To all editors who feel like providing input, I have created three different-sized scroll backgrounds for the infobox spell image and I would like to receive constructive input as to which size works best. Pay no attention to the spell image as those will be recreated to adapt for the chosen size. The three pages to compare are:

Call Lightning (135x135 px)

Iron Skins (195x195 px)

Invisibility Purge (250x250 px)

@Haximus Thunderburp; @Lich Diet; @Hazif; @Unevent; @User:TheWildestMage; @User:Nordostsüdwest

and any others who want to provide input.

I shall wait for two weeks and then make a final decision. Thanks in advance for your thoughts -- Artimis Grimshaw (talk) 14:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Imo there is no place for mod content in the regular articles. Either go make a separate wiki or make separate pages for that stuff.

The troll edits are noticeable and getting worse. While, yes, this happens, the shock images and the absolutely vile edited banner feel like an indication that the wiki is getting more attention than regular editors are prepared to handle. Is it possible to restrict who can edit?

@Daughters of Coldharbour @Ancient Death Knight

Hi!

I think you're the two BG3 players around, though I might have missed someone. We could create a simple infobox for BG3 creatures (including companions), if you'd like to have that. We're currently using Infobox companion but it's been made for BG1&2.

I'd handle the initial "code" and then you or any other BG3 player would be able to build on it without fear of breaking or disorganizing things for BG1&2.

To get that initial infobox going, a couple questions:

1. Is "creature" a good name in BG3 to refer to beings of all types? i.e. those you can fight, those you can team up with, wild life, etc. Anything with stats like strength and whatnot, basically.

2. Is the data filled in Astarion and Shadowheart enough for a start? If not, what other field should I add?

3. Is the "Type" field a thing in BG3? In BG1&2, "Humanoid" is something that matters in gameplay. Other values are "Undead", "Animal", ... (But it is not to be confused with "Race", which can have values such as "Vampire", "Ogre", "Bear", etc.) Maybe we can do without the type field in BG3?

4. What about "Total stats" and whatever else you could notice?

I'm a bit wary about keeping on using BG1&2 content templates like infoboxes for BG3 because they're rather specialized and link to pages full of BG1&2 info. Most of them also auto-categorize pages into BG1&2 categories. I fear it might tie the hands of BG3 players who'd have to deal with a lot of issues trying to make the infoboxes work cleanly with BG3.

In short, it should be a lot easier to give you guys a bunch of brand new infoboxes to play with. But I'll only do that if you think it's better this way given your knowledge of BG3. =)

PS: I propose we keep things simple for a start, it'll make the project quicker to pull off and will allow you guys to choose later how you wanna display creature information. For BG1&2 we have HUGE infoboxes that contain almost everything, but for BG3 they could be minimal and the bulk of the data could be shoved into other standard structures like tables, if you so desired. =)

Some pages are being updated with BG3 information. Fine, I get it, admins would like this to include all Baldur's Gate material. Seems like splitting resources away from the other BG3 fanwikis, but that's their call.

But BG3 has been out for less than a month, and there's no spoiler tags on this wiki. A policy of not tagging for spoilers maybe makes sense for older games, but untagged BG3 spoilers does not seem like a great idea. Am I being unreasonable here? Just wondering what other people think.

Since yesterday, I see embeded on some pages a Baldur's Gate trivia by Fandom. It has this link below for more trivia: https://www.fandom.com/trivia

The thing is, that quiz has a wrong answer! In the 1st question, the "right" answer it has is that Durlag's Tower is underneath the city of Baldur's Gate, which is far from the truth.

Maybe these trivia quizes appear only if one is logged out.

The wiki might need a thread like this in the future so here it is. It's for the big picture view of how BG3 should be plugged into this mature wiki, and once that's decided, how the in-game content should be arranged and split. It started off-topic in this thread.

I'm only talking about plugging BG3 below. From looking around, it seems that multi-game wikis have two approaches:

• A centralizing, dictionary style. Each game element has a name, so when several games have an element with that name, they'll all be in a single wiki article titled "name". That article is then cut into sections by game.

• A segregating, compartmentalized approach, a bit like Fandom does at the wiki level. (baldursgate.fandom.com, forgottenrealms.fandom.com, etc.). It's most often done by suffixing article titles with the relevant game in parentheses, e.g. "Potion (BG3)". The other way is custom namespaces, e.g. "BG3:Potion".

• Is there any other approach, or another way to implement either of the above two?

I rather like custom namespaces (BG3:Potion). I prefer segregation and I think it provides the better one:

• Easier search and DPL lookup

• URL makes it immediately obvious that we're in BG3. With "Potion (BG3)", some wiki contributors down the line will likely omit parentheses when there's no naming conflict with BG1&2. That would be unfriendly sometimes, forcing users to skim an article before they realize it's the wrong game.

• Future BG3 contributors using link autocompletion should have more meaningful suggestions & less pollution with a "BG3:" prefix. Suffixes can't help here.

• We sometimes do use parentheses already. If there's a drow sword and a mundane sword both named Sword, currently our standard is to do "Sword (drow)". So we'd have "Sword (drow) (BG3)"! Some wikis actually do that.

CompleCCity:
Different namespaces were already suggested earlier, when BG3 became a thing for this wiki. UESP is doing it, and – though criticized by many – perdsonally, I don't have anything against it. They even have a "lore" namespace, which we could then also create for the more general things; would kind of replace disambiguation pages, maybe …
It's still D&D, and a healing potion is a healing potion – only the inner mechanics are working differently.

Do you have a link to the "old" BG3 discussions, out of curiosity? Maybe I'm missing good points but at the moment I think the centralizing approach is not thought out properly: It doesn't leverage the wiki software which empowers the article level much more than the article section level, it didn't seem to study where the user is coming from and what he wants, it's like it takes the conservative, pre-thought approach of "doing it like a physical dictionary". Maybe I'm missing good points. 🤓

On lore... Isn't it the one thing all games have in common, meaning the main namespace would fit? BG3 is just 100 years into the future IIRC. Maybe we have some naming conflicts with game elements and lore elements though, like Demogorgon, both an enemy we have a shit-ton to say about AND a lore element we'd also have a shit-ton to say about. BUT, didn't we go with interwiki links to the Forgotten Realms wiki, for the latter? Dunno, I have no set opinion on a Lore namespace yet.

Hi,

So 2.6 patch is now out, and while I'm not installing it until maybe a week or two have passed, the release notes point fingers at areas of the wiki that could need updating.

In the list, the following have raised some flags in me:

• Cloud Projectiles | Updated Cloud Projectiles so they are cleared by Zone of Sweet Air

• Magic Resistance | Spells such as Glitterdust, Contagion, and Otiluke’s Freezing Sphere no longer bypass magic resistance

• Movement Effects | Movement effects from spells such as Entangle now relate properly with stacking or counteracting effects from spells or the environment — I'm wary about related changes to the Haste effect

• Poison Immunity | Creatures immune to poison no longer visibly recoil in combat when hit by poison or disease effects — Check Poison resistance and spell interruption

• Polymorph Self | Fixed inconsistencies, casting time and minor issues with Polymorph Self — Verify how Polymorph effect and Create weapon behave

• Power Levels | Corrected the power level of several items and spells to make sure they interact properly with spell protections, such as Spell Turning or Globe of Invulnerability — Review Item levels among other thing. (Also more controlled systems = more boring)

• Raise Dead & Resurrection | Raise Dead and Resurrection type spells can no longer be cast on living targets, only dead targets — Fuck, that was the least interesting way to fix a big bug

• Recurring Effects | Spells and items with effects that refresh each round now reapply the recurring effect properly — See if it affects Wild Surge's "Area of Effect"

• Saving Throws | Corrected saving throw messages and functionality on a handful of spells and magic items — Contagion?

• Shapechange | Fixed inconsistencies, casting time and minor issues with Shapechange — Polymorph effect & Create weapon

• Simulacrums | Simulacrums and Projected Images no longer incorrectly inherit temporary abilities from casters — Not sure which temporary abiity they inherited?

• Wish and Limited Wish | These spells now behave correctly as level 9 and level 7 spells when interacting with spell protections — Verify if it really is "correct" and how it affects the Wish article

• Missiles | Corrected a handful of labelling inconsistencies for missile ids

• Missiles | MISSILE.ids now accurately label projectiles — Update Protection From Normal Projectiles, Slayer and similar sources of protection from normal missiles

• SPLPROT.2da | Added labels and standardized SPLPROT.2da across Baldur's Gate, Baldur's Gate II and Icewind Dale Enhanced Editions

I can't cover BG1EE and SoD so that will have to be someone else's job or nobody's.

If anyone has points that raised their attention but can't afford to verify what's up or fix the wiki themselves, it might be useful to write it down in this thread for someone else to pick up in due time?

EDIT, known issues also have:

• Haste Spell | The spell works correctly, but the combat log doesn't reflect the correct double speed/damage that is taking place — Sounds like my Haste effect testing hell wasn't over after all

I've started to remove `available_in` from a few infoboxes in favor of the various game tags that exist (`bg1_wo_totsc` and friends) and am migrating them as a I go. I'm leaving the full infobox as it is without removing unused fields intentionally for now, since it makes it easier to back to the page and add things.

I'm also updating various images for their transparent version and I've noticed that images even exported from game files have an added margin added to them. This is just creating extra manual labor for yourself for no good reason. I'd kindly ask the admins to add [[User:Lytora/common.css]] to the community css, so there's a vertical margin added to the image that makes transparent artwork (description images) stand out nicely.

I think I'm done tweaking [[Template:Infobox_spell]] but the documentation is outdated and I don't really know all the intents of some of the flags. Would be nice if someone can help out there.

Thanks everyone!

------------------------------------

Haximus Thunderburp 2023 edit: Well crap, in updating a link and saving the post, it seems to have broken all links but the one I updated. Can you find which one it is??? That'll teach me not to mess with old posts coming up in WhatLinksHere.

------------------------------------

The item infobox currently offers to list the areas the item can be found in, as well as a field "Obtained from" which shall list related creatures and/or quests. However, there's no mention of how many things could be listed here, nor about the formatting of the area section that additionally shall show the area code and coordinates. (What the documentation shows now as formatting example was added by me just today.)

So, there's potential for improvements. Here's my ideas, many of which serve the purpose to not blow up the infobox, as shown, too much, but they will blow up the infobox's base code by adding parameters:

• Add "Reward for" if the item is acquired as a quest reward.In this case, don't add the rewarding character to the "Obtained from" list, even if it could as well be pickpocketed – the latter info should be noted in the article main space's section "Locations" instead.

• Don't restrict number of creatures/quests; don't make them a bullet point list, rather separate them by semicolons. (Semicolons are better than commas, in case the e.g. quest name contains a comma; also there might be future features on the wiki that can read data from the infoboxes, but might have issues with commas – semicolons are the preferred separator.)

• Possibly add "Sold at", referring to areas, not the merchant. Unrestricted list as well, and not mentioning them under "Obtained from".

• Don't list any area for an acquisition that's covered in the above mentioned fields.

• Restrict areas to one for each game, with separate mentions for expansions but no distinguishing between editions. If there's more than one place in any game, omit the field completely and not, as I'm currently doing it, link to the article's "Locations" section.

As for the area parameters and the formatting

• Add the following parameters to infobox code_parent_area_area_place_area_code_coordinates

• Each one with a prefix for the games: bp1, bg1, totsc, sod, soa, tob, bp2.

• Leave the current parameters untouched, until all infoboxes are updated.

My vision of the formatting would look like this:

Baldur's GateHigh Hedge (AR3200 – x.y)Tales of the Sword CoastDurlag's Tower (AR0500)Shadows of AmnBrynnlaw (AR1600)

Either centered (perhaps title only) or left-aligned.

If it appears in only one installment, the game title won't be shown.

The formatting is handled by the infobox, only the parameters have to be filled.

The by-game separation with titles could also be done for the other sections, though that would require more additional parameters: again each field with a game prefix.

We could as well decide to mention more than one area, perhaps two or maximum three (with the above mentioned five parameters doubled or tripled). But keep in mind that that could create a list of up to twenty-one entries on the page.

Another option is to restrict the overall number, but that requires complexer coding.

In case of more than one area, I'd prefer the game titles centered and the areas with bullet point list.

These things would then also apply to spells and can in a similar way be implemented for creatures, though with less restrictions.

Suggestions, regarding other fields

• Special, all "… abilities": use hyphens and manual line breaks instead of bullet point lists; CalOkand, if I remember correctly, has done so sometimes – a creator of many, many item articles; it would also reflect the notation in-game; and it would make a particular thing much easier for me to achieve, regarding protection from critical hits for headgear.

• "Combat type": I'd like to expand the use of this field and also include things as The One Gift Lost or wands, but have yet to think about good and consistent wording for them.

Other news, regarding this specific infobox

• Auto-categorization for all weapons and many other categories is implemented for those items that have the "general" parameter correctly set – see the list here.This expands to automatic categorization for non- and enchanted weapons, as well as for normal and magical weapons and those made of cold iron or silver. So, it's easier to find the appropriate weapon for certain creatures with immunities if linked on their articles. (The creature categories have to be filled as well, yet.)

• Some parameters for this to work were added. See also the expanded (only a start, yet, down to areas) "How to fill" section for the infobox and the topic Item header flags.

• The icon row between infobox title and description image is enabled. I'm aware that this looks bad on many non-updated articles, but each item that has any of the infobox's top parameters for game appearances set will show icons now, which is intended to replace the "Appears in" field.The number of those parameters has been expanded by "cut_" and "mod_content", so it's now possible to mark things not appearing in any game accordingly (exclusive use only of these), which can currently be done also for areas and creatures, while quests and spells will be added later.

• There's a list of new damage type templates to be used in the infobox's "Damage" field and which automatically add the item to the according damage type category.

• Further auto-categorization, provided, the parameters are set correctly:adamantine and cursed itemsstill working if not already replaced by the above templates: damage type (deprecated parameter)items by game; requires the game appearance parametersthe parameter "critical_item" (not shown in infobox) adds it to items needed in quests and dialogues (which I'd like to be a replacement for quest items

• Some fields are filled automatically, some will show content with a different capitalization than what's entered; will be explained on the infobox's documentation over time.

• Take also a look at some new data templates: the "em.." ones can be used to easily display a note about the item's enchantment and magical status, while simultaneously linking to these articles; and the item artwork shall replace the description-image/icons galleries on item articles.

A note about auto-categorization: this works only if a field contains a plain value (currently only without link brackets, though that feature could be added and links would work, too). If there's a note to be made, e.g. about a bug, or if multiple values for multiple games have to be given, then categories still have to be added manually. (Same thing for the connected auto-link feature.)

But back to my initial request: what do you think about the item acquisition restrictions and expansions?