Talk:Vara

Removed part of a note
What is your reason for removing "Moreover, either only she poses the special ability to hide her racial features (horns, wings) or all the succubi can do it but the game succubus didn't care to hide what she is." this part? Peace, Ͽ †yræl pl Ͼ 01:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC) Peace, Ͽ †yræl pl Ͼ 01:43, 12 December 2014 (UTC) Peace, Ͽ †yræl pl Ͼ 02:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's speculation -- something usually not condoned on encylopedic wikis or encyclopedias in general. mnethm 01:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not really, I am not blatantly assuming that base on nothing. Nor I am not stating what is or isn't, I am pointing towards the fact that one succubus nearly always looks human, while the other on the contrary - never looks fully human. Also I am pointing that the cause for all that is not clear. I wanted this info clearly visible, the dissonance in appearance between the two.
 * It's still speculation. It's an unconfirmed assessment about her racial features. mnethm 01:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Pure facts now.

Cool beans. I made a few corrections and removed the "It is unclear..." part only because it's quite obvious. mnethm 02:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC) Peace, Ͽ †yræl pl Ͼ 02:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree. As the name for this paragraph suggests 'notes' are meant to point people towards some minor facts. You could also say that it is obvious that she is freckled, is it not? Or that she has brown hair, yet all those pieces of information are there. The way I see this section... it is a place for small trivia and this is one of them. It is worth noting that the mechanic (or whatever you call it) for their appearance change is never explained. I insist on having it there.
 * I would also like to have this small "oh so" not removed. While other changes you made might have been mistakes on my part this small phrase is my choice of words, it is not a mistake to be corrected. I see no reason why would it bother anyone.
 * Also in "At first, Geralt enjoys his few moments of relax alone, but he is soon joined by Vara." I dont think 'he' is 100% necessary, in this sentence it not needed since it is clear who is joined by who. Again, my choice to omit it but it's ok that way too I guess. Thx for understanding.
 * 1. There's trivia, and then there's an over-elaboration. Despite my leaving it there, I actually do feel that the freckles trivia too is unnecessary; however, unlike your "It is unclear..." entry (which is explained thoroughly enough in the first part of your trivia addition), her freckles aren't elaborated on anywhere else in the article and aren't as clearly recognizable as your typical individual's freckles.


 * 2. Exactly, it's your choice of words, which aren't encyclopedic or necessary.

Peace, Ͽ †yræl pl Ͼ 03:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 3. Yeah, it's not really necessary. You can remove it if you want. mnethm 02:45, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ad.2 Yes it is mine. I am not a scholar worthy of writing a real encyclopedia, nor is anyone here afaik.
 * I really wanted to reason but you seem really overconfident in your beliefs. Since I clearly disagree with you and I really am above stating an "edits war" I'll ask GW what she thinks about all that.
 * Cool beans.

Peace, Ͽ †yræl pl Ͼ 03:45, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * PS: My "beliefs" are nothing more than common, encyclopedic standards. mnethm 03:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You are forgetting that wikias or gamepedias aren't the classic, paper tomes of pure knowledge. They aren't as strict nor are bound by too many rules, so those are your beliefs in fact. Most of the rules are presented as guidelines and even those often leave room for interpretation, also many of those "rules" are made by the staff and are subject to change when deemed necessary. We nearly aren't restricted by space and volume at all. We dont have to use plain "scientific" language. There is no "rule" that states one mustn't use a little less encyclopaedic tone. We only need to stick to facts but the form of how we present them is up to us. I really think that removing article parts (moreover without an explanation) or overeagerly correcting someone is just a poor choice in terms of propriety. It makes our coexistence as editors a pain in the, well, as we sometimes say in my parts "where the back ends its venerable name".

You obviously haven't edited at a lot of credible wikis before. Even Gamepedia's The Vault wiki adheres to most common wiki standards. Then there's a myriad of other popular wikis that do the same as well. I suggest going to other credible (well-maintained) wikis before trying to go against the grain of what a wiki is supposed to be.

Yes, we are an individual wiki site of our own and have our own set of rules, guidelines and consistent formats too... but you see, that's just it. Look around Witcher Wiki and you'll see that your way of editing isn't consistent with what has already been created -- I have yet to see one article (excluding AEon's TW1 and TW2 guides) that doesn't conform to the basic "'scientific' language" you speak of. All of your rebuttals are invalid, for the wiki standard I am adhering to also seems to be the consistent wiki standard of this wiki. mnethm 04:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I see no problem with bringing such deduction since clearly Vara was able to hide her wings and horns so it's either her personal ability or ability of her kind in general. It's not a speculation - those are the only two sensible possibilities and they are both brought. This is not Wikipedia with its very strict formal rules. Unless you want enforce them here which I personally wouldn't like. — Gilrond (talk) 05:07, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

"You obviously haven't edited at a lot of credible wikis before." - I used and edited good and bad wikias, The Vault too before the whole forking mess. You mnethm are a pain to deal with and are a pompous, condescending and unpleasant individual. Based on your attitude I assume you were never a meaningful part of larger wikia community. All your accusations are baseless, but I do wonder what might be terribly inconsistent in my edits. You clearly have never seen a truly inconsistent and rookie editor. For future, please drop this condescending tone and learn some humility. Just because you think someone is wrong doesn't make you right. Peace, Ͽ †yræl pl Ͼ 05:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Wow ... I've waded in on such arguments before and this is what i believe: This is not wikipedia, nor is it The Vault. Some editorial flair has always been allowed by contributors on this wiki. Read any of the quest synopses from the original game if you require examples. Trying to neutralise every turn of phrase is not helpful, but grammatical improvements are always good. Stylistic changes seem to be the issue here. Tyrael is a motivated and enthusiastic contributor on this wiki, but English is not his native language. Mnethm is very new to this wiki and would seem to have come with some sort of agenda, given the additions and changes he has chosen to make.
 * I think we all want to make this wiki as good as it can be, but it is already good enough to have CD Projekt's seal of approval, so I see no need to make sweeping changes to style nor to suddenly impose new standards. I think the suggestion that anyone "obviously [hasn't] edited at a lot of credible wikis before" is uncalled for and of any of the disagreements expressed in this particular tiff, the lowest.
 * This particular page can still use some improvement, but removing content (in the Notes section for example) is unnecessary. In the past the bias here has been toward leaving in additional information even if it seemed superfluous to some. In general, the people who use game wikis are not known for their patience or attention to detail, and for that reason, having some duplication of facts available in a notes section is useful as they are unlikely to read the detailed descriptive sections. I assume you are both old enough to behave like civilised co-contributors so please stop this nattering. I hope this clarifies the issue — Game widow (talk) 13:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Peace, Ͽ †yræl pl Ͼ 17:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I only aim for making this already great place, better. I believe I am a civilized person and am not big on starting any sort of quarrels but there are just some things, some situations when I can't sit something out. And yeah, this suggestion of not editing too many credible wikis really hurt. As for the consistency of my edits, I really am trying to make edits as consistent with the rest of content here as I can; I name files in a manner that in my opinion fits best the general scheme etc. I believe we all make mistakes sometimes and when I do make one it's not like I am purposefully breaking the integrity here. Last time Gilrond pointed me as to what is wrong, I corrected it and issue solved in like 5min. As for me, it's clear, I re added removed info.