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying not to come across as being confrontational, but I cannot comprehend why you would say that. Anyone can argue from a subjective POV that nothing that is being discussed on Wikipedia needs its own article. We create articles about a topic because we have (or we think we have) sufficient coverage which we believe contributes to its notability. As it happens, there is plenty ample in-universe and out-of-universe coverage for the topic. As I have recently noticed and since you brought it up, Dragon Age: Origins – Awakening has existed as a short article for the last 10 years, with very minimal out of universe coverage, but plenty of plot detail. Does it need to stay in its own article, split out of the main Origins article, or can it be expanded? I am sure you would agree it's the latter, because the sources are out there. Someone just needs to cite and make use of them.
The main Origins DLC article is short right now, because I have not yet written a proper reception section for any of them. Even in its barebones form right now, I still think it serves the reader better then the first time around when I drafted it as a list article. I have cited all of the reliable review sources which we could use, but right now expanding the prose for the reception section is not a priority for me. I intend to take my time with them, or alternatively, another editor may make use of the sources I have cited and write it up. I haven't done proper research into writing developmental sections for any of them, but I am aware that they do exist (but may need extra time to search for given that some links no longer work and needs extensive use of Wayback machine), and a few of them are already cited in the article (Shale DLC, Darkspawn Chronicles Q&A). The Destiny post-release content article (even that has two sub-articles split out of it, the Destiny II DLC subarticle has three) you've provided is not a good example as it has its own content issues; rather, I am looking more towards Saints Row: The Third downloadable content as a model, which was rated as a GA+ class article.
With regards to real world relevance, I simply will have to disagree with you. I stand by the the sources I have provided for Return to Ostagar, which demonstrate that it meets
WP:UNDUE
in my opinion. At least one of the reviews actually pondered on the role of DLC's as they existed in the 2010's; the length and depth of their content and how they should be produced/marketed/priced was part of their critique of Return to Ostagar. DLC's are an industry standard now and are essentially expansion packs in all but name, but it was more or less still a novel idea a decade ago.
And could you explain to me what exactly is your "GT plan"? Because I am coming to the realization that maybe we both have issues with
WP:OWN within this project space, and I am getting the impression that you are implying that my edits are undermining your efforts somehow. Haleth (talk) 15:03, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Sorry if I sound passive aggressive. That is not my intention. I really like your work (I gave you a barnstar for it). Your work made my plan to bring the Dragon Age series to good topic incredibly difficult, but my personal aspiration should not stand in the way of quality content creation, so I really don't mind a lot if my plan doesn't work out. Anyway, back to the topic, if
WP:UNDUE is not really an argument that makes sense to me because you are supposed to discuss the items in proportion to their RS coverage. I have no intention to delete the content. Due weight can still be achieved if they are integrated in the same page. I used Destiny as an example because this is how it handled due weight. Smaller DLCs don't get its own article, while huge expansions like TTK get one. The same applies here. Awakening deserves its own standalone article, whereas Return to Ostagar doesn't. WP:UNDUE doesn't and couldn't dictate whether a split is warranted, because the existence of the parent article (Origins in this case) essentially makes all of its subarticles undue. OceanHok (talk) 18:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
I have thought about what you said, and suffice to say, I am very disappointed and will simply restate that once again, we agree to disagree. My response is as follows:
  • Since you wrote three long paragraphs to reply to me, I am sorry that I must reply. But first I would like to reiterate that the "for the record" part was intended as a complement (I explictly wrote that I appreciate your work). I think I have already reiterated that (1) my GT plan is not the main topic I wish to discuss here and (2) I didn't mind my hypothetical plan not coming into fruition if they stand in the way of quality content. However, I was really disappointed by how dismissive your attitude was in your last response. You spent a huge paragraph trying to diss my plan and suggest that I was "deleting or redirecting perfectly legitimate articles". My goal was to bring the main DA games to GT (whose scope doesn't include stuff like the characters or the developers). I think I have been here long enough to know what's needed in GT, and I like to do it with my own pace. Frankly, your "suggestion" that I should go work on Awakening comes off as an insult, since this is essentially telling me to get the hell out of here and work on something else so I would not "get in your way". It also seems like you are implying that Awakening's current shitty state was my fault as well.
  • In all of your responses to me so far, you've made it very clear that my activities are making your plan to get the series up to GT, in your exact words, "incredibly difficult" or "nearly impossible". I think it's only fair that if achieving GT status for the series is your priority, then I'd point out that Awakening has been in a very bad state after all this time (which I have no qualms helping to improve if you are not up for it), and yet you chose to single me out here on this talk page for daring to create a standalone article about a topic you personally see no value in. Your attempt at compliments came across as backhanded compliments to me, when you supposedly praise my work and yet at the same time insinuate that my efforts are somehow ruining your original plans. I have already expressed my concerns about your choice of words on your talk page. Have you ever considered the fact that you never properly articulated, on my talk page, concerns about how exactly my edits are undermining your personal goal for the series? Have you ever contemplated that your comments could be interpreted as implying that I am somehow dragging the overall quality of the content down? Have you ever discussed the scope of your personal project with me or contemplated actually working with me to achieve that goal? Now you turn it all around and tell me you are feeling insulted because of my poor attitude. That is how you've made me feel since a little over a week ago. I'll leave it at that. Haleth (talk) 18:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have already apologized to you already that this is not my intention. I can apologize again if you really felt offended. I have repeatedly said that I appreciate your work, so I don't know where this "dragging the overall quality of the content down" thought came from. I don't need to discuss with you about my GT plan, because (1) it was merely a personal goal, not a priority (2) I don't mind your other splits (this one is the only one I took issue with) and (3) I don't even mind much if it couldn't become a GT. Would you have not created this article if I told you my plan? Judging from your responses here, that's very unlikely. I never said Return to Ostagar has no value. I only said I disagreed with the length and depth used to cover it. Frankly, if you think people should not discuss things that has no value to them, maybe you should propose the abolishment of AfD, where every one talks about things they believe have no value. You and I have a very different opinion regarding how we can organise information. Given this fundamental difference, your attempt at resolving this conflict was to dismiss this discussion and ask me to work on something else and not bother you here. That's a very counter-productive behavior. OceanHok (talk) 05:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion

NOT DONE
There is clearly no appetite for a re-merge. The conversation has stalled out for nearly a month, and the proposer's concerns based in
WP:SIZE have not been supported as an argument by participants. Points in the discussion included the higher quality of the sub-article compared to the target, the sub-article's stand-alone notability, and the need to significantly trim this article were it merged; these points prevented the formation of a consensus to merge. (non-admin closure) Vaticidalprophet 06:57, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am proposing to merge

WP:NVG, Most derivative releases should be covered at an article about the original release, unless there is significant distinct game content (and reliable commentary about those differences) to treat the new content as a separate game. OceanHok (talk) 17:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Oppose.
WP:SIZE suggests that length alone does not justify a split, but my argument has always been that the sources themselves justify the split, as enough material is cited from several sources for an encyclopedic article to be properly written. An example I gave for Mass Effect 3: Citadel was soundly ignored, as are the four distinct DLC articles for Mass Effect 2
, all of which are assessed to GA+, and no editors have expressed a concern so far that there shouldn't be distinct articles for them. These are all precedents.
Your opinion that there are no in-depth references is noted but not accepted. The reviews for the topic certainly go into detail, and there's at least eight reliable English sources we could use. So, your interpretation of
WP:SIGCOV
is clearly different from mine. Also, "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material". In most cases where it isn't subject to a review, the topic is not discussed as a trivial mention in passing, but often addressed directly. The updates and interviews provided by the developers when the DLC was being delayed or taken offline do in fact form part of the developmental coverage by secondary sources which you claim is lacking.
WP:NVG, Return to Ostagar would be classified under "expansion pack", not a derivative release as it is not a remaster or enhanced port. The length of the DLC or expansion pack has no bearing on whether it is in fact an expansion, as multiple reliable sources treat it as an expansion regardless of quality or length (in fact, the critiques are often about appropriate quality and length). The essay itself offers advice that expansion packs are sometimes entitled to a distinct article. Haleth (talk) 18:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
While the parent article is certainly in a better shape, I think it lacks focus because it's more of a "listicle" than an actual article. In my opinion, the parent should ideally be a list. I also believe that some of the newest DLC packs have potential and might be notable on their own, but that's a discussion for another topic. I appreciate your effort, though. --Niwi3 (talk) 14:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback. I was inspired by the format of Saints Row: The Third downloadable content, an article which also documents a series of DLC, each of which has attracted coverage that is at least beyond trivial but probably not substantial enough to warrant a standalone article. Since it is assessed as GA+ class, I thought that it serves as a good precedent to cover the DLC content of Origins. As it stands, Return to Ostagar is the most extensively reviewed DLC, or at least the ones in English editors have ready access to, and has substantial developmental and release coverage about its botched release life cycle. Haleth (talk) 13:59, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Haleth: I'm not too convinced about that Saints Row DLC article either because it's still a listicle. While GA examples can be helpful, it's generally best to use your own judgement. Personally, I'd have expanded the DLC section of the main article because it's very short, and dedicate one or two paragraphs to each of the game's three major DLC packs. The main article is not really that long, so I'm not sure why a separate article that lacks focus was created in the first place. For the Origins DLC packs that are not really notable, maybe something similar can be done. I'd still keep Return to Ostagar as a separate article because it's clearly notable. Witch Hunt looks pretty notable too, but more research needs to be done. Ultimate Edition is not a DLC and should be moved to the main article. Anyways, your work is really appreciated. --Niwi3 (talk) 12:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral comment - I see both sides and want to help create a consensus. In principle there is a suitable merge target. In principle there is also an article that at least meets the notability guideline for third party sources. The real question is what’s best for the organization of this information about the DLC. I’m not crazy about the DLC list article and think it’s laid out kind of poorly and could be shorter and more organized. I also agree with Haleth’s point that the list is actually in rougher shape, and many of those items are lacking in any third party reception. That might be a good reason to merge all the DLC together into a more organized, well sourced article overall. Archrogue (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Full disclosure, I am the primary author throughout this article or topic's existence. The list I referred to, which indeed was in rougher shape, is seen in this diff when I created the article a year ago: [1] This was prior to my decision to reorganize it into a proper article (or at least, as proper as it will ever be) about a fortnight ago, to the current version where I have since added dozens of secondary sources and fleshed out much of the prose, especially in the reception sections (which does need further polishing). By rougher shape, I meant that most of the other DLC's don't really have more then two or three review sources each that is readily accessible and usable for English-speaking editors which I could find. With all honesty, and using the GA+ class Saints Row: The Third downloadable content as a point of reference, I believe the status quo is still the best (if less then ideal) way to present information about the DLC. Putting aside efforts to improve its length and organization, I think it is fine to keep both articles separate. Merging the current DLC "listicle" into the main game article does not solve anything and may even affect its established GA status, merging the article about a standalone DLC anywhere is also counterproductive since most of us agree that it meets the notability guideline and could be fleshed out with third party sources in a manner none of the others could ever be. Haleth (talk) 04:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would have supported to merge this back to the parent Origins article if it hasn't been expanded recently. Merging this now would mean that a lot of the content here would be axed or reduced to a small table like it was before the split, and I don't think that is a good option as well. I still stand by my belief that Return to Ostagar should be merged back here because that'd make a more cohesive article. While individual Mass Effect DLC have significantly more press attention (espeically for Citadel and to an extent, Lair of the Shadow Broker), the coverage of DAO DLC is nowhere as close. OceanHok (talk) 05:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dragon_Age:_Origins_downloadable_content&oldid=1198406445"