Talk:Guardian of Faith (passive feature)

Click Add topic above to create a new section. You can also join our Discord for feedback and discussion.

Just mentioning this here for now. Using the default game Icon seems controversial despite conforming to style guidance, template notes and common sense. More significantly, this icon is used Explicitly and Exclusively by the game. Please leave a comment/explanation before editing if you don't agree. At the very least, there ought to be a clear explanation when editing out the only icon that is used by the game for a related wiki article. Llamageddon (talk) 13:50, 3 October 2023 (CEST)Reply[reply]

It doesn't fit with the page's layout. It looks weirdly out of place, condisering we use transparent versions everywhere else, including other conditions.

It is the same icon. This one just has a dark background around it, but guess what? Literally every other spell has a version like that, doesnt mean we have to use them. We should use the faded transparent version here. We can use the round one for Template:PAS but not for the page itself. - HINK (talk) 14:40, 3 October 2023 (CEST)Reply[reply]

Seconding that the current convention on the wiki seems to be to not use the rounded icon on the page for the passive itself and instead a transparent version with the same icon, minus the background/border. They are ultimately the same thing: both the transparent version and the one that is currently on the page have the same exact symbol. The main difference is whether it has a background - Sky (talk) 14:51, 3 October 2023 (CEST)Reply[reply]

Belated edit: It seems likely that if you hover over the feature for Guardian of Faith in the game, we will get a tooltip image that uses the transparent version sans background: link to screenshot of hovering over a passive feature. This lends credence to the argument that it is still being faithful to the game to use transparent version instead of rounded one.- Sky (talk) 14:51, 3 October 2023 (CEST)Reply[reply]

It does! At this point we have solid proof that the faded icon is Explicitly used by the game, and therefore should be on the page. I will make the change once Llama reads this discussion. - HINK (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2023 (CEST)Reply[reply]

I would lean towards acting first without necessarily waiting for a read receipt. It seems like an uncontroversial decision now that we have evidence that the transparent version is used by the game itself. -Sky (talk) 15:16, 3 October 2023 (CEST)Reply[reply]

Edit: I've done the change. Hopefully this is a satisfactory conclusion for all.

I am not really going to be able to address everything, sufficiently, for now. I just came on to quickly correct a simple error, and something very simple has really snowballed into a nightmare. Even though these comments are in good faith, I might just give up in general at this point, with no ill will. I will try and briefly cover some key points.

Firstly, literally all easily accessible guidance on this contradicts all the replies above;* It appears that this might be an issue with terminology that has specific vernacular and technical meaning that isn't as universally understood or consistent as I thought.
Secondly, particularly in the case of conditions/passives, many of these do not have tooltips. So in this case are we saying we should specifically not include the one image that the game actually is uses, and will be seen by the player?
*The images mentioned in replies here are not icons as I or Larian understand the term; this is verifiable by usage, naming and comments in the game files. We are talking at crossed purposes from the very start.

Variations on "It has been done, so it must be done" seem a recurring theme, and this makes me nervous with any project. There is more than one example quite recently of why this is not irrational. I don't share the sentiment, but I hope those who made comments about how much more important they and their time on the wiki was can at least appreciate that there might be more relevant professions to something as broad in scope as a wiki. This seems like such a non-issue, with obvious zero stress win-win solutions, I'm really questioning what is wrong with the most fundamental decision-making process that there was any issue in the first place. Anecdotal and undocumented decision-making seems to be so casually championed at this point, there seems to be an implicit invalidation of any other sources or opinions. Probably not helped by more than one senior editor comment across the broader wiki, and elsewhere, openly advertising the boy's club angle to this, though.

Sorry for being so blunt, and the unplanned, but I think relevant tangent. It wasn't my original intention here. Nearly all the issues that have arisen in this instance were clearly voiced as a potential issue more than once, both on the wiki and elsewhere. I very clearly mentioned the fundamental issue leading to all the others here at the very start, and one person got so upset I felt I had to drop it, so I am particularly annoyed all this has arisen completely coincidentally, from an unrelated edit and following seemingly unambiguous guidelines and examples. It's a problem that has had to be actively avoided recently elsewhere too. I do appreciate other's actually acknowledging a comment for a change and won't ignore anyone, though I really am exhausted, so might not be quick to reply. Llamageddon (talk) 21:39, 3 October 2023 (CEST)Reply[reply]

Leaving aside the substance of this discussion, if wiki editing has become a nightmare for you and causing a lot of stress, I suggest that you step away from it for a day or two. Ultimately, I don't think the topic of whether to use one image or another on an article that represents a small concept in a video game is worth your mental health.

I also hope you can understand that reverting to the consensus/status quo in the absence of solid guidelines or consensus is how this wiki operates. Perhaps you're right and the image used to represent Guardian of Faith (Passive Feature) should be the roundel icon and not the transparent tooltip image. But that's a discussion that probably needs broader consensus and wider participation than the talk page of a single article. At the moment, the vast majority of passive features use the transparent image rather than the roundel, so that should be considered the consensus.

Once again, I hope you can take care of yourself. Ultimately only you know the best way to do that. - Sky (talk) 23:00, 3 October 2023 (CEST)Reply[reply]

I only came back because I was making a quick fix to something else before leaving. I am only going to reply because it is extremely relevant to the 'substance of this discussion'. It is unfortunate that there isn't a better forum, despite having asked for one.

"I also hope you can understand that reverting to the consensus/status quo in the absence of solid guidelines or consensus is how this wiki operates."

The style guide:

Small unfaded icons:

Use the following naming conventions: Page_Name_Icon.fileformat

The spell template page:

This is the spell's in-game icon.

Example

Fireball Icon.png

The above was also discussed in-depth, over days, in the presence of both people commenting here. I think there was some grumbling from at least one of you about wanting to ignore consensus. To avoid argument, I just suggested that any exceptions to guidelines and rules should be explained somewhere easy to find, and there would be no problem with that.

I have also asked for some kind of coordinated discussion page more than once, and it has been emphatically denied. Not are you pretty much wrong on almost everything you have said, it seems that you must have never even bothered to either look for or read any guidance or consensus, even before your comment just now on the subject.

It's not icons I have a problem with, it's not differing opinions, and it's not that people might be ignorant of guidance or consensus. It's that three people in a chat room somewhere count that as consensus, that someone decides that their status-quo unilaterally trumps consensus, and that guidance should be ignored. But most of all, it is that when they do any or all of the above, they then belittle, talk down to, or ignore those who do actually follow the exact examples of how this wiki is supposed to operate. If any of this is brought up, it is generally met with arguments of "overcomplicating things" or "thinking too much".

Condescending comments concerning my mental health really isn't called for, especially considering your recent behaviour. For the same reason, you know I am perfectly capable of taking time away. Bringing up someone's mental health, unprompted, as a reply to a comment on a wiki page is just uncalled for, repeatedly implying that they must have mental health problems is simply maliciously abusive behaviour. I don't know what caused this repeatedly obnoxious attitude from you but I certainly never intended to offend you.

It's unfortunate that I am proud of what we have achieved here in terms of user-facing content, and enjoy using the wiki for myself. When things get this farcically unmanageable and toxic, it means basically having to stop playing Baldur's Gate to avoid wanting to even look up a page here. I nearly didn't come back to the wiki today, and then decided to check here before leaving after all, thinking someone might actually have something helpful or supportive to say... It definitely isn't the editing that is making the experience so unpalatable that I just have to walk away from contributing. Llamageddon (talk) 17:05, 4 October 2023 (CEST)Reply[reply]