Help talk:Style manual

This is the Style Guide's discussion page.

The Style Guide is intended to serve as a guideline and reference points for the style of the wiki. We try to take the following factors into account when maintaining it:

• Traditional wiki style, when applicable to BG3.wiki.
• Accessibility and readability.
• Editor friendliness.
• The in-game conventions.
• The community consensus.

If you have any changes or additions you'd like to make to the Style Guide, please add a topic to this talk page, and don't forget to sign your comment using ~~~~!

---

Discussions

==

Assuming style guide should be corrected ASAP if linking to outdated or incorrect wiki pages:

Possibly quite high-priority edit I can't correct. Highly likely that, regardless of terminology, Silvanus' Grove should not be linked in Locations. Been looking into it, don't think it was written with a release version of game as reference. [[Emerald Enclave], corrected due to previous wording, *does* now work with the new rewording, and is a good example.

Seemed important to draw attention for correction. Apologies if talk page use here unorthodox. Llamageddon (talk) 18:26, 23 August 2023 (CEST)

Update to say. *Emerald Grove*/*Emerald Enclave*/*Druid's Grove* references should just be excised as examples IMO. Wasn't aware before, but I think the whole page(s) were moved/renamed. May be me who is incorrect, but wanted to be sure to clarify concerns, after previous comment. Llamageddon (talk) 18:41, 23 August 2023 (CEST)

Linking Guidance

Hi everyone. I was wondering if I could get a bit clearer guidance on the frequency of linking to the same pages on an article?

My general sense has been to link only the first instance of a page referenced in an article, unless the link is very important, and the references are spread out within a dense article. But then, I've seen people link many instances of the same page, sometimes in quick succession, such as this example I've created:

"Astarion is an Elf Rogue. In Act One, Astarion can be recruited. Astarion is from Baldur's Gate. Players can romance Astarion in the game by increasing his approval rating. There is a companion quest in Act One for Astarion that can be completed in Act Three."

This feels like it interferes with readability. My understanding is this would be considered overlinking (at least by Wikipedia's standards) and would make more sense like this:

"Astarion is an Elf Rogue. In Act One, Astarion can be recruited. Astarion is from Baldur's Gate. Players can romance Astarion in the game by increasing his approval rating. There is a companion quest in Act One for Astarion that can be completed in Act Three."

Can I get some guidance on which we're meant to be doing? Thanks for any help y'all can give. - Reve (talk) 02:59, 10 September 2023 (CEST)

The latter is correct. You can link more than once, if you think it would be helpful to a reader, but it would almost never be helpful, or desired in the same section, let alone the same paragraph.

If you feel like the subject still warrants highlighting, I often Bold some select keywords for the topic. I.e. Astarion. Although in the above example, that word is mentioned so often, it would also make the page look a bit too 'busy'.

All things in moderation. Keep readability and presentation in mind, but otherwise just use your best judgement, basically. Llamageddon (talk) 07:02, 10 September 2023 (CEST)Llamageddon

Recommending Alt Text inserting images

Image alt text would be good both for people who're navigating with screenreaders, and it would help improve our SEO. In most cases it is as easy as adding |alt= and a basic image caption when using the file template. Annie (talk) 16:10, 20 September 2023 (CEST)

I second this. There is really no downside to adding alt text and encouraging its use. Llamageddon (talk) 13:41, 27 September 2023 (CEST)

Image Naming

At the time this help page was put on hold, this section was still a WIP, partly due to lack of consensus on key details. After the recent update to image naming for icons and tooltip images, the current image naming guidelines offer contradictory advice. It also uses specific technical terms in the context of wiki editing, which are used differently elsewhere in the guide and on the wiki.

To avoid confusion or unintentional edit wars, it was suggested a while ago that I write an updated section blurb, which can be found on Willow's sandbox page here. A moderator may of course chose to edit this in their own words, though any significant changes I made are lexicographical rather than substantive (meaning/guidance has not been changed). Having a look at the suggested changes there should at least indicate what parts are confusing or contradictory, and how this section might be improved. Llamageddon (talk) 14:20, 27 September 2023 (CEST)

The image section of the style guide has been updated now. It should accurately reflect the current naming policy on the wiki. What's next is including a section on when to use redirects, what to name images used by multiple items, and how images should be categorised. However, I need to get feedback on this from as many as possible first. Willowisp (talk) 03:39, 28 September 2023 (CEST)

Thanks, this should help reduce unintentionally conflicting upload practices. Regarding categories; I noticed some conflicting practices there too, so I took the liberty of writing an overview of the current image categorisation methodology on the "master" supercategory 'Images' Category Talk Page. Purely an explanation of the intended usage of the current system, but may be helpful for a future update to this help page, or discussion of changes to the current system.

Coincidentally, I also noticed some oddities with image naming and uploads for shared images. I added a personal recommendation regarding the use of redirects for image pages on the same talk page linked above. That would count as my current input/opinion on the use of file page redirects, I suppose. Llamageddon (talk) 14:03, 28 September 2023 (CEST)

Excellent! I will add a recommendation about image redirects, and I will suggest that users do not tag redirects (files or articles) as "Suggested for Deletion". As for the categories, I'll have a look later! Willowisp (talk) 14:24, 28 September 2023 (CEST)

I'm hesitant to go behind the backs of editors who have got very adamant that this is totally outrageous. But as status-quo has been strongly stated to trump style guidance, and it is claimed to be that only the controller radial menu items should ever be uploaded and used as icons, it means overwriting pretty much every sprite sheet icon. It has been met with extreme criticism to suggest that instead of mass overwriting of what are literally the only icons that are always used by the game in some way no matter what, we could just upload controller icons as Page_Name_C_Icon.fileextension, _CON_Icon, or something. Ignoring that all these rules about the status-quo are not mentioned anywhere, I don't understand why there is even a downside to this, let alone such negativity in response.

Mentioning this concept has led to me being told I should just leave the wiki for now, and I agree wholeheartedly, so I couldn't see the downside of at least mentioning it here. It seems needlessly destructive, and from my perspective, no evidence it is more than the sole decision of two people. I'm not trying to cause more anger and conflict, I just figure that if I do get back, this is the place I am most likely to read a level-headed response as to why the only images the game consistently uses, can't even be uploaded, let alone even used for things like passive icons on character sheets.

On a related note, some mention here or on a help page on status-quo, and how it is decided and set in stone might save someone else unwittingly stumbling into a minefield after making what were good-faith edits and asking questions about them. The whole thing is utterly bewildering to me, but whatever the outcome, when checking in again, seeing something beyond hearsay about the finer points of all this would really be something. Llamageddon (talk) 19:43, 4 October 2023 (CEST)

I am working on updating the Style Guide. It should be updated sometime tomorrow. This will include information about new / revised guidelines, and a revised Discussion page where decisions and changes can be discussed (and archived) with more coherence (current discussions will not be removed). I'll also be making a description of how the Style guide is made and what goes into the decision process and how individual users can contribute to it. Hope it will clear things up! Willowisp (talk) 20:03, 4 October 2023 (CEST)

Image Redirects

I saw the style guide was updated. When attempting my first generic image redirects, a few technical considerations came up. I ended up with a page for each image type that addressed most style and technical considerations that seemed relevant. Without a page creation template, it might be more work than most people would want to put into the uploading of images, but I think everything there is the most concise yet useful info that would ideally be used for generic image pages: Faded, Unfaded, Unfaded Icon.

Words in brackets on the first line are just the technically correct descriptive names of these image types, as used by the game. Primary categories are the currently used (or logical choice for 'Unfaded') category names for these image types. Any secondary categories are what would make the most sense to me for image categories for these types.

This is just the result, without explicit guidance, of going for an ideal process when implementing those linked image redirects; I am not insisting this style has to be followed. I thought these might make good example pages if further discussion on this style guide topic is warranted. Llamageddon (talk) 21:08, 28 September 2023 (CEST)