I make edits to and monitor this wiki for the (probably) seven or eight people that still make use of it   ;-) Raelind (talk) 18:33

12/04/19: There appears to be a significant uptick in spam.  Generally, I check for this daily - deleting off-topic, nonsense posts and pages. If you are one of these people (you know who you are), you will be banned and blocked - permanently.

03/15/2020: In the interests of civility, when posting on this Wiki, it may be helpful to remember the T.H.I.N.K. acronym before you do so:

  • Is it True?
  • Is it Helpful?
  • Is it Interesting?
  • Is it Necessary?
  • Is it Kind?

December 5, 2018 (UTC) I put in a request to be an Admin for this wiki on 09/10/18.  Any comments, please feel free to put them here :^) Raelind (talk) 04:35, September 11, 2018 (UTC)

Adoption request[edit source]

Hi. I’ve given you admin and bureaucrat rights on this community as you requested. You now have the tools you need to clean up, customize, and maintain the wiki.

Check out your Admin Dashboard, which can be found by clicking "Admin" on the bottom toolbar. It has links to all your new tools. Please let me know if you have any questions, and good luck with your new (old) wiki! JoePlay FandomStaff.png (talk) 19:12, September 12, 2018 (UTC)

Thank you.  The links are appreciated.  I might take you up on the offer of questions. Raelind (talk) 00:59, September 13, 2018 (UTC)

Conversation[edit source]

Hi, if your interested in Stealth

I am at an impasse trying to figure it out but here are my notes

Stealth verses Detection difference    
-30    Keen Sense PC immune to AI Sneak Attacks
-20    Sneak Attacks unlikely
-15    Few Sneak Attacks, brief stealth
-10    Occassional Sneak Attacks, short stealth
-5    Fair Sneak Attacks, fair stealth
0    Good Sneak Attacks and stealth
+5    Reliable Sneak Attacks and Hide indefinately
+10    Hide indefinately vrs Keen Sense
+15    Sneak indefinately
+20    Sneak indefinately vrs Keen Sense

I am using the following formula for Stealth % (verses detection only) = ((average Stealth skill, +10 standing still, -5 for carrying Torch/Light) opponent: -5 Keen Senses or Active Search, -5 Torch or Light, -Spot or Listen skill) x 5
(testing suggests +8 instead of +10 for in combat; some other unknown effect and -10 if moving but a norm +10 and -10 for moving is awkward, just reworked it as above)

Sneak Attacks have a greater span of success so I will use d20 vrs d20 chart (better simulates Sneak Attacks in game)

Takes an opponent with Keen Sense and +30 detection difference to be immune to AI sneak attacks, +20 reduces number of sneak attacks (That's far from a Skill DC roll)
Keen Sense also helps reduce the number of sneak attacks
Occassionally can get less or more than the normal sneak attacks (4 can become 6, 5 becomes 8; (+/- 66%))

Better odds if just hiding (although still wise to move from where last seen)
Still the Stealth DC roll is suspect because a few extremes still suceed at detection or does natural 20 succeed? doubtful
Bleeding "cowering" counts for movement detection (bad news vrs Expose Weakness and Invisble Blades)
Torches and Light sources help reveal sneakers (although not always fully detected; semi transparent, no targeting) and help expose a stealthed opponent when they bear a light or torch -5 (-10 if both using Light? might explain the wiki)
Keen and Active -5 maybe, doubtful auto active when standing still, AI will use Search mode (unable to confirm -10 or the auto active as per wiki)
If testing Detection remember 1 higher to succeed    
Detection rate is not 4 or 6 seconds after opponent enters Stealth. Maybe once or twice a round so Detection might occur between 1 and 6 seconds after opponent enters Stealth. Suspect Passive once every round with detection between 1 and 6 seconds, with Active twice a round with detection between 1 and 3 seconds. (Detection cycle is independant from opponent entering Stealth)
Having both Listen and Spot does not double the check; don't even need Listen against Move Silent.

Ragimund (talk) 09:58, September 18, 2018 (UTC)

Aside from what's already detailed in this wiki, I don't know of additional factors that impact stealth.  My favorite character of the moment in the original campaign is a Yuan-ti Stealth HF Warlock.  At CLVL 16 it pretty much has all it needs: Warlock 8, Hellfire Warlock 3, Blackguard 3, Shadowdancer 2.  At this CLVL stealth is 63, so if it travels alone (a frequent event), it's very rarely spotted; the only time it was spotted (so far) was by Ghellu in ACT II - and that appears to have been a deliberate function of scripting in the game. Usually, it just HiPS opponents and they slowly die while it stands next to them with a Hellfire Shield active. These factors increase its stealth:

  • enchanted mithral breast plate : net +14 hide/move silent (also, immunity to sneak attack/critical hits)
  • enchanted +5 small shield  : +15 hide/move silent
  • boots of elvenkind : +5 move silent
  • ring of hiding : +6 hide
  • entropic warding invocation: +4 hide/move silent
  • 24 dex (wearing belt of agility +8) : +7 hide/move silent

Please let me know if you find more specifics on stealth mechanics  ;-)

Raelind (talk) 13:43, September 18, 2018 (UTC)

Good work on your edits, I more techincal than artistic. However maybe the recent updates are a little too complicated for the AoE effects for stealth counter measures. Plus I understand the goal of keeping descriptions as per original but hasn't this aided to the confusion that the game has causedRagimund (talk) 04:15, October 7, 2018 (UTC)

I believe I've got detection and stealth as close as I can get, have a look over.

https://nwn2.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:Hide_in_Plain_Sight https://nwn2.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:How_Stealth_and_Detection_worksRagimund (talk) 04:34, October 7, 2018 (UTC)

Your efforts at getting a better grip on stealth are appreciated. I don't think anyone has really looked at the nuts and bolts on it for quite some time.

Suggestions for a template or guide


ie Spell,  Feat



The most accurate description from either; In Game, Game Manual or D&D 3.5 that best matches gameplay. Then proofed and edited for errors or clarification (note many descriptions, are known to be misleading) (if many of the in game description of a number of feats or spells not been taken as a rule over the game manual or 3.5 then much of the confusion as to the subjects being bugged or not working, may have been avoided)


Gameplay Notes

Source of description and errors or correction made to description

Why the difference between current description and in game version (or what's wrong with the other description) eg, the in game description of hidden opponents refers to invisible and not opponents using stealth.

D&D Note

"Explain how NWN2 differs from D&D."

eg, NWN2 has not implemented the upgrade to Improved Uncanny Dodge upon gaining of the second Uncanny Dodge feat.

NWN2 Tip

"Typically suggestions to help make decisions." keep as unbiased as practicable.

eg, Blind Fighting is highly recommended against concealed opponents which can occur as early as 5th ECL

eg, See Invisible is recommended against opponents with Greater Invisibility which may begin around 14th ECL

eg, Tumble is suggested taken only in ranks of 10 skill (not including your Dexterity bonus), for armor class bonuses

3.5 Description/Info

Do we need this? better to just focus on how NWN2 works and as recommended in NWN to scrap the D&D info "applicability of D&D info".  Certainly review other works including NWN for comparison to help understand the subject, but it needs only be a link.

Rather explain how the subject works in NWN2, especially with something like Initiative (a very difficult subject to understand)(change sub title? Gameplay)

Edit Comments

Provide detail reasons for changes


Talk Page

Include evidence to support changes made or current info

Ragimund (talk) 07:58, October 21, 2018 (UTC)

New Wiki Manager[edit source]

Hi! My name is Tephra, and I'm the new Fandom Wiki Manager for the NWN2Wiki. I am here to help the community and be your liaison to Fandom. If you need anything, feel free to contact me and I will get back to you as soon as possible.
◄► Tephra ◄► 19:06, May 11, 2019 (UTC)

Good to know there's someone else out there :^)Raelind (talk) 05:47, May 12, 2019 (UTC)

Community[edit source]

I'm curious why this wiki doesn't have any forums or discussions and has blogs disabled. None of them are necessary of course, and you don't have to have them if that is your choice, but there is currently no way to make general statements for the wiki community.
◄► Tephra ◄► 22:46, May 17, 2019 (UTC)

How would I enable these?  I started managing this site in mid-Sepetmber of last year.  It's possible this wiki had forums and blogs which were later disabled. From looking at previous admin comments, less-than-perfectly-behaved contributors with snarky and/or negative commentary appears to have been a problem.  So maybe that explains it, but I honestly don't know. 

It's been my experence this site doesn't get a lot of traffic, so if something can be done to encourage legitimate participation, I'm all for it. It's been almost 10 years since the last official update/patch was made for this game, so the drop in traffic/contributions is, in my mind, to be expected.  The main thing that made me put in a requst to be an admin was to more effectively combat spam, which was getting out of hand for a while.  Now, however, it appears roaming wiki lieutenants look for this kind of thing and will sometimes delete it before I catch it - and I usually check in daily.

Thanks for checking in again :^)Raelind (talk) 02:33, May 18, 2019 (UTC)

Blogs can easily be enabled in the Wiki Features through the Admin Dashboard. I am not sure if Forums can be enabled anymore, since they aren't currently enabled and Fandom is trying to phase them out with a preference for Discussions. You can request Discussions to be enabled by submitting a request here.
◄► Tephra ◄► 02:53, May 19, 2019 (UTC)

Blogs are now enabled.  Submitted request for discussions to be enabled.  Chat enabled. Raelind (talk) 21:59, May 19, 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I am going to make a general introduction blog now then as I was unable to before. I already introduced myself to you personally, so this is just for regular users.
◄► Tephra ◄► 22:44, May 19, 2019 (UTC)

The Discussions still haven't been enabled? And I assume you haven't heard anything concerning it either? I'll see about getting them enabled for you tomorrow.
◄► Tephra ◄► 21:27, May 26, 2019 (UTC)

I have decided to not enbale them for now, since once they are enabled they cannot be disabledRaelind (talk) 04:51, May 27, 2019 (UTC)

Alright, your choice.
◄► Tephra ◄► 12:12, May 27, 2019 (UTC)

Fandom University[edit source]

I am adding a Fandom University player to the Special:Community page to help out new or inexperienced editors on all wikis that are willing to accept it. You can see what it would look like on the Diablo Wiki. This is done with ImportJS and so can easily be removed at any time. Would you be ok with this addition here?
◄► Tephra ◄► 23:24, June 21, 2019 (UTC)

I took a look. Go ahead.  Raelind (talk) 01:28, June 22, 2019 (UTC)

Analytics[edit source]

Hey, in case you didn't see the blog, you can now use Special:Analytics to see useful and interesting traffic data for this wiki.
◄► Tephra ◄► 16:38, August 9, 2019 (UTC)

Interesting to see, thank you.Raelind (talk) 23:44, August 9, 2019 (UTC)

Walkthrough guide[edit source]

Fandom is currently trying out a new Walkthrough teaching aid for new editors. Apparently, results so far are much better than expected. After trying it on a limited number of wikis, they would like to expand the number using it. It appears on the rail, you can what it looks like here. Is this something you would want to try on this wiki?
◄► Tephra ◄► 01:09, September 28, 2019 (UTC)

Looks useful.  Go ahead.Raelind (talk) 01:50, September 28, 2019 (UTC)

Great! I think it will be implemented on Monday then.
◄► Tephra ◄► 07:06, September 28, 2019 (UTC)

Header image[edit source]

Would you mind if I added a header image to this wiki, just to make the wiki look more appealing? I was thinking of adding the Neverwinter eyeball symbol.
◄► Tephra ◄► 12:12, October 26, 2019 (UTC)

I've thought about doing things like this over the past week but don't know how to do them yet. Please go ahead. Also, if you could point me in the direction to learn how to do these kinds of customizations in the future, I'd appreciate it. Raelind (talk) 13:33, October 26, 2019 (UTC)

You go to the Admin Dashboard and from there, go to Theme Designer.
◄► Tephra ◄► 18:43, October 29, 2019 (UTC)

Interwiki links[edit source]

Hi! Thanks for the welcome! I am one of the regular editors over on the Forgotten Realms Wiki, and also huge FR video game nerd. One of my projects over there is Interwiki Links. The scope of the project is to add link templates in the External Links section of articles linking to the various FR game wikis (Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, Neverwinter Nights and now here). I'll place the template on the FR wiki and link back to it on the linked wiki. That way people reading about lore on the FR can also find the crunch for the content used in the video games, and vice versa.

Just a heads up when you suddenly see me making frequent edits here.

I'd like to ask, do you call it External Links or External Resources on this wiki, and is it a stand alone section or a sub-section like on the FRW? (Appendix>External Links)

I took the liberty of creating the FRW template as well. Thanks! --Regis87 (talk) 19:29, December 14, 2019 (UTC)

Kaedrin's?[edit source]

Hi! It seems that you're the only wiki admin at the moment so I thought I might ask you about this. How do you feel about adding information regarding Kaedrin's pack to the wiki? His pack provides a lot of content but many times things are unclear and not well documented and one has to travel to far and distant places on the internet to find (or not find) answers to questions about his content. If we could include information about things in his pack on this wiki, it may make it easier for people to access that information in the future. I noticed that there are no references to his work on this wiki so I figure it's already been discussed and decided against, but in case it hasn't, please consider allowing sections to be added to existing pages or new pages to be made for content he provides. Thanks :) HolyGuardian80 (talk) 01:35, January 3, 2020 (UTC)

HolyGuardian80: I have mixed feelings about this.  On one hand, there's certainly a virtue in adding value to players of this very enjoyable game (warts and all), but I wonder at what cost?  As you say, there is uncertainty about many aspects of his work from which he now appears to have moved on for 4+ years.  If you read/follow some of the old conversations on this site from years ago, and conversations Ragimuind and I have had, even a game such as this with a fairly extensive history and documentation can lead to disagreements (talk on Keen Sense and Taunt come to mind).  Of course in any social setting - especially on-line -  disagreements are bound to happen.  However, I place a high value on civilty, so I'm reluctant to incorporate changes that may detract from that civlity.

Here are my thoughts: your idea is definitely worth looking at.  Try bringing (some of) his work in and we'll see how it goes.  But I ask:

  1. please do so at or near the bottom of the pages where it is done
  2. try to create a standard format for consistency of the reader wherever the changes are made
  3. include some sort of standard cautionary note, as you allude to above, about trying to bring some measure of clarity to an (arguably) unfinished but very thoughtful work.
  4. Where possible, include links to the external sources (if they're still around)

You may have already had those things in mind - my apoligies if you did.  I am, of course, willing to help with those 4 items.

Finally, thank-you for asking before moving forward. I appreciate the courtesy.  Raelind (talk) 04:03, January 3, 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt response. I'm not sure what I want to add first, so I'll start adding content little by little (and continue as long as it doesn't become an issue).

Is it OK to create individual pages for new feats, spells, classes or races that Kaedrin created which aren't included in the original game?

Yes, but I ask that you please make prominent reference to the fact that the page is for Kaedrin's at the top of the page in some standardized way you think is appropriate

There are actually many. It would be helpful for people who use K's pack to have actual reference pages on this wiki. We could also pool our collective knowledge about the content he made in ways that weren't possible in the past. Btw, K's work is so extensive and so well-done that I think it deserves to be included on the wiki.


Maybe pages that are about K's pack content only could include (Kaedrin) in the their title in parenthesis and a clear note at the top of the page that the content is not included in the base game and only available through downloading his pack.


It just occured to me that perhaps Kaedrin himself might have some sort of objection to the inclusion of his work on the wiki. I have never communicated with him directly and I don't know how to get in touch with him to ask. Do you think we should/need to ask him?

That depends.  His website states: "My custom content ideas are covered under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ (link is external)." From this, I presume the mere discussion and speculation of his content neither requires his consent nor his being informed (although if he can be that would be the polite thing to do).

I'll follow the guidelines you have outlined for anything I do. I also value civility highly and have no interest in getting involved in internet conflicts.

Your consideration is appreciated. Feel free to include others as you see fit.

Another thing we could do is improve on walkthrough information on the wiki. There are some quite good walkthrough sites (gamebanshee, sorcerer's place) that we could use as references to add nice walkthrough information of our own. HolyGuardian80 (talk) 15:16, January 3, 2020 (UTC)

Agreed.  I've been working on my own for over a year, but it's so specific (a very low level walkthough) and verbose I'm not sure if it will interest anyone besides me. It's currently 444K in size.  I posted what I have so far in my blog so you and others can take a look.  It's 99.5% done for the Original Campaign.  The problem is it was designed to be easily read as an ASCII file, and did not translate perfectly on a web page.  The result is a bit of a mess where some of the text on the right may be cut off.  However, if you read the file in "edit" mode everything is easy to read.  It will take a lot of work to be "web friendly".  Raelind (talk) 03:01, January 4, 2020 (UTC)

It sounds like we are on the same page about K-pack content, and that's quite heartening! About walkthroughs, I don't actually know where your blog is but in theory, I have nothing against verbose content (I can sometimes write quite a lot myself and then wish there was some way to shorten it all by 70%!) It would be a collective work anyway so even if you posted something long, someone else might be able to edit it down or adjust the formatting, etc. I would be interested to read what you had to write if I was tackling that particular part of the OC. I have some knowledge about random things in the game that I could also contribute. 

The walkthrough is the first entry in my blog.  Be prepared for a long read.Raelind (talk) 02:30, January 5, 2020 (UTC)

Anyway, one thing at a time.... so for me, let me focus on K-pack content. If you have time to start working on the walkthrough, I'll keep an eye on your work as much as I can and provide edits when I'm able. Even though gamebanshee, sorcerer's place and other sites have decent walkthroughs, who knows how long their content will remain online? So I think it's good for us to build a walkthrough here in the wiki that won't randomly disappear in the future. HolyGuardian80 (talk) 00:07, January 5, 2020 (UTC)

I had a similar line of thinking

I added a page but somehow messed up the formating: https://nwn2.fandom.com/wiki/Kaedrin%27s_Pack_Feat_List. Could you take a look and see if you can fix my mistake? If not, then I'll have to start over. Thanks :) HolyGuardian80 (talk) 01:21, January 5, 2020 (UTC)

I found your blog page. I figured it had to be in an obvious place and it was :) It seems like a good read. I've read a couple pages so far. I don't really like the plan of keeping characters at low levels, though it does seem like a good challenge. I'm currently running a lot of solo runs - it was how I was able to motivate myself to play the campaigns again. I'll read more of your blog when I have time. HolyGuardian80 (talk) 02:53, January 5, 2020 (UTC)

No rush.  It was one of those things I started to document my progress, but then it morphed into more, like mission creep.  I'm big into maximizing PC power potential, but this often comes at the expense of playability.  When you look at the notes on companions in the OC and the minimum levels some of the later companions can be acquired at, that was me.  The low level guide was my hard-headed solution to leveling companions *my* way, but also was squeezing power out of the OC without cheating.

I don't know how to follow this page[edit source]

Just a note - I don't know how to follow this page or how to get notified when you respond to me, so I have to remember to come back here and check for messages. My responses are delayed as a result. HolyGuardian80 (talk) 02:34, January 5, 2020 (UTC)

Following a Talk Page will cause it to appear bold in recent changes, but will not notify you when it is edited. Message Walls work better for back and forth conversations and do give notifications, but they are not currently enabled here.
◄► Tephra ◄► 04:19, January 6, 2020 (UTC)

Page protection[edit source]

It is unadvised to fully protect a large number of pages, especially indefinitely. If you have conflict with Ragimund, it would be better to figure out some sort of consensus than to lock the page to editing.
◄► Tephra ◄► 01:29, April 20, 2020 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, only one page (flurry) is locked. A read of talk pages for flurry and armor skin shows how concensus with Ragimund can sometimes be elusive Raelind (talk) 01:59, April 20, 2020 (UTC)

You can find a list of protected pages here. Set the Namespace to (Main) and Restriction level to fully protected. The list of pages there is quite long. Perhaps you should check through the list when you've got a little time and see if the protection could be lifted off some of them.
◄► Tephra ◄► 03:42, April 27, 2020 (UTC)

From reviewing the link you supplied over 200 pages, most notating scripts for use in the game, were fully protected. Until you showed me, I did not know how to find this list of protected pages (thank you, by the way). I was only aware of the one I had protected (flurry).  Since there appears to be no reason to keep most of them protected, I have removed protections from all but these:

  1. Flurry (the restriction on the this page will expire in 11 weeks)
  2. Admin profile pages (namely, mine and GFallen's)
  3. Player submitted build pages (these are more appropriately done at the NWN2db character builder site)

Raelind (talk) 05:35, April 27, 2020 (UTC)

New Wiki Representative[edit source]

Hi there!

Fandom has been doing some team reorganization and has redistributed Wiki Manager assignments. As a result, I have been assigned as your new Wiki Representative (the new name for Wiki Managers). Like the individual who was in the position before me, I am here on behalf of Fandom to support your wiki's community, help it grow and thrive and act as a liaison between you, and full-time staff. If you, or any other users ever have an issue or question related to this wiki (editing, templates, wiki design, or any other matters related to Fandom), please feel free to contact me on my message wall, and I will assist in any way I can.😀
- Sitb (Message wall / Talk page) 11:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

SpellInfo template issues[edit source]

This template has suffered from—for the last 2 years at least (probably much more)—a problem where it seems to be inserting blank paragraphs into the beginning of many articles where it is used. You can see if for yourself visually at Darkness and/or by using the element inspector of your browser's Developer Tools.

I have been doing some investigation into the cause of this, and I think the issue may be resulting from when categories are added to the bottom box of an article, which is handled by the last case/switch section in the template's code.

I have also uncovered what seems to be a bug/oversight (I could be mistaken) in the argument handling for 'quicken', 'silent', 'still', and 'persist' sections in this case/switch section. I detailed it here.

What is the best way to go about being able to diagnose this issue? Is there some kind of 'playground' namespace where things can be tried? I could not find a way to edit the template itself, which means it is probably more protected than normal pages.Diogenes412 (talk) 06:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

  • I have made a template page here for the purposes of my testing. —Diogenes412 (talk) 08:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Diogenes412

I took a look at your examples and see what you were writing about. Unfortunately, I don't have any real expertise in scripts, templates or use of a sandbox (for lack of a better term). It's certainly possible the template itself is locked. I'll ask the Wiki Manager Sitb about it and let you know if I find out anything.


Hi there,
Raelind brought this issue to my attention today, and to be honest Diogenes412, it sounds like you already have a greater understanding of the template's functionality and inner workings than I do. You also seem to possibly be on your way toward a fix. So, if you discover a solution via your prototype template, we could certainly apply that fix to the live Spellinfo template. If you're unable to find a fix through your own testing, then I could ask someone who may be able to assist.
A couple of related notes about this template:
  • I notice that this template is used on hundreds of pages via a redirect from a blank template page. For housekeeping purposes, articles which use this template should probably be changed to reference {{SpellInfo}} instead of {{Spell}}, as this template-redirect method could potentially cause unforeseen complications in some situations. All of those articles could be updated with a bot. I'm not sure if either of you have experience with that, but I could use my own bot account to fix those at some point, if you'd like.
  • Also, I notice this template is the only one on your wiki which is not portable. Are you folks familiar with portability on Fandom? I understand why this template template isn't portable - it's been heavily customized and is 16 years old. Template design on Fandom has come a bit of a ways since then, and there are ways of constructing templates now which make them adaptable to any screen, looking appropriate on all mobile devices. If you're open to it, this could be an opportunity to modernize the template.
- Sitb 22:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

UPDATE: To all following this thread, a quick update. I have managed to track down the sources (there were multiple) of the unwanted line breaks. I am in the process of refactoring the current template into a more readable fashion using Wikimedia "ParserFunctions". I am more than willing to look at the "portability" stuff once the rewrite is done. —Diogenes412 (talk) 03:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

UPDATE 2: I have completed the rewrite. From my checks, it appears to have been successful. I have also attempted to make it more readable to improve maintainability should any problems arise, and to make it easier for arguments to be tweaked or for features to be added. I will go through the existing spell pages and update their source to use "SpellInfo" template, instead of the old "Spell" template which now points to "SpellInfo" as suggested by Sitb. —Diogenes412 (talk) 08:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help with all of this.Raelind

Override site-wide styling[edit source]

What would it take to be able to change/override some styling for the wiki? I have identified a couple of things that can be improved upon. The <hr> renders as a thicker and darker than is visually appealing:

Compare this to the one seen here. Look specifically for "Horizontal rule" to see the section I'm referring to. It is quite visually similar to what is currently rendered underneath the higher level page headers, i.e. not too distracting and serves to help break up content in certain contexts.

The other thing is inline <code> elements. They currently do not render visually much different than normal paragraph text (you really have to lean in and look closely to even be able to tell):

Normal text

Code text (inline)

Code text (block)

The third one is what ideally it should render as inline as well. A lot of other sites do it this way. You can see an example of what I mean in the introductory paragraph to the link I posted in one of the earlier paragraphs — look specifically for the ''this'' towards the end of that paragraph.

I possess the ability to make the necessary changes, but I'm not sure how it is done on this wiki, or what privileges are required.

Diogenes412 (talk) 06:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I see what you're talking about with the Horizontal Rule. While it doesn't bother or distract me, I can also say I have no dog in that fight (so to speak) and have no problem with having this wiki conform to more commonly adopted formatting/appearance standards.

As to your other two ideas, generally anyone can change anything on this wiki unless the page is protected, and I have removed most of them over time. However, I don't know how to make the changes you seek. My suggestion is to ask Sitb.

- Raelind

Looks like the URL where the changes I need to make are made is here. It states I don't have the necessary privileges, however, which makes sense since this is where site-wide changes can be made. Do you have a policy for how to make changes there?

Diogenes412 (talk) 04:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Sitb has gotten back to me with the suggestion that, if you feel I am trustworthy enough, you grant access to the administrator tools (not sure how you accomplish that from your end). It might be that there is some kind of level of privileges in between Admin and normal User that allows this to be accomplished without giving too much power/access.

Diogenes412 (talk) 23:45, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any ability for intermediate authority between user/admin. Your work appears very good, so I've given you administrator privileges for a week. Please be careful with these site-wide changes.

Raelind (talk) 01:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the trust. Temporary privileges is more than a decent solution.

I have made the changes to styling for the horizontal rule and the inline code. You should be able to see the changes in the examples I gave earlier in this thread. The goal was to make inline code display consistent with block code display, and to make the horizontal rule less obtrusive but still useful for breaking up large swathes of content in certain contexts. Thoughts?

Diogenes412 (talk) 05:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.