I encountered a Wyvern hovering over the Harpies nest while doing the 'Ladies of the Wood' quest today. So I suggested an edit. You did a follow up edit citing that it spawns on the road and is not a consequence of the quest. But this was similar to the Scavenger hunt for the silver sword diagram of the Griffin School Gear at Lornruk. The Wyvern was hovering over the Harpies nest and attacked first. I'd also gone quite ahead in the main quests, finishing Skellige and was probably mid-way through Novigrad, before I picked this main quest.
Just sharing my observations here, if it helps in anyway.
Also, on a side note is there a Discord for the Witcher wiki editors? I've been making minor edits as I play but I'd be happy to contribute to clean ups on quests as well if that's okay.
So that wyvern actually can spawn further away on the road (the nest area where you retrieve the bottle is the harpies') so he's not directly associated with it and can actually be killed at just a random passing through the area. I've done this several times with him spawnning along the small road through that area, but not close enough to the harpies to have to fight both groups at once.
And no, there isn't a discord for that. We all just communicate on the message walls here :)
Might be a good idea to have a Discord, especially with Cyberpunk 2077 and season's of the Netflix Witcher series to come, there's bound to be more interest here. It's helped me a lot. So thanks to you and everyone else who put it together!
I appreciate you sweeping over all the changes I've been making to the TW2 quests, but can you give me a little more time after my edits to do your proofing? I decided after adding the infobox to the Butcher of Cidaris that I would de-stub it, but I then hit an edit conflict with you shuffling the internal links, and my version got dumped to raw HTML/CSS instead of Markup in the conflict resolution. If you give me an hour from my last edit, that should be a good indication I don't have a big edit coming through. (Although, again, I do apprciate the cleanups -- I've been using the diffs to see what parts of the style guide I've been ignoring).
Also, while I'm here -- I thought I added a "Type" class to the Quest infobox, but it looks like it's admin-locked and the visual edits don't actually do anything. While reading this wiki, I've thought having a direct link to arm wrestling, dice poker, contracts, fist fighting, the main quest, or secondary quests (this one probably doesn't have a good associated page) would be quite helpful in the infobox. Up to you if it's worth implementing, though.
We don't use the type indicator like that. On the infoboxes it is used for, it's used to sort items/quests by how's sorted in game, so even if it's added, it's really only main quests and secondary quests, as the quests aren't further sub-divided in game.
I added a history section to the Order of Witchers page recently. Having read it some more after I made it it feels a bit subpar. Since I'm rather new to editing on this wiki so I thought a second opinion would be helpful. Perhaps you could take a gander at it if you could spare some time.
Hi, I cleaned it up some :) Overall it looks nice, the one issue is to make sure to add references in the history part itself. It doesn't have to be every sentence, but try to put one at the end of each paragraph (unless all the history information comes from the same source, then you can just have it at the first and the last paragraphs). And thanks for writing all that up!
Since it's all from a Witchers Journal I'll a reference to the first and last paragraph. Glad to hear it was of good quality.
It was no trouble writing it down after Dwarfs, Witchers are the best fantasy race.
Sure, I've fixed up the first half for now, will work on the second part later :) Also, be careful about references, if you accidentally remove one it creates a red cite reference issue at the bottom of the page.
How exactly does adding refrences work? I try to add a refrence at the first and last pharagraph of the history section but instead of grouping the refrences it creates more. So there are multiple refrences to a Witchers Journal, instead of neatly goruping up.
Ah, so if you need to cite a source a second time, what you do when you go to put the reference in (if in visual editor) is instead of filling in information like before with the reference popup, click the "use existing reference" at the bottom left of the popup and from there you can select the one you want to use.
On the topic of magic again. I've been looking through the books and magic seems to be referred mostly as "power" or "force". The only instance so far where they referred to it as chaos is when Yennefer explains the various view points on magic.
Mind you I've only gotten as far as hallway through ToC, so I could still mistaken.
So after some more searching I'm fairly confident that chaos is not used to refer to the whole of magic.
People reference that drawing power from fire is dangerous as fire is the element of chaos. And as previously mentioned Yennefer tells Ciri people that think magic is evil call it chaos.
So it would seem to me that the magic in the witcher is almost always called the power or just power. And chaos is only used in reference to power drawn from the element of fire or is used by people who view magica as a bad thing. Everyone else refers to it as previously said the power or power.
So perhaps it should be considerd to rename the page about this topic?
Reading it over, it almost sounds like Chaos is the raw energy while magic is a conduit to using it, if that makes any sense? Although Yennefer notes that essentially, those who think chaos is magic aren't mistaken about it.
I'm not sure it's used to refer to the raw energy of magic.
In the witcher universe there are the forces of chaos and order or put more simply, evil and good. Geralt and Borch talk about them in SoD and Yennefer brings them up in the same way as they do. To paraphase:
in some peoples opinion magic is the embodiment of chaos. The key which opens the forbiddend door. Behind which the forces of pure evil lurke, capable of great destruction and annihilation. And since many use magic, at some point one mistake will be made and the door will be opened. Therefore magic is the revenge and weapon of chaos. And there is chaos and order, good and evil in everyone.
The explation of magic starts on page 366 of BoE.
So it seems more that chaos is something more like destiny. And that magic can become a tool of it. But chaos and magic are not the same thing. When refering to the energy of magic that's used by sorcerers, sorceresses, witchers and other magic practitioners they use force or power.
See that's the kicker there, I think when they refer to order and chaos together in the books, this isn't the same chaos as what magic uses, unless chaos actually is a literal thing that (while not physical) is a type of raw, chaotic, energy that magic is used to control and direct it to one's will. Basically without magic, chaos wouldn't be usable and could make all hell break loose, while magic needs chaos to even be usable.
But there isn't a chaos they refer to besides the one of order and chaos. When Yennefer teaches Ciri about magic she only refers to the energy mages use as power. The only time she mentions chaos is together with order. And even when referring to fire as the element of chaos, she calls the magical energy extracted for it power. Chaos (and order) seem to be forces in the world simillar to destiny. Furthermore order and chaos are just other words for good and
The magical energy used by mages is called power and can be used for chaotic (evil) ends.
They actually do mention it several times by itself. On pg. 289 in BoE (English US version) when Yennefer explains what magic is to Ciri, she never once mentions "order" in it, and a few pages later Yennefer even notes that "magic is chaos, art, and science" (never once mentioning order). When she finally does make note there is chaos and order, good and evil, she further notes it's possible/necessary to control it, insinuating it's untapped, raw ability and that magic helps control.
P. 289? That's the meeting of Kings in my version and that's the US version I believe. The red cover with the Witcher 2 art on it right?
In the hands of someone who uses it for evil purposes it's chaos.
When it's explained in the book, they extract power/force from the elements to be able to use magic. They don't extract chaos from the elements to use magic neither do they extract power/ force from the elements to use chaos.
Chaos appears to me something separate, something on it's own. Something with a design of it's own. And it's able to use people that can use magic as a tool. Like it tries with Ciri.
Something else. Imade a page for the witcher Rhys and plan to make one for the first and second era of witchers. Do I use the same the same page template for a period in time as I would for a character or location?
Yes, in my version (the one with Geralt is standing half naked with his back to the reader) it's at page 289-290, right after the section where Yennefer was teaching Ciri about telepathy.
Oh elements are different. You can extract magic from elements but Yennefer also notes (in that same section above where she's explaining what magic is) it's everywhere:
"Magic is everywhere. It is in air, in water, in earth and in fire. And it is behind the door which the Conjunction of the Spheres has closed on us. From there, from behind the closed door, magic sometimes extends its hand to us. For us. You know that, don’t you? You have already felt the touch of that magic, the touch of the hand from behind that door. That touch filled you with fear. Such a touch fills everyone with fear. Because there is Chaos and Order, Good and Evil in all of us. But it is possible and necessary to control it."
In this regard, elements are just one way to access magic, but they're not the only sources of it.
For character pages, if you mean like sub-headers, the only ones that really stay consistent are the main ones like "biography", "notes", "references", etc. All the sub-headers under those are written based on the individual page to match.
Might just boil down to a diffrence in interpretation. I enjoyed this discussion nonetheless, I don't get too discuss the book all that much.
I created a page for the First Age of Witchers, feeling a bit iffy about it. Perhaps you could see if changes are required before I make one for the Second Era of Witchers? And if you have time to spare still the Rhys page? If it's not to much bother of course.
True, it does leave a lot open to interpretation :)
Sure I can look over the pages later. Also I agree with SMiki, you can just put those eras into the Witcher or Order of Witcher pages. The second era would probably go under just the Witcher one as technically the Order was abolished by then.
Ah no problem, I like these debates to try and get to clarify the information :) (and to be fair, who knows, maybe there was a mistranslation between them, it's happened before where the original Polish was different from the English translation).
Also forgot to mention, yes for the history stuff, can just add a quick overview of it (basically for the Order info, that should remain detailed on the Order page and you can just add a "for further info see this page" template).
Still working on that history section, had some other bussines needed attention. I did manage to update the School of the Bear and Viper pages. So again if you find the time, do look the vhanges over so there are no mistakes in them :)
I updated the history section of the School of the Wolf. Since it's a rather important page I think I tried to make sure I did it as best as I could. I also want to update the School of the Cat history section but have come up to a bit of a wall there. A lot of the previous information about that school is mostly speculatory. From the establishing of the School to wether the modern Cats like Gaetan are from the same school as the older ones. Should I do a revision of the Cats history or just add the info and not touch the rest of it?
It's speculatory on the purpose – nothing in the books indicates Cats to be anything more than a bunch of renegades who teamed up, while Gwent and WGW attribute a castle to them. AWJ does provide background for the castle ones, but it's still unexplained whether the modern Cats are successors to the old ones, or took the symbol from a dead school. Perhaps both answers are true in some sense.
Not really. The Brehen's sin mentioned in the novel is the Iello massacre. In addition, he and a couple of others are said to be banned from entering Kaer Morhen; it remains unknown whether it's because of the supposed treason years ago or just the general Iello-prone attitude of this particular pack of Cats.
Do we treat the betrayal from Zdrada as something that did happen? Since the Cats in there seem to be an actual school and not rejected witchers. I would assume they're what remains of the stationary school that got destroyed at Stygga.
I added a history section to the witcher page. It isn't as long as I originally inteded but I figured since much of the information about the Order and Schools is on their respective pages it didn't need to be too long. If you could look it over in your time and see if anything needs changing or expanding that would be appriciated.
Great! I'm really enjoying adding to the wiki, nice distraction from college and other real life thing's.
Had a question, there's a dwarf in the witcher 2 called Ebenezer Zigrin. I've been meaning to add him to any relevant pages but was wondering if he should have his own one. However I remember seeing a discussion you were in where it was decided that characters that are mentioned only and never appear shouldn't have a page. Is that what was ultimately decided or is it okay if I made one for him?
Basically if a character is only mentioned in passing and there's not much about them (like some we only know where they live for instance and have a couple relatives from in-game conversations) we don't add them. If there's enough to write a couple paragraphs though off all the documents/conversations (like Ignatius Verrieres) or they're a merchant that you can actually buy/sell from, then it's ok to have their own page.
I don't really understand how having pages for several key topics like Emhyr var Emreis, Geralt of Rivia or Avallac'h protexted for extended periods of time is productive. To me, that level of protection should never be exercised on a mainspace page because a wiki is a community effort and it only serves to discourage anyone who wishes to make helpful edits in good faith. People who choose to engage in edit-warring, vandalism or otherwise ignoring guidelines should be blocked for a period of time for their actions, and rather than restrict all other people who wish to contribute. Giving a block to such users to cool down and reconsider their actions without inhibiting further improvements by other users is best. Especially with the latter two characters, who both have some pretty extensive character history that isn't covered yet.
In the case of Geralt, I know from the comments section that the infobox image is a contested topic with some people. I think a message in the source of the page indicating the picture is not to be changed with brief reason why would discourage such changes. I mean something akin to this, which we have on the page of an important character over on Wookieepedia:
<!-- The infobox image has been chosen by the community - [[Forum:CT:New Thrawn main image]]. Changing the image requires community consensus, as per [[Wookieepedia:Consensus]]. -->
I also think the Editing Guidelines could use an update because they don't really have guidance to explain that the primary page covers all licensed Witcher fiction and that the separate Netflix pages exist to allow full coverage of the events of a very prominent adaptation, not to exile that adaptation away from everything else. The character infobox pictures section of Image Guidelines would also benefit from guidance on usage of Netflix TV images on non-Netflix pages. This would really help people who wish to contribute to better understand these things because it is honestly not immediately intuitive to me.
(Also an aside to make sure I understand, a picture of Sancia of Sodden from the episode Betrayer Moon can be added to her page, right? And an image of Visenna as seen in Netflix can be placed in the gallery of her page?)
Hi, thanks for the insight! Sometimes I forget we still had some locked (there's been situations where we were trying to discuss it with the editor but they'd keep just changing it back while we were still trying to talk to them so we had to lock pages down to properly discuss it).
Sadly we're not quite as active as Wookieepedia to keep an eye on edits at every time of the day, but I'll bring it up with the other admins to see if they'd like to try that route about Geralt's image, as well as updating the guidlines (which you probably noticed hasn't been updated to include the Netflix information).
So long story short, and I can't remember how it went specifically, but Netflix got into contact with us to use our Fandom as the official Fandom site for their Witcher show. Part of that involved having separate pages for their chraacters (to better focus on the Netflix content). Admins here had plans to also include the Netflix information on the main character's page and mark it off as the show canon but when we saw they basically threw most of the book plot out except for a few main parts (creating essentially an alternate timeline) we decided it was best to just keep the story information on the Netflix pages.
As for the images, we decided we'd use the image that best portrays a character as described in the book canon, regardless of which source it is. That's why Geralt's uses the Netflix one but Renfri's is a comic book version, etc. I'm not sure Sancia is ever described in the books but if she's not the Netflix one should be fine on her main page. As such, with Visenna, there really isn't much need to add the Netflix one to her main page as it's already the main one on the Netflix version. Basically want to try and prevent Netflix images overcrowding the main gallery if they show up more in the future (as those images will still be viewable on the Netflix counterpart).
Thank you for taking the time to respond so thoroughly! I figured the Netflix stuff was just that it's a pretty big undertaking to iron out what works best and I really appreciate everything you've shared.
I don't remember her being described either but it's probably good to double check if so. I can definitely get a picture of Sancia from Netflix. With the phsyical looks of characters, if they're not described in the book, do you think infobox fields for physical features should be left blank or should those features be mentioned, with specifications on what adaptation (like with Geralt's eyes)? Or are Geralt's eyes a special case because the amber color is notable in games/Netflix and it's helpful to readers to know how his eyes look in each version?
And one other question, is it okay to link to uncreated pages (such as Adon Ozol on Ciri/Netflix series) so that it's easy to see what topics still need pages or are red links not preferred?
So yes, if the character feature is ever mentioned, we put into the infobox, making sure to mark down the source of the information but if it's never mentioned/shown, we don't put it down (so for example, we note Sabrina's eyes are described as dark in the books, in the games they're made brown. Her separate Netflix page notes they're gray). Geralt's in particular shows the clear separation because the canon is that his eyes are dark (never called amber) but beause they're so often noted to be amber in the games (and now the Netflix show) we added that for easier distinction. There is one caveat to features though: skin tone. We've had quite a few people get very heated over this so unless it's specifically described in canon works (that is, the books), we do not put it down at all, regardless of how it's portrayed in any other lore.
So we're not opposed to red links but the more major concern is trying to prevent too many small pages where we can only really write a couple sentences about them. That said, I do think Adon and his family members might actually have enough information from the show to get at least a paragraph out of to warrant a page.
Hi, so we don't link to such if there's no benefit from them to the quest. As the reports aren't needed to turn in the quest or to advance any part of it, they just add unnecessary clutter to the page. Basically, quest pages should only have information needed to help with the quest itself :)
I can agree about the cluttering, the presentation could have used some work. I don't agree they are unnecessary, a lot of quest pages contain notes that are not related to quest advancement, just trivia, references, things you might miss. Also don't agree with simply removing someone's contribution without taking the time to give a reason nor trying to be constructive and suggesting changes to fit your standards. But hey, it's your wiki, i guess, so have fun policing it the way you want, i'll just put the info in a comment.
I appreciate the feedback there and I see where the confusion is coming from on some of the sections, so hopefully I can clear that up :) So for the trivia/references bits, these are actually a bit different from the usual linking. To try and simplify it, these are not part of the walkthroughs or main part of the articles themselves but their own sections. Trivia is for anything related to the quest that's not in the witcher lore (like perhaps the name or the quest plotline come from a real story, musician, etc.) while references are just that: references used to note where information comes from (but again, not part of the meat of the article). So those sections are perfectly ok, and it's even ok to link to notes that are specifically related to the quest in a walkthrough but it needs to be in a better format than what was previously put (to be fair, that page hasn't been fixed up yet to follow the normal walkthrough format most of the others use which also isn't helping with the layout/linking isues).
Actually, would rather have it added in flow like an actual walkthrough. A quick example is like the walkthrough on this page for A Dog's Life. See how the key and notes are hyperlinked to their respective pages (but not really named) to flow better in the page? There's also this short example on A Hallowed Horn. A more detailed example is like Wine Wars: Vermentino where you see a lot of links out to unique pieces (usually the result of other quests).
Hello sorry to bother you. I know that you are part of the Witcher wiki but I was wondering if perhaps you knew anyone who would be interested in helping with the Gwent wiki? It's been abandoned by the old admins for over a year and is in a very poor state with a lot of outdated information. I have been doing what I can but it's a lot work for one person. If you know anyone that might want to help or you have any advice for me that would be very much appreciated. Thanks for your time :)
As he's a character in the book, the status goes off based on there, and therefore we don't know if he's actually alive or not by the current present in the books (around the 1500s). Also height is not an accurate description, that field is meant for an actual measurement, just saying "very tall" isn't specific enough.
We also do not reference the books/games in bios and needs to be told through only the character's prespective. Bios are written more like their story and not as "In X book they noted they did Y".
As for trivia, most of them already point to the one on his page. As children don't really appear to be a well known thing for the character, that trivia bit really doesn't have much relevance. Also, we don't really see mention of him trying to being eternal so the dragonfly one is a bit of a reach unless you can clarify on where you saw him mention this?
In the absence of exact numerical measurements, descriptive data as provided by the characters ought to suffice (i.e. the height question). His status has not changed in any significant way that we are aware of, therefore it is sufficient to presume he remains alive by the end of the books.
There are additional points: such as his abilities. Interdimensional travel is one thing. Magic, which I added, should have been there in the first place given that we are dealing with an Aen Saevherne. Partner as Lara should also be noted (former/fiance/however you wish to put it).
Now, rest of the changes in the opening bio:
I personally do not see the point in not referencing books/games in bios, but fine. Minus the references, the more detailled descriptions of what went on regarding Avallac'h meeting Geralt at Tir na Bea Arainne and the origin of his name (unicorns call him the Fox, but it is also a given that his first name literally translates into Fox - Sapkowski is directly inspired by the Celtic myths, so this goes without saying as true). Equally, the more detailled description regarding his ability to travel between worlds - in the former version that you keep reverting to, his travel ability seems to be limited to Tir na Bea Arainne. This is simply not true, however, since Avallac'h plays a tour guide to human scholars in the world of the witcher around the Tower of the Swallow - which means that he can travel to Tir na Bea Arainne, but can and has, in fact, travelled around the world of the Continent while there.
Additional info regarding the nature of the agreement Avallac'h makes with Ciri over the child - it's purpose more specifically - is also perfectly fine as "their story" about the events. Because, let's be frank, that is literally his version of the events. Mentioning that "Eredin said he lied" is in fact completely contradictory to the idea that this bio should be written from the character's perspective, if we are going to be strict. And if we are going to leave this information in, then it should be balanced out by pointing out that Eredin is not a trustworthy source himself - in else, more detail about what is going on should be provided in order to give the reader a better overview of the complexity of the character and their actions.
What is currently written on the page is insufficient and needs additions: the nature of the Isle of Avalon, its connection to the notion of Celtic Otherworlds (and their rulers being fae in nature) is an important bit of lore and backstory regarding how Sapkowski has conceptualised Aen Elle and where he drew inspiration from. Interesting info for the readers to know, and it hardly makes the content poorer - in fact, in enriches both Avallac'h as a character and the lore around the elves. So I don't see why you are objecting to this.
That Afallach the deity figure is a father of many legendary children, most importantly Modron, is a pretty well known detail in Celtic lore. I find it an important piece of Trivia considering that Avallac'h in the books is also conceptualised as " a special elf " who was supposed to father "a legendary child" with Lara Dorren.
The dragonfly bit is an intriguing piece of lore that you get if you consider the elves' obsession with the notion of Eternity (Eredin's quote, Auberon's Ouroboros insignia, LOTL's something ends something begins notion - all of them reference the same concept). And so does the insignia, because a dragonfly, indeed, looks like an infinity symbol when sketched on a piece of paper as an insgnia. Given that the entire conversation precedes the drawing of the dragonfly with "Oh my flame of vanity!" I would say it is an important detail regarding Avallac'h's characteristic as a vain elf. In other words: Trivia! It adds to characterisation and doesn't take anything away if you ignore it. Which is why I don't see why you are against using it.
The books present is actually many centuries after the main events, so we can't say for certain who's still alive during those times. Therefore, the statuses is best left blank.
Saying "very tall" isn't very descriptive here. By that analogy, someone could be considered tall to another if say, one person is 3' and the other 6' but that same 6' person may be considered short if someone else is 9'. That's why just saying "very tall" doesn't work here and is only be used for actual measurements.
As for character bios, for almost all of them, we make it clear their intentions (if actually known) in the bio. If it's obvious the information is false and not just ambiguous, it's worded as such. There's only a few pages here though where we acutally had to note the contradictory information because one character's information was only secondhand and the two who provided information were at complete odds and both very biased about the character so the information was marked that it could be unreliable.
As for the trivia, the children one and the celtic reference was explained better so that can stay, but the one about the cave still has no real bearing here.
The books present takes place BEFORE the main events of the game. The books end of the Season of Storms (which takes place before the events of the saga) is 100y after the main saga. 100y for Avallac'h is not really a problem.
Look. Again: Magic should be one of his abilities. His superior magical abilities are demonstrated for example on SK where he wipes out half the forest - or on Tir na Lia where he creates a defensive invisible "border" around Ciri against escaping.
He was the one who brought Ciri to the Aen Elle king Auberon, promising Ciri that she would be allowed to return to her world, if she conceived a child with the king." Eredin however claimed that Avallac'h was lying. "
You didn't address my point.
Why is Eredin's statement here if this is supposed to be from Avallac'h's pov? And why isn't it clarified they are an unreliable source with their own agenda. Additionally, why isn't it clarified as to WHY Avallac'h & Auberon & the Aen Elle want Ciri to have that child and why they therefore employ such crude methods. The edit that I made should most definitely stay if you want to offer a balanced and nuanced view.
To bring the Aen Seidhe to the world of the Aen Elle and saving them is EXPLICITLY stated by Avallac'h TO Ciri during their boat ride on Tir na Lia. IT is made clear as an intention and is actually known. It is not obvious this information is false in any way. Eredin is not a trustworthy source - and he doesn't say anything about NOT saving the elves in the first place. Avallac'h's actions at Tir na Bea Arainne confirm his interest and devotion to Aen Seidhe.
There's only a few pages here though where we acutally had to note the contradictory information because one character's information was only secondhand and the two who provided information were at complete odds and both very biased about the character so the information was marked that it could be unreliable.
I'm sorry, but you have to note who you are talking about here exactly.
The point about the cave painting very directly confirms Avallac'h is most concerned about the well-being of the Aen Seidhe. It is also one of the most hilarious sequences of the books and adds a lot to his characterisation. Why are you deleting this? It confirms that as an antagonist in the books, he still has understandable and even noble intentions which he goes about in a rather amusing way. It adds to his trollish mood and character.
In other words, it's an interesting piece of trivia that adds to what the reader gets to know about the character.
Again, I do not see how you can discount it as an uninteresting piece of trivia.
You're mistaking games as canon. The author has specifically noted the games are NOT canon to his books, only inspired by them. Furthermore, we actually know a number of events that happened long after the current events in the games (as noted before, the books have events that happen as late as the 1500s) so there's no way to know who's actually alive/dead during that time. It's like trying to assume Geralt is still alive then: theoretically yes, witchers can live far longer than the average human, but there's no certainity they actually are alive by then because life is, well, life, and can die from a number of things.
To clarify, they're told in the perspective of the character because otherwise, there might as well not be a bio section at all and should just redirect to the story's summary. Character's bio should show that individual's views/perspective with how things are/why they're acting in such a way. As we don't know for certain if Avallac'h was lying, it's best to take it at face value or, at the very least, put in a footnote, but not as part of the bio itself.
You're also confusing trivia for personality notes. Trivia is specifically for non-lore related information (like the origins of the name, motifs from real world references, possible influences from non-witcher related works, etc.). His painting scene is more appropriate as part of his bio regarding how he and Geralt met.
I am fully aware of the book canon and that is based on which my edits were made.
I grant you the alive/dead point. However, you are currently undoing significant detail changes in the bio, like where Geralt's and Avallac'h's meeting took place, and what the reason for the deal with Ciri on Tir na Lia was about. Why are you not allowing for more detail from the books, which show from Avallac'h's perspective how things are/why they'e acting in such a way as they are? I would consider reverting my edits unfounded here.
I repeat from previous point: to bring the Aen Seidhe to the world of the Aen Elle and saving them is explicitly stated by Avallac'h to Ciri during their boat ride on Tir na Lia. It is made clear as an intention and is actually known, and thus should be presented as their part of the story.
If the bio is told in the perspective of the character then why is there information from Eredin there? Would Avallac'h, from their own perspective, mention that? Or would they mention that and further qualify the quality of Eredin's statements?
Furthermore, why aren't you allowing for details regarding the circumstances under which Eredin says the things he says. If the truth value of characters' statements is suspicious then as much detail as possible about the conditions under which they say things should be given to allow the reader a better way of qualifying the veracity of their statement. There is hardly need for footnotes if you can just write out what happens in the books in more detail than "X claims Y is lying".
Edit: And why are you undoing his abilities? Magic & prophetic abilities are what he is in book canon known for ("The elf who predicts the future accurately.")
Thank you for clarifying the trivia point. If that is the case then I suggest moving the edit I made there regarding the cave painting to how he and Geralt met, since it does connote important information regarding his and the Aen Elle's motivations.
Oh you're referring to the top part of his page. That actually does need to be re-written as that shouldn't really be there in that section, but as you can see even the game portion of his bio is a bit short and his whole page needs to add his story from the books and games in its entirety to get the full picture.
Mechemik wrote: Saying "very tall" isn't very descriptive here. By that analogy, someone could be considered tall to another if say, one person is 3' and the other 6' but that same 6' person may be considered short if someone else is 9'. That's why just saying "very tall" doesn't work here and is only be used for actual measurements.
He is said to be equally tall to Eredin in TLotL. In addition to it, Ciri describes all Aen Elle as "extraordinarily tall" and that she has to look up in order to see their eyes (Ciri is 5'9")
Mechemik wrote: Oh you're referring to the top part of his page. That actually does need to be re-written as that shouldn't really be there in that section, but as you can see even the game portion of his bio is a bit short and his whole page needs to add his story from the books and games in its entirety to get the full picture.
Right. So if it needs to be re-written why reverse my edits to these parts then? I'd be more than up to updating his character description to eliminate the need for people to come and be utterly confused about his character on forums.
I've been interested in having more pages filled in involving stuff from Hearts of Stone. Currently I am interested in the page involving the Quest Item, Maximillian Borsodi's House. I have uploaded an image of the quest item in game to this wiki, but haven't added it to the page yet. As for the page regarding the item, I want to write about the role of Max Borsodi's House such as talking about how it contains documents and the Borsodi's will, and why Olgierd wanted it. I just wanted to ask you for permission first.
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.