Talk:The Witcher (TV series)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Going to remove "Multiple issues" for now

The entry is clearly not perfect, it is a stub after all, but that is just painting with a too broad brush. For example, the artical does not need "additional citations for verification" it has many sources for a stub. My guess is that the other problems that the editor saw have to do with Twitter as a source. I would argue that WP:TWITTER applies here, the account belongs to the showrunner of the series. -Abyss Taucher (talk) 10:20, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps not all of the templates were necessary, but I’ve re-added {{Primary sources}} since the article relies heavily on Twitter sources. One of the criteria under WP:TWITTER is that an article can’t rely too much on tweets. This article uses six Twitter sources and could use some more secondary sources. Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 11:39, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree. The problem is that good secondary sources are still quite rare, because the project is in such an early stage of development. -Abyss Taucher (talk) 13:36, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

History note

• I did this:-
  • Move The Witcher (U.S. TV series) to The Witcher (U.S. TV series) (version 2)
  • Move Witcher (upcoming U.S. TV series) to The Witcher (U.S. TV series)
  • Text-merge The Witcher (U.S. TV series) (version 2) to The Witcher (U.S. TV series)
    • Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:47, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism of Reception Section

Getting considerable vandalism where the Entertainment Weekly review is concerned. While it's a noteworthy addition, we're getting fanboys vandalising the section with personal attacks on the writer, or over-explaining the critic's review. Request for protection may be required if this is to continue. WhoKnew99 (talk) 16:28, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Page has been submitted for semi-protection to prevent vandalism. WhoKnew99 (talk) 16:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Support not that it really matters at this point. Looks like some single-use accounts, too. -2pou (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

If single-use account users become an issue, you can always request that the page protection be upgraded to "extended confirmed". Which would eliminate the issue entirely. Esuka (talk) 19:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Reception Section

The mixed or average reviews from critics can be deceiving when in reality the audience has reviewed it with great scores over the 8.5 mark on most sites. I believe this should be present in the reception Section as we all know that critics are definitely not representative of what people actually think or how good a show is. Γιαννης Παπαδογκονας (talk) 15:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

See the above discussion. -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:32, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Title Card

Should we be using the first episode's title card or the eighth one, which uses the "wolf pendant sigil" more prevalent in the marketing? I can supply a low-resolution version for that. Supaagekireddo (talk) 07:04, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

What was the point in starting a discussion about it, if you were going to already go ahead with it, without waiting for a reply? -- /Alex/₂₁ 07:11, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I'd support using the Episode 8 title card. 165.118.1.51 (talk) 10:58, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, random IP, who's never edited this article or its talk page. -- /Alex/₂₁ 12:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2019

"Based on A Question of Price from The Last Wish,(and Sword of Destiny from Sword of Destiny)" The Sword of Destiny part is wrong. Cirilla visits Brokilon twice, the first visit is with Geralt (Sword of Destiny), but the second visit happens after the Attack of Cintra. The scene in the show has to be the second because it happens after the Attack of Cintra. 85.23.239.130 (talk) 00:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: The source included after the "based on" text for the fifth episode clearly states the stories that the episode was based on; this includes "A Question of Price" from The Last Wish, and "Sword of Destiny" from Sword of Destiny. The content is reliably sourced. -- /Alex/₂₁ 04:10, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

The need for baised editing in the audiences rating

Seems that there are a few editors here that cant take an objective outlook on things, regarding them unreliable just because they dont fit their opinion. Like audiences rating , which are put in place to show discrepancies between user and critics review. Calling it unreliable because some reviews could be fake is the same as calling critics reviews unreliable because critics they can be bought or paid off. Azik101 (talk) 02:36, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Read WP:USERGEN. Do you know how many times this exact same discussion has happened at dozens, hundreds of other articles? -- /Alex/₂₁ 04:26, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Please follow Wikipedia's guidelines. User reviews will not be on this page. WhoKnew99 (talk) 05:10, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Alex is right. Take for example how Batwoman was review bombed yet people who dislike the show repeatedly cause problems on the main article because they want the audience score there to prove some kind of futile point. Esuka (talk) 19:56, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Batwoman. Star Wars. Captain Marvel. Star Trek Discovery. Doctor Who S12. All the same. -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:09, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I just made a few edits to the Reception bit, because it wasn't achieving a balance of accuracy in terms of describing how the show is being received: yes, Wikipedia doesn't allow user-generated reviews (I initially put in a bit about the Rotten Tomatoes audience score, but removed it when I saw the note about it not being allowed) - but the contrast is so notable that failing to mention it at all doesn't provide a context for the show being renewed for a second - and reportedly third - season in spite of those poor reviews. I added in a link to a news article about the showrunner talking about the user reception, plus IMDB's high rating, which appears to be based on a blend of sources. Feel free to overwrite/undo the edits, but please keep in mind that if you don't mention its popularity with audiences at all, the article is misleading.Princess stomper (talk) 14:20, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

A note and direct link to the showrunners comment near Sapkowski's comments would be more appropriate, particularly as We Got This Covered is a highly inappropriate source. But it can not involve any user-generated comments or review figures per WP:USERGEN. WhoKnew99 (talk) 15:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Appropriate viewership data figures have been added from Parrot Analytics, Forbes and Business Insider. WhoKnew99 (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

That's fair, thank you Princess stomper (talk) 22:55, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Extended Confirmed Protection Request

Requesting an Extended Confirmed Protection to protect against users still vandalising through including user generated reviews. WhoKnew99 (talk) 15:30, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: requests for increases to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. -- /Alex/₂₁ 15:31, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Request has been submitted. WhoKnew99 (talk) 15:38, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

WhoKnew99, I also recommend that you reply to the latest comment in the above discussion, that relates to your concerns. -- /Alex/₂₁ 15:39, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

As an update, the request was declined. -- /Alex/₂₁ 08:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Main cast vs recurring

As per MOS:TVCAST, the division between main cast and recurring relies on "a set order in the credits". An identifier of a recurring cast member is "recurring and guest stars will not necessarily be credited in the same order in each episode".
Checking the broadcast credits of Episodes 2, 4, and 6 as examples, only a few actors are present in the main cast list in each:

• Henry Cavill as Geralt of Rivia
  
• Anya Chalotra as Yennefer of Vengerberg
  
• Freya Allan as Cirilla / Ciri, princess of Cintra
  
• Joey Batey as Jaskier
  
• Eamon Farren as Cahir
  
• Mimi Ndiweni as Fringilla Vigo

As per MOS:TVCAST we should limit the main cast to these actors.--GimmeChoco44 (talk) 01:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I have gone through all eight episodes and compiled the list of starring cast as they appear at the end of every episode:

Cast

Episode 1 Henry Cavill Freya Allan Eamon Farren Episode 2 Henry Cavill Anya Chalotra Freya Allan Joey Batey MyAnna Buring Royce Pierreson Eamon Farren Mimi Ndiweni Wilson Radjou-Pujalte Episode 3 Henry Cavill Anya Chalotra Freya Allan MyAnna Buring Anna Shaffer Royce Pierreson Mimi Ndiweni Wilson Radjou-Pujalte Episode 4 Henry Cavill Anya Chalotra Freya Allan Joey Batey Mimi Ndiweni Eamon Farren Wilson Radjou-Pujalte Episode 5 Henry Cavill Anya Chalotra Freya Allan Joey Batey MyAnna Buring Eamon Farren Mimi Ndiweni Wilson Radjou-Pujalte Episode 6 Henry Cavill Anya Chalotra Freya Allan Joey Batey Eamon Farren Mimi Ndiweni Wilson Radjou-Pujalte Episode 7 Henry Cavill Anya Chalotra Freya Allan MyAnna Buring Royce Pierreson Mahesh Jadu Mimi Ndiweni Anna Shaffer Episode 8 Henry Cavill Anya Chalotra Freya Allan MyAnna Buring Anna Shaffer Mahesh Jadu Mimi Ndiweni Eamon Farren

Now, according to MOS:TVCAST, [t]he cast listing should be ordered according to the original broadcast credits, with new cast members being added to the end of the list. The original broadcast credits are that of the first episode, and "new cast members" credited in further episodes are added to the end of the list. So, starting with the cast that was first credited, and then adding newly-credited cast to the end of the list, we get this result for the main cast list:

• Henry Cavill
• Freya Allan
• Eamon Farren
• Anya Chalotra
• Joey Batey
• MyAnna Buring
• Royce Pierreson
• Mimi Ndiweni
• Wilson Radjou-Pujalte
• Anna Shaffer
• Mahesh Jadu

Of course, the number of episodes the above cast are credited as starring in is irrelevant; they were all credited as starring at the end of an episode, and thus they must be listed thus here. -- /Alex/₂₁ 02:04, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough breakdown. Starring in a series and starring in an episode are two different things, and the interpretation of MOS:TVCAST is a good fit for standard shows like Friends and Law & Order. Shows like The Witcher have a fluctuating definition of "starring". If a cast member is "starring" in one episode but absent from most others, is he/she a star of the series as a whole?

And is "original broadcasting credits" defined as first episode? I think that's more of a reference to original airdate vs rerun. --GimmeChoco44 (talk) 02:15, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

If an actor is credited as starring in an episode, then we list them as starring. We stick to this simple rule, else if we decide to take it upon ourselves as to who is "actually" starring, then we delve into the realm of textbook WP:OR. That is the clear-cut consensus of WP:TV that has been implemented, discussed and agreed upon for years, and how the list of starring actors is currently implemented in thousands of television articles.

If a cast member is "starring" in one episode but absent from most others, is he/she a star of the series as a whole? Yes. We list them as such, per my reasoning above. Same for is "original broadcasting credits" defined as first episode. Last time I checked, Netflix doesn't do "reruns". The term "original broadcasting credits" means how the cast were originally credited in the first set of broadcasting credits. That is, only three were first credited, then other cast were added to the broadcasting credits. -- /Alex/₂₁ 02:22, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Fair explanation. As long as the criteria is clear -- in this case, having been listed in the credits as "starring" at least once qualifies for main cast inclusion -- then we have a base point for future episodes. GimmeChoco44 (talk) 10:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2020 about the "THE PLOT OF THE EPISODES/SUMMARY"

We need to make much clear the timelines of the series on "THE PLOT OF THE EPISODES/SUMMARY". Before the edits made on january 2, the episodes said something like "Several decades before, Yennefer was recluted by.." I mean... It was more clear that Hunchback Yennefer happened 30 to 40 years before she met Geralt (The Witcher) and before the fall of the Kingdom of cintra; and that the kingdom of Cintra fall 15 years later after Geralt and Yennefer meet for the first time.

It is need to be clear since episode 1. Its necesary.

Thanks to anyone who can help with this. 123thejoker1234 (talk) 22:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:58, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Question from DeepThought333 regarding suggested timeline edit

New user here, so apologies if this is not in the right place. I've been through the help pages but still wasn't 100%.. I wanted to get some advice on an update I keep trying to make to this page regarding the timeline of the TV show (which is crucial to understanding this show) under WRITING. But it keeps being taken out by another user (GimmeChoco44). As a screenwriting prof I just want to point out that this is exactly the kind of info viewers want to hand about the show, (without having to click on a link to find it) and particularly those studying it, so it makes no sense to me to keep taking this out. It is not extraneous or repeated info. Here is the edit: " In particular Hissrich was referencing the fact that the different stories in Dunkirk covered different time periods (1 week, 1 day and 1 hour for the land, sea and air stories respectively). In a similar vein, Hissrich has said that Yennefer's story covers around 70 years and Ciri's only about 2 weeks." Can anyone advise if there is another reason that I'm missing why adding this in might be an issue? (DeepThought333 (talk) 04:26, 10 January 2020 (UTC))

I suspect GimmeChoco44 felt that the edit was somewhat too detailed and talks more about Dunkirk than about the subject matter. I don't have a strong opinion on the matter but perhaps GimmeChoco44 could explain their reasoning in greater detail? TheSLEEVEmonkey (talk) 10:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

The main issue is that the attempted edits were inconsistent and confusing, so regardless of intent, the additions hurt the article rather than help it. If you speak about Geralt's actions and then introduce a change in perspective (i.e., seventy years earlier), it creates a linear relationship between these different timelines instead of parallel. I suggest a separate section of the article to address timeline outside of the brief episode summaries.

A secondary concern is whether the "present" or "year ___" is clearly defined by the series. Every action taken by the characters is in his/her present time from their perspective, and assigning the action to a different perspective (i.e., from Geralt's point of view, this was in the past, but from Yennefer's point of view, this was in the present, or future) is unjustified.

Thirdly, is the inclusion of a timeline reference in the brief (under 200 word) summary essential to the most basis assessment of the plot? Does it directly affect the result of the character's actions? A dedicated page to a particular episode gives you a lot more room to expand descriptions, but we're already pushing the limits of desired brevity in the current list of episode summaries. GimmeChoco44 (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Are you thinking of the correct edit? I believe the edit that this specific question was directed towards was this one, not any of the episode summary edits. The Writing section is within "Production" and is intended to include information on how the series was conceived, created, etc.. I don't think it is bad information to include as long as it is worded well. I think the original phrasing could use some work, and the reduced version might be over-simplified. E.g.: "spanning different time periods" doesn't provide context as to how it is being done. Was it different time periods like start with the end, rewind and make your way back there a-la Pulp Fiction?
(Side note: this wasn't repeatedly reverted by GimmeChoco44. He was just the last to do so, which was not a complete revert, but an attempt to summarize. The previous reverts/rollbacks were before the source was actually included.)

Yes the response from GimmeChoco44 relate to the Ep summaries, not the edit I made. The edit I put into the writing section was to explain in 1 line how the key differences in the timeline operate. This is crucial info for understanding the way the series has been developed and structured as I explained before. This series doesn't employ the typical use of Flashbacks and flashforwards, but a combination of different timelines as well as significantly different durations within timelines. This is a very novel structural approach that is particularly interesting and crucial for the audience to understand the overall set-up of the series events. I've done a tighter edit version of it now as follows (taking out the detail about Dunkirk): " Hissrich has said that Yennefer's story covers around 70 years and Ciri's only about 2 weeks. " Given the episode summaries do NOT feature details about when each stories events are actually happening (within the overall timeline) it seems particularly important to have this somewhere. Also there are a number of articles online that talk about the 'confusing timeline' because it has been an issue for a lot of viewers. Hopefully that makes everything super clear. DeepThought333 (talk) 01:44, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Viewing figure

I have no idea why Alex 21 would remove edit relevant to the article, since the article cited is on the number for The Witcher, and how it is different from the previous figures released. This is not just one person's opinion, since such information are also found in other websites, for example, Variety. Not leaving it in would be to give a misleading impression because it is no longer comparable to previous Netflix shows. Hzh (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

And yet, it is Netflix's official released information, it's not up to us to question it. Other websites can do their own discussion on it, but it is clearly an issue that does not relate to just The Witcher, so it should exist elsewhere. This isn't the place for a running commentary on Netflix's practices. Adding: The content has been disputed. Please allow its discussion before restoring it. See my edit summary. -- /Alex/₂₁ 21:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@Alex 21: We don't question it, it is others who questioned it. We only report what other people said. Anyway, I already removed the part about "questions" being raised, so your point is entirely moot. It appears that you revert edits without bothering to read the sources provided, or understand what's being written. Hzh (talk) 21:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

By including it, we are questioning it. The content is Netflix's official release. As I said, it is clearly an issue that does not relate to just The Witcher, so it should exist elsewhere; is there a press release from Netflix supporting this change in their viewership measurements? I have read the sources, I understand what the situation is, so I would request that you do not attack me on my dispute of the content, nor should you edit-war. -- /Alex/₂₁ 21:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@Alex 21: So you are saying contrary opinion voiced by anyone on any issue should not be included? Since when has that been a policy in Wikipedia? We always add information when something has been challenged as long as it is WP:DUE. Given that the various websites have said the same thing, for example The Guardian on the viewing figure for The Witcher said:"There are question marks over how the company is now gathering its data...". Wikipedia is not a promotional site for Netflix where their statements can be made without others who questioned them being ignored. To remove it would fail any policy on balance and neutrality. If it is something that people continue to mention about Netflix figures, then it would be something that would be mentioned in Wikipedia articles. If others stop mentioning it, then we don't add it, it's as simple as that. Hzh (talk) 22:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

You didn't answer me: Is there a press release from Netflix supporting this change in their viewership measurements? And please quote the policy and exact section of said policy that would be violated. And why are we including it here, rather than at the Netflix article? -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@Alex 21: Wikipedia treats press releases as primary sources and promotional, and we are required to use reliable secondary sources (read WP:RSPRIMARY), which articles from Variety magazine and The Guardian are. If you are demanding press releases, then you are not following Wikipedia guidelines. The information is given in reliable news outlets e.g. The New York Times, unless you have reason to dispute them, then I suggest that you treat them as valid. Given that the articles cited deal directly with the viewing figures for The Witcher, then of course the information will be given here. You can add it to the Netflix article as well if you want, but that is entirely beside the point. Hzh (talk) 22:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Note also that your misapply WP:BOLD, since it is your bold edit that was reverted, and you should not have used the rationale (because you should have discussed it first before reverting again). Note also that WP:STATUSQUO is an essay, not a policy or guideline. Hzh (talk) 23:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing anything that supports this change in viewership/ratings methods. Whether or not it is true, it doesn't change the viewership/ratings values of the series. Netflix reports 76 million viewers. Apparently their methods have changed? Okay, and? What does that add to the article? What benefit does that provide? What comparison?

As for the latter comment... Incorrect; it was your edit that added the content, that I later removed eight hours later; hence: edit, revert, discuss. -- /Alex/₂₁ 07:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Hzh on this issue. Multiple external sources discuss the viewership figures of the Witcher specifically in the context of Netflix's change in counting viewership. There is clearly agreement in NY Times, the Guardian and Variety that Netflix's change in how they measure viewers is relevant to the posted viewership figures for the Witcher. We should faithfully represent what is stated in the reliable external sources, and these sources clearly imply that the viewship figure comes with a caveat. After all, these secondary sources hold more weight than the primary source, Netflix's own viewship figures. TheSLEEVEmonkey (talk) 11:14, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and according to Variety, the change in counting means that the figures are 35% higher on average than the prior metric (also found here which says that this is what Netflix admitted in their quarterly earning report). It means that the 76 million figure is actually around 56 million by the older method. The argument by Alex 21 is that he can't see anything that supports the change in methods, which is really odd when that is clearly given, e.g. in NYT The company on Tuesday also reported a significant change in how it counts viewership ... The company said it had been viewed by 76 million households within four weeks of its release under the new measurement system. and Variety Netflix changed the definition of what constitutes a viewer... It is hard to see what his argument is. Hzh (talk) 12:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Well let's assume good faith from all parties - we're all working to make this article better so I'm sure we can come to a good resolution if we work together. TheSLEEVEmonkey (talk) 13:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Witcher TV series adveritsment in form of a mural in Łódź, Schillera Passage (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

"The Witcher (upcoming U.S. TV series)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect The Witcher (upcoming U.S. TV series). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 30#The Witcher (upcoming U.S. TV series) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 14:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Episodes own pages

The tv show is very popular, and the episodes follow a complex timeline, between the 3 main characters. Don't you think that maybe we can add individual articles to the episodes, to explain this better. Alvrix3104 (talk) 06:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Witcher TV series adveritsment in form of a mural in Łódź, Schillera Passage (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:36, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Episodes names for season 2

https://todayinbermuda.com/the-witcher-season-2-on-netflix-gets-a-release-date-heres-everything-you-need-to-know/ They were released here. Not sure how any of you wish to organize it. Ukiss2ne14lyfe (talk) 17:20, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

International production sources

Moving to Talk per WP:BRD.

To editor Merangs: The sources for the production companies are listed after each entry in the infobox, namely current references 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. I misread in ref 4 thinking that a Slovak company would liaise the production filming in Slovakia, but the source actually only says filming takes place there. So the Czech company is Stilinkg Films, and the British companies are One of Us and Cinesite.

Calling it an “international” production seemed to both solve what appears to have been contentious in the past (removal of Polish) as well as including the other companies listed. (Side note: Polish company Platige Image‘s involvement makes it clear “American” alone is insufficient.) Additionally, there could be controversy over Polish-American vs. American-Polish (maybe there’s a convention I’m not tracking).

I personally find the inclusion of nationality in the first sentence of the lead an odd practice for contemporary productions now as global economy has made most productions an international affair, whether it be filming in different countries or production company cooperation (unless perhaps an indie production where a small group is doing everything). Even individual production companies have several international offices. This paragraph is a separate thing, though… The point was to call out the references above. -2pou (talk) 16:16, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Separate note, the Sean Daniel Company should probably be updated to Hivemind after a name change, as Hivemind is what is actually listed in the credits. -2pou (talk) 16:18, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for explaining and providing refs. Regards. Merangs (talk) 12:56, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Wrong person credited as Yarpen Zigrin

The notable guests section credits Jeremy Crawford as Yarpen Zigrin, but links to the wrong person. The link leads to a D&D designer. No wiki page exists for the actor.

Jeremy Crawford on Wikipedia

Jeremy Crawford on IMDB

Sadly, I don't have the time to write wiki articles, but I hope someone else here can fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:871:D:819F:39C9:ADB9:E74F:BDF2 (talk) 21:00, 18 December 2021 (UTC)