26 replies to this topic

[Halfhand]

Is there any one here that knows how to create this kind of family tree? If so, we could use one made up for the Tullys, Tyrells, Boltons and Targaryens.

The necessary info is on Wikipedia (click the links in the family names to see) but those trees use different formats. I like the other format because it is clean and allows you to link names within the tree itself.

[Scafloc]

Halfhand, on May 28 2009, 18.21, said:

Is there any one here that knows how to create this kind of family tree? If so, we could use one made up for the Tullys, Tyrells, Boltons and Targaryens.

The necessary info is on Wikipedia (click the links in the family names to see) but those trees use different formats. I like the other format because it is clean and allows you to link names within the tree itself.

Yea because of the linking I also prefer the one used with {{familytree}
I used this template for a lot of house article, also for some on wikipedia.

For each house where it is used, copy the section to a separate (template) page. After that you can used the template in the house page and if needed in pages of house members.

I used the Tyrell family tree at the article of Mace Tyrell

[Halfhand]

You rock Scafloc! With your wikiing skills and my prodigious amounts of free time, we may make something out of this wiki yet!

[Scafloc]

Halfhand, on May 28 2009, 20.19, said:

You rock Scafloc! With your wikiing skills and my prodigious amounts of free time, we may make something out of this wiki yet!

I'll drink to that!  :cheers:

[Ser Greguh]

Craster's family tree might get interesting... ;)

[DJDonegal]

SPOILER: R+L=J Related

Should the Targaryen and/or Stark family trees include Jon Snow based on conjecture, or should Jon Snow just be assumed as Eddard's child until proven otherwise?

[Ran]

SPOILER: R+L=J

The latter, I think.

[Scafloc]

DJDonegal, on May 29 2009, 06.35, said:

SPOILER: R+L=J Related

Should the Targaryen and/or Stark family trees include Jon Snow based on conjecture, or should Jon Snow just be assumed as Eddard's child until proven otherwise?

I think we should only put in the articles what is in the book or what is confirmed by GRRM

[Ser Greguh]

Definitely the latter.  N+?=J until proven otherwise.

[Ran]

What's put in the book is that Ned is Jon's son, however, and no one actually disputes it in the series. I think one can put an asterisk next to it perhaps and write something noting the fact that Ned's the only person to authoratively state that that's the case, though.

[Evrach]

I agree.
Joffrey, Myrcella & Tommen positions are more probelmatic.

[Sandor's Lady]

Evrach, on May 29 2009, 15.40, said:

I agree.
Joffrey, Myrcella & Tommen positions are more probelmatic.

I've seen a couple sites, Wikipedia being one of them, IIRC, where the family trees treat Joff, Myrcella, and Tommen as legitimate.  IE, they show a family tree and have Robert married to Cersei, and the three children listed as theirs.  This is probably because 1. that's what's still shown in the apendices of the books, and 2. for the benefit of people who haven't read that far yet.

Though, as suggested above with Jon, you could have an asterisk or link or something that goes onto explain that while the children are (generally) accepted as Robert's legitimate offspring, it has also been confirmed in the books that they are Jaime's.

[The Mance]

Ran, on May 29 2009, 12.37, said:

What's put in the book is that Ned is Jon's son, however, and no one actually disputes it in the series. I think one can put an asterisk next to it perhaps and write something noting the fact that Ned's the only person to authoratively state that that's the case, though.

I would think, for the sake of not spoiling things for the uninitiated, the main wiki should be free of as yet unconfirmed conjecture, with maybe a whole separate section for all the various theories, crackpot or otherwise.  

Even an innocuous asterisk next to his name on a family tree is going to give away the fact that there is some question surrounding Jon's parentage. And while R + L = J is commonly accepted by all right thinking readers ;), it is still something that not everybody is going to appreciate knowing about before George tells them.

The Baretheon kids are different matter as it is clearly revealled by character testimony pretty early on in teh books that they are born of adulterous incest.

[Werthead]

Spoilers should not be a concern at all. Whack a spoiler warning on the front page and leave it at that. Wiki policy is that all entries should be as up-to-date as possible, and Wikipedia itself deleted all of its spoiler warnings a couple of years back. So the Wiki should be current right up to AFFC, and can be updated with ADWD information when the book comes out (and can be updated with publicly-published information, such as Theon, Jon, Tyrion and Dany's preview chapters, right now, although not the read-aloud chapters as they are not verifiable since no-one did a transcript of them and they seem much more prone to change).

The Baratheon kids are headache-inducing, as Westeros at large believes they are legit, but we know they are not. Legally, they are treated as Baratheon heirs, so having them on the Baratheon section makes sense, but we also know that factually they are Lannisters, so they can go up on there with a note to that effect as well.

R+L=J shouldn't be on there in any kind of factual report as it's a theory. If there is a way of adding a Lostpedia-style theory tab to each page, it should go there instead.

Edited by Werthead, 31 May 2009 - 05:59 PM.

[Scafloc]

At this moment the Cersei's children are included in the Lannister tree as children of Jaime. And in the Baratheon tree as children of Robert.

Maybe that is the best we can do

[Ser Greguh]

Scafloc, on May 31 2009, 18.04, said:

At this moment the Cersei's children are included in the Lannister tree as children of Jaime. And in the Baratheon tree as children of Robert.

Maybe that is the best we can do

I honestly think this is the appropriate solution, so long as it's explained in the text of each character page.  We should standardize which of the family trees goes on the page for each of Cersei's kids, though.  Right now Tommen and Myrcella have the Baratheon family tree but Joffrey has the Lannisters.

[Scafloc]

Ser Greguh, on Jun 1 2009, 17.47, said:

I honestly think this is the appropriate solution, so long as it's explained in the text of each character page.  We should standardize which of the family trees goes on the page for each of Cersei's kids, though.  Right now Tommen and Myrcella have the Baratheon family tree but Joffrey has the Lannisters.

I think Joffrey should have the Baratheon tree.  

For the explanation:
- for including them on the Lannister page we could say that for the living Lannisters most know that they are Lannisters. And that they really belong to that family.
- for including them in the Baratheon tree is that they are beleave by a lot of people to be Lannisters. And that at the beginning of the series they are presented as Lannisters.

[Evrach]

I made a new Targaryen Tree, more complete than wikipedia's one AND that fit with the #%$µ£ limit of 99 caracters in weith (well in fact I d'ont know if you had this problem too). If you wanna Translate it, he's there :

http://www.lagardede...h...9néalogie)

[Lord Mord]

Say, since we're on the subject of families and family names ... Of what House was Argilac the Arrogant?  Did he have no last name, he was just Argilac?

Edited by Brick Pollitt, 13 August 2009 - 02:10 PM.

[Ran]

They must have had a name, but we've yet to be told it. I may badger George about it when it comes time for the world book.

Great work on the family tree, Evrach. :)