So basically I think we all need to create a complete timeline of where all adaptions fit in so we can do character biographies. Since you are very in touch with book knowledge i was wondering if you could create at least a draft?
Aren't the current timelines sufficient though? I can add some missing events you would want, but the amount of contradictions in both the source material and its adaptations pose a huge problem in detailing things
This guy has some kind of weird hard-on for the Netflix show as he's now locked Geralt's page completely so no-one can get rid of the picture of Henry Cavill. The "Netflix Geralt" has his own page - the Geralt whose biography is detailed in the Main page is not the same as Cavill's portrayal. The picture should be of Geralt from TW3.
"The games are separated too given the author's stance and yet we use their pictures."
You're absolutely correct. However, this wiki doesn't have tab for the games. Doesn't it? It only seemly seperated the main series from the Netflix series (probably because of the changes the Netflix series had done). I personally think that each media should have it own tabs (novels, games, Netflix, etc.) but I was told the admins had already decided and seemly wasn't going to be convinced otherwise. So, while I still think they are wrong. I don't care anymore.
The tabs for Netflix exist because Netflix wanted to have bookspoiler-free articles. Having separate tabs for each adaptation was discussed a couple of times but it was agreed too much work would have to be put in them.
What does Netflix have to do with this wiki? Seriously? Did Netflix reach out to the wiki and determined policy?
If so, then it still means it is separate. Several of the characters look nothing like the other version of themselves. Fringilla is a black woman in the Netflix series, meaning at lease for the video games they are not the same character and i highly doubt they are the same character in the novels. Also, the Dryands are shown differently in the series.
Next, then that decision was wrong and I wans't part of that discussed.
Back to Netflix for a moment, when did Netflix get to decided what is and is not the Witcher series or canon? because according to how I understand the TV series's canon isn't strictly adhering to the novels. I also understand the author's said he doesn't care what the series does as it doesn't affect his novels, which again (and after watching the episodes) mean their are seperated canon. Similar to how Star Trek novels exist.
Netflix is not canon, but again, neither are games and comic books. We have this little thing called "references" which is supposed to help people find out which info is from the books and which is not.
Do you really think most peoples read the references? I don't.
This is why the wiki is so important. It's normally the first source of information most peoples used. Hint why it is important to determine what canon vs non-canon or semi-canon. For me, Netflix is it only 'Netflix' canon.
The best and easier way to help peoples find out which info is from the books, video games, etc. is to separate it out into different tabs i.e. articles.
Perhaps because we don't know what exactly they are. I'd say we can have one, but I'm not sure which mentions exactly do you have in mind; English translators used "fairy" as a translation for a couple different mentioned creatures in the original
That was kinda my thought for Affan Hillergrand because of the crest on his helmet... but now that everyone wears it... :/ Maybe it's a minor department of the Division.. still doesn’t explain Tyrconnel being part of it. Oh well
As we speak of Nilfgaardians: I added Vicovarians and Daerlanians as subcategories to Nilfgaardians, but stopped at this point: should we restrict this category to group only the Nilfgaardized nations, or those conquered only recently such as Nazairians too? I'd incline towards the second as "recently" is a tricky term when it comes to the book timeline, but then we could do an analogous category for Nordlings as they are a large cultural group of their own as well.
Btw, @Bizi or @Juraj: are you able to add "CD Projekt franchise" ref for words in Skellige jargon and Nilfgaardian language, in the same way I used it in Elder Speech? I somehow always forgot to do it, and you worked on these articles so you might remember which ones are from the games (I remember even without working on them, but I'm lazy af xD)
Anyways, I'm planning to replace the unnatural "team photos" from culture pages with some nice art or photos. Here're my propositions for Nilfgaardians.
1. Gwent's War Council:
It was my initial choice. It depicts Nilfgaardians planning a war, and war is important in Nilfgaardian culture.
The art has a drawback however; it doesn't have any civilians in it, so it might fit better into "military" section or somewhere else.
2. Gwent's Battle Preparation:
My second choice. The art depicts a knight served by two page boys. The pages are dressed in civilian clothes and the act of preparing a knight may reflect Nilfgaard's focus on maintaining order.
The drawback is that the art is very stylized; the sky is red and there isn't much going on in the background.
3. Gwent's Ceallach:
Ok, this one has everything: the architecture, the civilian, the army. My concern is that there is too much going on; it's chaotic. On the other hand - Nilfgaard does make use of chaos when it can serve its order. Suppressing rebellions and brutal conquests are a thing. So perhaps this one might be the best choice... yet I find it less eye-pleasing from the distance than the first one.
I proposed my own "team" alternative that was similar to that, using characters cut from concepts and cards, but Mechemik said the cuts were bad. So I'm searching for other alternatives, because for me the team photos are bad, definitely not fitting the universe's style.
I'm not against "team photos" as much as Miki here, but still would prefer in-universe depictions such as GWENT illustrations or TV series photos etc.
That being said, you should go for the 2nd one with Nilfgaard. Aside from all the things you mentioned it has, there’s a depiction of their military side to it as well. And it being stylized isn’t really a drawback for box pic IMO.
Proposition n.1. Others are rather nice as one depicts the battle frenzy while the other seafaring culture. However, with splashing water and battle in the background, the Covenant not only has both of those things, but both genders as well.
Things got ugly political over decades. Take the dryads for example: no one cared when many of them were described as "dark skinned" in WGW (and clothed in the short story), but suddenly they scream "political correctness destroys our unicerse" after seeing actually dark skinned (and clothed) dryads in the teaser. I'm not sure whether it's the discussion for the wiki though
Unless we succumb to the theory of Imke being an Ofiri immigrant, how about console-spawning an Ofiri soldier next to the Runewright/Dhulla and/or Aamad in some more... natural position? Like Aamad buying somethig from Dhulla with a soldier staying in the background? Or just some pic from the comics.
Unless you're going to go through the trouble of posing them, then I'd say leave the group image there alone until/if they have a better gwent image. I'd rather avoid the comics for group images in this case. Also, regarding cropping, please don't do that, especially as we already have the full image on file and it's not to show anything specific. Unlike other communities, I really don't care if the infobox changes shape based on the image used, I just say go with the best image and not have 4+ of the same thing running around xD
Why not though? I, for one, don't like it when the boxes changes shape due to different size of images. It makes positioning images within Biography section a lot harder or results in weird overall layout. Sure, having a 4+ or even more than 2 would be an overkill, but I doubt we will use this pic of Blaviken inhabitants for other purposes. Therefore the un-cropped version can stay in the category (for anyone who wants to see all promos) and the cropped would go to the box.
It's 1) too much of a pain to have to do that for every box (in case you haven't noticed, maps sections for quests aren't the same size and won't ever be as there's different POI everywhere, not to mention some characters with different appearances) and 2) it's the exact same image of what's already on file. So if you're wanting to do that either 1) get rid of the uncropped image from the files entirely and use the cropped one in its place or 2) just use the uncropped image.
Mainly it'd very tiresome to try and keep all boxes with galleries all the same size and in my opinion, it's not worth it as content can sometimes get cut off for the sake of trying to make them all fit and I'd rather show the whole image we have in its full context.
@Bizi are we sure that the Ofiri mercenaries were brought there during the 3rd war, not later? The lore nodes claim that Dulla's expedition was the very first documented major one, and as we know it did not include whole mercenary units to be sold. Moreover, I'm not even sure whether HoS is officialy set during or after the war. (Do we even know whether does the war ends on 1272 tbh?)
Mercenaries expedition could have happened immediately later Dulla’s one. We know Nibras was trying to reach an alliance with Radovid and the North (he sent Runewright, Nibras...) Plus in this artwork we see Cleaver and Wiley’s men about to fight some mercenaries, so it must have happened during the period the gangs were still active.
@Mechemik why was the netflix template changed again? The plain text just before link looks awful, especially amidst references (I am working on Eist biography, thats where I see it). Can we please get it back to where it was a week or so ago?
I would rather have it all as link. It might be a personal preference, but people actually do call this series Netflix's The Witcher (especially when trying to distinguish it) so I don't see my request as far-fetched.
Also; working on an elaborate description of Eist, I realized just how much I miss concrete quote template. I would like people to complete imerse themselves while reading about characters here and therefore planned to added quotes directly from Eist to (at least the majority of) sections about his life. Could it be brought back?
@Juraj: I'm not a fan of the plain quote style because 1) on mobile it won't matter (mobile view will automatically make any quote templates use a huge font/style that's really off-putting) so it won't be immersed anyways for the majority of our views and 2) for desktop it's just way too plain and I like the quotes to stand out (after all, we're including the quotes typically because they're a memorable/important part) otherwise you might as well just add the text straight into the article itself rather than use a quote template.
@SMiki: eh, I just use the stub template in the section if absolutely needed, but for ones where the info isn't even released yet (like the shows) TBA works because we can't exactly add anymore info right now until the shows are actually out xD If you want, maybe we can create a different template along the lines of "this content isn't released/available yet" situation?
Banquet section: "Draig Bon-Dhu, play us the song of the battle of Hochebuz. It won't leave us in any doubt as to the tactical maneuvers of commanders–or as to who acquired immortal fame there! To the health of the heroic Calanthe of Cintra!" - Eist
Reign section: "By the Gods of the Sea, as my permanently absent husband would say!" - Calanthe
Battle section: here I plan to add whatever he says during the battle in the show, it's supposedly epic
Well even if we change the header (which I doubt will ever happen for those pages), the main issue would be that instead of being redirected to a certain header, it would just redirect at the top of the page... just like if you don't put the #. So what's the problem if we keep it? It's useful in cases of pages that got lots of headers.
That's the problem though, we have changed them in the past (I've found so many that had "#in The Witcher 2") and when that header ceases to exists, it does the same thing regardless: takes them to the top of the article page and nothing else, meaning it's adding unnecessary text to the other page when that happens. Also that page really doesn't have that many, compared to say titles (where I instead have the words re-direct directly to the header instead of editing each page with it).
Those should be like the titles: the name should re-direct to that page anyways. If you want, you can edit the re-direct page to include it (like for example, if you look at the "duke" redirect, it shows the # after it, just not included in actual article pages).
We see the Empire adopting this method even for the Usurper after all... but even the other wars didn't end well and yet they’re still present in Nilfgaardian archives, some events like Brenna are even in the academy exams :/
Thank you for your answer regarding geralt yen relationship in dragon hunt.i appreciate that. So is the nasty orgy between vea tea and geralt dragon mentioned in the books? Can a dragon have sex with a human?
Poor vea and tea. Depicting women as sorceress seducers and sexual objects ...f***ed up.
Merle oznajmiła, że cała ta sprzeczka jest głupia i bezprzedmiotowa, i nie dotyczy prawdziwych zawodowców, którzy nie wiedzą, co to uprzedzenia, co ona jest gotowa natychmiast udowodnić za stosowną opłatą, choćby i ze smokiem Villentretenmerthem w naturalnej postaci. W ciszy, jaka zapadła, usłyszano medium płci żeńskiej, deklarujące, że może zrobić to samo za darmo. Villentretenmerth szybko zmienił temat i zaczęto dyskutować na tematy bezpieczniejsze, jak ekonomia, polityka, łowy, rybołówstwo i hazard.
[...] Chciano spytać o zdanie smoka Villentretenmertha jako specjalistę od zmiennokształtności, ale okazało się, że smok zniknął, a wraz z nim dziwka Merle.
I recently made some heavy changes to the Canon timeline, and i was told to discuss it with you first. A translation mistake in "Tower of Swallows" created the impression that the timeline doesn't make any sense, as it is now. However, i believe you can fit every single event perfectly if you make some changes to it, changes justified by the books, and i would be have to explain them to you.
Using Ciri's own statements as the only reliable information to determine her age, you can make a reasonable timeline that, at the very least, makes more sense than the one we have now. 1251 is the only year that correlates with all the reliable information, though you would have to leave out other characters' guesses at Ciri's age. Even 1252 works better than 1253.
Except 1252 contradicts Geralt and Emhyr's conversation in the end in tangent with Nenneke's remarks that Ciri was born in the spring (as if she was born in the spring, she had to have been born in 1253 for the 16 years since they last saw each other to line up with Geralt and Emhyr's conversation) and we at least know the war ended in 1268 and can work backwards from there.
You are citing Ciri's pages notes, which to begin with, contain a mistake. Geralt is the one that estimates that Ciri was born in Beltane. And they are wrong by a mere 3 months when they say "16 years ago", if they met on 1251. Either way, i don't see how it doesn't line up. And if it didn't, Ciri is still a more reliable source concerning her age.
I can pinpoint from the book if you want but Geralt says 16 years in 1268 which notes 1252, and it was approximated by other characters' remarks that Pavetta was about a month pregnant at the time of their story which (if it follows a 12 month calendar and pregnancy was to full term, that is 9 months) would put their meeting around Sept. of 1252. Also even just using Ciri's remarks, it can still be 1253: unless a person is born on the eve or very ending of a year, we are 2 ages in one year, meaning her statements put her around 1252 or 1253. Combined with the remark by Geralt of 16 years and Ciri being born in the early spring, it's safer to put it as 1253 as there's no conceivable way Geralt would remark it being 16 years if it was actually 17 for 1251.
You are assuming he exactly meant 16 years ago when in truth it could be any time from 15 and a half and 16 and a half. There's no guarantee of accuracy there, as if Geralt would remember the exact day of an event that happened 16 years ago. If Ciri was born in 1253, then all of the the ages she mentions herself having are incorrect.
She mentions herself as being 13 in 1266 = 1253, and mentions again she's 14 in 1267 = 1253. Combined with Geralt remarking it's been 16 years (most people won't go by the exact month, they just count by counting the years, like how we'd say 2002 was 17 years go, even though technically it's been less than that until we reach Dec. 31 of this year) then that means Ciri can't be any older than 15 and 3 months old at the latest (as she was born in the spring) meaning when Geralt and Emhyr met after the war it'd have been impossible for her to have been 16 years old (or just a month shy of it). Even if it's a rough guess of 16 years, there's no way Ciri can be closer to 16 years old than 15 as Pavetta wasn't that far along when Geralt met them which still puts her in 1253.
That's the problem. Those years are fan speculation, there's not a single indication of them in the books. The only two years given by the books are 1268 and 1267, literally. Ciri is 15 in 1267. Ciri is 13 in the second half of Blood of Elves. So the second half of BoE takes place in 1265, and so on.
Calculations are hardly speculations. In BoF, 1267, Geralt says three years ago he visited Groundcherry Spots (no page on this wiki so I don't know translation, it's Miechunowe Uroczyska in Polish and "uroczyska" can have a bunch of different meanings) and left it unconscious (Something More story). Three years before 1267 was 1264 and that was this year Geralt met Ciri at Yurga's place.
Even if we assume that this excerpt was author's mistake, then we have to move the war from 1263 to 1262: it is explicitly said in the short story that the war ended a year before Geralt was wounded. But that change forces a shedload of other chronological changes across the whole wiki, and only basing on the assumption that the author was mistaken more times than he was not. But in that case I doubt there is a sense in calculating any chronology at all.
And where does it say that BoE takes place in 1267? Give Sapkowski some credit, if he goes from "almost 13" in BoE to 15 in ToC it's because there was a timeskip in the middle. There's a one year timeskip when Ciri's learning in Ellander, and that accounts for all the times she mentions her age.
The timeline from the end of BoE into ToC (we'll say the Thanedd Coup for brevity) to the end of the war in 1268 indicates the war lasted just short of a year. For that to happen, the events around the coup and after (including BoF) had to happen within that period, meaning 1267 to 1268. Otherwise, it makes one wonder what happened to the whole other year of the war and events that suddenly went missing if BoF took place in, say, 1266.
By the way. TV version of Ciri is reportedly older than her book counterpart. Doesn't match the Saga, but chronology in SoS and Ciri's dynastic note suddenly makes much more sense in TV-verse than in canon.
I'm afraid with our current graphic policies we no longer add several versions of the same COA on wiki, neither purely speculative ones like the one of the fleet :( @Mechemik or @Juraj would probably want to delete them.
Don't take it personal, please, my fanon COAs were deleted as well, I'm still crying over the Emblonian one. But how about joining our team instead and help us with heraldry-related pages?
@Mechemik: but, ehrm, why exactly is it necessary to have ALL of them? In TW2 every (literally every) established coat of arms has at least 2-3 variations. If we're trying to keep our heraldry consistent & neat, including all just doesn’t make sense. Especially since using variations was common in Medieval era (there were no prints so every flag was a bit different, at times even in composition)
@Bizi: it should.
@Miki: why just tusks? Two heads would be nicer imo.
@Juraj because then that leaves us at an impass: if we had to choose I'd rather keep the video game versions than ones that are lesser known (like from the rpg). As it stands, I think it'd be better to re-work the emblems section to make it easier to denote which ones were used and where (as I don't think SMiki wants to get rid of the rpg versions).
Why did you remove the note for Sophia's race? I think we shouldn't consider everyone who isn't directly said to be a nonhuman a human (take Vratimir for example, he looks perfectly human and yet he isn't).Therefore the reasoning.
Honestly I wrote the article at the same moment as you and just had no energy to combine everything xD I think you're right, though I'm not sure whether is it needed (Siegfried is a human so his mother would be a quadroon at best)
Ehrm, *Eyck. Alsoo, yeah and that’s what I go by in that note as well? I mean if you look it again (#pleasedo), I used the word “prejudiced” instead of “rascist”. You can be prejudiced towards for example Jews and have false believes about how they conspire but still disdain holocaust and give Jewish colleague a helping hand in need — ergo you’d be considered prejudiced but not rascist.
That guy from SoS whose child was stolen by aguara? Don't remember name right now
Dude whose side are you on xD Anyway, I highly doubt a member of a half-noble (?) house like Eyck's could have married a elf, who by that time with Scoia'tael and all were seen, to cite what Juraj said before, basically just like Jews after racial rules :/
Eeeeeeh am sure you just expressed yourself wrongly but not all Aen Seidhe were Scoia’tael members. As for nobles marrying nonhumans, Vratimir is another character example. He’s a nobleborn but not pure-human.
And let’s not forgot all the major royal dynasties had/have elven of half-elven members. Wasn’t it said at some point that the human-elven mutual rascism is basically ridiculous as by the 12th century there’s literally no human who wouldnt have at least a drop of elf in him?
What I was trying to say is that by 1250s (even because of Scoia'tael commandos raising) racism against nonhumans was becoming a thing. And dynasties already stopped for a while to breed with nonhumans.
For me it's less the question of racism (it tends to vary across the books) but rather the fact that neither does Siegfried resemble other non-humans in first game (even Kalkstein has unusual facial features) nor he talks about the race (as a member of the Order he is forced to fight the Scoia'tael rebellion and if he was mixed race he'd surely said anything about quadroon mother or sth)
Race is a... finicky thing. Not to delve into it very much, but there was a time in the US where interracial relationships were ok (before slavery) but then social dynamics got changed around, it became illegal, and started the "one drop rule" shit, before becoming legal again, and a bunch of other stuff to the point some would try to hide having black ancestors by claiming they were something else (like saying they had a long ago Native American ancestor instead). So there could have been a possibility either his mother didn't know if she was mixed, or hid it to protect him if she was part elf (though obviously we don't know what race she likely was).
@Bizippo so this is why I say it's important to have citations: 2blind2draw does note on his artwork's comments on DA that only those with the "Battle of Brenna" marks (that logo thing) are trademarked (that is, were accepted by that company for use). The ones without that mark usually denote the artist's own interpretation of a character (but not trademarked/ok'ed by the company, if that makes sense).
The thing is, even the artist notes some of them (the ones without the logo) were part of his own ideas of a particular character. Unless you can get them to clarify if that was to mean personal or just "company did pay for this, just didn't use it" deal.
Btw, while doing my research in BaW for the COA, I noticed the Reds use term "crest" incorrectly xD Crest is the symbol on the helmet (like the ones on Komarek's drawings), not in the shield, but in BaW ingame books the term is just used as a synonym for "coat of arms"
Mechemik, do you have access to game textures? It'd be best for me to have a closer look on this horse; i can draw a similar one without taking a look yet it's always better to have a good reference how does a thing look in game.
Well, they’re 2 different things. Characters original to Hexer (e.g. Aurora Tasso or Prince Mestigovius of Vinland) aren’t the same as Netflix original characters (e.g. Meve’s mon or Ciri’s guardian knight Laszlo)
I'm working on separating out the images for comics into their publisher (so like Dark Horse Comics and not individual comic books) however iffy with comics categories for characters because, with the exception of some original stories like the latest one in Ofir, most of the others are based on stories in the books and would feel redundant to me :/ Maybe just do it like the images and be something like "Dark Horse Comics character" or such?
We can bot-move the current Category:The Witcher characters to Category:The Witcher (game) characters and then create Category:The Witcher (TV) characters for Kalis and others. Category:Characters in the movie and TV series could be moved to Category:Hexer characters
Hi Smiki, saw that you uploaded CoA and Flag for Magne, I really like them and I'd like to create an article (if you don’t want to create it yourself of course) but is it sure that it’s actually a land? Because Magne sounds me a lot like Latin, and may be translated as "Great Division".
I'm going to disagree :p But only to keep it consistent: in games (which is the only known example we have right now as it was never described in the books) it's red, and I value the main games over gwent information. Also, I believe the reason it was made purple in gwent was only because CDPR realized they hit a design problem: Monsters deck was already red and didn't want people accidentally selecting the wrong deck if they also made Skellige red, thus the purple.