RumHam

Yeah that's a nice feature I hadn't encountered before today. It just sorta happened? I didn't do anything special, just pasted the link.

It should probably be cited there, but it's based on this post by Ran:

Oh alright, my mistake then I didn't see that part.

This came up in the small questions thread and I thought I'd post it here. The wiki lists Chella as the leader of the Black Ears clan on her page and on the Black Ears page. One page lists the Feast appendix as a source, the other Tyrion VII from Game. Neither of these sources indicate that she is the head of the Black Ears clan. She's clearly the head of the group that travels with Tyrion, but we don't know that that is the entire Black Ears clan. For what it's worth someone in small questions pointed out that Timmet is not the absolute leader of the Burned Men, but just a war chief.

Thank you!

Some of the reference links to posts on this forum aren't working. I'm guessing since the forum upgrade? Here's a list of articles that cite this forum as a reference: https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=site:http:%2F%2Fawoiaf.westeros.org%2F+"A+Forum+of+Ice+and+Fire:" For example the Lady Forlorn, House Oakheart and Rhaena Targaryen articles now have references that just point to the main forum page.

So when that happens all the posts made here since the upgrade will be lost, right?

I'm glad the search is back on, but the My Content feature does not seem to be working perfectly. A couple threads I've posted in are not showing up for whatever reason. 

  I would lean towards no, as Yandel is the only one to call him that and it's sarcastic and kind of an insult.      I actually posted that in Small Questions, as I figured it would reach a bigger audience and wanted someone to track down the source. So it hasn't vanished yet. Of course it will when the board updates.    The reason I started reading about Paramours on the wiki was because of this recent addition to the Polygamy article:     Which should at least have sources added, though I'm not really sure it's relevant to polygamy at all. Unless we have something indicating that a Dornish paramour is practically a second wife. 

From the Showdown at the Tower of Joy page:     I think the last part of that sentence is iffy. We don't know that Howland witnessed the promise. The fact that "they" found him holding her body suggests that they only arrived after Lyanna's death. I'm assuming Howland was part of that they. 

I agree it should be removed because it is speculation, but I'm also thinking it's poor wiki style to use parenthesis in that fashion (Though I do it all the time in text conversation.) Imagine the statement was not speculation, would you still think it should be changed to eliminate the parenthesis?

The Regency section of the Dance of the Dragons page is in my opinion too detailed and should include a see also/main article link rather than summarizing everything we know about that period. After all Aegon III's regency was not a part of the war. Edit: There's also some speculation in that article, such as: What is our policy on putting things like that in ( ), by the way? It seems...un-wikish to me.

It could be some pre-Targaryen king, but the only connection to the Stormlands I can see is the name Orys, and that doesn't compute. Orys Baratheon was from a Valyrian outpost so why should Orys be a traditional Stormlands/Durrandon name? I'm not going to bother making an account over there just to fix it, but maybe Wert or The Dragon Demands will see this and do it. Considering Maegor III and the fact that they erased Jaehaerys II from existance for no apparent reason, I'm betting they intended "Orys the First" to be Orys Targaryen. It seems clear they don't care about getting these tiny historical details right. I mean it's not a big deal but it wouldn't be hard for them to look up the name of an actual Targryen king.

Interesting. The show made up a king last season too, I think. When Tywin was talking to Tommen after Joffrey died. Edit: Here he is, though I'm not sure why the GoT wiki is claiming he's a Durrandon. It seems to be based on Orys being the name of the first Baratheon, only that doesn't make any sense. http://gameofthrones.wikia.com/wiki/Orys_I_Durrandon

Then I would PM Ran and ask if he can reset your password for you, if the password reset isn't working.

Yeah, I agree that needs to be changed. Too much speculation and I don't see the need for including the Serwyn example of how people can sometimes get confused. the ( ) parts also seem off, style wise for the wiki. But maybe that's just me. This is all we get in the worldbook about the Cannibal being on dragonstone before the Targaryens: I'll change it, thanks for the heads up. Edit: only took me about six tries, but I think I finally got it right now.

Olly's conversation with Sam convinced me he's gonna have a hand in stabbing Jon. :(

Not for me. They all link to the references section and the references themselves link to book chapters. Are you sure you don't have a virus that may be redirecting your links?

As pointed out in another thread the Davos entry currently reads: When it's pretty clear that Black Betha is a war galley and part of the royal fleet, not the ship Davos used to smuggle things in.

Yeah, it's a prophetic description of him (even that hasn't been proven yet) not a title. Just as you probably wouldn't say "the woman that was a fish" was an alias for cat. It's a way of referring to her, but not really an alias. While we're on the subject we might consider removing some of Daenerys's aliases like "slayer of lies," "daughter of death" and "child of three." Unless I'm totally off base as to what qualifies as an alias. God knows she has enough titles and aliases already. Edit: And Bran has an alias "The Bran Boy" really? The only time that phrase appears is here:

I don't think Aegon should have "The Mummer's Dragon" listed as an alias. Nobody ever calls him this, it's just a theory that the phrase "Mummer's dragon" refers to him. It certainly shouldn't refer to Rhaegar's actual son.

Find someone else with an _ in their name and see if they can login? I seem to recall those causing problems in the past.

Ok then I have no idea what the problem is, but it's not just you. I just tried to log on and got the exact same error. Edit: across multiple browsers.

Is it giving you any error message? Are you sure this problem isn't just a password issue? I know you said in small questions you had never changed your password, but I believe we all had to reset our passwords last summer because of some error. The wiki passwords apparently did not get changed along with the forum passwords back then. So now that the bridge thingy is down you may need your original forum password to log on to the wiki.

Since these recent changes my wiki password and forum password are not the same. I didn't notice until I logged out of the forum and tried to get back on. I believe the wiki is still using my old password, which I changed when we had that forum password error last summer. It's not an issue for me, I know both passwords, but I thought I'd point it out.