User talk:The Krit/Archive 5

Thank you
Hi Mr. Krit, and thank you for the welcome message! Nose maj ? XD 00:34, 25 January 2011

Pirate Isles
Hi The Krit,

I am completely new to contributing to a wiki. I thought I followed the instructions correctly when I added the article at this link: http://nwn.wikia.com/wiki/Pirate_Isles_of_Forgotten_Realms however, even though I added that article the Gameworlds category, I do not see this world listed on the page at this link: http://nwn.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Gameworlds.

Any advice you can offer would be most welcome!

I am not sure how you would respond to this, so I will check your profile periodically, or you can e-mail me at yago@caramail.com.

Thanks for your help!! -- 24.79.5.196 15:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It's there, right after Path of Ascension (in the third column). Maybe your browser is using a cached version from before you creating the article? Have you tried reloading the category page? --The Krit 18:16, January 1, 2011 (UTC)


 * That must have been it, because it does show up now, hooray! Thanks! --24.79.5.196 2:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

PW ordinary player able to choose who he sees talking?
hi i dont know if there is abetter place to ask a question but do you know if there is any way for a player on a server to block certain other players so that nothing they say will be visible? no major problem so cannot ask for server DM to silence them but just dont like to hear some people, would not phsically stay in a room if they were present but dont know how to filter them out from ingame, is there a possible way? thanks! **edit for name Nose maj ** 13:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think there is no way to block chat from a specific player or PC. However, I never tried, so there might be something I'm missing. What you can do is not stay in the same area as them, and if needed filter shouts out of the chat window (right-click the top of the chat window -- where you can grab it to make it shorter or taller -- and you should get a radial menu, the leftmost option of which toggles the presence of shouts in that window). --The Krit 15:56, January 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * PS When leaving a comment/question in a talk page, it is polite to identify oneself. If you do not supply a name -- possibly by logging in if you have an account -- you get identified by your IP address. If you want to get rid of the IP address signature, please provide a name of some sort in its place. (Your IP address will still be visible in the page history, though, unless you are logged in.) --The Krit 15:56, January 25, 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for replay to question Nose maj :) 17:00, 25 January 2011


 * See? Now you have a name. Isn't it nice to have an identity to call your own? :) --The Krit 17:35, January 25, 2011 (UTC)

Any chance of having the old style layout as an option?
Haven't been to the wiki in awhile, and I have to say, this new look is a big design no-no. Large blocks of white text on dark backgrounds are exceedingly difficult to read. I'm sure a lot of people went to a lot of trouble to give the wiki a new look, but frankly, I find it almost unusable. Any chance of keeping an alternate CSS link at the top of the page so we can switch back to the old (and legible) style? I know how to block it, and force it to use my own, but not everyone can do that. Just a suggestion.

Thanks! --207.237.84.134 2:54, 2 February 2011


 * Wikia has decided that each wiki can have only two options for skins. Oasis is the default, and logged-in users can use Special:Preferences to choose MonoBook instead. (MonoBook is still a dark-on-light scheme.) The old default style (Monaco, which offered both light-on-dark and dark-on-light options) is no longer available, and Wikia has said repeatedly that there is no chance of it being offered as an option. --The Krit 03:51, February 2, 2011 (UTC)


 * Originally, I thought the choice was between the more limited functionality but nice look of a years old stylesheet (Monaco) and the expanded functionality but dark, eyestraining look of the new layout (Oasis). But it doesn't seem like Oasis really requires the eyestrain format (light text and mid-to-dark links on a dark background) because other wikia wikis don't have it (e.g. http://nintendo.wikia.com/wiki/Nintendo_Wiki). Is there some reason we can't have a wiki with more of the reference book look of black text on a light page?
 * (I know that Oasis insists on the inflexible-width format that breaks many of our tables and adds a lot of space-wasting headers, but those are separate issues. For now, I'd love to just be able to use the wiki without my eyes hurting.) - MrZork 17:39, February 17, 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no "choice" about Monaco. Monaco is gone. So is my preferred skin, called simply "simple skin" (even older than Monaco). The current choice is between MonoBook (a years-old stylesheet -- older than Monaco -- with less functionality than Monaco or Oasis, similar to the old default for Wikipedia -- preview) and Oasis (the new default skin for Wikia -- preview). Since the functionality of Monaco is not yet that much less than the functionality of Oasis, maybe you meant the choice between Monobook and Oasis? Hmmm... maybe an example of Monaco might be good so everyone can see what the different terms mean. Let's see... Wikipedia still has a screenshot that I was able to find easily enough: Monaco screenshot, compared with current look. (In case that image link gets broken in the future, the media page for it is here.)
 * As for the choice between "nice" and "eyestraining", I find you have that backwards. For me, dark-on-light is eyestraining while light-on-dark is less so. I just complain less and put up with it more because the it seems the world has decided that computer screens should mimic the restrictions of print media, where black ink and white paper is much easier/cheaper than white ink and black paper. (I think this one can legitimately get blamed on Microsoft, but I won't get into that here.) However, for logged-in users there is another option. Someone else has requested an override of NWNWiki's colors to make Oasis here be dark-on-light. I can copy that override to your account as well, if you'd like. (Just give me some time to get to it. I think I can do a better job than I did that last time, so I'll make an improved version instead of just copying it.) --The Krit 19:48, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

If you can copy an override to my account that would be awesome! In fact, even a pointer to a Monaco-like theme and an install guide would be great and I could tweak it myself. I actually googled around until I stumbled on the |Wikia Theme Designer and created a theme that I liked. But, I didn't see an option for getting the CSS output. I looked at the page source and copied the info from the sassParams line to what I thought was my theme CSS, but I apparently missed / mangled a step somewhere. Thanks -MrZork 23:42, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * You are right that I meant Monobook instead of Monaco. I would be happy to have Monaco back as an option.
 * And, of course, what works best for some may not be best for others. I prefer the Wikipedia look over the dark look, but I understand that will be an individual preference. I also think that it looks better with many of our pages that appear to have been put together with a lighter background in mind, but I suppose that's an aesthetic judgment as well.


 * I've dropped a copy of a dark-on-light scheme into your account. The problem you seem to have had is that the name for the CSS used by Oasis is, not  . As for the pages designed for the lighter background, I've been trying to make them adaptable to different current color schemes when I see them, but they are scattered around (and I have not felt up to tackling the class pages yet). I would rather see the formatting be flexible, so everyone can see them with their preferred color scheme. (The ability of each user to choose a color scheme is one of the few features of Monaco I liked.) --The Krit 05:07, February 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * Very cool! Now things look good and I can twiddle with the layout to my heart's content. Thank you very much! -MrZork 14:56, February 18, 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Things have gone dark again. Has there been some change to the wikia defaults that is overriding or not overridden by my wikia.css? - MrZork 04:29, July 28, 2011 (UTC)


 * Not that I know of, but I can take a look at this later. --The Krit 05:49, July 28, 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you. For now, to return to the default oasis theme, I have cleared my wikia.css and copied what you had there before to the unused main.css for storage. Somehow, whatever change has taken place a couple days ago brought back the black background, but kept my modified grey text, a combo that was too hard to read.
 * Sorry I don't know enough about style sheets to do this on my own. It would be great if the Wikia Theme Designer (link above) output css code that could be copied to a user's wikia.css. - MrZork 20:27, July 28, 2011 (UTC)


 * I have a partial fix that will at least put the main background back to light. Add the line
 * #WikiaPageBackground { background: #efefef; }
 * to what was in your wikia.css. I may have to go back to the theme designer and regenerate the .css later. Or maybe I'll get around to making an official suggestion to Wikia with a proposal that would make this process a lot simpler. --The Krit 20:39, July 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * Found a better fix and edited the above. --The Krit 15:12, July 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * Found a better fix and edited the above. --The Krit 15:12, July 29, 2011 (UTC)


 * That is great! It's all back to normal. Thank you so much. - MrZork 04:34, July 31, 2011 (UTC)

BioWare giveaway
We have launched a BioWare giveaway across all of Wikia's BioWare wikis and added info about it to this wiki's community corner. You can find more details here. Ausir(talk) 23:29, February 9, 2011 (UTC)


 * Just a little addendum for others who might be reading this: the above link now includes the list of winners. --The Krit 20:10, March 15, 2011 (UTC)

Rephrasing other people's posts
please undo any rephrase changes you made to the heart of winter page, i dont have time to read it all but at a glance i see griefing rule is now incorrect due to rephrasing, this is CR tyoe area not literal area and many newcomers misunderstanding this even wehn it phrased preperly and they read. please dont rephrase what i write unless you are 100% its correct thanks. i dont bother with 'edit wars' or anything but i wont contribute anymore if this is how it will be Nose maj 23:22, 13 February 2011


 * Sorry, but holding off on edits that you are not 100% sure about goes against the wiki philosophy of everyone contributing what they can. (If that was our standard for people making efforts, this wiki probably would never have grown past a dozen articles or so.) So that is not going to happen. On the other hand, there is a wide area between being 100% correct and being involved in an edit war. (It is good that you would resort to a talk page before edit warring, though.) Collaborative writing tends to involve a sequence of edits as each person tries to improve what the others (or themselves) have written so that in the end, the result is something better than any individual could have done. This sort of back-and-forth is not an edit war unless the edits are merely undoing what the other has done. (And in this respect, a comment on a talk page along the lines of "revert your edit or else" is really little more productive than an edit war; it's just relocated to another -- and admittedly more appropriate -- venue.)

As for the parts specific to Heart of Winter, I'm going to take that over to Talk:Heart of Winter, as discussions about a specific article really should be on that article's talk page, in part so that everyone interested in the page can contribute. --The Krit 17:05, February 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * I am reacting at this specific words "goes against the wiki philosophy of everyone contributing what they can.". In this wiki, if anyone contribute with anything, you will immediately modify it again The Krit with rules you created, this wiki seems to me to be only yours rather then a contributors'. Personally considering ending my "career" there long time ago. I could contribute much much more, but why when you deciding about everything there? --ShaDoOoW 17:10, February 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, keep rephrasing, as I know you may be better at editing - some stupid comments must be erased, while those who have a piece of useful info can always be an addition, it just needs to be written in other words. Also, I thank you for a warm welcome. MysteryStranger 20:47, July 8, 2011 (UTC)

Hello
Hey there, and thanks for the welcome. I visit the wiki enough, I decided I should just get an account and actually start to give a little back. Even if it feels like the wiki is nearly done.

Woops, forgot to sign. DrPiranha 04:31, February 15, 2011 (UTC)

About using templates
Hello, TK! Could you either link me to the applicable "How-to" instructions or explain how to merge a template into an existing article, please? Never tried this before. Muchas gracias, amigo.--Iconclast 21:44, February 21, 2011 (UTC)


 * Just surround the name of the template in curly braces, as in   to get the disambiguation notice at the top of some pages. Well, that's how to use them with wikitext and the standard editor. I have no idea what you're supposed to do in the WYSIWYG rich text editor -- I never use it. If you're using the WYSIWYG editor and don't want to change, you might want to experiment over at NWNWiki:Sandbox to see if you can get the otheruses template to work. (There is some more information at Help:Templates, but nothing mentioning the WYSIWYG editor specifically.) --The Krit 22:13, February 21, 2011 (UTC)

some neverwinter nights creature articles are classified stub, some don't, even when the stats aren't filled in yet. can i remove the stub whenever i notice them or actually add stub to the not filled in ones? --Pimpernell 02:01, July 30, 2011 (UTC)


 * The ones that are missing stats and are not marked as "stub" were probably overlooked and should be marked as stubs. I wouldn't bother actively seeking out creature articles to mark as stubs though -- the primary purpose of the "stub" designation is to attract attention from someone who will make them non-stubs, and all the creature articles are already on a list for getting looked at. --The Krit 02:50, July 30, 2011 (UTC)

Horse script
Just noticed by default 1.69 update the script nw_ch_ac7 cannot compile cause of "ERROR: DUPLICATE FUNCTION IMPLEMENTATION (SetBehaviorState)". Dunno if you want to fix that in your alternate horse script. ILKAY 01:33, June 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * The BioWare version of  compiles just fine under 1.69 in an empty module with an empty override (and with no modifications to the .key/.bif files). --The Krit 06:13, June 11, 2011 (UTC)

Thank you and question
A really brilliant work, I read since so long, so finally I can take a few minutes to thank you Krit for all this good job well done. Just congrats, I could find basically whatever I was looking for.

Technical question : is it possible to shield from an neutral dragon aura ? (pro-evil vs evil, pro-good vs goods, but neutral ones ? there is Clarity I guess, or else ?) --Kilnasaggart 21:00, June 12, 2011 (UTC)


 * Clarity, mind blank, and lesser mind blank provide protection from mind-affecting effects regardless of the alignment of the source. Items that provide immunity to fear (e.g. a lesser or greater belt of guiding light) are also rather effective, if you can find them. --The Krit 21:23, June 12, 2011 (UTC)

Dye kits
Hi there! Not sure if you are still updating on here but my question has to do with the dye kits. On the charts that you supplied for the colors and their codes, are those the last 3 digits of the tags?

I am trying to add pure black and pure white dyes to our mod and I am lost at trying to do so. I have all the updates as well as Cep 2.3 and there are still very limited dye colors.

Any help you can give me on this would be great! -- 74.194.0.184 02:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * First off, it would probably be better to ask this on the talk page for the dye kit article, since that is where the charts are located. (This would have the side effect of being directed at a wider audience, so might be answered by someone else before I get to look at it.) But the answer is quick, so I'll give it here. Yes, the numbers on the charts are the numbers for the tags. An item whose tag ends in 063 and has the dye kit item property should be dying things pure black. (It should also work if the tag ends in a non-digit followed by 63, but that's really for backwards compatibility.)
 * To help your trouble-shooting: Updating the game should have no effect on pure black or pure white. (The colors affected by patches are the ones after pure black -- added by patch 1.67 -- and the last color, for which the default script was fixed in 1.69.) CEP did not affect dyes or color choices the last time I looked. If you are more interested in getting more dyes than getting your custom dye kit to work, you might want to look at All Dye Kits (pre-1.67) or Omnidye on the Vault. (I am a bit biased towards the latter.) If you are more interested in getting your custom dye kit to work, I might be able to help, but I would need more to go on than "lost at trying to do so". --The Krit 09:38, June 18, 2011 (UTC)

Weapons category/article
i was thinking to add a article about the holy avenger (long-sword) to prevent confusion with the holy avenger (item property). is that a good idea or just unnecessary? thx --Pimpernell 15:45, July 23, 2011 (UTC)


 * A single item seems to me to be a rather narrow topic for an article. Maybe an article detailing all the standard longswords or all the standard weapons (or whatever ends up being a good division of the standard items -- keep in mind that the plain +X weapons would just need to be listed as there is nothing special to be said about them, not even an interesting description). --The Krit 20:01, July 23, 2011 (UTC)


 * I was thinking about this some more, and remembered what someone did for whips. Listing the specific longsword items in the longsword article may be the best way to go about this. (Although spiffier formatting than what was done for whips might not be a bad idea.) --The Krit 19:15, July 24, 2011 (UTC)


 * alright, i can make a start with that some day, but right now i'm trying to improve the original campaign article a bit. and since i'm not really skilled yet, it can take some time... and while on the topic of items, what would you think of having an article about the chapter 1 and 3 "forge" weapon/armors? i don't mind doing that, but i would definitely need your help for the overall layout :) --Pimpernell 19:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Guess I missed the question here earlier. Sorry. There are a few ways to go about this. One thing that might be worth considering is having sections in a campaign walk-through article (rather than a separate article on the forges) that deal with the two forges. (Walk-through information is still being added to the original campaign article, but I still think it should be separated into its own article.) --The Krit 15:21, August 8, 2011 (UTC)

on monster hit: stun
hi, do you know of a way to finding out more about the specifics on this property? i browsed the web for hours and the only bit of useful info was at nwnlexicon, but doesn't really help me. right now i'm gonna test out a custom monster with on monster hit: stun, but i doubt it will be so easy to find out the specifics. thx --Pimpernell 14:56, July 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * What sort of specifics? --The Krit 15:01, July 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * well, there doesn't seem to be much info on the DC of the different "on monster hit" properties, like stun. there is no stun spell other than power word stun. or does it work like on-hit stun but without a DC? --Pimpernell 15:14, July 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, found the DC and will add it to the on-hit article. Also, it's not a spell you should be looking for (that would be "on-hit: cast spell"), but an effect, in this case stunned. --The Krit 18:56, July 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * thx a lot. i just found it out myself while testing. DC/duration 10/round goes up by 1 every 3 levels, against will save vs spells :) --Pimpernell 19:31, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

Portraits
hi, i was wondering how you get such nice portraits uploaded. i probably do it wrong, but right now i use leto to add a specific portrait to a PC and then make a game save with it. then i open the save game portrait.tga with XnView (first i used pixillion but the results were not so good) to crop the bottom part, resize and save as jpg. or is it possible to extract large sized portaits from .bif files? --Pimpernell 00:10, July 28, 2011 (UTC)


 * nevermind, i found how to do it on the web finally. just extract the bif with NWN Viewer. awesome! --Pimpernell 00:41, July 28, 2011 (UTC)

first, thx for properly renaming the files, i sometimes forget and then i couldn't rename the file :( but i try to keep up with the current style. another thing, about the nymph/syren. i just got confused by NWN Viewer as it calls the file syren. won't happen again. --Pimpernell 13:29, July 28, 2011 (UTC)


 * You are using this? I tried it and was able to see both "po_nymph_" and "po_syren_". --The Krit 13:53, July 28, 2011 (UTC)


 * yeah, that's the one i use. so i guess i need glasses ;) but how on earth did you find the drider portrait and those other weird ones of the flayers? i could've sworn i didn't see those anywhere in the nwn directory, which is weird since toolset uses them too. i probably need to look better... --Pimpernell 17:12, July 28, 2011 (UTC)


 * Those are portraits from Hordes of the Underdark, and NWN Viewer was not updated for the expansions. I use NWN Explorer (or the earlier version, but the earlier version does not automatically open  from patch 1.69). I would have suggested it earlier, but NWN Viewer seemed to be working out for you.
 * By the way, I'm not sure how you go about looking for the portraits, but I get the portrait name from the Toolset so I can navigate directly to the file in NWN Explorer. Original portraits are in, while portraits introduced with either expansion are in   (part of the HotU main data). After I find a portrait, I do a quick comparison with what I see in the Toolset to verify it has not been changed in a patch, then I export it. (Portraits changed or added by a patch would be in  , filed under "HotU Patch Data" in NWN Explorer.) One exception is that patch data from before the release of Hordes is included as part of the Hordes main data. Anyway, the point is that I spend very little time in NWN Explorer when exporting portraits. --The Krit 17:56, July 28, 2011 (UTC)


 * np man, my bad. i got both explorer and viewer like a week ago and i'm very green in using both, so i just forgot viewer wasn't for the expansion material :) i only used it because it let's you select multiple files, and i wanted to have all the portraits in one place... thx for waking me up and mentioning the other explorer with file search. very handy. --Pimpernell 00:29, July 29, 2011 (UTC)

what about the quality of portraits? i like to upload with best quality but if i do that the files will be around 30-40 KB. is that a problem? i just use a free editor (XnView) and as standard it converts with 80% quality (10-15 KB) and if i do 50% files are around 10 KB but won't look as good. pls help, thx. --Pimpernell 23:25, July 29, 2011 (UTC)


 * It looks like I've been saving .jpg's at 85% quality. Going above ~90% is probably not worth it (for use on a wiki) as you get very little observable improvement, but the file size can increase dramatically. Going too low does introduce noticeable defects, so should be avoided. What works best might vary from image to image, but something in the 80-90% range is probably a good idea. --The Krit 23:44, July 29, 2011 (UTC)

Recruiting
I have an question for you. I would know if you would like that more contributors come edit. So... would you like or not, because I have an plan in mind. --MysteryStranger 12:03, 29 July 2011


 * I guess that depends on what you had in mind. I disagree with Wikia's implied position that each person who reads a wiki should be expected to become a contributor. --The Krit 14:21, July 29, 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean that everyone who comes here to look to become an editor. I meant that we could attract more people, some of them wishing to become editors. Do you understand? MysteryStranger 14:27, July 29, 2011 (UTC)


 * You still haven't said what you have in mind. --The Krit 14:48, July 29, 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes - I was thinking, what if we advertised this wiki? In addition, what if we have some achivements if anyone contributes? Think of this as restoring "fame". MysteryStranger 14:56, July 29, 2011 (UTC)


 * Advertise where? If you know of a NWN site that should link here but doesn't, go ahead and suggest a link to whoever is appropriate. (NWNWiki is already linked to from a sticky in the general NWN forum over at the BioWare social site, which is probably the most important place to have a link.) As for achievements, what point would they serve other than trying to convert readers to editors (something I have already expressed disagreement with)? If someone wants to edit, they'll edit, no bribery required. --The Krit 16:00, July 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * You could advertise like wiki links on the bottom of the page(s). As for achivements, they were like a... suggestion, nothing personal. Also, don't you think this wiki is a bit lonely? MysteryStranger 16:12, July 29, 2011 (UTC)


 * We could, but I guess I do not see the point in spotlighting to a bunch of non-players of NWN a resource for players of NWN. And "lonely"? That implies a social context, but this is a wiki, a source of information, not a social networking site. (There is a community of editors, but that is a secondary consequence, not a primary goal. When my intent is to virtually interact with other players of NWN, I look elsewhere.) So, no, I probably would not describe this, or any, wiki as "lonely". --The Krit 19:48, July 29, 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean to insult, if that's what you are wondering. But this advertisement isn't for all people. I would think like this - people play Neverwinter Nights, they see a wiki about it and think "I would like to see this". Do you understand? MysteryStranger 21:37, July 29, 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand all of that except the part where this would reach someone who plays Neverwinter Nights. If this was still in the game's heyday, or even if it was common to see the game in a store, then I'd think you have a point. But with the game being a bit over 9 years old, only available through GOG.com, and the player base steadily decreasing? I'm not one of the people saying NWN is dead, but at the same time it is certainly not enjoying the same widespread use as it once did. But that does remind me -- we probably should have a link to GOG somewhere. And let's see... yes, their forum does have a link here. Good. I had overlooked them before, but a link from GOG to here could be about as important as a link from BioWare's site to here. --The Krit 23:54, July 29, 2011 (UTC)

Porting old site info
Hello there, Krit! As you may have noticed, I am new at this wiki. Thing is, I am not new at the game at all: I've owned it since it came out, and quite frequently unshelf it to play a little. If I remember correctly, one very useful information site for newbies was the old nwn.bioware.com. As we all know, it has been taken offline because of security concerns on the part of BioWare/EA. As I am new here, I thought it might be best to ask you if it is okay doing this before actually doing it: would you mind if I started creating a few articles to keep this information safe here (i.e.: About Neverwinter Nights would contain the old site's "About NWN" section)? --Thereallarkas 15:32, July 30, 2011 (UTC)


 * Pages from nwn.bioware.com should not be copied directly, as the site format is different. Content could be added to appropriate articles (such as was done for the Neverwinter Nights article), just make sure the article is appropriate. On the other hand, if what you are really interested in is cloning the old site (even though BioWare has indicated that they intend to bring it back in some form), you might want to get involved with www.neverwinternights.info/. --The Krit 16:25, July 30, 2011 (UTC)


 * Tell you what, I'll adapt the "About" section from the old site and post it here to let you see it. I'll let you decide if it is appropriately written and filed, and if it's relevant. I will, of course, also post links to the original source, or at least to where it used to be at. Also, don't worry, I'll try my best so you DON'T have to mess with it, so it's not like I'm pushing work onto you :) And I'll see about that site too, thanks for the link! --Thereallarkas 23:02, July 30, 2011 (UTC)


 * There it is: About Neverwinter Nights. I still have to do the "Awards" and "Previews and Reviews" sections, but those will take considerable time to do because of all the offsite links, so I thought it was better for you to see what was already done before continuing. Oh, please note the disclaimer at the page bottom. --Thereallarkas 18:18, July 31, 2011 (UTC)

Correction: There is no need to merge the first answer to "What is Neverwinter Nights?" into Neverwinter Nights since that article is already that answer wikified. Looks like someone else had already (long ago) thought to merge the "About" section from the old site into NWNWiki, but had done so with a stronger eye towards wiki organization. --The Krit 23:16, August 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * When I said the format was different, I was not referring to the language; simply converting HTML to wikicode does not convert an arbitrary web page to an appropriate wiki article. It is the organization of information that is different in a wiki. There is no reason I can think of for a wiki article to begin with "About"; all wiki articles are about something. If you want that information in NWNWiki, I suggest breaking it up by subject and sticking it in relevant articles. (For example, the answers to the two "What is Neverwinter Nights?" questions would get merged and go in the Neverwinter Nights article. However, you seem to be interested in simply copying the old BioWare site content as-is, and the result would not be appropriate for a wiki. I really think you should be contacting the Amethyst Dragon at builder@neverwinternights.info to see if these copies have a place at that site, where it probably would need much less re-organization. (Even better would be having the information in both sites, since having it presented in two different ways makes it more accessible to a larger number of people. However, might as well start with the easier one, right?) --The Krit 18:56, July 31, 2011 (UTC)


 * Got it. Well, I'll try wikifying that content when I have the time. And I'll talk to AD, I just don't know how much I'll be able to help, I don't have much time to commit to a website :/ --Thereallarkas 22:05, August 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * I just went to check what your article looked like and it was very scary. Its like a giant wall of text. I would agree with TK on this. You should convert the old information in a wiki format. I am sure that there is a lot of useful information that could be added to the wiki this way. --Foxfire6 (Talk) 20:56, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

New articles
hi Krit, i'm about to add the Bugbears (see my notes to self) but officially some share the same name (the A and B come from the tag/resref). how should i do this? thx. --Pimpernell 23:16, July 31, 2011 (UTC)


 * Do they have the same stats (or nearly so)? If so, just do one article with both portraits. (For example, see skeleton warrior.) --The Krit 23:35, July 31, 2011 (UTC)


 * aha. when i painted them in earlier, at the least they looked different with different weapons. and i do that probably only on creatures that share the same name right? because the Satyr and Satyr warrior, i added earlier, are exactly the same except for the skin. back later, watching movie. --Pimpernell 02:07, August 1, 2011 (UTC)


 * The satyr warrior should at least get listed in the category (which can be done with a redirect), and it might be best to give it its own article. --The Krit 18:22, August 1, 2011 (UTC)


 * okay, they already have their own article so it's good. --Pimpernell 19:08, August 1, 2011 (UTC)

Another question though. the "scales of truth" in the recipes of the forge is of the banded and splint mail type. how do i link it? or should i add it to both articles. also can you check breastplate article and tell me if you like the edits i made. i think it's a bit more reader friendly this way than was done with the article on the whip. thx --Pimpernell 19:08, August 1, 2011 (UTC)


 * It might be time to merge banded and splint mail into a single article. Maybe not. I guess for now just pick one of the two for the ambiguous armors (and be consistent with that choice). As for breastplate, it looks like it will get too busy-looking with a section for each item, but we'll see how it goes. --The Krit 16:44, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

alright, i made a link from the same property armors to the forged armors. let me know if you disagree. --Pimpernell 21:09, August 1, 2011 (UTC)

i've made some redirect pages for the special weapons/armors i added, so people looking for say "whitebone armor" go to the "half plate" page. but it feels a bit weird... i mean, if i'm gonna make a (empty) redirect page for every of those items, i might as well make "complete" articles instead. i'm confused... oh...or should i add the names of those items to a category page? like this Sentinel --Pimpernell 01:45, August 3, 2011 (UTC)


 * Not sure. Documenting the standard items is a big project that I have not done more than look at in passing. --The Krit 16:30, August 3, 2011 (UTC)

i'm also slightly confused about the need of a "toolset" section containing a blueprint category link on every item page. some have it some don't. --Pimpernell 16:26, August 3, 2011 (UTC)


 * Some articles were edited by whoever it was that added those sections, some were not. The blueprint categories are another big project that never got finished. --The Krit 16:30, August 3, 2011 (UTC)

New (un)official website for NWN.
Hi, as you surely already knows Amethyst Dragon put together a good website as a replacement for the old official one which is now gone. I think that the circumstances and origin of this new website with its http adress should be also documented on this wiki. I would do it myself, but dont know where. --ShaDoOoW 12:24, August 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * What makes that site more notable than the other unofficial web sites about NWN? --The Krit 15:37, August 26, 2011 (UTC)

Main Page
Hey, would you guys mind if I switch around the main page so that the Advertisement fits in better? I won't change any content, just the look and organization. Let me know.  PORTERFIELD  01:10, October 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * Revising the layout is on my "to do" list. --The Krit 13:51, October 7, 2011 (UTC)

Administration
I was wondering, how do you become an admin on this wiki? I'm asking because I fear there will be a day when there will be a stupid offender deleting content. And who will ban him if you're logged off and no one can stop him (or her)? MysteryStranger: Trust in the power of Infinity! 19:17, October 10, 2011 (UTC)

It is a reasonable concern, but I wouldn't waste too much energy worrying about it. --The Krit 21:45, October 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * The ones who can make others admins on a wiki are the bureaucrats, and on NWNWiki the only bureaucrat is Austicke. As for stopping a vandal, the Wikia staff help out with that when no admins are online. But there hasn't been a serious problem like that in years (and the last time NWNWiki came under a massive prolonged vandalism attack, there were probably 4 or 5 active admins, none of which were logged in at the time, so adding admins is not a guarantee of anything). If it does happen, you could leave a message here on my talk page and on Austicke's talk page, which will send us email alerts to get our attention. You could also try special:contact (well, special:contact/general to be more precise) to contact Wikia staff, but that might be a slower response. In most cases, though, vandalism is fairly limited in scope, in which case reverting the vandalism is more important than banning, and you don't have to be an admin to revert vandalism.
 * All right, I read your note. I hope any staff will be able to react in time. Though I do wonder why aren't you leaving replies on my talk page? MysteryStranger: Trust in the power of Infinity! 20:28, October 12, 2011 (UTC)


 * Because the conversation was started here, not there, and conversations are a lot easier to follow when they are in one place. Is it that hard to remember that you asked a question here? (If so, you could always follow the talk page until a reply is made.) --The Krit 20:46, October 12, 2011 (UTC)

What is bug, whats not and whether to link to the custom content fixing it or not
So what is the definition you use for bugs? As although your opinion on some issues is that they are not a bug, then you yourself consider something else to be a bug. The notes about bugs on the wiki are scattered, somewhere its carefuly pointed as "it might be bug" or oversight, somewhere else its pointed as a clear bug and somewhere else its design intent.

Then there are links to the custom content which fixes them. Im not sure if its appropriate anymore, I mean look at my patch project, there is like thousands issues in spells that are not yet noted in this wiki. Plus my project also contains the previous spellfixes from ILKAY and yours familiar fixes. One could say that if there is a link to these older projects, there can be a link to my project, but this way it would be soon overlinked here, also "over-noted" as well. --ShaDoOoW 14:25, November 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * A bug is an instance of a program not behaving as intended. In the specific case of Neverwinter Nights, a bug occurs when the game does not behave as BioWare wants it to work (which in many cases is different than how ShaDoOoW wants it to work). It can be difficult at times to determine what BioWare intended, which is why some notes qualify bug claims as "might". In other cases, BioWare provided documentation as to what was intended, so those cases can usually be definitively labeled "bug" or "working as designed". ("Usually" because sometimes the documentation is out-of-date; BioWare has changed some design decisions after the initial release.) The "oversights" are generally things that are inconsistent with other features, that are caused by a lack (usually of limited scope) of code for something, and that are not documented one way or the other. The intent of labeling oversights as such is mostly to confirm to readers that the inconsistency exists.
 * As for the links to fixes, they seem acceptable to me as long as they only fix bugs. The familiar and animal companion fixes are an example of this, as they simply give those creatures the creature items whose names indicate they were intended for those creatures. The links to spell fixes, on the other hand, are something I have objected to since it was brought to my attention that the package did more than just fix bugs, but there was enough disagreement (some of it from you, as I recall) that I did not hunt down the links and delete them. As for your pet project, it may have some fixes in it, but it also has a lot of customizations, making the game work more how ShaDoOoW wants it to work rather than how BioWare wants it to work. (This is not intrinsically a bad thing, but it would be wrong to call the customizations "fixes".) For that reason, the comparison to projects that only fixed things is invalid. Your pet project, despite the name you chose to give it, is not a collection of (just) fixes. No, it should not be linked to as a fix for known bugs, as it brings with it too many other changes.
 * Furthermore, one could (perhaps more convincingly) say that if there is a link to an older project that fixes a specific bug, there should not be a link to a newer project that simply repeats or repackages the fix, as the original project is the one that should be getting the credit. --The Krit 15:54, November 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, you are right that my pet project contains not only fixes, as I sometimes considered Bioware's old intents to be outdated and not making sense (spellscrolls used by divine casters with low UMD rank) or sometimes I understood the Bioware intent (which wasn't documented anywhere) differently than you for example (this is case of ILR and lvl 41+ issue). So I agree with your definition of bug (maybe could be noted in the Bug page which is more like stub), oversight etc. and also with the linking then. However it might be shame not to link my pet project for the unique fixes that wasn't included in any previous package (and there is definitely many of them), though I'm not saying it should be (as my project has own pages here), but it might be case of different custom content which for example brings also, lets say, some retextures? Also in the particular of the spellfixes, my pet project is actually a new version of the same project as it rised there with ILKAY - I mean, if there is a CC package with fixes and someone else makes a new version of them later, where he fixes something inside (mobile circle AOEs for example not working properly in the ILKAY's package) and maybe adds some other fixes, then I think this version should be given links to. --ShaDoOoW 16:49, November 4, 2011 (UTC)

Talk pages and their sometime useless content
Do we really need the discussion about "how to change the current article" to be there once this discussion comes to closure? It has no relevance to regular users, so why keep it? --ShaDoOoW 12:53, November 9, 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't know which discussion you are referring to specifically, but in general, yes, we keep all discussions from talk pages. A major reason for this is so that other editors can see what has been discussed before, so we do not end up going in circles with edits. As such, the discussions continue to have relevance. As for "regular users", if you mean people who read the wiki with no intention of editing it, then the talk pages as a whole have no relevance to them, so arguing that individual pieces have no relevance is pointless. --The Krit 17:03, November 9, 2011 (UTC)

My edits
I have thought about my edits for some time. Some articles I made (or I added info) you changed. I understand that it my info I put doesn't meet some "requirements", so to speak. Does that mean I'm not good at contributing? MysteryStranger: Trust in the power of Infinity! 20:57, November 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * All edits are subject to revision by others. That's how a wiki operates, with multiple people creating something better than any individual could have created. --The Krit 21:36, November 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * All right. Thanks. MysteryStranger: Trust in the power of Infinity! 21:38, November 14, 2011 (UTC)

Need Help Finding Damage Type Info
Hi, TK! Been hopping all around the wiki trying to find the default damage biases for creature types. For example, I believe there is a standard percentage bludgeoning vulnerability of undead and perhaps a similar bias for slashing vs. animals or some such relationship. I could have sworn this was listed in this wiki somewhere but cannot locate it. Can you please point me in the right direction? I am hoping there are broad categories rather than needing to check every creature blueprint in the bestiary. Mucho aprecio, amigo!--Iconclast 03:15, December 3, 2011 (UTC)


 * Skeletal creatures (like skeletons) tend to have 50% immunity to slashing and piercing damage. Mummies tend to have 50% immunity to all physical damage. Fire-based creatures tend to be 100% immune to fire damage, while cold-based creatures tend to be 100% immune to cold damage. Those are all the examples I can think of off the top of my head (unless you want to include resistances, as outsiders tend to have some elemental damage resistance, but the amount and types vary). Undead do not in general have vulnerability to bludgeoning (although this is one way to view a skeleton's lack of immunity to it), and animals tend to not have any special vulnerabilities or immunities to particular damage types. Or at least none that are popping into my head. I could be overlooking something, but I think the reason you could not find the default damage biases is that there are none. --The Krit 13:38, December 3, 2011 (UTC)


 * Are these examples based on the default creature skins or by some sort of hardcoded rule that the game uses? Adopting the verb "tend" in your explanation seems to infer there is a customizable bias rather than a rule of the game itself, though I may be interpreting your meaning incorrectly.  In any case, this snippet you've already furnished would come in handy but where would it most likely show up?  In the damage reduction or damage resistance articles?  In the creature descriptions section(s)?  Which brings me back to the reason I couldn't locate anything... just don't know where it would be best organized.  Dang!  I know I've seen a list like this somewhere.  I guess it wasn't the wiki, though.  You'd know that for sure.  Perhaps the d20 D&D site?--Iconclast 14:55, December 3, 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, you thinking that there are hardcoded aspects of races speaks well for BioWare's implementation. ;) --The Krit 16:09, December 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * Creature skins. The game has no hardcoded rules about this sort of thing. Even the undead immunities (e.g. to critical hits) are not a result of them being undead, but because they have a creature skin granting those immunities. The only hardcoded rules with regard to races that I can think of are the extra skill points for humans and the extra feat for human player characters. Oh, and favored enemies, but that's more an aspect of the feat than of the creature being targeted by someone with the feat.


 * I added the "skeletal undead" part to bludgeoning damage. Other than that, just having the info in the creature articles might be best. --The Krit 16:37, December 3, 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree, TK. Didn't realize until you confirmed it that it was solely a creature skin effect.  Am going to help my nephews compile some sort of general listing based on the skins of the defaults, but will probably try to find the characteristics that are common and distinctive to general classes of monsters, like dragons, constructs, etc. similar to what you just did for skeletal undead.  How it could be fit into each specific monster name, well, I am not sure how that will work.  Are there brief descriptive articles for the broader general classes of monsters (like aberrations, animals, etc.) or are those only link branch pages to the specific names?--Iconclast 23:25, December 3, 2011 (UTC)


 * The race-wide characteristics are (or "will be" or "should be") in the race articles. Let's see... undead, construct, elemental, and vermin have some immunities listed, but I have not gotten to some of the others (like dragons) yet. --The Krit 23:47, December 3, 2011 (UTC)

Editing previews
Okay, TK, I've attempted one revision for the dragon race. But I have a problem editing. Since the last wiki "improvement" I can longer view preview screens. That means I need to sanitize the excerpts as best I can before pasting it and then keep my fingers crossed that I didn't miss something as I click the Publish button. When I do notice an error, like I just did, I make the correction but it will botch up the history record. I don't like this. But I have little recourse. Should I continue trying to edit articles myself or would it be better to just post the candidate changes in the related Talk section and let one of you admins do it properly? I am all ears. But please do not suggest I change to yet another browser (I am running 3 different ones, all fully upgraded, at the moment). (It means upgrading my PC and that has zero chance of happening in the near future. :. Some guidance, please. --Iconclast 16:15, December 13, 2011 (UTC)


 * What exactly is the problem when trying to view a preview? You can't find the preview button? You notice nothing when you hit it? A blank "pop-up" appears? Which browsers are you using? Are you able to use the "show changes" option? --The Krit 16:33, December 13, 2011 (UTC)


 * When I click the preview button, the current page (the one where i am editing) goes blank and then no preview screen appears. I've allowed up to 5 minutes just in case it could be a bandwidth problem but no dice.  Nothing.  It's the same editing everywhere in the NWNwiki, not just articles.  In talk pages, errors are not such a problem so it doesn't matter all that much (to me, anyway).


 * I use Opera, MSIE & SeaMonkey (used to be Netscape once upon a time) which I only use for special sites. I've already tried Firefox & Chrome which were so slow I immediately uninstalled them.  May try Safari but Opera has been very reliable and fast to date. IE is used only as a back-up.  Problem with some browsers is that XP SP2/3 is not compatible with their current version & I refuse to migrate to Win7 (or Vista for that matter).


 * I've tried both clicking the Preview button and now Show changes option. On the Show Changes screen I can just make out a tiny section of text in the lower right corner that appears to contain at least part of my edits.  Problem is the entire screen is dark.  I've tried grabbing text with the mouse (like with copy/paste) buth nothing highlights or if it is, it is also black.  When clicking just the Preview button, the entire screen is black though i can make out some very faint indistinguishable shapss.  I'll check the default color settings in the browser options but this is the only site that is doing it AFAIK.  IIRC I have it set to allow the site to determine the colors. --Iconclast 20:46, December 13, 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll check Opera under Windows a bit later when I get a chance. It sounds like a rendering problem that maybe should be submitted to Wikia. In the meantime, one possible workaround might be to switch to the monobook skin (using Special:Preferences). That skin still uses the old (and reliable) editor. --The Krit 20:59, December 13, 2011 (UTC)


 * Good suggestion, TK. I will try that next. This specific edit is being accomplished through IE (an ancient version BTW) and both the Preview and Show Changes screens appear totally visible as they should.  Only bad side is that IE runs extremely slow for me, but at least I can see what the final product will look like.  So, I have an out until you can propose a way to get my Opera version functioning properly.  As usual, thanks for your selfless efforts to help us all.--Iconclast 21:11, December 13, 2011 (UTC)


 * The preview is working fine for me with Opera 11.60 running under Windows Vista. Hmm... Maybe empty the cache? (In Opera's preferences, go to the "Advanced" tab, click "History" in the list on the left, then click the "Empty Now" button that appears to the right.) Doesn't seem likely, but it's all I've got at the moment. You could try asking Wikia using Special:Contact, but I suspect they'll be dismissive because not enough visitors are using Opera. Oh wait. I recall Opera updating itself recently (as in maybe this past week?), and the change log said something about better HTML 5 support. Are you up to version 11.60 as well? If not, an update might help. --The Krit 00:02, December 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * That did it! ;) My last update was 11.10 a few months back IIRC.  Kinda odd that an old version of IE would digest the preview screen though way too slowly for practical use.  Thanks for the confirmation, TK.  I am back to editing just as before now. 'preciate it!--Iconclast 04:45, December 14, 2011 (UTC)