NWN2Wiki
Register
Advertisement

Pre-release & NWN comparison[]

Just a thought, which I've done on the fighter and barbarian pages. Since we're effectively pre-release & thus everything is subject to alteration beyond our control, I though it a good idea to keep specific notes on the details of everything "pre-release", e.g. we know the base classes and warlock are in & no other base classes. We know PrCs are in, but not which ones etc. Swim, fly, climb etc are out as functioning abilities atm. This information can be removed once the game is released and the information finalised. Though this could possibley be quite a large chunk of work when it comes round.

For NWN2 we can also compare to the original NWN, with things such as Parry skill etc or restructuring from 3.0 to 3.5. This could be left in post-release as a source for those who've played NWN wanting to get into NWN2. I considered linking to the NWN1 version of the class, however we couldn't just link directly to the NWNwiki as it'd cause confusion when returning back to NWN2 info since NWN1 pages are within the NWN1wiki navigation structure. A copy of the related pages might be good to copy over if we follow this idea through. Just some ideas.

--Defunc7 10:50, 14 December 2005 (PST)

Very nice, Defunc7. Thanks! I reformatted the two articles slightly to give my opinion how they should be formatted (until release): a short sentence at top that it's confirmed to be included, then the DnD 3.5 stats, and then notes below -- with a NWNWiki link at the bottom. How does that look? -- Alec Usticke 18:42, 14 December 2005 (PST)

Defunc7, where you thinking of doing more then classes. As I not sure if we want to do more of that stuff at the moment, but if you are thinking of it. Im willing to help. -- Pstarky 23:49, 15 December 2005 (PST)

  • I was thinking of working through a kinda speculative group. E.g. the spells Magic Missile and Fireball are almost garunteed seeing as they're so iconic. Same goes for the basic concept of summoning, dispells, cure spells. The basic proficiency feats, weapon focus, weapon specialisation, classes abilities (sneak attack, summon familiar etc), cleric domains (with maybe some basic examples of domains), skills(I was thinking of doing a single page for "knowledge" with sections for each type etc). Definite expansion on warlock stuff seeing the class is confirmed, but the PnP info is kinda hard to get hold of compared to the core classed. Base races with drow (confirmed), aasimar(hinted at) and tiefling(naturally opposes aasimar). Basically get the wiki structure in place with at least a few pages per category--Defunc7 08:46, 16 December 2005 (PST)

Well Im quiet busy at the moment, (family, Xmas and all). I will most likely will have more time on my hands Sun to Tues. I will have a good look and see where I can help. -- Pstarky 22:36, 16 December 2005 (PST)

Ok so you want to work on the speculative stuff, like Trap Sense etc. Not the stuff that is the same or we guess it will be the same, like Sneak Attack etc. What resources are you using. Im guessing SRD is one, but is that all? Plus where are you getting all those nice picture from? -- Pstarky 01:51, 18 December 2005 (PST)

  • I'm using the SRD (the online one & the download one) and I've got my hands on some of the manuals too (I'm copying out the warlock stuff directly from the complete arcane book, which takes bloody ages. Referencing some of the core books for rules descriptions etc). The pics are from WotC's own [art gallery] (they have a gallery for each of the books they release). The pics are the "official class picture".--Defunc7 02:57, 18 December 2005 (PST)

Well, I dont have any printed information on hand as I was never a PnP player. I have download the SRD and had a look thou it. After I done the template and fixed the classes up, I will have a go and see what I can add. -- Pstarky 03:07, 18 December 2005 (PST)

I could go nuts on this (my mind has changed from past edit [quote]As I not sure if we want to do more[/quote] ). Does anyone mind, as in do we want all this speculation info? (as in every blank link in classes are going to be fulled with infornation) -- Pstarky 07:27, 18 December 2005 (PST)

Well I really dont know how much BioWare left out in converting V 3.0 PnP rules/gameplay (I never did read V3.0 SRD like Im with 3.5 now) into NWN. What if like only 5 new feats are added in NWN2 from V3.5, (eg Improved Trip, GREATER TWO-WEAPON FIGHTING, COMBAT REFLEXES list goes on) what a fresh new feel the OC and PvM/PvP will be. Some might not convert well or be too imbalance thou. Really just talking about stuff, and most likely get too excited. :O -- Pstarky 03:53, 19 December 2005 (PST)

Feats/skills/spell templates[]

  • Why I didnt do this for NWNWiki.org I dont know. Do they look right? FeatInfo, SkillInfo, SpellInfo Does Races need one?
  • I don't think races works with a template, they're like classes where there's almost nothing which is common between them all. Though we could do one for the first section of classes (BAB, primary saves, proficiciencies etc).--Defunc7 02:49, 18 December 2005 (PST)
  • I was thinking along those lines, but most of the classes set up already. Still think we need one? It shouldnt be to hard to replace. -- Pstarky 02:54, 18 December 2005 (PST)
  • yea, I think it'll be good to have one when the specific PrCs get confirmed. We want to make everything as rapidly deployable as possible so we can just knock out things quickly when the info is releasd..--Defunc7 03:00, 18 December 2005 (PST)
  • The templates look good. I'm sure we'll need to change everything once the game is released though. Who knows if it'll follow the same format as NWN? Then again, it probably will. One change for skills: I don't think we should put links in the bold titles. I know we've done it in the past, but I don't think it looks good (same with links in section titles). If a link is really necessary, we should make a See also section -- see character progression for example; I moved the links out of the table row headings and I think it looks much better. -- Alec Usticke 19:54, 20 December 2005 (PST)

Capitalization[]

Im tring my best not to do this, but as you can see some still slip thou the net. Sorry. -- Pstarky 05:34, 19 December 2005 (PST)

No problem. I'm just trying to stay on top of it, because it's a pain to change later. We've learned a lot with NWNWiki, so hopefully we'll have an easier time with this version. I wonder if there's a bot that will change all backlinks automatically when renaming a page.... -- Alec Usticke 07:27, 19 December 2005 (PST)
I have notice that all the links that where all caps (Low-Light Version) are still link to the move article Low-light version (as a redirect). Even when the link still is all caps. Is this what you mean? -- Pstarky 07:37, 19 December 2005 (PST)
What I mean is, it'd be nice if there were a bot that would change articles that link to a moved page. For example, say [[Low-Light]] links to a Low-Light article. If I move the Low-Light article to Low-light, it'd be nice if it automatically went back to every article with [[Low-Light]] and changed it to [[Low-light]]. There's probably such a bot out there. (I just came across a bot that will automatically upload files; I wish I had it when we uploaded all those spell, feat, etc. icons to NWNWiki!) -- Alec Usticke 19:49, 20 December 2005 (PST)

Capitalization part II[]

I have stated, of course, that spells should be capitalised (Magic Missile not magic missile) - I don't see why classes, feats and monsters should be any different, since I am using the game and the 3.5E books as the sources of these (IE: They are names - nouns - and as such are capitalised (and feats too) in the books and game). We can easily have redirects for when someone links to magic missile, rather then have the things not named correctly. Could the guidelines be altered to reflect this? Everything in lowercase also looks really unprofessional. - Jasperre 03:43, 21 December 2006 (PST)

Thanks for bringing up this topic, Jasperre. First, we should all follow the manual of style -- even if we disagree with it. However, if the manual is wrong, we can change it.
We discussed this issue pretty thoroughly when we started NWNWiki, and I first thought like you: that spells, feats, etc. are proper nouns and should be capitalized. However, after inputting a lot information, we found that capitalization in D&D and NWN documentation is very inconsistent. In many places (especially lists and description titles), the words were capitalized and elsewhere they weren't (such as in paragraph descriptions).
This caused us no end of grief, and we determined the best option was to always use lowercase to minimize the use of redirects. It was a major task to correct our earlier blunder (never fully completed), and we promised we'd do it right from the beginning with NWN2Wiki.
However, perhaps NWN2 is more consistent with capitalization. Let's take a look at the NWN2 dialog.tlk file:


Classes
{240} <color=Gold><b>Barbarian</b></color>
The barbarian is an excellent warrior. Where the fighter's skill comes from training and discipline, however, the barbarian draws upon a powerful primal rage. While in this berserk fury, he becomes stronger and tougher, better able to defeat his foes and withstand their attacks. These rages leave him winded, and he has the energy for only a few such spectacular displays per day, but those few rages are usually sufficient. He is at home in the wild, and he runs at great speed.
It looks like they're not capitalizing class names (except in headings and lists).


Races/monsters
{251} <color=Gold><b>Shield Dwarf</b></color>
The dwarven kingdoms of long ago became locked in eternal wars with goblin-kind and other dwellers in the Underdark. One by one, the dwarven empires of the north failed, leaving only scattered survivors in the mountains or unconquered sections of the Underdark. The clans that survived these battles are the shield dwarves, and they are the most common type of dwarf seen throughout the Realms.
Nope, no caps on races.


Alignment
- <b>Alignment Restrictions:</b> Lawful good. Paladins must be lawful good, and they lose their divine powers if they deviate from that alignment.
Nope, no caps -- except when in a list or something.


Abilities
{478} <color=Gold><b>Charisma</b></color>
Charisma measures a character's force of personality, persuasiveness, ability to lead, and physical attractiveness. It represents actual personal strength, not merely how one is perceived by others in a social setting. Charisma is most important for warlocks, paladins, sorcerers, and bards since it determines what spells they can cast, as well as the effectiveness of those spells. It is also important for clerics, as it affects their ability to turn undead. All characters benefit from having a high charisma when speaking with others in the world since it modifies the player's Diplomacy, Bluff, and Intimidate skill checks.
NOTE: Wizards use Intelligence for their spellcasting, not Charisma.
Very inconsistent. Sometimes capitalized, sometimes not (as evidenced above).


Items/weapons
- <b>Weapon Proficiencies:</b> Wizards are proficient with the club, dagger, heavy crossbow, light crossbow, and quarterstaff.
Nope, not capped.


Feats
{231} Type of Feat: General
Prerequisite: Dex 17, Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +6 or higher.
Specifics: The character with this feat is able to get a second off-hand attack (at a penalty of -5 to his attack roll).
Note: Rangers who select the Two-Weapon Fighting Combat Style receive this feat at 6th level, even if they do not meet the prerequisites.
Use: Automatic.


{48886} Used as a training aid by the rangers of the Moonwood when tutoring aspiring students, these fine leather gloves allow the wearer to fight as if already trained in two-weapon fighting and ambidexterity.
Very inconsistent. Sometimes capped, sometimes not.


Spells
{6096} Caster Level(s): Wizard / Sorcerer 6, Destruction 6
Innate Level: 6
School: Conjuration
Descriptor(s): Acid
Component(s): Verbal, Somatic
Range: Long
Area of Effect / Target: Large
Duration: 6 seconds / 2 levels
Save: Fortitude
Spell Resistance: Yes
Acid Fog creates a thick, clinging, greenish cloud. Creatures entering the cloud take 4d6 points of acid damage. Creatures inside the cloud must make a Fortitude save or have their movement reduced by 50%. Every round a creature spends in the cloud, it suffers 2d6 points of acid damage.


- The cleric gains access to the following spells at the specified spell level: <i>rage (3), acid fog (6)</i>.


{84354} This small vial contains a highly reactive acid. When smashed, it will explode into a cloud of acid fog.
Again, inconsistent.


Conclusion
Well, reviewing the NWN2 dialog.tlk file tells me they're no more consistent than in the past. This indicates to me that our earlier decision was correct. We should always use lower case. However, this issue should be decided as a group. Thoughts? -- Alec Usticke 08:14, 22 December 2006 (PST)
Simply put; these are the page titles, not all the page actual content, which of course would use a mixture as appropriate. I thought that's what I meant. Like wikipedia, usually if the page is a name like Dread Necromancer, or what about the DnD wiki? Magic Missile. If we are using the sources for this, they always capitalise titles even if the content is inconsistent - which is fine, we can link magic missile fine enough without redirects. There is no reason why you'd title something in lowercase, wiki's always capitalise the first letter anyway - we simply can't have a page named barbarian anyway :) - Jasperre 11:27, 22 December 2006 (PST)

As you know, I originally disagreed with the capitalisation changes, but managed to let myself be persuaded due to spells being proper nouns. The standard wikipedia approach states this quite clearly [1]. So regardless of what the sourcebooks use or what the dialog.tlk file uses, I would suggest we address which we think are proper nouns and which are not.

  • Spells I say yes because they are unique entities and their names are not used in any other sense both in-character (IC) and out-of-character (OOC).
  • Races are not. We would never capitalise human in a sentence, so the same applies to other humanoid/monster races etc.
  • Classes, feats, skills, and abilities I would say are NOT because they indicate innate learning and faculties of a character and therefore something entirely OOC and not proper nouns at all. eg. Open lock represents the ability to open a lock, not Open a Lock.
  • SOME prestige classes are possibly an exception (such as Shadow Thief of Amn and Neverwinter Nine) as these are titles and named organisations, not just talents and are therefore proper nouns. Others such as frenzied berserker or assassin are not proper nouns but just descriptions of what a character with that prestige class does. edit: the difference is whether you would give such a title IC in my opinion. If a character in the world would name themselves with their prestige class as a title without it seeming a OOC to do so then it is a proper noun.
  • Alignment is more tricky as the concepts of Law, Chaos, Good, Evil and Neutrality are not just personality types or philosophical concepts, but tangible sources of power that are acknowledged in game. So the difference there is: that man is evil (no capital), or that man works for the forces of Evil (capitalised because Evil is almost a person). So I'll let others add their opinion before I decide.
  • Items and weapons depends on the nature of the weapon. Generic ones are just that, generic, and therefore not capitalised. Named weapons/items often have a proper noun title, but usually only if they are unique or very rare: Bone Phoenix for example.--Chezcaliente 15:55, 22 December 2006 (PST)
I think feats and abilities are names of something. Weapon Focus: Short Sword is the title of the feat, the name of it. The dialog.tlk's titles are always capitalised - as is the SRD for most intents and purposes - although it uses ALL CAPITALS as the source books do for titles, for instance:
IMPROVED DISARM [GENERAL]
Prerequisites: Int 13, Combat Expertise.
Benefit: You do not provoke an attack of opportunity when you attempt to disarm an opponent, nor does the opponent have a chance to disarm you. You also gain a +4 bonus on the opposed attack roll you make to disarm your opponent.
Normal: See the normal disarm rules.
Special: A fighter may select Improved Disarm as one of his fighter bonus feats.
A monk may select Improved Disarm as a bonus feat at 6th level, even if she does not meet the prerequisites.
Note the capitalisation even in the text of Combat Expertise and Improved Disarm, and the feat title being capitalised. I think the dialog TLK is bad enough at spelling and grammar - it basically copies a bit of the SRD in some cases (usually the original Bioware versions) then goes loopy adding in additional stuff where is simply no standard to follow. I can't help edit a wiki who's sole purpose it is to copy the misleading, badly-thought-out, poor dialog.tlk entries and not change them, because frankly most are not worth even copying! Have a look at the various changes I've done to the simple spell descriptions for this fact. I'll try and do the same for feats. Hell, even Parry got a large example added simply because the in-game description was rubbish, unformatted and hard to read :)
Also, as far as I'm aware, the feat and skill index on this wiki is poor and outdated (full of 3.5E information) anyway, and we are only discussing the titles of pages. - Jasperre 01:15, 23 December 2006 (PST)
You don't seem to be following what I'm saying. I agree that the feat entitled "Weapon Focus: Short Sword" is indeed its title, but I personally don't believe it is a proper noun. I understand that people have different methods of titling pages, but Wiki has a very specific method and it is laid out in the link I provided earlier. The dialog.tlk and the sourcebooks have their own conventions for titles, but Wiki follows an encyclopaedic convention. Think about the page titles as entries in an encyclopaedia. They do NOT use capitals for anything except proper nouns. Proper nouns are nouns that are unique and usually ONLY ever preceded by 'the' and not 'a'. I don't feel that feats and skills are proper nouns, as they are everyday skills and abilities. For example I would say that I use diplomacy, and not that I use the Diplomacy skill; this is a short sword/this is the Bone Phoenix etc. It's all a matter of grammatical pedantry, and I'm sure you could make an argument for the opposite, but considering it has already been set up to an established Wiki convention, I don't understand your burning desire to change it.
In other words: write it however you like in the content of the pages (in the same way that the sourcebooks do), but when it comes to its 'encyclopaedic' entry title we should follow the conventions laid out by wiki as that is what is appropriate for what is essentially a reference encyclopaedia.
And by the way, the only reason I was copying and pasting from the dialog.tlk is because I wanted there to be at least SOME content for all of the missing spells on the site, and that was the fastest way of doing it. --Chezcaliente 00:40, 25 December 2006 (PST)
The whole discussion is on this point that I personally think the manual of style needs altering, making that the point against my argument is, well, entirely silly.
Its a case of choosing between: "Weapon Focus: Short Sword" and "Weapon focus: shortsword" - now which looks right? Which would be an appropriate title of a page? There are not that many entries in this wiki, most of which are the scripting functions. I don't understand why titles have to be names in a specific wiki. This isn't wikipedia (which is general, and is not a reference manual), I have stated sources of other places which do use capitalisation of the titles.
Its for the basic look of it. It looks, in my opinion, entirely silly to be naming pages all in lowercase where no where else (3.5E source, dialogue.tlk titles...) does. Yes, in a forum you'd put "magic missile" but in a book, on a webpage, in the game, you'd capitalise the name properly to Magic Missile - because these things are reference names. For the feat called "Weapon Focus: Short Sword" - it is a name, because while "weapon", "focus" "short" and "sword" are all not nouns, of course, they go together and describe something and therefore name it. At least this is the reason things like it are capitalised everywhere else (3.5E source, dialogue.tlk titles...), and is what people would expect - that there would be a page titled "Magic Missile" not "magic missile". Reference names and titles rightfully should be capitalised for titles, it doesn't matter if its not a proper noun like "Chezcaliente" or "Obsidian Entertainment". In all likelyhood 99% of the pages would never be capitalised under your definition, since 99% is probably going to be a reference for feats, spells and abilities.
If it isn't changed, then don't expect me to stop naming spells with capitals. If those are not names, then I don't know what the is therefore the Manual of Style MUST be updated to reflect EXACTLY what it means - I obviously cannot interpret right. The vague examples already described are not all encompassing either. The reason I asked is to get a good reason why the wiki can't look its best. Lowercase simply looks bad and unprofessional, is the reason I said it. I hope that's a good enough reason for me posting this. - Jasperre 12:13, 25 December 2006 (PST)
Edit: I also find it interesting the other wiki names things with capitals and this one doesn't, yet even the latter has "Red Dragon Disciple" directly below the lowercase title... - Jasperre 12:16, 25 December 2006 (PST)


Whew, a lot of ground covered. Thank you Jasperre & Chezcaliente for exploring this issue. I hope other editors will weigh in with their opinions as well. Again, we can certainly change the manual of style if there's a better way to handle this issue. I personally like how it is now (lower case unless proper noun), but the majority rules here. Hopefully we can come to a consensus.
First, I'd like to reiterate that the reason for this rule is really only for the purpose of links. Jasperre, I understand your point about the aesthetics of the page titles and the preference to use capitals (like the game documentation usually does when it's in a list or title). Having lowercase in titles doesn't bother me but perhaps that's because I'm too used to how Wikipedia handles it. Red dragon disciple and red dragon disciple both link to Red dragon disciple, but Red Dragon Disciple doesn't. When I link to red dragon disciple, I want it to link to the article and I don't want to have a redirect page or do more typing like [[Red Dragon Disciple|red dragon disciple]]. (And the reason NWNWiki doesn't follow the manual of style for red dragon disciple is because we didn't do it right first and not all of the old links were fixed. It turned into a big mess -- as I said, I'd hate to see a repeat of that on NWN2Wiki.)
So, that's the long and short of it: I want links to work properly with a minimum of effort. Wikipedia even acknowledges that the category lists don't follow most traditional conventions of style, but that's one price to pay for the links to work properly. (It'd be nice if the MediaWiki software was case insensitive; but, unfortunately, it's a limitation of the software.) Jasperre, I think you and I are kind of arguing about two different things: You want the titles and lists to be in all caps while I want the links to work properly. Each is valid, but I place more importance on the latter. I think we're both right, and it'd be nice if we could both have our preferences, but that's not possible with this software. I'm willing to go with the majority though. If most editors prefer all cap titles, I'll just deal with it. :) -- Alec Usticke 20:22, 25 December 2006 (PST)
Okay, that makes more sense. Yes, I am more for the aesthetics of lists and titles rather then broken links - since links are easier to fix (or add redirects in for) - and of course, moving the existing pages will mean both "Red Dragon Disciple" and "red dragon disciple" work - since I am working on spells, I will also look at broken redirects and red links in the special pages and try and keep up if that's necessary if this is changed. It can be worked on a temporary basis - I do think spells at least can work with capitalisation if not anywhere else, so will carry on it there, but also would like to know the other editors opinions on it. - Jasperre 08:18, 26 December 2006 (PST)
While I initially didn't quite like the idea of having most things lower-cased, I found that if you are trying to find a specific article in the wiki, it is much easier to just type the name/partial name rather than worry about whether you capitalized the words the same way as the page creator did. While it is true that we can have redirects for all kinds of spelling styles, it makes matters very messy, especially when you need to end up changing the main article's title and thus all redirects' titles/links AND all other articles linking to the redirect/main article. Having jsut the article without the redirect makes admin work much easier and there is little aesthetic loss. GhostNWN 02:21, 17 July 2007 (PDT)
On capitals, you'll have to either move them all yourself, since I made a point to actually spell them as the manual, game and all source does with spells. You can dispute "red dragon diciple" but "Magic Missile" is a name, and no one refuted my point on that, so no style guide was introduced for it, o I carried on capitalising those properly. You want to argue aesthetics and admin work, then I'd consider redirect creation and moving pages to be a tiny part of it and not worth arguing over, since it only creates work temporarily and is done on an as-and-when basis for red links. Redirects are an integral and important part of the wiki, to make information clear, and to make it easy to link to pages. This is why there are policies for naming titles on all other wiki's, but it was never decided here. - Jasperre 07:05, 18 July 2007 (PDT)
Edit: Ugh, it seems like 80% of all spell pages are fully capitalized. Just looking at the amount to move/rename/delete is...daunting. Also, most of the spells are mostly incomplete or have DnD3.5E info instead of game info in them. This needs a lot of work. Jasperre? ;) GhostNWN 02:55, 17 July 2007 (PDT)
Having 3.5E information is not a bad thing and can help explain why something exists (and spell comparisons are great for indicating why the spell exists in the first place, or why things cannot be like the source). For instance, the explaination of the 3.5E "Knockdown" sources makes it clear why Knockdown was done, rather then implementing the core rules. And while the spells are sometimes incomplete in notes (I only got around 25% of the way through before I got more work and partially abandoned what I worked on here) there are as far as I am aware every single spell there, although some of the template information is setup a bit wrong on a few (This category).- Jasperre 07:05, 18 July 2007 (PDT)

Redirecting to sub-sections[]

Just a point on structure. You can see what I mean on the barbarian, rage & rage associated pages. Where "Rage" is the main article at the rage page, with "improvements" subsections for the upgrades. But I've created a re-direct page for each of the upgrades also. So was wondering, do people like it, or do they think we should split the different features into seperate pages with "see also" links? The same form of sub-section redirect could be done for the skills, skill check, skill rank articles too. I don't think we should remove the redirect pages though, as they'll appear on searchs and the index, though if they're redirects, you don't appear to be able to add them to categories. There's something fruity about subsection linking too.

grrr, something's messy. a normal direct link to the page's subsection e.g. "rage#tireless rage" seems to work, but using that as a redirect seems to mess up as the subsection when linked through becomes the name of the redirect. e.g. "tireless rage#tireless rage"

:( official wikihelp says "it don't work & no plans to make it work" :(

so, split pages it is. --Defunc7 22:19, 20 December 2005 (PST)

Are you having a conversation with yourself? Hehe, just joking. :) -- Alec Usticke 22:27, 20 December 2005 (PST)
  • just having suffering bad will saves along the lines of "wow this is a great idea, argh! won't work! maybe there's a way to do it.... no! argh! dammit!!" :p --Defunc7 22:32, 20 December 2005 (PST)

NWScript function naming convention[]

Should article titles of NWScript functions include the parenthesis? Should the article name be SetName or SetName()? -- Alec Usticke 11:53, 1 January 2006 (PST)

  • The parens() would then definitely give it away as a function. Technically, the parens define the signature of the function. I would not require it, but I can see how it would be beneficial. NWNLexicon did not use parens in their category listings, but the full article did specify parens and parameters and return values and other elements of the function signature. We should follow their lead. In general, someone who specifies parens in the search function is asking for a specific reference and wants to go to the exact article with a function by that name, and not the category listing of all the functions. // Brick Thrower 13:12, 1 January 2006 (PST)

Apostrophes in page titles[]

I am confused about these remarks. How can you enter bull's strength twice, and have one link properly while the other one does not? What am I missing here? I will fill in more description to help explain it, but I can't because I don't! Thanks. // Brick Thrower 21:20, 14 January 2006 (PST)

Because ’ and ' are two different symbols. Perhaps it'll help with a larger font:

bull’s strength / bull's strength

’ / '

See the difference? -- Alec Usticke 21:45, 14 January 2006 (PST)

Speculation and DnD3.5E pages[]

Do we have any policy what to do with speculation and DnD3.5E info pages which are different from what is in game now? I started putting a few speculation pages of nonexistent features up for deletion already, but does anyone else have any thoughts on those? Its really cluttering the Wiki with false/misleading info for those whoa re only interested in NWN2 and not DnD in particular (and this is NWN2Wiki, not DnDWiki). GhostNWN 02:58, 17 July 2007 (PDT)

On the speculation, I delete it, since it is out of date, but there is quite a bit (screenshots, movies, writeups) which were never categorised so I couldn't find. I answered the 3.5E stuff above - while quite a bit can go (individual pages on feats, spells and skills not implemented) comparisons should be available (in all class pages, a list of skills not in the game (and reasons why) and so on). The game itself does not stand well without the reasoning the source gives for the things happening, since the game if you look at it and don't know about the books seems like a very poor ruleset and unsuited for a computer game! - Jasperre 07:07, 18 July 2007 (PDT)

Avoid pronouns[]

IMO, there is an exception to the two rules "Avoid self-referential pronouns" and "Avoid the second person". When you have an article that is more advertising than encyclopedic, I feel it can be allowed to use pronouns. The description of a Persistent World is a good example. "you": the DMs of the server want to appeal to potential players, and so they'll want to address them personally; "we" (more likely than "I", because a PW usually has a team of DMs): in this relation, the DMs want to make clear what work they have achieved. GFallen 12:21, June 27, 2012 (UTC)

Advertisement