LuisDantas

I am still waiting for some source on that policy. Which, really, is difficult to accept, to say the least.

Come to think of it, plot-relevant actions should overrule spoken words anyway. TWOIAF I have yet to read (gimme a couple of weeks). It does seem to be something of a special case, though.

No, that is indeed what I meant. By your understanding, there are no actual characters appearing in TRP, TPATQ, nor TWoIaF. That is of course accurate by a certain perspective, but is more than a bit self-defeating as well. Rhaenyra and others do appear in TPATQ in a meaningful way, even if it can be suspected of inaccuracy. In order not to be much too loose about what constitutes an appearance, I suggest as a starting point that a character must have his words spoken in the first person somewhere in the tale, and it must be during the timeframe of the main story. So, for instance, Prince Daeron Targaryen (who spoke about Tessarion) has an appearance in TPATQ, as do all of Rhaenyra's sons except for Viserys and Visenya, while her father Viserys I (who dies early during the time frame and is mentioned many times) is only mentioned. Another character that is mentioned as opposed to making an appearance is Alyn of Hull. Going by those criteria, though, Addam of Hull would IIRC not be making an appearance despite having unquestionably been an active part of the tale, to the point of being decisive to the overall plot beyond any reasonable controversies. That does at least feel unfair. So what about: "A character's status in a book or tale should be recorded as mentioned if either the narrator or any of the characters with speaking parts mentions him unequivocally, preferably by name. If the character also has speaking parts, even if brief, or is uncontroversially the performer of actions with plot significance during the timeframe of the book, then he qualifies as having made an appearance instead of simply being mentioned, unless there is uncertainty that he was significantly involved." That would mean, for instance, that the "real identity" of the Three-Eyed Crow has not made an appearance in ASOIAF before ADWD, although he has been mentioned before that. We would have to reconsider if he is somehow an impostor, of course. So, for TPATQ, that would make these character qualify as making appearances (among others, of course): Princess Rhaenyra Targaryen, Aegon II Targaryen, Aegon III Targaryen, Lucerys Targaryen, Jacaerys Targaryen, Daemon Targaryen, Alicent Hightower, Aemond Targaryen, Rhaenys Targaryen, Roderick Dustin, the Seasnake, and most of the dragons (including Moondancer, but excluding Morning and the eggs). Mentioned, among others, would be Harwin Strong, Viserys I Targaryen, Borderline cases would include Rhaena Targaryen (I don't think guarding the eggs had plot significance) and Baela Targaryen (qualifies for an appearance IMO, given the events late on the tale). Lord Manderly participated only indirectly by sending his sons, so I count that as an mention for him and appearances of Medrick Manderly and Torrhen Manderly.

Thanks for the clarification. Between the known frequent use of unreliable narrators in ASOIAF and the survival of somewhat conflicting accounts of the Dance, I suppose that is a fair call, but yes, some explicit statements for reference could be a good idea. It is also slightly frustrating, since it basically means that (for instance) only Archmaester Gyldayn appears in TPATQ despite it not even being about him. Maybe we could agree on having a separate status for such characters as Princess Rhaenyra who go well beyond simple glancing mentions? Something like "featured", "narrated", or even "spotlighted", perhaps?

Thanks. It is actually surprising to me that there is even any discussion on this matter. I suppose being used to ebooks has its disadvantages. Where can I check that policy?

I am reading The Princess and the Queen and I edited Roderick Dustin's entry to reflect his appearance in that tale, only to have it reverted into a mention instead. How does that work?

I would agree if the range of page numbers of the whole book (or tale, in the case of Dunk & Egg) were not given. Edited to add: Taking a single page reference with the full page range of the chapter or tale and doing a very simple subtraction, rule of 3 and addition is after all enough to come very close indeed to the exact page even in editions in other languages in pretty much all cases. That is just not worth giving up when the values are already known. When they are, then removing the page references becomes a matter of choosing to throw away a slightly inexact reference (rarely if ever away from the mark by more than a couple of pages, if that much, regardless of edition) in order to have no reference whatsoever. That... just does not make any sense IMO. It is throwing out the baby in order to keep the water. And more than slightly disappointing for one such as me who painstakingly produced what, frankly, was very much an useful piece of information just to see it sumarily and unfairly disregarded with no discernible justification.

I can't say I follow. Having the range of page numbers of the tale or chapter along with the page number itself pretty much removes any disadvantage from edition variation, and not having any page number makes the task of finding the actual reference quite the chore.

Should we refrain from including page numbers in the references? I have several times now included them when I had them available, most recently in the Uthor Underleaf and Leo Longthorn articles. I was consistently careful to include the page range of the specific edition I used. Yet, to my considerable dismay, it seems that pretty much all of those were edited out rather uncerimoniously. I am trying to understand why that would be desirable, but I have failed so far. Any thoughts?

I really disliked the blunt attempt at absolving Stannis of any guilt. It made him seem too much of a fool and too much of a tool to be believable. Stannis has never been quite that naive.

Not me.

Maybe I am wrong - and if so, please tell me - but it seems to me that any registered wiki user can simply edit Daenerys' article and move any of the images from the gallery to appropriate places inside the main text. I don't think there is any need for explicit permission, either; after all, it is easy enough for others to revert or fix the article if need be. I'm not sure I understood the problem, but it seems to be solvable by adding a bottom line with a copyright notice with the artist's name. Am I wrong? Or is it the matter that the artists want credit, but FFG has the rights for lone copyright credit? I'm not sure I understood this. Are you essentially saying that we should be real careful to make sure to include the appropriate artist category in the images, or is that not enough? http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Category:Images_By_Artist

Sorry for not telling you at the time that it worked, Ran. And thanks! Unfortunately, I must bother you once again. I have been having trouble with the uploading of some character images. Here is a screen capture that may be of use: http://dantas.com/soiaf/erro.png

Anyone else having trouble logging on the wiki? No error message, no nothing. It just fails.

I just did, and it is indeed working fine now. Thanks!

Yes. Uploading is the one thing that the wiki isn't good at right now. Unfortunately, it is very much impossible to do as well.

No longer. This morning the wiki has been working nicely, at least for me.

It is the server. It has been real hard to login to the wiki in the last couple of days.

@JonF311: It is really easy to miss, but there is a strong implication from the combination of "The Iron Reaver" in AFFC and a statement from Xaro Xoan in one of ADWD's Daenerys chapters that all but assures that Euron killed Pyat Pree.

Daenerys' "Dracarys" moment was really weak. Other than that, the changes were significant but probably necessary in order to make the story more soap-opera-like. Which it must be, I have come to realize; tv and books are simply too unlike to allow a more faithful adaptation.

I only wish we had the Ghost of Renly, some evidence of the Tyrell's presence, and a bit less effort to lend Stannis the appearance of respectability. That said, it is still a solid 9.

Page 844. "... and there the entrance to the Patternmaker's Maze. Only those who learn to walk it properly will ever find their way to wisdom, the priests of the Pattern say." Sound a lot like a misunderstood or garbled description of Corwin or one of his relatives about Pattern walking. Maybe a hint that some amberite made the world of Song as a personal shadow.

Is it just me, or does the "The Ugly Girl" chapter in ADWD contain a reference to Roger Zelazny's Amber stories?

This is the first episode in either season when I ever noticed scenes of just a few seconds. I am fairly certain that they rarely happened before, if ever. HBO seems to have gone bold and decided to use more of a soap opera format, as evidenced both in the changes and in the more flexible scene length. A good thing in and of itself, IMO. Tywin seems to be enjoying his little game of guesswork with Arya. He know she is hiding something but does not thing it will be dangerous to him. Uncharacteristically reckless from him, but as he says himself, he is facing his age and mortality. A change that is working so far. As is Daenerys/Qarth. When I saw the scene after the killing of the 13, I thought that it was for the best; the books are way too vague and symbolic when it comes to Qarth. Jaime... is problematic. The changes really caused damage here. He is now shown to be utter scum, killing a relative who idolizes him just to have a shot at fleeing. That will not only make his half-redemption that much less convincing, it also makes Karstark's actions slightly more reasonable. This is the first (and so far only) serious misstep from the TV series so far. I'm willing to bet that Qhorin Halfhand spoke with Jon off-camera between the two episodes where he was seen. Jon is giving Ygritte way too much leeway and being way too cool with it for me to think all is as it seems. While I believe that there were similar lines in the books, I couldn't help but notice that Cersei does a very poor job at hinding her belief that Jaime is the father of her sons. She all but told Sansa so, and seems not to have even noticed it. I must assume that Sansa heard the rumors, and by now she must have at least half a belief in them. Jorah is being given a bit more evidence, which is good... even if I can't quite figure out his scene with Qhaite. I wish Tyrion had more time on-screen in this episode. Peter is such a good actor. Not sure about who the orphans will end up being. Might be the Frey cousins, or perhaps the Reeds. Theon is being fairly faithful to the books. I find myself wondering if Cleftjaw _is_ Ramsay somehow. Roose Bolton never named his bastard, could he be Ironborn?

A late thought:: Shae seems to be more central to the story now. I wonder if she will take some of the Queen of Thorn's role, particularly later on.