Board Thread:Projects/@comment-30128802-20180903165804/@comment-30128802-20180904211201

I agree regarding the further clarifications on the gameplay types and edits for the Dvali article. The Dvali article has a few issues, like the use of non-official-but-overly-specific terms like "specialist." I've been intending to edit that article, but never got around to doing so.

---

I also suggest the following updates pertaining to sections in articles. The following is part of the "Canon" section of the guidelines.

As you may recall, we moved away from over-reliance on "notes."
 * Any action can be chosen by the player must not be marked in the main section of the article (since the canon about the choice is not set), but in the notes section a different section suitable for discussing player-influenced events that are not necessarily canon . In the main section, you can write that "JC Denton or Adam Jensen etc. confronts the character etc." but that's all; never explain the choices; never write your favorite choice in the main section : choices are for the notes section .

Additionally, we added sections like "mission appearances" to provide something that is more specialzed for discussing gameplay-related content for characters. So "mission appearances" would be an example of "a section suitable for discussing player-influenced events that are not necessarily canon" that is currently in use.

BTW, did you ever have more thoughts as to whether "mission appearances" is the best approach to a heading for gameplay and player-dependent events? I had suggested using "mission appearances," but it later occurred to me that this heading doesn't fit some characters, like Tomas Romanek whose interactions are not related to any specific mission. Some Wikis use "Interactions" as the section generic to quests, non-quest interactions, as well as the fate of the character (example: Ulfric Stormcloak). This approach is worth considering.

In any case, for the time being, the suggested edit above would at least make things more open ended, so as to not state that "notes" is the only possible section for player-influenced content.

For consistency, the section on "notes" could be edited as follows:

There are actually other issues relating to sectioning that are not addressed. While the guidelines say that "Biography" is the standard section for characters, it is silent as to organizations. For organization articles, some use the heading "History" (Illuminati). Others use "Background" and "Activities" (Task Force 29). I think these are worthwhile topics to address at some point. I think you could get more participation in the wiki if people can be clear as to what does and does not comply with the wiki's standards.
 * Notes - if any information related to the topic of the article needs to be clarified, it should be added to the notes section. This is also the one possible section where the choices offered to players that do not have a set canon are may be included.