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Assuming style guide should be corrected ASAP if linking to outdated or incorrect wiki pages: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

A suggestion regarding use of collective nouns

In British English, collective nouns, (i.e. nouns referring to particular groups of people or things), (e.g. staff, government, class, team) can be followed by a singular or plural verb depending on whether the group is thought of as one idea, or as many individuals (e.g. "My team is winning.").

The style manual states "Nouns as the party and the group are treated as collective nouns and are used only with plural forms", but strict adherence to this rule (as with most rules) is incorrect. For example, in British English, "Team" is singular but composed of multiple people. Also, casual reading of the wiki appears to have several instances where collective nouns such as "the party" are used in the singular and may be best understood by the reader that way, such as a party decision ("if the party enters this area") or result (i.e. "the party is attacked"). As I find examples of these I will add them here, but I believe it would be better if the wiki had a more flexible formal policy in this area that is aligned with British grammar as practised today.

The front page of this wiki states "We provide a clean, detailed, up-to-date wiki for Baldur's Gate 3. This is a community project and everyone is welcome!" Proper yet contextually flexible grammar will enhance the readability ("cleanliness") of the wiki. Spelling, grammar, clarity and overall readability are priorities for me, and many of my edits are almost solely of this type.

Kind regards, Raelin (talk) 02:48, 29 December 2024 (CET)

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)

Proposed Revision for Style Guide: Conditionals and Tense

The current guidelines distinguish between "potential events/conditional outcomes" (Present Tense) and "possible future events" (Future Tense). In practice, these categories overlap, leading to both confusion for the seasoned editor and inconsistent application, particularly regarding game mechanics versus narrative consequences.

To ensure clarity, we should adopt the standard linguistic distinction between the Zero Conditional (logical/mechanical facts) and the First Conditional (predictive narrative outcomes).

1. Game Mechanics (The Zero Conditional) Rule: Use the Simple Present Tense for descriptions of game mechanics, spell effects, and equipment properties.

• Reasoning: In technical writing and game design (cf. D&D 5e Player’s Handbook), mechanics are treated as "universal truths" within the game engine. If Action A happens, Result B occurs instantaneously as a function of the rules.
• Examples:
  • "If you use this spell, you regain 10 Hit Points."
  • "When an opponent is hit, they become Reeled."

2. Narrative Outcomes (The First Conditional) Rule: Use the Future Tense (will) for story consequences that occur after a delay or as a chronological sequence of events.

• Reasoning: This follows the British English standard for "Predictive Conditionals." It separates a functional 'trigger' from a story-driven reaction that unfolds later in the narrative.
• Examples:
  • "If Gale accepts the proposal, he will become a magistrate." (A future state, not an immediate mechanical stat change).
  • "If you kill the Owlbear, the cub will appear later at your camp."

Comparison Table for Wiki Editors

Context	Grammatical Form	Example	Why?
Mechanical	Present Tense	"The target takes 1d6 damage."	It is a constant rule of the game's logic.
Narrative	Future Tense	"The NPC will remember this."	It is a prediction of a future story state.

Supporting Citations

• Technical Documentation Standards: In British English technical prose (and the Microsoft Writing Style Guide), the present tense is the "standard" for describing how a system works. Using "will" often implies the system is broken or hasn't done it yet.
• The D&D Precedent: Since BG3 is based on 5th Edition Dungeons & Dragons, the Player’s Handbook is the primary stylistic ancestor. The PHB consistently uses the present tense for mechanics (e.g., "You have advantage on the roll" rather than "You will have").
• Linguistic Logic: The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (Huddleston & Pullum) notes that the Zero Conditional is used for "generic" or "logical" entailment. Because game code is logical entailment, the present tense is the most accurate reflection of the game state.

Finally, we should use clear and distinct examples, avoiding ambiguity.

Comments and discussion here are welcome and encouraged. Raelin (talk) 03:17, 17 January 2026 (CET)

This all sounds very reasonable and it gets a +1 from me. NtCarlson (talk) 03:20, 17 January 2026 (CET)

In short, you would like to apply the standard non-fiction descriptive style, generally used, in particular, in RPG literature within game-mechanics sections. I have nothing against it, and will try to adhere if settled, even though English is not my native. However, I would like also hear out Hawkeye, because when I started to contribute full-scale passages it was him who cleared out Future tense clauses afterwards if I used them. Arikel (talk) 07:33, 17 January 2026 (CET)

It's exactly those kinds of edits that, while intended to adhere to the style guide and are in made in good faith, invite confusion and the possible perception of arbitrary standards - both on the part of the contributor who has their edits reworked - and the (discerning) reader who may be confused by the overlap.
This one has been brewing with me for quite some time, so I comitted time to do the research and make it a cogent, logical and constructive argument. Raelin (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2026 (CET)

+1 Capranaut (talk) 17:37, 17 January 2026 (CET)

Before I can state my case, I need some more "clear and distinct examples" first, to fully understand the matter, to fully understand what would be changed. The examples in the table above are not so clear for me. English isn't my native language.

To answer Arikels question: I cleared Future tense because I interpreted the style guide in this way especially this part: "Use present tense when describing potential events and conditional outcomes".

And yes we should avoid ambiguity especially for non-native englisgh speakers. This wiki is read and used by many people who are not have english as their native language. So understanding and using the wiki should be as simple and easy as possible, even it would then be less stylish. Accessibility, readabilty, usability all that goes over style. Hawkeye (talk) 19:15, 17 January 2026 (CET)

Readabilty and usability are precisely features of this argument; they do not in any way impact accessibility.

Here is the argument again, in a nutshell:

Proposal: Clarifying Tense in Conditional Statement

To improve the readability and usability of the wiki, we should replace the current "Potential" vs. "Possible" event categories with a clearer distinction: Game Mechanics vs. Narrative Consequences.

The current guide is ambiguous because "potential" and "possible" mean almost the same thing. By categorizing based on what is being described, we create a clear rule for contributors to follow.

1. Game Mechanics (Present Tense)

Rule: Use the simple present tense for items, spells, buffs, and combat logic. Why: These are "hard rules" of the game engine. If the condition is met, the result happens immediately as part of the game's logic.

• Logic: If [Action], then [State].
• Example 1: If you use this spell, you regain 10 Hit Points.
• Example 2: While wearing this armour, you take 2 less Slashing damage.
• Example 3: If an opponent misses, the Reeling status is removed.

2. Narrative Consequences (Future Tense)

Rule: Use the future tense (will) for story developments, NPC reactions, and plot outcomes. Why: These describe a chronological sequence. The result is a "prediction" of what happens next in the story.

• Logic: If [Choice], then [Future Event] will happen.
• Example 1: If you reject Withers, he will later ask why you are alone.
• Example 2: If Gale accepts the proposal, he will become a magistrate.
• Example 3: If you spare the goblin, she will appear in Act 2.

Quick-Reference Comparison

For contributors, use this simple test: "Is this a rule of a spell/item, or a change in the story?"

If it is a Game Rule / Mechanic then use Present Tense: "The target falls Prone."

If it is a Story / Plot Event then use Future Tense: "The camp will become hostile."

Why this supports Accessibility and Usability

1. Reduced Mental Load for Editors: Editors no longer have to guess if an event is "potential" or "possible." They only need to identify if they are writing about a mechanic or a story beat.
2. Consistency for Non-Native Speakers: "Rules = Present" and "Story = Future" is a much easier concept to translate and apply than subtle distinctions between degrees of possibility.
3. Standardization with Source Material: This aligns the wiki with the D&D 5e Player’s Handbook and other major RPG wikis, making the transition easier for veteran contributors.
4. Clarity for the Reader: Using the present tense for mechanics (e.g., "the condition is removed") signals to the reader that the effect is an instantaneous functional change. Using "will" for the story signals a consequence that they should look out for later.
   
   

Implementation Example: The Adamantine Armour

To address the specific ambiguity in the Adamantine example:

• Old Version (Ambiguous): "If an opponent is sent Reeling... the Reeling from Adamantine Shield is not applied." (Mixing "is" and "is not").
• New Standard (Mechanical/Present): "If an opponent is sent Reeling on hit, the Reeling from Adamantine Shield is not applied. If they miss, the status is removed."

This remains in the present tense because it is a functional mechanic. It is a "general truth" of how the armour works every time it is used.
Raelin (talk) 20:12, 17 January 2026 (CET)

I'm no grammar/style expert but seems sensible to me. Taylan (talk) 20:15, 17 January 2026 (CET)

Part of the issue here is describing the rule/solution in a way that is clear, cogent and brief for the reader. I believe this is what Hawkeye was getting at, especially with regard any examples that would appear in the style guide. This is an understandable and reasonable concern, which is why I elucidated in my reply to them. Part of what bothers me with the style guide is that it gives the how of following the rules, but not the why. I've always had a problem with not knowing the 'why' and the reasoning behind it. It generates friction within me, and (doubtlessly) others as well (it's merely a matter of how many others}.

IMO, many - if not most -parts of style guide should be re-worked to include the 'why' behind all its rules. When readers understand the why, we will see more compliance in faith and form, as well as more genuinely constructive criticism, like this.
Raelin (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2026 (CET)Raelin (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2026 (CET)

Do you have a typo the adamantine armour example? Both the old and new version have the same structure of "is ... is not". NtCarlson (talk) 20:28, 17 January 2026 (CET)

I probably mixed items/examples from revision histories in a somewhat haphazard fashion. I think Hawkeye fixed any discrepancies. Raelin (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2026 (CET)

What I still don't get is, your examples of the "If [Choice], then [Future Event] will happen." Those examples are already covered in the style guide as I understand it.

What about, for example: if you deceive the guards then they let you in the room . In my opinion present tense should be used here, to make it clear it happens immediately and to distinguish it from things that happen later in the game, e.g. if you spare the goblin, she will appear 'later' in Act 2.

If we change the style guide to use future tense here, then many many pages must be edited, because on most pages future tense is avoided in those cases. And the text is already accessible and understandable. So we would do very much work just for style.

What we should do imho is to add some more clear examples for the use of the tenses to the style guide.

And I'm not sure if it is good the explain very rule in the style guide. If we would explain all the "why" of the style guide rules then the style guide would be endless. And the important things, the rules themselves get lost among the texts explaining the "why". And I think, it would be hard to explain all the "why" properly because sometimes it may be only a matter of taste.

There's no need to discuss in haphazard fashion and there's also no need to decide this in a rush, i.e. today. Hawkeye (talk) 21:25, 17 January 2026 (CET)

Indeed "possible" and "potential" are too similar to distinguish them properly. Maybe we should remove them and instead distinguish between conditional events which happen immediately and those which happen later in the game. Hawkeye (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2026 (CET)

Agreed. No need to rush. Raelin (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2026 (CET)

My two cents are that while I do find the verb tenses across the wiki unnatural and a bit frustrating to write in, Hawkeye is right that it's far too large of a change that would yield far too little benefit. I think a rewrite of the style guide would necessarily require the current fundamentals to remain largely untouched, only clarified and with more examples. I'm much more interested in adding new rules to the style guide, as it feels like the majority of the time it doesn't address the actual style questions I encounter when editing articles. Anything Random (talk) 02:04, 19 January 2026 (CET)

If, for example, verb tenses are found by seasoned editors to be unnatural and frustrating then that clearly speaks to why the style guide should be changed. By doing this, future edits would be done in better accordance with established writing and editing guidelines.

The work of past edits and writing is, in my eyes, of little relevance to the issue. I for one would not expect others to have any responsibility or duty to "fix" this kind of prior work (though I certainly would whenever I saw it), but we would have clearer standards going forward. In my mind, that's the point of any change to the style guide.
Raelin (talk) 02:37, 19 January 2026 (CET)

I don't think I can agree with that. In my view, consistency overshadows style. I would loathe a situation where some of the wiki is written in accordance with the old style guide and only parts of it are written in accordance with the new rules. I find the tense issue more of an annoyance than a serious problem; once someone is used to writing in that format, it becomes more or less second nature. I would rather follow some nonsense rules than end up with inconsistency by striving for perfection.

Though, if the other editors want to make major changes and commit to tackling the grammatical and stylistic "tech debt" that has accumulated across the wiki, I wouldn't be against it either. I would just hope that a serious effort is made to go back through the entire wiki and ensure consistency, which I doubt would actually happen. Anything Random (talk) 02:56, 19 January 2026 (CET)

My guess is probably not, but I am not in favor of leaving vague and/erroneous guidelines in place, for reasons clearly stated earlier above.

To me, it's essentially saying "We know this is wrong, but we'll leave it in place for the sake of consistency."

I understand that argument; I strongly disagree with it. Raelin (talk) 03:04, 19 January 2026 (CET)