All posts by CompleCCity
I don't think the question was meant to regard wikiing, but the original savegame issue. 😉
There's still hope … My Beamdog post jumped from being viewed 24 times pre-release to 37 views now.
This happening only randomly, doesn't make it easier to analyze …
Do you have mods installed? The Tweaks Anthology (I think) has the option to create custom quick- and auto-saves, with special naming. And there also exists a tool that – per description – is able to handle multiple installs; haven't looked deeper into that one, but it may affect the savegame location as well.
Then, does your documents folder have an unusual name, with unusual characters or symbols in it?
What about UAC? AntiVirus or other protection software that may have control over it?
Is it possible that cloud save technology may have an effect on this?
Perhaps ask in the Beamdog forums. Or at GOG if your game is from there.
Or, plain and simple – how many saves do you have? I've noticed a huge impact on save- and load-times when a certain threshold is reached, far below 100. Maybe such could also affect quick- and auto-saves. Clean those up? Make a backup of your saves folder and delete older savegames from the real one?
@Site notice: Once you click it away, it's gone. So I don't see any reason why readers should become tired of it, at least registered ones. I'd say, far beyond release date, so rather the 14th – if even that short.
@Voluntary servitude: I haven't read that. As a registered user from the start (in addition to my ad-blocker), I don't see ads. To me, Fandom is just a host that offers the opportunity to have a community-driven wiki.
But end of story, that's becoming too off-topic …
Where's the money they are talking about that I earn by contributing here? @Jesto95? 😄 Joke. (Say, does staff know about your ad-policy? 😉)
@Haximus Thunderburp – I can agree in general, though not exactly with "we don't." 😉
Just confirms my impression of "I don't need this" when visiting the BG3 sub-reddit.
No idea.
That's why I hesitated to post at all, just wanted to make you know, I've read this. 😉
Had thought of a drive-access problem, but that would also make your custom saves of that time period corrupted …
Links would be useful then. 😉
I'm not on reddit, but just posted this at Beamdog's.
Jaheira? See, I don't even know who of the old crew will appear. Not having followed news about it not a bit. Hailed as greatest CRPG? Wasn't even aware, it counts as CRPG.
Maybe I'll start with giving the game article an overhaul. Maybe not today.
Maybe we can convince @Lich Diet to play that game earlier than only with release of the GOTY edition, and take care of things? (With technical support, though, if needed.) 😉
Hey, @Jesto95 had some ideas:
"[…] start creating a few bg 3 pages (maybe that would mean that i create the BG3: namespace), as that could also attract new contributors […] create a mediawiki:sitenotice post […] mentioning the need for further assistance/ new contributors to cover bg3/ to keep the wiki updated with bg3 content […] some ppl would like to help but dont know if help is wanted or where to start, a notice like mediawiki sidenotice could be a nice start and point them towards the right place"
Do you want to take care of this? Notice to me seems to be a good start.
So, is this still an open question? Or did you answer it yourself, making it more like an FAQ?
Hello!
That box on the right side of the screen is called "infobox" in Wiki(pedia)-jargon.
I've added CN as an optional alignment, but it would be better to have an extra article purely for the cat familiar (and all other familiars as well) and then change it back; the regular cats encountered in the game are true neutral.
How … what?! And the wiki didn't no about until you found it by accident?
Glad, I had the idea to ping Tagaziel. 😁 Thanks for your input, and a "hey there, old friend!"
Unevent's summary could as well be mine, especially when comparing "if and when BG3 content shows up […] keep all current content as-is" and "the suffix approach indeed would mean that over time, parallel to the creation of BG3 articles, many classic stuff would be moved".
Using the suffix approach indeed would mean that over time, parallel to the creation of BG3 articles, many classic stuff would be moved to a suffixed page as well, there you're right, Haximus. It just didn't spring into my mind until now. And then we had to make the redirects disambiguation pages, and maybe just the regular ones, no portal-like ones.
Sorry, @Hazif, but I don't agree with your last comment – if it was meant seriously. (Was that double-"s" in "asymmetry" intention? ;)
For the first one, I counter with the Girdle of Bluntness, ha!
For me, that means "no" to the namespace solution.
Quoting myself:
I guess, the only thing, that's cemented for me at the moment (yes, cement also can break), is that I just cannot agree with an extra namespace only for the new game, and keeping the other info in the main one.First: Sorry, @Haximus Thunderburp, that I didn't reply already yesterday – seems, my mind was too full with other stuff to completely understand what you wrote; this worked when reading it another time today, but now there are so many more replies …
Option 1 is the most reasonable approachSo, that means no namespaces, right?
Well, @Unevent, contrary to yourself, I found that reply very helpful! (Meaning the first one, but not not meaning the second one. ;)
And as a minor answer to your second one, from a talk about the topic between former representative @Moviesign and me back in June 2019 (my, that really is "early access"): "[Fandom] just reserved baldursgate3.fandom.com and baldurs-gate-3.fandom.com to redirect to this wiki […]" Repeating this here does not mean, I'm strongly opposed to your idea of split wikis, just mentioning the existing domains and the redirect fact …
Okay, seems, I've reached the end of current replies.
Okay (again), we currently don't have BG3 content other than the game article (I think). And I, as well, can't tell if or when this changes in the future. With all the points @Unevent has given, in combination with this, I withdraw my expressive vote for the namespace solution (if it was even counted as that). As long, as there's only a small number, if any, of articles that need a disambiguation suffix by game, I can live with those.
Disambiguating them all, however, counters @Haximus Thunderburp's thoughts of best not having readers land on a portal, instead directly on the article they most likely want to visit. Integrating all games' information on a non-disambiguated article will make them a real mess, on the other hand. So, we're back at zero …
I don't know how disambiguation suffixes would impact SEO, and if readers do really find them that inconvenient. Personally, I don't feel like that. Though I remember that on the Pillars wiki @Tagaziel, when Pillars of Eternity: Deadfire came out and was implemented, moved at least all categories that had the name as suffix, like "Category:Weapons (Pillars of Eternity II)" to (in this case) "Category:Pillars of Eternity II: Deadfire weapons" – for SEO! (Btw., that's an abbreviation for Search Engine Optimization, dear reader.) For my taste much too long and horrible for auto-completion.
A thought about one article having all the information: Personally I'd prefer chronological order of content. It's done on the wiki like this for all stuff regarding BG1 and BG2. Game-chronological order, not release order, so SoD stuff comes between the two. Logically, this would mean, BG3 stuff's at the end. But that would not be what maybe SEO requires, a BG3 player wants and Fandom staff would suggest – for this, BG3 (always the newest one) would have to be the first on the page. Something I disagree with on the same level as using abbreviations for suffixes or not having an extra namespace for the original series. (Btw., "BG3" and "OBG" – could be read as "original", as well as "old".)
I think, @Unevent has the most valuable points in this discussion. And though disambiguation suffixes may be an annoyance for all our future BG3 visitors </irony off>, it's still the most unintrusive approach and certainly the one that requires the least work.