Board Thread:Suggestions on Baldur's Gate Wiki/@comment-3234315-20190120164221

Mitchfork wants to clean-up our spell lists. Somehow it didn't work to post this here in the forum, so Mitchfork used my talk page instead. As this is a constant exchange of thoughts and also shouldn't be kept away from the community, I will give it another try to post here all we have discussed yet.

Follows the copied, slightly reformatted source code from my talk:

Tried to leave this on the forum, but for some reason it wouldn't post. Anyway, since you seem to be the active admin, I thought I'd run this through you.

Right now there's no good index for spells. They're on 6 pages: These have no new EE spells (granted there aren't very many) but more importantly don't reflect any EE changes, like the divine spellbooks being standardized or the new scrolls added to BG1: EE. Also, the generic spell pages have a lot of redundant information, which will make them really hard to edit in the future.
 * Spells (Baldur's Gate) / Spells (Baldur's Gate II)
 * Arcane Spells (Baldur's Gate) / Arcane Spells (Baldur's Gate II)
 * Divine Spells (Baldur's Gate) / Divine Spells (Baldur's Gate II)

I want to change the following: Doing this would make it a lot easier to link to those pages as a general index. What do you think?
 * Merge the BG1/BG2 versions of each page. Reformat tables so that they say when spells are only in certain installments.
 * Get rid of the list of spells on the main "Spells" page. Instead link to both the "Arcane Spells" and "Divine Spells" page for the lists, so that we don't have to update multiple tables to make any changes later.  The "Spells" page will still have general information on spell slots, stats that effect spells, classes, etc.

Mitchfork (talk) 06:39, January 15, 2019 (UTC)

So, you have finished the multi-classes? Let me say – great work! Also the expansion of shapeshifting.

Yeah, the spells … this has been discussed earlier, and once was a project not only of mine … Of course those tables could … can … should be merged. But (most of the following was written in some kind of euphoria – glad that finally somebody wants to take care of that – and will be much more work than what you had in mind ;) …


 * 1) Take a look at what I created on December 7, 2017 (not aware that there already was another page with the same focus): Arcane Spells. Does this somehow match your ideas? (Though it's a complete restructure of the original tables.)
 * 2) That aforementioned other page is Arcane Magic. Perhaps there are also some ideas.
 * 3) The highly respected but now retired admin from the point of time when I started to merge the lists and I had also discussions about the topic:
 * 4) User talk:CompleCCity/Archive 1 – skip the first two paragraphs, but everything up to the next heading ("Re: No, I'm not after you …") is input by Islandking. Be sure to follow the pihwiki links: good tables.
 * 5) User talk:Islandking/Archive 2 – my responses.
 * 6) *When reading this, keep in mind that it was written more than a year ago. View points may have changed, and some technical things, too.
 * 7) *Please don't post on those talk page archives – they're archived. Come back here instead. (And please don't adopt that "you post on my, I reply on your talk page" style – except, you preferred that. (I prefer one discussion at one place.)
 * 8) Either, discuss the topic further after your investigation, or directly start to implement your ideas on my article, Arcane Spells. (If I remember correctly, I started creating it by copying the Arcane Spells (Baldur's Gate II). The content beyond spell level 1 is still in the source code. I didn't like the spell descriptions, however, and have reworded them for the first level.)
 * 9) Something I'd really like to see: no scrollbar at the bottom of the table on full page width. Might be difficult, though … (You could use  to downscale the whole table, rather than only certain cells, but keep in mind that there are people who have issues with reading small things. ;)
 * 10) When we have agreed on content and layout, you may replace my username in the construction template on top of the page with yours. If you don't want to touch that page in the first place, but rather liked to introduce your completely own concept to me: create a sandbox, Spells User:Mitchfork/Arcane Spells (or name it more generically for future use) and present it.
 * 11) *What were the issues with the forum? You could give it another try …

If, however, your sole purpose is implementing an installment column and completing the lists, then you might comment out (using ) the current content of Arcane Spells and use that page for it. It might be possible, however, that one day I'll return to that project and rework your work. ;) -- -- You talkin' to me? -- cCContributions -- 10:36, January 15, 2019 (UTC)

A note: what do you think of moving back to the old terminology of "wizard" and "priest" spells? I welcomed "arcane" and "divine" when they were changed to this, but I can't recall the reasoning behind it, and it's definitely not AD&D terminology, neither in PnP nor in the BG series … -- -- You talkin' to me? -- cCContributions -- 13:50, January 15, 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I was really bothered that nobody had compiled all of that multi-class info since I wanted some of it for planning out a playthrough. The shapeshift page seemed like an easy addition but I ended up finding so many weird bugs and version differences that it ended up being a big project... maybe the EE team can fix some of the differences between BG1/BG2.

I didn't even know about Arcane Spells and Arcane Magic. Your spells page is actually totally similar to what I had in mind; I want to be a little bit more precise about what games spells appear in (since there have been so many editions)... I'll create a user version later today or tomorrow to test out what I mean and I'll run it by you. I'll probably start with priest spells first since it's easier to get a complete list. Also, is there any reason this table needs to include the spell code? That info should already be on the individual spell pages.

I agree with moving back to "Wizard" and "Priest". The wiki should match what's in-game. Might have to go back and replace words on other pages, but that's no big deal...

I'll let you know when I have something that I want to run with.

Mitchfork (talk) 18:46, January 15, 2019 (UTC)

Only two short comments for now: Happy editing! :) -- -- You talkin' to me? -- cCContributions -- 21:42, January 15, 2019 (UTC)
 * I've just seen your sandbox – when it's done, you could as well "rename" (move) it to the "(Main)" Namespace, removing "Mitchfork" and perhaps use a lowercase "spells" (though both capitalization versions should exist, one of them a redirect).
 * As far as I know (haven't access to my related Excel sheet anymore), spells were all introduced in some edition and kept for the rest of the series. That's why I noted on my page, game marks when a spell "was added". So, in most cases a spell that's present in the original BGI will also be in the original BGII and in BGIEE. All spells from the original BGII exist in BGIEE. And all spells introduced by SoD were transferred to BGIIEE with the latest update. I might be not perfectly right with this, however, and a very few exceptions exist, such as Dimension Door.

Perhaps this "appears/was added in" thing needs more thoughts: it's not a good idea to say "this spell was added in the original Shadows of Amn and was adopted in the Baldur's Gate: Enhanced Edition" by placing the BGIISoA icon – people will think that this spell is only available in the second part of the game, ignoring editions. (Some people will ignore the original games at all.)

Perhaps the better way would be to say in which game a spell does not appear. What do you think? -- -- You talkin' to me? -- cCContributions -- 09:46, January 16, 2019 (UTC)

And again one more thing: If you make the tables on both pages identical – same headers, same formatting –, it would be possible to transclude them into one big table on the spells page without having the data duplicated. -- -- You talkin' to me? -- cCContributions -- 10:59, January 16, 2019 (UTC)

Making the tables identically formatted identically might be a little difficult; the priest spells table really needs columns for whether spells are clerical/druidic so that people can sort the table according to them, and once combined we'd need a column that says whether they're wizard/priest, which would be a totally wasted column on the individual Priest Spells and Wizard Spells pages...

I played around with it and I actually do like making the column "Not Available In". It's less horizontal space than the table I started with and is more descriptive than "First Appears In". My only question on this is whether this should be formatted according to level caps; for example, Raise Dead is in the Baldur's Gate: EE files, but you can't actually cast it because of the level cap. Should we put the   icon in that case? The late game spells may have a ton of icons in that case.

Of course this will get a little bit more complicated with wizard spells, since they are driven not only by level, but by physical availability of scrolls... but I think most, if not all, level 1-5 spells were added into BG:EE so it shouldn't be a big deal.

Mitchfork (talk) 20:32, January 16, 2019 (UTC)

I guess, something similar will happen for the wizard spells: a column to mark certain spells Wild Mage only. And priest spells might need an additional shaman column. That'd be five columns on a complete table. Have to think more about this …

For "available", I'd choose not the "can be learnt"-way but if the spell indeed appears in-game instead: can/will it be cast by other creatures than the party? Then it should be there. If somebody's confused about this – a note will help, and extensive information can be found on the spell pages. And scrolls? You can always chose spells when creating a character, and sorcerers do on level-up – so they're all available, theoretically. -- -- You talkin' to me? -- cCContributions -- 21:06, January 16, 2019 (UTC)

Three things I want to note, regarding your latest progress: -- -- You talkin' to me? -- cCContributions -- 13:02, January 17, 2019 (UTC)
 * I just recently renamed all above listed spell overview pages to "' spells". Why did you move your page to "Priest S'''pells?
 * It might happen that our contributions, regarding spells, will collide a bit – don't feel criticized if I make changes after you. I'm just following my own system or method of an approach to this …
 * When you're uploading new icons (didn't you say, you didn't want to? ;), please use the existing icon and "upload a new version", rather than adding a completely new one.

Also, just in general; what do you think of the Priest spells page so far? Is there any column missing, any problem with the categories I'm using? Do you think it's helpful that I'm highlighting cleric/druid spells differently? Mitchfork (talk) 17:04, January 17, 2019 (UTC)
 * I meant to change the capitalization but then forgot later; I'll move the page over.
 * No problem, totally understand.
 * I don't mean to for the whole list, but I already had exported all the level 1 spells... so I figured I might as well go ahead and update those.

But this is my opinion. ;) Alternatively you can also use additional "text-align:" for certain cells (=columns) – these would take preference over a general styling. So much about first impression and thoughts. :) -- -- You talkin' to me? -- cCContributions -- 17:58, January 17, 2019 (UTC)
 * I like the introduction – could perhaps be further sectioned, but holds much and good information.
 * The "type" column is something that I wouldn't use, personally, so I don't have much of an opinion about it; what about trying shorter terms or more abbreviations to spare width (e.g. "DMG" for "Damage")? And wouldn't it be useful to make "AoE" an extra column? Adding "friendly fire" (FF)?
 * I think, the icon should come first.
 * There are shaman only spells, so you need one more column. Or do you think they should go as sort of special abilities and not be listed here? (Then the same would have to be done for wild mages.)
 * What about using only coloring to distinguish between class access? Would spare columns. Although – then we loose sortability … or you make the icon sortable by this … make one column and use letters and all possible combinations? Difficult … perhaps leave it as it is …
 * By the way, C, D and S suffice – omitting "l." and "r." spares more space. Try "Lvl" instead of Lv."
 * I'm red-green blind and have serious issues to distinguish between the normal and the "green" background. What about staying closer to how it's colored on Druid and/or Cleric? But, please, use something different. I find that specific yellow not very appealing, neither.
 * I don't like tables that align content in all columns centered. If you replace the  (pipe) in front of the spell names with an exclamation mark, the name gets bolded, left-aligned, and the first column uses the same background color as the top row. (You can format any column this way.) When you remove the "text-align:center" from the general styling, I think the summary would look much better. Personally I'd prefer the same for school and type.
 * Replace "Not Available In" with something less wide. ;)

P.S. Use a line again for your next comment, and jump back to the left – haven't imported the template outdent, yet, so we do it unprofessionally. ;)

This is all great feedback. I'm not going to respond to all of it now, but I will keep these in mind and try to implement them as I update the formatting on the page.

One thing I wanted to resolve: I do think that the columns are required for C/D/S spells. In my opinion, this is part of the core functionality of the table. I can sort all the druid spells to the top, then shift click other columns to get nice organization while ignoring cleric spells, which is really useful if I just want to see what my character can cast. (Side note: I'm using different icons so that people don't have to scroll up to the table header to see which column goes with which class.)

In addition, background color does not show up on mobile tables... which is a small deal but accessibility is always important.

This poses the question - do we need the color-coding at all? I've migrated back to colors that should be better for you, but since we have the columns it's a little redundant. If we got rid of it, it makes building the table a little bit easier. It's sort of up to you. When I started the table, I wanted to do it that way, but now I'm kinda mixed on it. I don't think it looks very good as-is.

Also, when you say that you would not use the Type column- I think I got that idea from reading over some of the old talk page archives. Maybe another user suggested it - I think it's a little too much info for the table, and it's not very helpful for sorting. I'll probably end up getting rid of that eventually...

Mitchfork (talk) 15:31, January 18, 2019 (UTC)

Nothing against removing the color coding – indeed redundant with those columns. Why is it on the class pages at all? If I'm reading something about the druid, I'm probably not really interested in what a cleric cannot do … oh, okay, "here's what you and only you can do!"

Yes, I agree in omitting it from your table.

As I don't really care about being able to sort spells by their usage "type", I don't care if you're removing that column as well. ;) If I remember correctly, that other user also suggested a ranking of the spells which I declined because it's too dependent on play style, and many people will have many opinions on this. Also, sorting by this isn't really useful for spells with combinations of types. You could perhaps add this in bold to the summary, such as changing e.g. Armor of Faith:
 * "Increases the caster's damage resistance (against all damage types) based on their level."

to
 * "Buffs the caster's damage resistance (against all damage types) based on their level."

Keep up your great work. If I'm not replying to further comments, you know why. -- -- You talkin' to me? -- cCContributions -- 16:12, January 18, 2019 (UTC)

I've seen, you didn't integrate the keywords in the summary – might have looked bad, with so many bold words on the page …

One thing: I've changed general game mechanics and status effects to not use a disambiguation suffix anymore, such as luck, while there's then the Luck (spell). And with all those spells from both books … please, be sure to use the correct links in your table – those directly to the wanted version of a page. -- -- You talkin' to me? -- cCContributions -- 16:18, January 19, 2019 (UTC) 