FANDOM


  • So, since I came here and started doing a little ruckus changing/moving/creating pages and overall trying to improve the wiki, let me at least discuss one of the recent changes I decided to make.

    Since I started to create the pages for generic NPCs, such as Commoner, I also decided to incorporate the existing Nobleman and splitting it to make a generic "Nobleman" page and then creating a separate page for the notable noblemen such as the pantaloons one (which already had page), but also the Candlekeep ones (which got a new page, as they only had a section in Nobleman with a short description). In the end, as far as nobleman goes I named the pages: Nobleman, Nobleman (Thurston), Nobleman (Christian), Nobleman (Quincy) and Nobleman (Golden Pantaloons).

    Now the question is about naming. Since the creatures are referenced as simply "Nobleman" in game, I wanted it to be a first section of the page - so instead naming the pages simply "Thurston". "Christian" or "Quincy" I made the pages focusing on the actual in-game name – so the viewer clearly knows that the creature is not named "Thurtson", but actually "Nobleman", and their name can only be judged from dialogue lines he or she may not even see, depending on choices. However I also made redirects to their names, so if anyone goes to actual Thurston, Christian or Quincy pages will also gets to the page in question.

    Now – with creatures that the names are told in dialogues/journal/whatever, I think having their name in parentheses and redirects is absolutely fine. However, there are some unique creatures that don't judge their names, for example the so-called Pantaloons Nobleman'. That is the name given by the community here, which isn't bad actually, but to be more uniform and not having to be creative with the namins for all unique creatures that don't tell their name, I thought about using the unique item name in parentheses instead. So, instead of naming the "Pantaloons Nobleman" a "Nobleman (pantaloons)" or even worse "Nobleman (Pantaloons Nobleman)", I decided to use the actual in-game name of the unique item he's related to: "Nobleman (Golden Pantaloons)". Of course, I also left the redirect from Pantaloons Nobleman, so the page can be easily accessed by someone searching for the term.

    However, what do you community think about these changes? Is using the item in parentheses hit or miss? Also feel free to discuss the other changes of course, as that's what forums are for.


    For the sake of being uniform, I also made changes and created other pages, following the style I explained above, let me list them all for clarity.

    EDIT: Updated links – see comments.

      Loading editor
    • Me thinks examples like Nobleman (Thurston) are absolutely fine.

      For some unnamed notable creatures like Nobleman (Golden Pantaloons) , should go with Nobleman (Golden Pantaloons Nobleman) to avoid ambiguities.

      And I agree with you that an unified standard is more important to creativity when it comes to page naming, however I don’t see any need to create redirects for those pages, as all can be searched via the search tool, eg, typing Thurston already shows Nobleman (Thurston) as a result, plus as already mentioned, too many redirects means trouble when future changes happen to those pages, so generally, we should avoid that unless absolutely necessary.

        Loading editor
    • Hmm, on second thought, Nobleman (Golden Pantaloons Nobleman) sounds redundant, may as well go with Nobleman (Golden Pantaloons) as it is now.

        Loading editor
    • Yup, I think there's absolutely no need to repeat the Nobleman part :). About the "redundant" redirect, it's true that you can search them, but:

      1. If someone accidentally links Thurston in some new or existing page without searching the actual page name, it's better to have it point to redirected page rather than a red link (and eventually they get fixed)
      2. If someone types "Thurston" directly in the search bar, with the redirect he will be brought to the page directly, without the need to go through searches - that saves trouble, and, especially when someone uses a slow internet connection (like mobile), time and data transfer.
      3. If someone (like me) type the link directly to the browser, just replacing the part, with no redirect he will be brought to an empty/removed page.

      Of course, there's no reason to go overboard and list every possible variation we can come up with, but the most common redirects are good to have nevertheless – after all, that's why the redirect functionality exist in MediaWiki in the first place!

        Loading editor
    • Alright, redirect it is then.

      One more thing, it just occurs to me that Ogre (girdle) could use more detailed names like Ogre (Unshey's Belt quest) etc.

        Loading editor
    • One more thing, it just occurs to me that Ogre (girdle) could use more detailed names like Ogre (Unshey's Belt quest) etc.

      That's why I mentioned it – the Unshley's belt is actually Girdle of Piercing so following the other names I could name it "Ogre (Girdle of Piercing)", but on the other hand he (or is it he :D?) also carries unique Girdle of Masculinity/Femininity so that could be confusing, as if the Ogre only carried the Girdle of Piercing.

      If you want, I could change it to "Ogre (Girdle of Piercing)" nevertheless, if you think it's not so confusing, as I'm slowly leaning toward that myself.

      It would help if there could be more people to discuss that with, but we'll see it over time, as currently it's hit or miss with seeing contributors, so I prefer to just implement stuff – at worse case scenario things can be always changed back, and actually that's what I like about MediaWiki :).

        Loading editor
    • No, as the ogre is carring two notable girdles, I think it's better to name it to Ogre (Unshey's Belt quest), or with other quest names, thankfully he's only involved in one quest, not two :-)

      Some admins are not as active as before and there're a lot of housekeeping work to do, in addition to VSTF.... related discuessions have been occured in other wikia as well.

        Loading editor
    • Islandking wrote:

      No, as the ogre is carring two notable girdles, I think it's better to name it to Ogre (Unshey's Belt quest), or with other quest names, thankfully he's only involved in one quest, not two :-)

      Related quest is called A Rogue Ogre as per EE journal entry, so it could be named "Ogre (A Rogue Ogre)" by the quest name, instead of the unique item he carries. However, with that in mind, to keep uniform names, it would be preferred to change Hobgoblin (Boots of Stealth) to "Hobgoblin (Zhurlong's Missing Boots)" – in classic BG there were two ogres carrying the boots, which probably promped to call it Hobgoblin Thief and treat is as a type such as Hobgoblin (archer), but I think it was actually omission and not a planned type, as the boots were supposed to be unique and EE fixed it. Luckily, Hobgoblin (Joia's Flamedance Ring) is the same nevertheless ;) That's all fine with me, however, there's also the Nobleman (Golden Pantaloons) – that's a bit tricky, as the quest is unmarked, but it's referred in wiki as Golden Pantaloon Decision, so that would require to change his name to "Nobleman (Golden Pantaloon Decision)", unless we want to make exception for unmarked quests (actually, I think there's a typo, as the quest should be called "Golden Pantaloons Decision, plural, as item name, so may want to change that).

      So, to sum up – if we'de be to call the creatures by quest names instead of items, it's all fine, though keep in mind there's unmarked quests.

      Either way, it's really late for me now, so I have to take a nap at least – feel free to reply and I'll take a look tomorrow :).

        Loading editor
    • Many quest page names here do not reflect the actual in-game journal, the unmarked ones are even worse. Everyone has their own standard, imo, "Golden Pantaloon Decision" should be named like "Golden Pantaloons (unmakred quest)" in the first place. So what I have in mind is that we rename them according to their types, as you’ve suggested, with order of priority:

      1. If the creature has a name, named with Nobleman (Thurston), or Noblewoman (Thurston's wife), if not, go to 2

      2. If involved in quests, then Hobgoblin (Zhurlong's Missing Boots), if not, go to 3

      3. If involved in unmarked quests or has notable items, go with Nobleman (Golden Pantaloons) to show the item name

      I reckon that would solve most cases, unless creatures in type 3 has none or more than one remarkable items…

        Loading editor
    • Islandking wrote: Many quest page names here do not reflect the actual in-game journal, the unmarked ones are even worse. Everyone has their own standard, imo, "Golden Pantaloon Decision" should be named like "Golden Pantaloons (unmakred quest)" in the first place. So what I have in mind is that we rename them according to their types, as you’ve suggested, with order of priority:

      1. If the creature has a name, named with Nobleman (Thurston), or Noblewoman (Thurston's wife), if not, go to 2

      2. If involved in quests, then Hobgoblin (Zhurlong's Missing Boots), if not, go to 3

      3. If involved in unmarked quests or has notable items, go with Nobleman (Golden Pantaloons) to show the item name

      I reckon that would solve most cases, unless creatures in type 3 has none or more than one remarkable items…

      I think that's the best idea; I actually came with something like that as well – great mind things alike P: Unless someone objects, I'm gonna change the names a little later to what you suggested.

      About the unmarked quests, I get what you mean, it puzzles me as well – a part of the trouble is from the fact that there was no separate journal entries for quests in original Baldur's Gate, so most of the names were made up, and the unmarked ones stem from the fact that Beamdog didn't made a journal entry for them. It doesn't help that there's quite a bunch of discrepancies with new EE's journal system, likely due to the fact of it being new addition and wasn't ironed out as much as the core BG content – for example Marl's Loss which (mistakenly I presume) adds an entry to "Journal" section instead of "Quests" (kinda similar how one entry for Oublek the Bounty Officer actually ends up in journal instead quests) or pseudo quests such as A Farmer's Tales (also suffering from a bug with no entries added), Rising Tensions with Amn or Troubles in the Region, which, despite not being able to be finished, ends up in "Quest" section – so logic suggests they should absolutely be treated as such. Plus some companion quests have either entries that gets removed, such as Jaheira and Khalid or Xzar and Montaron (but still appear in journal for their duration), some aren't marked at all (The Silke Dilemma – not official name) and other oddities such as The Friendly Arm Inn which only exist in completed form. It also doesn't help that Important Events is technically simply a quest entry (albeit always sorted on top) and since it behaves as quest, it can even be "finished" at one part of the game to simply appear re-opened later on :). Some journal entries are still missing to this day, see [1] (yes, it's still missing in v2.3.67.3+SoD and is not reported in public Redmine section, so may create a ticket later on).

      Fortunately, at least the unmarked quest have a separate category at Category:Unmarked quests, so we can see them at glance. As long as they are properly categorized and clearly mentioned they are unmarked in the quest page, I think we should continue using the semi-established community names for now, as adding "(unmarked quest)" after the name only make the page names and links unnecessary longer/confusing, especially since the "original" name (without parentheses) remains free.

      I kinda hope it gets ironed out in future patches, since Beamdog said on their blog they will focus on bug fixing for the upcoming releases, soon after they finish porting Infinity Engine to 64-bit – so I am noting these errors and submitting them to Redmine, and I suggest other to contribute them as well, in hopes future patches will improve on BG:EE quest situation and we then we could update more quests with their official names :). (I still have some bug reports to fill based off the rough notes I make during play). I also try to add the Bug section linking to appropriate Redmine entry to help wiki viewers see what's the current state of the bug (whether it is new, submitted or maybe even fixed for the next release or can add new comments, or just see the exact description).

        Loading editor
    • Didn’t notice the category: unmarked quest :-) , one thing the current category tree lacks is that, take this one as an example, it didn’t tell viewers which campaign (such as tob or soa) the quest appears in.

      Never intend to change these unmarked quests names myself, aside from my flawed idea from previous post, the task is best left for people with better English skills than mine :-)

      Now that you mentioned, EE journal behaves weirdly indeed, I also encountered a bug that the overhead journal header popped up the wrong entry instead of the current quest, but I think somebody’s reported the bug already.

      I myself have filed three reports three, one of the recent is the Advanced AI import bug , which I’m really surprised to see it persist this long after the game release… the other one is related to LoB companion status mis-assigned , which was caused by BD trying to fix another bug…

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message