Talk:Dragon Age: Origins downloadable content

Return to Ostagar and possible further splits
- 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)


 * Hi, the reason why I split Return to Ostagar into its own article is due to the availability of sourcing which specifically discuss the DLC or aspects of it. It has attracted a signficant and perhaps disproportionate amount of media coverage due to its botched release schedule, whereas the DLC is otherwise a minor part of the overall Origins package within the fictional universe. The actual reviews that could be sourced from Metacritic are all reputable sources and are all surprisingly in-depth, though I only included very brief snippets into the reception section; any other editor can add more material from the sources into any section of the article as paraphrased prose per 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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:GNG and doesn't need to be merged with any parent article. With all honesty, I did not not start off with the intention to write a standalone article about it, but the length and breadth of the coverage I have uncovered convinced me that there is enough material to sustain a standalone article for this particular DLC. It certainly has more diverse coverage, beyond a set of routine reviews, then something like Inquisition's The Descent. The botched release schedule and errors represents the real world relevance here, because it was anything but routine, and certainly doesn't fit into the definition of the WP:ROUTINE guideline which is concerned with news or events as it was well documented by multiple news outlets which almost always contain secondary opinions to the unfolding events. To cram all of that into the main DLC article would be 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)


 * 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 Saints Row: The Third downloadable content is the one that you are following, then Return to Ostagar should still be merged back. The only difference is that you can write a longer development/release subsection for it. Maybe you and me have a different interpretation of what is meant by significant. For significant coverage, I am really expecting long featured articles from major publications, or at least, newspieces focusing on various parts of development. The part about release dates is not really SIGCOV because sources are only reporting the issues, with some extremely minor and trivial commentary on the issue. It didn't "attract commentary" if we didn't see long articles from multiple major publications discussing how incompetent BioWare is in this situation. Ultimately, the release is not really that much of a problem, and I think you have overemphasized its importance (there is, again, no SIGCOV on the impact of this botched release, other than the fact that BioWare released, then delayed the game at the last moment, then released the game again). 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)


 * 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:
 * I reject your assertation that my work is directly responsible for obstructing or ruining your plan to bring the entire Dragon Age series to good topic status, because it is not an achievable or realistic goal to begin with. The IP is now a multimedia franchise and goes way beyond video games. Besides the video game and character articles, there are novels, an anime movie, comics, a tabletop game. Not to mention a series of BLP's like David Gaider, Mike Laidlaw and Jennifer Hepler, the best known work for all three as of 2021 is for this IP, or scholarly/academic sources which specifically discuss literary themes used in the writing for the series, of which no single article have even been created for so far. Given the context I have provided, and since every single article within a good topic series must be of at least GA+ status, how do you propose getting there according to your original plans, assuming that I never commenced my editing in this space? Deleting or redirecting perfectly legitimate articles, or not covering them at all? A more achievable goal is to start with say, characters in the series (like what was done with "Characters of Halo") or a collection of similar media like novels or comics, and the Good Topics article has ample examples. I should emphasize that the Awakening article have not seen an ounce of improvement since it was created over a decade ago in spite of the abundance of sources, and I have had no involvement in it so far. The inevitable sequel, which is not released anytime soon, has a start class level article nonetheless (and not created by me). So I take exception to your comments that I made your desired goal difficult or impossible. If "good topics" status for the entire Dragon Age series is your goal all along, may I suggest you work on improving Awakening as a priority, if it is indeed an important topic for you, instead of singling me out for creating a standalone article on a topic you personally see no value in?
 * I have found a few more sources for Return to Ostagar, demonstrating that it definitely meets WP:GNG as well as a real-world relevance which other editors and I will update it shortly. My position remains, that your opinion is subjective and not decisively grounded by any existing consensus, guideline or policy. I will also fill out the present article gradually, which has an abundance of sources for its various subtopics but I need time to digest it all. I should point out that even for a GA+ review process, the opinions and preferences reviewers are diverse, with a significant number of reviewers actually expressing a preference for short and concisely presented articles like Mass Effect 3: Citadel, a good example of a GA+ class article about a game DLC which is roughly about the same length as the present Ostagar article. So your argument that it is preferable to have a lengthier article like the Destiny post-launch content ones is unconvincing (and neither of them are assessed as GA+ at the time of writing).
 * I am trying my best to ensure that any and all articles I start in this series meet WP:GNG and are of a respectable quality. Your input is welcome, as is any other interested editor who is keen to get involved. I reiterate that I have no intention, deliberately or otherwise, of undermining your efforts to improve coverage in the VG space, and I ask the same of you in return. I have plenty of work I want to get going on instead of engaging in arguments with you that go nowhere, so I hope this is the end of discussion on this topic between us. Haleth (talk) 05:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 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.


 * I also emphasized multiple times that I have no intention of deleting your content. Saying that my argument is not based on consesnsus is wrong because we have a guideline (Notability (video games)) regarding what type of content should get a standalone article. The guideline clearly stated that "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." "Expansion packs" only occasionally gets one. This is only a minor content pack that didn't add much, and the current article didn't do enough to justify why it merits a standalone article. The reception section clearly stated that the critical consensus is that this DLC didn't add enough, so I really failed to see how it meets the guideline mentioned above. An overabundance of sources do not mean that it warrants a separate article. TLOU Remastered, before it was merged, was also a good article. Reviewers review article based on the 6 GA criteria. Whether the subject should get a standalone article or not is not one of them.


 * I could have boldly redirected this article like you have suggested. I chose to start a standard discussion (not even a merge discussion) to see if we can establish a better direction regarding how we can handle Origins and its DLC. Apparently we cannot sort this out on our own, so perhaps the solution is to invite more participants from the project to chim in. A discussion with a solution (regardless of outcome) is better than "arguments that go nowhere". OceanHok (talk) 17:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Merge discussion
I am proposing to merge Return to Ostagar back to the DLC overview article because of (1) WP:SIZE concern that the DLC article is not long enough to justify any split at this moment (2) WP:SIGCOV, there is no in-depth references on the development of this DLC. Anything that can be considered as significant coverage are the few reviews on Metacritic, and given that the DLC is similar in nature with other minor packs listed in the DLC overview article, putting the information here makes for a more cohesive article. (3) 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)
 * 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 is an essay, not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline, and it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. And even if we follow the recommendations outlined in 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)


 * Oppose - There are multiple secondary sources by reputable video game publications that specifically discuss the topic in detail (see the reception section). The article's size is actually quite large for a DLC, and there are many video game GAs that are shorter. Merging the article into its parent, which is a mess, does not solve anything. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - This article is now less of a mess, as I have fleshed out each relevant section somewhat. The topic started out as a sparsely detailed list article, but I think ultimately, additional in-depth coverage is more helpful for readers where it is possible to do so. There's still plenty of room for improvement of course, and likely material from the cited sources for each subtopic which I may have overlooked. Looking at it now, and at the limited extent of sourcing for each DLC pack except for Return to Ostagar, its clear that the other six DLC's cannot sustain a standalone article on their own. Haleth (talk) 14:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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: 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)
 * 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)


 * Oppose per Haleth. Regards  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 01:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)