I noticed that you edited my walkthrough of the Carnal Sins quest on it's page. (Which I added as there was no detailed walkthrough and I found the quest to be a bit chaotic myself).
I noticed you removed several of the subtitles, although I am not sure why as I do not see it benefiting the page. I am not trying to criticise your judgement, but I would like an explanation as I am rather confused as to why these edits were made.
I wanted to post in comments of Now or Never the following. But, I don't want to give spoilers away. After searching around a bit I cannot find a good go-to page for editing code in source mode with reference to every tag. Any help would be awesome.
If you romance Triss she says, "... Afraid it's too early for 'happily ever after". Afterwards Geralt can reply with, "We'll get our happy ending. One day." Then Triss replys, "Yes. Somewhere over hill and dale".
Does anyone else think this is a reference to Beyond Hill and Dale...? Spoiler: this is needed to get the "good" ending and live happily ever after.
Not necessarily. While not a common phrase in English "up the hill and dale" is merely an English phrase, nothing more.
Also, source editor is just like a simplified version of html/css if you know how to do that. If you don't, you can look at some of the code on other pages to typically learn more of it. As far as I know, there really isn't a "how to" guide on it.
Hi, I didn't know how to add an image to a page that didn't already have a Gallery section. Also, I wasn't sure how to add the Gallery and the image at the same time, so I was just trying to go a step at a time. Sorry. -m2H
The point of the 2nd picture was to show the exact location of the ring. The other picture I posted was approximate. From what I've read many people have trouble finding it. Also I don't see page for that item and so cannot link it as you suggested.
We try to only include one location image as it's better to just explain in detail how to find it exactly on the page of the item in question. As for no page existing, don't be afraid to add a link/page as needed :)
For links to pages on the wiki itself, the format is just double brackets around it, you don't need to put the http link. If you're using the visual editor, you can just start typing in the name of the article when adding a link and it'll start to pop up page choices for you.
Adon was only introduceed in Tw3 (expansion) so I moved him off there as you put him under Tw1 (I know that list is confusing, I've been tempted to try and reorganize it to read better).
Which images do you speak of? (If the Russian illustrator ones I agree, they don't look official but they are actually from the official Russian books. We like to make fun of the faces :p ). For our purposes it's any of the illustrations from the official translations, official artwork by CDPR (concepts, gwent art, etc.), and extracted images from the games (whether physical like the pen and paper games or digitally). The one exception are COA and flags, though we've been in discussions about which ones to keep or not.
Yeah, I spoke too soon on that and reverted when I realized I didn't test it that way (I tested it one the the opposite: cleaver with arena then casino by myself and they attacked). But it'd definitely be good to know if the outcome is dfferent with each one :)
Just like to say thanks for sorting out the whole issue with the Ostrit page.
I attempted to correct the picture in the character box, because it was all blurry on my computer and I assumed that it was a bad quality photo. I ended up nearly deleting the whole page by accident! So, sorry about all the hassle- I'm still getting used to the controls.
Thanks for bailing me out on that one, and I'll make sure to be more careful in the future! :-)
Since our discussion took many days. I started to edit on the Official Witcher Wiki recently. My edition modified quickly as same as here. The difference, all information I try to share were keeping. They only correct the wrong grammar and let the article more fluent. Or sometimes move the information to the right place.
That is the Wiki spirit! Respecting everyone’s opinion and make the article better.
I know this may sound irony. However, after so much discussion with you and reading the discussion of you and other writers. I serious think maybe you should consider suggesting the writer like me to Official Witcher Wiki.
To make Official Witcher Wiki more famous to the contributor. So that you can make sure the writer stay in Fandom Witcher Wiki has the same writing habits with you. And you will not accidentally discourage the passion of the Witcher writer.
Besides, for the reader, they could have two styles of the Witcher Database to choose.
Can I, maybe, do anything that would make you come back and be "our" more-or-less (heh) regular editor? If so, tell me.
Besides you surely must jest if you suggest we promote another Wiki (one which, by the way, is in no way more Official then we are). It is like promoting a competition and sending people to them and that would in no way help us.
There's no need for 2 Witcher Wikis. The one on fandom here is better and more famous because the readers + contributors made it such over the years.
First off, that's called forking and is against Fandom's policy (the main editor over there actually used to be here way before any of us but when they moved due to disagreements with Fandom, she was permanently banned by staff after committing a massive forking problem). Also, they don't follow the same standards we do, like allowing fan art, and they have their own style and, while they're perfectly fine not condensing things down, I like to do so. But I also feel this is a language issue as well: you keep complaining I deleted your info like on Humpty Dumpty, but if you read it, it says the same thing but in less words.
And you're right, a Wiki should respect other's opinions to make things better, but that doesn't mean just letting every edit be (other than grammar corrections) if there's a better way to word/display the information. Otherwise, you get a complete mess of information thrown all over the page with no sense of order (for instance, Gaunter O'Dimm has a lot of trivia, so I moved them around so everything related to his name appears together, same with folklore, etc.).
Juraj103 wrote: (one which, by the way, is in no way more Official then we are)
Technically there is a difference. After the splitting, CD Projekt recognized the Gamepedia one as the official wiki, but then Wikia (modern-day Fandom) made some deal with CDP, which allows to use name "the official Wikia". But that was a few years ago and at the moment I think Reds do not care which one is "more official" than the other.
Weeeeeell, if we are going to talk about minor details like this then it probably needs to be said that terms Wiki, Wikia and Wikipedia are all rather synonymous since the mind behind all of them is one and the same person --> Jimmy Wales, founder of the Wikipedia and Fandom. Therefore it's of virtually no significance whether someone's "The Official Wiki" or "The Official Wikia".
ah, so that's what happened to Ausir. I've seen his name pop up time to time in the past here and other wikis but never knew that backstory. But yeah, Wikia really doesn't like it when people do that.
But that article points out a valid point: Fandom is making a lot of bad design decisions (the autoplaying videos, that bar at the very top, etc.) and now the Fallout wiki is facing another possible schism due to all these unwanted changes.
They're taking votes now on what to do with several different options. Go completely independent, merge with the Vault, join the unofficial Elder Scrolls page (UESP), don't move but set out hard guidlines that if crossed by Fandom they'd then move, or just do nothing.
Now that's very, very interesting to me. What would actually "go completely independent" mean… that they would find another host and go autonomously of both Vault and Nukapedia? Other options apart from doing nothing seem intriguing as well but probably the best for now would be hard guidelines.
Essentially, yes. But the big disadvantage of that is lacking SEOs and they'd have to pay for the hosting themselves, which won't be cheap (and there's no guarantee they'd get enough traffic to eventually pay for itself that way).
Honestly, it's a rock and a hard place situation. If there hadn't been that previous split between them and the vault, I'd say that could have worked, but as they're essentially two different communities now and would have to sift through over 25k pages to decide what stays and what goes, I mean sure, that could be done but it'd take forever (assuming they all have full time jobs). Nevermind that Curse may, down the road, also start making changes that made them leave in the first place. I don't mind the hard guidelines, but it's very likely Fandom will still step over them in the future and then you're back to square one, but this time where to move to? (sort of like putting a bandage on a raw wound situation). I'm kind of curious how combining with UESP would work; I've used that site before and it's set up well, I just don't understand the logistics of how it'd be set up so they're together. But regardless, short of merging with the vault, their community will be further split into 3 groups.
Thanks everyone for reply here. Let me know there are different voice here. (I read other post regard deleting information here and It’s hard to see other people jump into the discussion.)
=== Hi Juraj103,
Thanks to your warm message to invite me to stay here repeatedly.
And I didn’t aware Fandom and other Wiki are competitors. I thought different Wiki just build up and develop by different fans. And maybe you just like different website host so you are not gathered together? And from the audience view (I was a pure reader before), it's a good thing if readers can have more than one Wiki to choose. Thank you for sharing the important information to me.
And for me, "Official" is only a name to distinguish "Fandom" wiki. While I'm an information hunter. I care less if it's official or not. And I would say, most time Fandom has more information than others. And I like the format of information more than IGN. That is why I from a google user become a Fandom user gradually.
Thanks the Fandom community made a rich content Wiki.
=== Hi SMiki55,
Thank you for the information and warning. I will prevent similar action in the future.
Yet I'm curious. Isn't this kind of Bane User against freedom of speech? What is your opinion?
=== Hi Mechemik,
I must emphasize again. I respect and admire your long term effort to make the Fandom Witcher Wiki better. So I will stop to argue with you "How to write articles better".
( Actually, we have many consensuses on the concept level of "How to write articles better". Yet when it's going deeper to the specific standard level. It's highly subjective and we disagree with each other.)
However, there is something I guess need to be clear. Del info is not only happened on one page, it's happened on almost every page in many ways as follows: 1. While I write a whole new paragraph. Del tiny info which I put in purposely with reason. 2. While my aim is to make the article more accurate and brief. "Undo all" Tiny modification I made. 3. Del a whole new paragraph I took many hours to write.
The upper situations all happens without alert, discussion nor moves info to somewhere else. Additionally, I'm not the only one to reflect the problem recently.
I know you want to make the Fandom Witcher Wiki better. So I may suggest you if you want to do a frequently "Big Modify" or "Totally Undo" on someone's edition. You may consider contacting them and discussing with them first to prevent a potential Edit War. (I used the word "frequently". Because if it happens rarely, I guess there are few peoples care)
@Paioshau: You are welcome. Am glad to see you are eager to discuss problems out instead of just being angry and swearing like hell (dealt with such guys already hah). However, all in all you disn't give me the answer I was originally looking for: is there anything I can do for you? :)
Yet I'm curious. Isn't this kind of Bane User against freedom of speech? What is your opinion?
Freedom of speech is available no longer in cyberpunk capitalist world where almost everything is owned by corporations, I'm afraid ;/ And those are corporations who compete each other, not mere mortal editors of single wikis.
@Mechemik: Thanks for taking the advice into consideration. And I would like to acclaim you again for the long-term and constant effort to the Wikia :)
@SMiki55: Ha, I know what you mean. Agreed.
@Juraj103: Thanks again for the invitation. I guess you are facing a lot of swearing at your position. It's not easy really. After a couple of days of thinking. I couldn't think out a way you can help me :( The core problem is Mechemik and I have the different specific standard. And if we try to solve the problem it may cause a lot of time to discuss on the most page I want to edit. Consequently, it may significate decerase the time for editing the pages. I think you will agree it's not a good thing.
So that the best way I can think out is remaining the original decision. If I find out something new and Fandom wiki may accept the new info since it's may important enough. I will leave a comment. And other Wikia editor (include Mechemik) could consider adding info into the pages.
Thanks for the detailed explanation. I read all your reply and all the modification you made for my edition. And some of the discussions on your wall. And I decide to open another post to make the discuss clearly.
I admire your completely and sophisticated thought on how to write in each section (Walkthrough, Note, Trivia...). Even though that is hard for me. For example, I like Bullet List in many places even in the Walkthrough section because I think it’s clear to read and easy to write. So that it’s really a hard time for me to achieve the writing style you provide for Little Red. (Yet I also appreciate you for providing many writing examples.) Besides, I like to search detailed information on Wiki to make sure the little thing I found that someone else also found too. That is also the reason I put minor-important information into the page. Although you do not agree and delete every minor information I write. What an upset thing :(
So that at the beginning I thought maybe what I should do is to stop to edit page and only to leave Comment on page bottom until I familiar the writing style of Fandom Witcher Wiki work (or at least the way core participators work).
However after couples of hours of thinking. There are some questions emerge naturally in my mind. Are we discuss how to write Wiki? And isn’t Wiki welcome for everyone to join to write? Also, Wiki must know everyone has his writing style and it’s hard to change, even for the professional writer if he doesn’t have well enough training.
And When to edit of Writing guidelines saying: "The wiki encourages editors to make an edit whenever they see an article that needs improving. Whether it be something as minor as a spelling mistake, or something larger like gaps in the facts provided, don't be afraid to jump in and improve the site."
Also What pages should not include saying: "Speculation, Personal comments (questions or comment about a particular edit), Mods, Self Promotion, Plagiarism" are not allowed.
I regard the guideline to imply the meaning "Fandom Witcher Wiki welcome any information except the 5 kind list above".
Which means, the information I put into the page was qualified with Fandom Witcher Wiki policy.
And as an author, I'm very happy someone help to enhance the grammar and wording. Or move my work to somewhere more suitable. Yet I will be very upset if someone del the info I put in or occasional del the info while he rewrites my edition. (Little Red (quest), Runewright, OverKill were tended to this. And I'm not sure if you will overwrite my edit on Humpty Dumpty and del info that I put in purposely in future).
What do you think, please let me your opinion. Thanks.
PS: I repost many times because it's keep disappear.
Well, first off I'm glad you actually read over the guidelines. The idea behind asking editors to edit is to emphasize, yes, please add in information that may be missing, but don't be discouraged if someone comes behind you to clean it up (hmmm, maybe I should add that to the guideline). For instance, sometimes editors will add to the notes something that's already in the walkthrough itself, or add something that's not really relevant to the page (like saying X and Y characters share the same last name, not really helpful or relevant to their pages unless they're related and even then, could be added elsewhere on the page, like the infobox). The idea is not to get too detailed unless there's a real reason to (and there rarely is).
For instance, Humpty Dumpty: you're putting things in numbered forms in sentences, saying it all depends on abilities, do it on lower diffiiculty, etc. but not really helpful like that. Instead, you want to point out why lower difficulty (flying effect doesn't happen as often on higher difficulty and which is absolutely needed for the achievement), point out petre's philter helps the effect (but don't say they actually need to drink it as it's not required to get it, just helps. Remember this is just tips). Also refrain from listing abilities that require a lot of other things first (like Euphoria depends on having BaW and toxicity level but if one doesn't drink potions, this is null). It's also very helpful to paraphrase (as you see my edit combined petre, intensity, and tawny). A lot of readers, especially those looking for tips or help on a quest, achievement, etc. are looking to just do a "hit and run" so to speak: they want to come here, quickly see what helps, and go and do it. It's the same thing with walkthroughs: you want to only reveal enough information as necessary to do the quest. For example, the only reason I left the stuff about the widow talking about a long ago battle in Last Rites is because it's vital to what you discover at the end, otherwise a reader generally wouldn't need to know that.
I know that seems like a lot, but it's really not. What I'm primarily doing when I go and edit is to clean up and help paraphase things down to be concise as possible and make sure it stays relevant to the page. :)
I respect your long-term work on Fandom Wiki. However, there are many points I’m different from you.
Who has the power to decide which information is important? Who knows better what the reader need?
This is Wiki, a place where people’s wisdom gather together, not a magazine or book belong to one chief editor who thinks he knows best what the Wiki should be like.
I put the tips in Humpty Dumpty. Because I had read a lot of article about the achievement. And rarely to see a complete guide like I write. And that is the experience concluded after many times trial.
How can be so sure that reader won’t happy when they see my information?
========= Mechemik wrote: ... but don't be discouraged if someone comes behind you to clean it up (hmmm, maybe I should add that to the guideline).
If there is someone delete your information without explanation prior, would you feel good?
For example, I’m not sure how many words you write for Little Red (quest). Yet according to your standard. The follow info muse be del since this is not Trivia. And already mentioned in Walkthrough.
If you intend to fight the bandits it is highly recommended before you talk to Red to go into your game settings and turn on Manual Sword Drawing! The reasons for this are explained above.
And the 3 paragraphs of the battle tip in Walkthrough must shrink a lot according to your standard. (I skipped to paste the paragraphs since it’s too many words)
The reasons are: 1. “manual sword drawing” isn’t relevant. Player still can win the battle without adjusting the setting if they focus on the correct enemy. And with “manual sword drawing enable”, a player still need to know how to focus on the correct enemy. So it’s not so much difference with the setting.
2. Aard and Axii are not relevant too. Because of Igni, Quen also helps, even Yrden help too. Since every Sign can help win the battle. It’s not relevant enough to record in the page.
3. “you have to move very quickly to avoid an initial attack” is also not important and must be del according to your opinion. Because you assume “A lot of readers, especially those looking for tips or help on a quest… they want to come here, quickly see what helps, and go and do it.” Since the reader has experience of the quest. They come here because they can’t win. So that they must already know the information.
========= Mechemik wrote: ...sometimes editors will add to the notes something that's already in the walkthrough itself.
Have you ever think why the information will add twice? Maybe it’s because the Walkthrough is too long and too hard to read. Bullet List is much clear in this case. That is why people skip Walkthrough and add Bullet List information to Note.
If you want to help people “come here, quickly see what helps, and go and do it.” Using Bullet List more in Walkthrough will get more benefit. I admire and thanks to the writing example you provide, yet that kind of format of information is harder to read.
While you reply my message, you del a lot of information I share in Humpty Dumpty again. And the information may help the player to get the achievement easier :(
You did this even before we get a temporarily conclusion on the topic :( :( :(
So I guess you may don't want to communicate. All you want is to make sure that Fandom Witcher Wiki becomes what you want. Therefore make Fandom Witcher Wiki no more Wiki (Except the name). And that is a good way to push away Wiki contributor.
The Wiki Spirit is everyone can contribute, everyone can have their own opinion. People’s wisdom better than one. And the most import, Wiki belongs to no one. No one has the right to decide what Wiki should like be.
Although I disagree your point of view.
Still, I very appreciate your longterm work on Fandom Witcher Wiki. So that I will respect your working way and stop arguing. (And save your time.)
Furthermore, I will stop to edit the pages and only leave comments to provide information. In such ways, you have the power to decide whether the information is valuable enough to add into the pages. And save time to undo my modify.
If you actually look over my edit, the only thing I deleted was suggesting doing it at a higher level as it can still be done at a relatively lower level (which I personally have done). Everything else I condensed down and moved (for instance, the difficulty setting is pretty important so it was moved further up the list) and petri, intensity, and tawny owl were put into one shorter sentence to explain how they help. If you're talking about the number paragraph, you don't really need to say "depends on signs, abilities, potions, etc." for every page because that's pretty much going to be the standard throughout the game. What you want to do instead (and what you had laid out after that and I just shortened) was point out which specific signs, abilities, etc. are helpful.
As for Little Red quest, I can't speak for that one because I didn't write up that page, but I admit it does need to be cleaned up because of repeated/irrelevant information throughout it. As for information being added again, it's why I've started to employ a font template that brings attention to the important bits but honestly, we've had people who didn't even bother reading the first couple sentences on the page and just added the info again in the notes (even though it's colored and stylized at the very top of the page).
As for bullet points in walkthroughs, that only works if it's a very quick quest but using it overall is not a very good layout for the page, especially when the objectives section is in that format because sometimes it needs to be explained in more than a small sentence on what to do (otherwise, we might as well delete the walkthroughs and leave the objectives, and readers tend to complain on pages like that about how unhelpful that it).