Hello there Mechemik i wanted to ask why you reverted my edits in the timeline page i had alot of work in adding them. The Game's timeline ins't fanfiction, non-canon or a Side-story because you see CD Project Red and Sapkowisky made a Copyright deal by end of 2019 and so the games are indeed valid now.
It is actually non-canon. The lore stems from the books which, no matter how you want to view it, the author has stated he doesn't view the games as canon to his written works. If you have evidence to show that the author has agreed that the games are now canon please add the links here for us to check, as the only information that appears to be out is that the author and CDPR reached an agreement about continuing to use his IP, nothing about it being made canon.
May I know why you put back that false information? I spent countless hours on studying the original storyline, it really makes me frustrated when people dismiss what I say without asking me to prove my statement first.
Look at what you're saying versus your own actions. You note you don't like people dismissing it but you also just walked in and called it "bullshit" and changed it drastically without backing it up. The leaked materials appears to indicate at least two quests and does even name one of them in the material and some of the specifics (like that of who tries to help him). Are you saying you have a different source for the information or found something else on them that changes that info?
Your first point, I see no contradiction in my actions, I called that thing bullshit because, as i stated, I have no idea how could someone possibly reach such conclusion. You and Downtoearth1 reverted my change without saying a thing.
So to quickly summarize Hvitr's story, [sentences in brackets are how I connect the events]:
After examining cataclysm [Geralt and Yen visited a place where refugees from Lofoten were located. Among them was a couple with their son], Hvitr. Astrid - she was very close to Ciri before WH attack, Skjall didn't exist back then - was his sister [but she didn't escape with the rest and so is assumed to be dead.] Hvitr was no ordinary boy, that was common knowledge among Skelligians. [Yen suspected he's a Source] and wanted to take him to druid's grove so they may intoxicate him and and forcibly awaken his abilities in hope that he says something about Ciri. Ritual is dangerous and Geralt is afraid Hvitr will be harmed. As they argue, Yennefer teleports Geralt away so he does not interrupt.
Geralt returns to Ard Skellig and sees a gathering in druid’s grove, jarls and their sons were summoned because Hvitr has seen something important for Skellige, but that's an another story. After a phase in the sacred circle Yen informs Geralt that during Trial of Smoke [Hvitr has seen Astrid alive].
On Hindarsfjall Astrid is indeed found alive, but she's been in coma for weeks. To heal her, Geralt, Yen and Hvitr entered Freya’s garden to collect different herbs. Garden was abandoned due to many basilisks which some time ago suddenly appeared and from that on lived inside among people turned into a stone.
Later Geralt had to decide which of those herbs should be given to Astrid. In one outcome she died because the cure was poisonous to her.
That's a summary. Someone mixed up Astrid's coma with Hvitr's ritual. There is no evidence that Gremist existed back then. If you still don't believe me then go to ALPHA BUGS and see the sheets to q204 and q205, see how perfectly they blend with what I've written.
Ok so a better way to have done that then was to have fleshed Hvitr's page out (similar to what you wrote here) instead of just removing all information entirely (as he still participates, just in a different manner).
As I said in the note, I didn't feel like writing something about him from scratch because English is not my native language. I am now just going to remove the false information so it no longer annoys me, but since I wrote a summary here for you, feel free to edit it and add to the article if you want.
Yeah we try to take some comments that perhaps there's a bug, but when they show a history of just complaining and saying fake info/outdated when the information has been udpated recently, it makes it unlikely they're actually having a bug (or haven't updated their game).
The Decoctions and Potions pages are stubs and do not have much on them and could really use some work. These pages are like "eating a pie and realizing that it has no filling". Would it be necessary to add an in-depth description to the effects of each potion and decoction? Make two tabs or headings called "Effects" and "Tips". Here are some examples.
Such as for Super Peteri's Filter, one of the effects says "signs always apply special effects". Perhap someone can edit the page and describe what that means by special effects. Maybe say that it does absolutely nothing since that's what I'm seeing when I use this potion.
Basilisk Decoction. Put a description about all of the effects of this decoction. Such as talk about how this decoction also boosts overall Sign Intensity as well.
Leshen Decoction: For a "tips" heading, one can edit that Leshen Decoction's effect does not return too much damage alone, but stacks well with the Quen Discharge ability, the second bonus of the Grandmaster Ursine set, and possibly (I haven't tested yet) the Retribution Glyphword from the Runewright.
Hi, there's another editor that's actually already adding tips to pages like that when he comes across something. It doesn't need an effects header though as that's literally just its description/what's already in the infobox and would be redundant there.
As listed in my examples above, sometimes the infobox is not fully accurate or descriptive to what actually happens in gameplay. But I don't run the show here, so it's up to the admins. Well if he runs out of things to come across, those would be good tips to add.
Only for fun! My real build involves the use of versality with combo attacks with the use of the Forktail Decoction! Speaking of which that's another decoction that needs some writing. The effect says 50% damage is added when combining fast attacks, strong attacks, and signs. But really the effect requires a fast OR strong attack, a sign, AND a counterattack.
As I suspected the results are pretty lame. Most punishment effects depend on the damage Geralt receives, so it's most effective if Geralt goes commando style into battle but on a higher difficulty setting it would be suicide. All in all it's a stupid tactic, because who makes a build revolving arount getting hit?
And you're right, making that kind of build is indeed stupid. Especially without the use of the alternate Quen sign, Active Shield! The build I was talking about was Geralt hiding in a bubble while enemies go crazy attacking it and hurting themselves in the process. The strength of the Quen sign requires Geralt to not just have high sign intensity, but also high damage resistance too. Protective Coating from the Alchemy skill tree, Reliever's Decoction, and the Mutated Skin mutation with all three adrenaline points will make the Active Shield nearly unbreakable. Quen isn't like magic shields from other universes. Quen doesn't stop the user from getting hit. Quen just protects the user from taking damage. So Geralt still gets hit and the blow is still landed on him. Therefore, the punishment effects still harm the target even if Geralt takes no damage. So this tactic is not stupid. But I will admit that it is tedious, boring, and makes fights long and boring in Death March. But again, this build was just an experiment for the sake of information to add to this wiki.
And that only applies to the Retribution armor enchantment right? The Leshen Decoction and Quen Discharge still reflects damage even if Geralt doesn't take it. Have you tested it out yet? Unequipped the Quen Discharge ability and not drink the Leshen Decoction?
Gourmet and Active Shield (changed Shield to shield). I think I should delete the original articles first and then rename the new ones. But I don't have permission for deleting and before you ask no I don't want you to give it to me.
And when I tried to rename the old one it instead created a redirect link.
The wiki pages of characters contain huge spoilers, and they are in pretty visible palces, like basic information and such. It would be nice to add a spoiler tag (so hide them, until you put effort into seing them) on them.
Usually while reading the books I google the characters (since ther are quite many of them and I'm really bad with names), and it's not fun finding out in book 2 or 3 that who Duny is. Or that some other character will die in the event I just started reading about.
Most of the pages that reveal major spoilers are covered by a spoiler banner at the top of the page. It is a given though that if you go reading on a site about the series, like here, reddit, discord, etc. you run the risk of running into a spoiler you may not have wished to know about which is why it's recommended not to do such unless you wish to have something revealed before you came across it.
Maybe FANDOM staff can talk into Google so that "Duny" results show info from Duny (Netflix series) instead of Emhyr var Emreis? Or you know Mechemik, we can just do a normal Duny page and there would be no need to bother FANDOM and Google :P
I think there is a middle ground between "whole page is a spoiler, don't come there" and nothing is a spoiler.
Spoiler tags are pretty common now all around the internet. So there's a way to hide parts of the character page as they contain spoilers.
I think it would really useful for users of this wiki to have spoiler free parts to have a general description, who the character is without telling the guy is a main character and dies on page 374 horribly by other main character.
Ultimately in the end, the answer is spoiler banners are put up on the pages with major spoilers and coming here reading on it when you're not done yet invites the possibility that you will run into spoilers on a site regarding the topic. That's why it's best to finish reading/play/etc. before going online and delving into it further, regardless if it's here, reddit, discord, etc.
Emhyr is already marked with a spoiler banner at the top. The only thing we can do is to do a separate page for his alter ego so that people googling Duny don't get beaten with a giant Emhyr portrait, but this seem to be a controversial idea here :P
While checking out my skills I discovered I had 1 skill point too many and I was wondering how it happened?
After thinking it through I got a hunch that it may be earned by redoing Turn and Face the Strange on NG+ after Mutations have already been unlocked. Fortunately I had a custom save that allowed me to redo the quest and it turned out I was absolutely right.
Right after performing the process that unlocks mutations I gained an additional skill point although there was no indication, so I'll add the info to the appropriate articles.
Thank you for whoever fixed my ability to write on message walls! whew!
I have some questions:
Is there a "chronological" list of the original Witcher stories here on the wiki? I came to the wiki to find out what stories to read in order, as the advice I received about the chronology of Season of Storms didn't quite work out. Is there such a thing? Including chapters, for collected stories out of order? If so, point me at it and I'll have what I came for and can depart satisfied.
Can I get pre-approval for creating such a chronology, if it doesn't exist? The existing timelines don't serve the purpose of reading the stories in order.
Where can I discuss the "policy" of deleting chapter references, as was done to my edit on the Idr page? Books are not short. Chapter references help a person go back and reread something. At the very least, it makes it easy to verify the accuracy of an article. Posting a chapter reference does no harm - I'm not creating policy requiring one. If the wiki is willing to have 10,000 pages, addressing every minor detail and quest and item and person from the game, surely the *source material* deserves some attention.
Is it approved to beef up the book pages themselves, or is there a policy against it? (The ones I checked have little more than a publisher's blurb, with an added teaser that barely begins to address the main events of the book.
Is the krallach (on the Idr page) in the game, or on Netflix? I can't find it in the books. The tweet reference is unclear since I don't know if the guy works on the show (probably) or the game.
How do I use the Canon template to invoke the "adaptations" parameter versus the game content default? I am good with templates that give examples, but I'm very poor at understanding them by reading the code. I don't use the visual editor.
As a final note, not a question, this has been my experience on this wiki so far: My first edit on the wiki, Calanthe, was reverted 3 hours later with no summary description. (The info I added was referred to later in the article but without initial context.) My second edit was reverted after 90 minutes. No explanation. My third edit was reverted at the same time. You explained, "we don't divide refs by chapters." (But my question in my summary description went unanswered.) My fourth edit added a space in a legitimate combination word with a poor link. Apparently that was okay.
Hi! A lot of questions I see, see if I can answer them all here:
yes, we marked the infoboxes on each book's page to note the best order to read them up until it's the same as the chronological one. There should be 2 sets: one for release date order and one for which ones to read first order. Typically SoS is put as last to read.
I understand you may like to do so on other wikis, but here we just reference the books/games and only add additoinal details when absolutely necessary. We don't do chapters here because it's rather messy and would mess up references too much for pages that need to reference a lot of other areas and could easily end up with 50+ references doing so on some pages not to mention where information may be repeated across various sources (we don't just reference the books but other website, games, etc.). The only time we add additional notes to a reference is to point out where ages/years were mentioned to note how we derived the possible age/year. If someone wants to know where a particular detail came from down to the page, they can ask or just search the keyword in a digital format. The major takeaway here is to note the general source without causing needless references everywhere.
you can add to them to a degree, but the book pages are really meant to act more like a quick summary of the major details. The short stories meanwhile can be broken down further on their own respective pages, but the general idea is if a reader is here and wanting a play by play, they need to go read the books, not try read it here.
correct, the Krallach is specific to the Netflix series. As we also the official wiki for Netflix's witcher show, we cover all material for them as well as the books, games, etc.
it depends on which adaption you need to refer to. By deafult it sets to games anyways so if you need to mark off game canon, you just add the template :) If you need it to reference the comics, you can just put the type as "comics". You can also set it to "hexer" (for the original show), wgw for the PnP game, multiverse for non-Witcher works by the author, witcherseries for the Netflix one (though granted we don't use this one very much as the info is so split most Netflix info goes on its own page), and somethingends for the non-canon story Something Ends. But granted most only use the default setting or the comics one.
And yes, I keep forgetting to add a note on why. So the first on was reverted because we only put the bio from the character's perspective (so for intance if something happens that the charcter isn't aware of, or not there for, it's not put). In that case, it was more like it was just the general details, when in the books Calanthe found out when Geralt made the request and Pavetta shyly revealed she was pregnant to her surprised mother, so it needs to be told from Calanthe's perspective there. Second one wasn't reverted, only removed reference as the book pages themselves don't need to referen back to another book. Third one was also not reverted and explained in the above question on why we don't ref chapters, and the fourth one, we normally don't split links like that if it's one word, but as monsterslayer can be written both ways and it wasn't an official description, it doesn't matter much there.
It'd be rather pedantic here: we have no real reason to cite by chapter and would cause needless long ref lists not to mention a very cluttered article page where almost every sentence in some cases would then have a reference note because information pops up in different chapters (and then begs the question if you'd then have to cite every chapter in every book for the same info, like we've been doing with just the book titles. That would definitely not work well for things like demonyms. And then if you want to say just use the book title for some things like that, then what's the point of splitting it between book title cite and chapter cite?). The question here really becomes is it actually useful to the site, and honestly I can't find a good reason to do so as it's very rare anyone actually asks where a particular note came from (maybe once every few months) and generally they're not looking for the chapter but the actual page itself. Overall, it'd be one thing if each book was say, 1,000+ pages long making it difficult to find info, but the books are relatively short and the ones that do ask where something came from are asking for the page itself, not chapters.