I am checking all of your updates for Geralt of Rivia, why did you delete that Yennefer is love of Geralt's life in books under Personality? I mean it seems like Yennefer doesn't play any role in his life which is totally wrong...Sapkowski created Yennefer for Geralt and yet I don't see almost anything about this important fact. I am really curious why did you deleted that or if you plan to edit the Personality section with more info about importance of Yennefer and Ciri n Geralt's life because seriously I lack this information in the seciton!
Downtoearth1 wrote: Oh, I’m just adding the whole biography and I will add Ciri’s full story later and a quick summary of Ciri, Dandelion and Yennfers’s significance to him.
Thank you a lot I just wish people wouldn't forget about Yennefer (I see a lot of biased edits because of the romances in games) but if some fans like it or not Yennefer had big impact for Geralt's personality in books and basically next to Ciri it is the most important person to him in saga, I just don't get how anyone who is fan of Witcher books can miss this.
XD thanks. I can't do it right down because I'm from mobile and I'm not very good at it. Perhaps I'll try later or ask Mechemik. Also I wouldn't write those cards in infobox but I would create a paragraph called Meve's starting deck.
Yeah aha, I was really into that but then i felt like writing it wasn't up to the quality you or Mechemik could write it, as Mechemik would completely rewrite my work, so I figured Mechemik or you would have written it better.
1249 – The Last Wish short story (calculated from the below, Geralt spent a year in Vengerberg; it's also the year used on TW3 website before the release) 1250 – Geralt escapes from Yennefer June-August 1251 – Season of Storms October 1252 – A Question of Price 1253 – The Witcher short story; The Voice of Reason 1254 – The Bounds of Reason, Geralt meets Yen after 4 years ? – A Shard of Ice, Geralt and Yen break up again ? – Eternal Flame; if we manage to calculate when Night of Knives and Torches took place, we have the year (Edit: it's 1255/6 if we count WGW) 1258 – Geralt visits Cintra (Something More retrospection) ? – A Little Sacrifice Spring/Autumn 1262 – Sword of Destiny short story, Geralt meets Ciri in Brokilon 1263 – Geralt heading to Cintra meets Dandelion and learns about Cintra's fate (Something More retrospection) Early autumn 1263 – Sodden Hill, I Northern War ends 1263/4 – Geralt in the North (Reason of State, mention in Something More); later that TW1 adventure in Vizima, forgot the name Early autumn 1264 – Geralt meets Yurga and Ciri (Something More) Autumn 1264 – early spring 1266 – Ciri in Kaer Morhen (Blood of Elves) Spring 1266 – June 1267 – Ciri in Ellander, Geralt on Pontar, in Oxenfurt (Blood of Elves) and cooperating with Codringher (Time of Contempt) 1 July 1267 – Thanedd coup July – 9 September – Ciri with the Rats 9-23 September – Ciri with Bonhart 27 September – late October – Ciri with Vysogota Saovine – Ciri kills Gemmerans in Dûn Dare About 21 November 1267 – Ciri enters Tor Zireael March 1268 – Battle of Brenna, Assault on Stygga citadel 2 April 1268 – Peace of Cintra 6/7 June 1268 – Rivian Pogrom
Small details like that, where it's not important to the overall story, aren't really needed (player can read the books in full to get the full pictures :p ) Obviously the unicorn part is left because it keeps coming up in other areas.
As for moves and other, should we merge Alvin with Jacques de Aldersberg? It might be spoilerous, but Duny's real identity is way more spoilerous (especially for newcomers from TV series) and yet we have it merged under Emhyr.
@Jack Hello there man. Right of the bat I have to say, you are ON FIRE! I'm extremely grateful for the multitude of quality edits you have been making lately. Has the Netflix hype struck you, is that it? :P
As a side note, I'm thinking of temporarily enabling it so only registered users can edit/comment for the next month or so. With the show coming out, I'd like to keep potential anonymous trolls from editing/posting (especially when it comes to Fringilla's page). Unfortunately there's no way to block off one page like this so it'd have to ba a site wide thing for now :( Let me know if you guys are ok with that or not (if not, would likely need others to also help monitor and delete racial/skin tone comments).
Well, my understanding was we could still keep the footnote (as the main page still acts like a catch all of all info across all the various works). Or do you think we should separate the information entirely now between netflix and the rest?
Yeah something tells me Netflix won't like that very much. I think the idea was to have a full character page so to speak for each Netflix version (so they'd have a character infobox, bio, etc.). Question just becomes if we should remove all Netflix content from the charcter's main page or add it there as well?
I say we could go about it this way: use what doesnt break the canon narrative and ignore the rest, as it is will be featured on Netflix subpages anyway (pls guys comme on I need for my Eist article to be the best it can in every shape and form xD ^_^)
Lol xD Well we surely can not include information that break the established Saga canon, can we? But restraining ourselves from using the Netflix lore on main pages at all would be too drastic IMO, so this is the best solution.
Nice! Yesterday was such a good day for a witcher.
As for Mousesack, I can rewrite the main bio to say that he was thought dead but somehow managed to recover? He is a druid after all, and his corpse was not outright showed (I know it's far-fetched but rather in line with what we were doing so far when it came to combining Gra and CDPR lore that seemed incompatible).
I totally disagree. We have to accept the fact that there can be a story that merges all the lore as most of them clashes with eachother. Personally I like to think that what we re doing here is the same thing Nimue and Condwiramurs were doing, so digging among all the stories and legends (games, netflix and other adaptations) in orfer to find the original story (Sapkowksi's). So trying to merge every adaptaion even when they're canon breaking for me is crazy, and this idea to change Mousesack fate by saying he didn't actually die even more.
Well, nothing in book says he dies. Nothing in the show does either (though it's implied). And then we have him in the third game. We agreed long ago (and affirmed it couple of days back) that we dont want to have separate section for each adaptation, therefore what we do on the main page is usually find a way to make the different adaptations work together. Why should the games take precedence over Netflix? Especially considering Netflix worked a little bit more closely with Sapkowski.
Erm, I'm not really sure if stretching the material THAT far is ok xD it's not the case like with Bran Tuirseach when nothing stated he was dead when Eist ruled, we literally see Mousesack being stabbed :P
Tabs with separate timelines are fine, we already do them with Radovid and Gascon.
I hate those tabs tho xD but alright guys, you overvoted me (if that's even a word). How will we adress the fact Nilfgaard is referred to as kingdom until episode 7? They fix it in the last two so I think they knew by then they fuc*ed up.
I also remember (though not sure which adaptation was it (Gra Wyobraźni maybe?)) it written somewhere the Emperor used to be seen as embodiment of the Great Sun. Plus there were all the prophecies about the White Flame spread by Nilfgaardian priests during Blood of Elves so it has something to it.
Yeah it's better as a whole just to keep everything in past tense and treat the 1520s as the current present. This way they all stay consistent and don't have to keep going back and forth on what is past and what is present tense.
Ugh, sorry for the confusion Jack and you other guys... I meant to write "they shouldn't [be in present tense]". As in, I agree with Mechemik we should be consistent and continue writing in past tense.
Has anyone caught an actual year in show yet? I'd like to start building up a timeline for it but without a year to go by, may not be able to do so (or use the years we do have as a reference point, like Calanthe's age when she won her first battle to pinpoint the events in Blaviken).
Also, @SMiki, just ignore that one person. They don't care about listening/understanding as much as just trying to convince everyone their way is "right" and we're "wrong".
There are surely some changes in the chronology (like Ciri actually being teen during the siege instead of she-was-10-when-it-happened-but-somehow-spent-winter-on-Skellige-at-13-because-reasons), but no idea whether should we move years backwards or forwards :/ I can try to reach Lauren or Bagiński, but they respond less frequently after the show released
Yes, I haven't meant to rewrite one of the existing timelines but rather been thinking which year from them should serve as a base (as I don't recall any year mentioned in the series, I've watched only once though)
Same, I've been trying to scour it for a year but nothing yet. Also, am I mistaken or are they considering Tor Lara and Aretuza separate buildings entirely (with Aretuza being that large brown building connected to the land)?
Yeah, NO. This wiki would have been in much more advanced state if all the original editors did not end up editing Gamepedia, like me for years. I only came here because I was pissed that no one would see my edits there -- especially as Cody Pondsmith ignored my corrections about Geddes, Dezmod etc. and used wrong information only because it was written on the more popular wiki. Splitting wikis is NEVER good and does only slow their development.
Except we're treating Netflix characters like they have nothing to do with their story in the books (and it's not completely wrong to say after all). At this point they share just the name, as most of them along with their backstory, timeline etc got changed.
Another matter: people keep inserting things such as "alive (dependent)" into "status" field in infobox, not realizing that the wiki does not treat 1270s as the "current time". The point is, likely all the people apart from demigods and some sorcerers are deceased by the "recent current" so I'm not sure whether do we need the "status" field at all. Maybe we could replace it with "reason of death"?
I prefer the status field, especially since we can't even considered sorcerers and witchers stilll alive in the 1500s. That said, can insert side notes instead (they show up only in edit mode to denote something just so someone doesn't change it if they see the note there signifying why).
@Miki Ehh, what I mostly meant was that we didn't see Svanrige and Eist interact, or Svanrige reminisce about his uncle unlike with Ciri when their relation was hinted in books and shown in The Witcher now. See what I mean?
@Miki Sure, I tried my best but if you find anything missing then add it, I think his page is as up to date as possible (or can easily be).
@Mechemik could we maybe change the orange line on the subpage template and tabber from orange to a different color that would still be easily visible yet not as bright? Smth that would better align with the rest of our design.
Red doesn't match well and also red is already used as default for wanted links (not just here but all wikis) therefore that could cause too much confusion. Green would blend in (and is already in use for coding font), purple would blend in too much, pink just no, browns/grays are too dark and already in use for background, so that really only leaves orange/yellow.
Alright, I understand the color. Why should there be two images in Geralt infobox though? Because of angry gamers? The image in the infobox should always be the best available and closest to canon if that's possible (which game Geralt with his heavy armor and beard hardly ever was). Another thing is the author himself, Andrzej Sapkowski, stated that Henry Cavill is the ultimate Geralt of Rivia for him now and this is his world at the end of the day.
We still can use a game one that would be more true to canon than the current game render. One with good PC can screenshot shaved Geralt in wolven or manticore armor in inventory menu, then we just cut the black background and have a nice, lore-friendly game Geralt for infobox :)
I'd leave the current game image as is for now, just to not have people complaining all over until we can get a better one up. Otherwise, if we remove the gallery from the infoboxes, we should make that standard and remove the ones from the ones like Renfri, dryads, etc.
(despite that, you still can't get rid of the gallery format all the time, like for maps, items that have multiple views, etc.)
Why not leave Henry up though until then? Just because of few complainers? Comme on we are Wiki not a fórum xD
Yes I ageee. I would keep the closest canonic Gwent pic for dryads (Miki, you probably will want to choose this one) and for Renfri I would keep her Netflix image – I wouldnt if it was the previous one but current actually has her dirty (as in dirt) darker blonde so it's good.
Seriously guys? Are we really turning this discussion about something entirely different into another Duny talk? Please, please let's finally resolve tabs in infoboxes and then we can move to another topic.
As Mechemik said, and I agree, one pic in an infobox should be standard. As Geralt is waiting for his image, he temporarily stays as he is now. Miki – can you adjust Renfri and dryad boxes?
Actually I didn't say one pic should be standard. I'm ok with having multiple images as there's no way to completely get rid of them in other cases (like character that change appearances depending on event outcomes in the same game, an item that can have multiple appearances, etc.).
Eh, alright lemme be as clear as I can be — for characters such as Geralt, Renfri or groups like dryads, in whose cases their appearance doesn’t drastically change, who don’t have mysterious/revealed journal pictures and whose canonic appearence clearly described. Can we make it a standard for such? Otherwise I am confused what you meant yesterday.
I would like to have just one image in infobox as having more isn't a necessesity in this case. My preferred choice would be Henry, but Mechemik and Bizi fear to leave just him in the infobox to not anger the gamers. Therefore we came with this idea.
At least so I thought. Now I'm getting lost in everybody's opinions.
Ok so to clarify my opinion: I'm ok with the multiple images in the infobox, especially when it comes to the main pages for characters. IF we switched to only one image for them though, then it would need to be one that's more canon to the work (and not be the same image used on a subpage). So for example, Renfri's would be the illustration and not the show as the show's Renfri doesn't match as well to (canon was blonde with blue-green eyes).
True but I'm willing to make an exception here. I'm repeating this for a 100th time: I see no reason to have two different images for characters like Geralt and Renfri, whose canon appearence is as clear as day and who don't undergo massive appearence change throughout their story.
The most canon friendly images are -- ironically -- fanarts, and we can't use them. Each other has flaws: CavillGeralt doesn't have a scar (told by Sapkowski to exist in his comment to Claws and Fangs), GameGeralt always wears 3D medallion instead of circular one, none of them wears a headband -- except HexerGeralt, who in turn has black beard.
After thinking about the matter a bit: I'm higly opposed to "one image" policy. I don't even mind Geralt much, he'll probably look good in wolven armor, but I still remember our clashes about TW1 characters. Mechemik reverted almost each edition which replaced the ugly models or portraits with their updated images from Gwent cards; I'm still amazed that Toruviel made it. The policy forbidding the usage of multiple images would prevent me from using, let's say, TV Chireadan who looks much better than the monkey from TW1, because "players would not be able recognize characters in game". So no, as long as TW1 images are priviledged above cardart or TV adaptations, I vote against as the tabs are the only possibility for me to add something else next to them xD
Plus Mousesack looks very awesome in one of the episodes where he has long hair, I'd love to add his image to the box, but I know that in case of "one image" policy he would get kicked out "so that players can recognize him in game".
I would seriously dislike to have tabs for every adaptation, maybe even consider leaving.
@Miki what if I told you I actually do not want for TW1 renders to be privilleged to TV adaptation? And I believe if you replaced current Chireadan image with Netflix one, nobody, Mechemik included, would object.
I'm also opposed to having just one standard image. Also we tried to do separate tabs at one point for content but it made it pointless as it either stripped the main page of most information (as we made that one books only) or very little information on the other tabs.
Yes I am being serious. I think out of the 4 of us you're the only one hung up on only wanting one image. Looking at it another way, it helps satisfy being able to show multiple representations without having to fight the only one allowed in it every time.
Except why do you want to satisfy everyone when some characters have clear canon description, and we can just choose the closest available thing for the box? Galleries work good for the rest. And funny the numbers. How is it that when you were the only one of 4 wanting something it got through? I am a bureaucrat too after all.
Generally speaking there hasn't been a time when it was just my opinion for one thing that outweighed others unless it came to technical reasons. However in this case as it's a major part of the page (first thing seen on it) that is a big deal, especially when the rest wouldn't be seen unless someone goes all the way to the bottom of the page. I'm not saying put every adaptation, like the smaller comics, RPGs, etc. but just major/well known ones people are familiar with.
Alright now I am a little confused. 'Cause the other day you said you are ready to have 4-5 images per infobox, but now you say only major adaptation. So it would be 2 max 3, right? That I could actually get behind to be honest.
PS: Why revert Sir Edward Grey's addition to the comic pages? I reviewed them when they were added, all fine and in accordance with our Manual of Style.
Yes that's what I meant as it doesn't seem worth the effort to have one for EVERY adaptation (especially obscure ones that aren't available for English speakers, like the RPGs)
Also I just messaged him separately regarding that (mostly to do with redundant gallery images and replacement with pound sign/hashtag as sometimes it can cause some coding issues, or because that was how it was officially written in the comic's summary).
Also heads up, you likely won't come across it often (or really a need to use it) but for now I've created a "sub" template to Infobox Item3 for baw. This is only for DPL sorting purposes to prevent baw crafting components/ingredients from showing up on DPL tables, but you likely won't see it in use anywhere else. Do let me know though if you see any issues with it (I'm hoping it'll only be temporary while I get help on writing up better DPL code to use so we won't need to do a separate template).
@Mechemik Can we have something similar to Wookiepedia's link to Databank entries made for the new Netflix The Witcher website? Something a llitle akin to what we have for Gwent Wiki, I plan to use some lore from the site.
If Svanrige was older he would be send to the feast instead of Crach :P and common sense is not speculation, and even if it is, it is much better than speculating that Birna is over 60 as it is speculated in the article now
Nothing of the sorts is currently speculated there, but your Crach argument sounds right. I didnt mean to imply he is the older than Crach, but sure could be the oldest post-Bran son-of-a-jarl. Putting it in the reign section could work but I'm not sure about wording. Wanna fix it maybe?
@Juraj still looking into the reference icon thing. As Netflix is rather particular about how it's used, I'm checking with contacts with them to make sure they'll be ok with us using it in that manner.
So it's been brought to my attention that we may have been using the wrong term here regarding quadroons. The English books don't appear to ever actually use that term, instead saying "quarter-elf". I can't recall if quadroon was ever used in the games or show either. Can you guys confirm? If it hasn't been used in the English versions, then it does make a point that we should probably switch it over to "Quarter-elf" instead.
Also heads up @Juraj and @SMiki: please make sure to check the emails you have associated with your accounts. Some Wiki staff members will be reaching out as they'd like to talk some about the Witcher :)
Quadroon is used in standalone Gwent, TW3 and Thronebreaker. However it's true English book translation goes with "Quarter-elf" instead, therefore that should be our main name. It also goes a little better alongside elf, half-elf etc.
Thx for the notice! Should I, eh, make the mail more visible or something? I'm glad to hear they might be contacting me heheh.
Some missing articles for WGW have been uploaded to Polish official facebook group today! Haven't time to read it all yet, but from a glimpse at one scenario I already see bunch of Vespaden lore and a potential surname of Renfri and Fredefalk (Vellga)
Yes, so with rollback (especially when it comes to vandals or if you need to undo a lot of individual edits someone did) it basically reverts it all back to the previous editor but doesn't show up in the normal activity log (will still show up in the detailed one). This is mostly done to prevent vandalism edits from clogging up the normal activity view.
@Mechemik here with another botmove request: Werebbubb Speech → Werebbubb language. Please :) Yeaah I could always do it myself but ya know, hate the tedious work of going to every page changing links.
I noticed that you've undone nearly every change I've done in this wiki, which would be ok if those changes wouldn't be useful or interesting or something like that.
Well, if you love playing gwent like I do and your goal is to complete your gwent card collection, it's really nice to know which gwent player rewards you with a card and which not. So if there's an innkeep or any other kind of gwent player and you look him up in the wiki, I would expect so find some kind of information about the reward for beating him, even if there is none it would be nice to know so you could simply spare him and use your time otherwise in the game. I'm sorry if my english is not flawless and maybe those short sentences I wrote weren't completely correct, I'm from Vienna btw, but the information I tried to provide wasn't unnecessary or even incorrect. Are you actually aware that the "Collect them all" quest isn't linked at every gwent player which has a part in it or otherwise that it is linked at gwent players who won't give cards as a reward, which is kind of a hoax ?
I even thought about elaborating the Blood & Wine gwent quests which I'm not interested in anymore, thanks to you.
Aren't wikis actually community projects to gather facts about a topic, some important, some worth knowing, some subsidiary and even some fun ones, it seems to me that not every aspect is appreciated here.
I’m so sorry, I should have sent you a message explaining. The rewards from beating the vendors is random, and just because you got something doesn’t mean someone else will. Plus, you had a couple of spelling errors and saying “he just plays for fun” isn’t really up to standard. The vendors are all contributing to the quest, but they only give a card on their first match.
Well if I had to prove something I would say, that If you already seem to know that the rewards are random at each of those vendors I tried to edit, then you should add this little piece of information in their description, since you haven't done this I assume that you're not sure about that.
And to repeat myself, not every gwent player who is a part of the collecting quest has this quest linked on their side and as I've already told you, my native language isn't english. So there sure could be spelling or grammar mistakes but instead of deleting everything, you could have just corrected them.
I just wanted to point some things out, hoping someone would take care of it since my effort isn't desired and because I know how difficult it can be to work on a wiki which won't stop growing which is actually a good thing but just pretty exhausting.
So no thank you, I don't need to talk to anyone else.
Actually we have a list right on the gwent players page to see who gives a unique card or not. Those who don't means they may not give a random card as a reward (instead may give crafting components or a small amount of coin instead). All cards that are random are marked on their respective pages as well (though you can also view each deck page to make it easier to see which ones are randomly rewarded).
Hi juraj i dont know if you have "Zrada" a witcher comic book, it is in polish and i need to know as much information about it as possible. Can you either please send me a link to a translated version or tell me the info yourself.
He was Human, Male, Toussaintois, Had a brother, appeared (mentioned only) in BaW. Mechemik and I would like to have an infobox on as many pages as possible. Its consistent and gives quick information quicker than text you see?
Also Downtoearth, remember not to write things as it did happen (versus can happen) unless it's something that can't be avoided (main quests). Everything else is written more like "If Geralt meets so and so or does such.." etc.