Skip to content

Baldur's Gate III wiki

Hi all!

You all know our old wiki for the classic (including the Enhanced) Baldur's Gate series. Many of you are or were contributors there, it can be found linked often in these forums.

Now that the full release of Baldur's Gate III (or Baldur's Gate 3, how it's named officially, apparently) will happen within the next few days, we still don't have much content about it other than an article about the game itself; rather a skeleton of a game article.
This is mostly due to the fact that the majority of current contributors to our community just does not have had early access to the game, and probably neither will have access to the full release in the near future.

But we all would really, really like to cover the whole series on our little wiki! We all want that the Baldur's Gate Wiki will stay true to its name!
Therefore we are currently searching for contributors, old and new ones, who are able and willing to add Baldur's Gate III stuff to our community. "Found", if you will, the Baldur's Gate III part on the wiki.

If you are interested, just head over and start! Or visit the related thread first!
And feel welcome!

Comments

  • morpheus562morpheus562 Member Posts: 304
    edited August 2023
    I would recommend avoiding this. I was just made aware that the Baldur's Gate Fandom Wiki has a page for my work that was created without my awareness nor permission. The page itself is monetized via ad revenue which is abhorrent to me as many have put countless time and effort into this mod for someone else to be able to generate revenue from it. I attempted to remove the page, and it was re-instated and I received a block/ban/suspension (whatever wiki calls it) for my efforts. Plain and simple, this is wrong. I want no association with its moderation team or pages, yet they insist on wanting an association with me and my work against my express will.

    EDIT: Resolution was reached and content was removed.
    Post edited by morpheus562 on
  • jasteyjastey Member Posts: 2,780
    edited August 2023
    There was an unfruitful discussion with one of the wiki maintainers at G3 (Link) about mod representation (of BG&BGII) in the wiki.
    My opinion: a wiki that links to Roxanne's clones is not suited to represent the modding community. EDIT: the site still does, if you follow the links in the G3 thread.

    At least they seem to have removed the (copyrighted) portraits from the PPE mod that used to clutter the wiki pages, at least I don't see any any more.
  • morpheus562morpheus562 Member Posts: 304
    jastey wrote: »
    There was an unfruitful discussion with one of the wiki maintainers at G3 (Link) about mod representation (of BG&BGII) in the wiki.
    My opinion: a wiki that links to Roxanne's clones is not suited to represent the modding community.

    At least they seem to have removed the (copyrighted) portraits from the PPE mod that used to clutter the wiki pages, at least I don't see any any more.

    I messaged that individual directly today. Very simple ask: remove my stuff as I don't want to be associated with the fandom pages. Fingers crossed they just move on with it instead of whatever they are currently doing.
  • jasteyjastey Member Posts: 2,780
    I hope so, too.

    For my part, I decided that this is a battle I cannot fight. There is too many people with too many time at hand who obviously don't care about what respected modders or I think about the matter.
  • morpheus562morpheus562 Member Posts: 304
    jastey wrote: »
    I hope so, too.

    For my part, I decided that this is a battle I cannot fight. There is too many people with too many time at hand who obviously don't care about what respected modders or I think about the matter.

    I had no idea before this how bad the fandom wiki community is, at least the moderation team. Lesson learned.
  • GraionDilachGraionDilach Member Posts: 589
    edited August 2023
    jastey wrote: »
    At least they seem to have removed the (copyrighted) portraits from the PPE mod that used to clutter the wiki pages, at least I don't see any any more.

    They were just moved to the quests's gallery. See https://baldursgate.fandom.com/wiki/Keldorn_Wishes_to_Visit_His_Wife_and_Family as an example.

    Nothing changed back then to counter Roxanne's edit wars or to clean up or to actually show interest in cooperation at that front. I'm not really surprised on the sheer ignorance and toxicity in the wiki discussion topic where they bashed suy.

    The joys of dealing with people sitting in their ivory towers, oblivious to the world around them.
  • compleCCitycompleCCity Member Posts: 52
    Maybe you do not know how wikis are working. Or not exactly. Anybody can come and add to the site, for example an article about a mod. Probably a mod they do like and want to give information about on a website that is documenting the game. Are these the "many people" you're talking about, @jastey ?
    Also you, the modders, can do. You can add information about your mods. And you can correct existing information if it's wrong. If you find things told about them being disrespectful, fix it. Or inform an administrator. But I don't see how just telling about a mod would be disrespectful per se, or violate copyright.

    (And as a side note, why do you distinguish between "respected modders" and you, @jastey ? I do respect you and your mods!)

    The whole point of that discussion and this topic, though, wasn't about mods – it was about a Baldur's Gate 3 section for the wiki.

    Here's a link to my latest comment there, also addressing you, @morpheus562 .
  • morpheus562morpheus562 Member Posts: 304
    edited August 2023
    But I don't see how just telling about a mod would be disrespectful per se, or violate copyright.

    It did violate a copyright and was taken down by Fandom support staff. You do not have permission to use my verbiage verbatim without permission and then monetize it.

    @JuliusBorisov for awareness.
    Post edited by morpheus562 on
  • AllbrotherAllbrother Member Posts: 261
    And now that that's sorted, to bring us back on-topic (well, not really seeing as this is just a call for contributors, but at least somewhat more adjacent to the topic)... While I have no opposition in principle for the wiki to have content on the latest release in the franchise, I hope there will be a prepared procedure or guidelines for contributors to ensure separation in articles relevant to both old and new. For example, if a character or an enemy appears in both old and new games, having information on both within the same article could be problematic. One way I've seen to tackle this that I think could be looked to is the way The Witcher wiki inorporated information on the show with the articles having separate tabs for each source.
  • morpheus562morpheus562 Member Posts: 304
    Allbrother wrote: »
    And now that that's sorted, to bring us back on-topic (well, not really seeing as this is just a call for contributors, but at least somewhat more adjacent to the topic)... While I have no opposition in principle for the wiki to have content on the latest release in the franchise, I hope there will be a prepared procedure or guidelines for contributors to ensure separation in articles relevant to both old and new. For example, if a character or an enemy appears in both old and new games, having information on both within the same article could be problematic. One way I've seen to tackle this that I think could be looked to is the way The Witcher wiki inorporated information on the show with the articles having separate tabs for each source.

    @suy voiced concerns about how the integration would be and was accused by the moderation staff that he was "sabotaging" the wiki. That's what caused me to take a look and see they copied my work verbatim and monetized it without my permission. Again and again unethical and questionable behavior by this staff/moderation team. I would not assume anything they do will be done well or with good intentions based on my small interactions with them.

    Additionally, they made revenue based on my work, and I am expecting it to be donated to G3 who has permission to host the mod. I am not holding my breath on it due to their continued behavior.
  • compleCCitycompleCCity Member Posts: 52
    I think, we all have understood your opinion on our wiki, or Fandom in general, now, @morpheus562 – there's no need to repeat it again and again. And as you are calling this board's moderation "for awareness", so as well may do I because you are driving this thread off-topic more and more. @JuliusBorisov?

    As far as I'm aware, it was nobody from the "moderation staff" that first used the term "sabotaging". And for your own accusations here – that might be seen as sabotaging the intention of this, my thread, themselves – you should probably care a bit more of whom exactly you are accusing, and of what.
    Fandom, as the host of the wiki, may gain ad revenue from it, but none of the content contributors (read: non-Fandom staff members) are participated in this. Wiki admins, bureaucrats and other roles are not Fandom staff, but local wiki staff, and are not much more than contributors with special rights, not with payment. They all are just using the host to not have to look for serverspace and financing of it for themselves, to offer a database for a series of games. That's pretty much the same as @Taylan's "community wiki", just on another server. And also under Creative Commons. We ourselves call us a community.
    I do admit that several things have gone wrong in the whole debate regarding @suy and your mod, but none of them were meant to be "unethical and questionable behavior" or that we in that community would handle things not well or that we even have bad intentions, as you are implying above. There may have been undiplomatic choices of words. There may have been rushed actions. There may have been stupidities, e.g. in copying your text (that was really dumb). But in no way was there ill intent by, I'd say, any of the involved people, including you.
    So please, please, please, let's come back to topic …

    @Allbrother; @GraionDilach There's another discussion on our wiki regarding specifically how to implement Baldur's Gate 3.
    I think, we all came to the conclusion that having classical and BG3-stuff mixed on one article, if it's e.g. about an item or a type of creature, is not a good idea. Then there are two options left: using a "disambiguation suffix", i.e. "Pagename (Baldur's Gate 3)", or making it a "namespace" (similar to the UESP), i.e. "BG3:Pagename". (I think, no one of us has yet looked into your example from the Witcher wiki – wich I will do, though, now – but in general, tabs are often considered suboptimal styling, especially on mobile devices.
    And after all the discussions talked about here, I had the thought that mod content on the wiki could get its own namespace as well.
    Exceptions, though, might apply to very generic topics, like the city of Baldur's Gate or recurring companions/people, like Jaheira. I'm not sure, such important articles should become disambiguated – there we might have to find a different solution.

    Disclaimer: This all was written without having checked what happened on the wiki and the mentioned discussion after my "outburst" on an admin's talk page (which I'm not linking here by intention), so within the last one and a half days. Which I will go check out now, though …
  • testlumtestlum Member Posts: 12
    edited August 2023
    EDIT: Deleted, duplicated post.
    Post edited by testlum on
  • JuliusBorisovJuliusBorisov Member, Administrator, Moderator, Developer Posts: 22,754
    At the end of the day, this thread can stay as long as it doesn't violate this forum's rules.

    Personally, I'd appreciate it if some stuff could be handled in PMs instead of public comments.
  • testlumtestlum Member Posts: 12
    edited August 2023
    Why start over from scratch as opposed to contributing to an already existing Community Wiki for BG3? As an added bonus, it's much less cluttered with advertisements.

    If you are worried people may be confused seeking BG3 info from the Fandom wiki, you could provide a link to the aforementioned wiki on the front page.
    Post edited by testlum on
Sign In or Register to comment.