Rhaenys_Targaryen

The only quotes I could find in a quick search is that AGOT Tyrion 3 states that the top of the Wall was "wider than the kingsroad often was". ACOK, Jon 5 states "The Wall is seven hundred feet high, and so thick at the base that it would take a hundred men a year to cut through it with picks and axes." AGOT Jon 3 says "His uncle said the top was wide enough for a dozen armored knights to ride abreast" The tunnel through the Wall, at least at Castle Black, is not a straight tunnel, but instead had quite a few turns, which makes it longer than the Wall itself is thick. All in all, with our current info we cannot say. But I did find the thickness stated for some other structures, which might be useful to you in some way? The outer wall of the Great Pyramid of Meereen is 30 feet thick, while the walls of SE are 40 feet at the most narrow place, and near 80 feet thick at the seaward face.

Thanks for the link!

I've changed "Others" to "darkness", as per the quote used for that passage.

Possibly. In addition, the books (and GRRM in an SSM) have thusfar clearly established that one becomes a man/woman grown at the age of sixteen, not fifteen (which could then also be the reason why it was removed from the final text, if it had indeed been in the original English draft).

Of course I think this is the passage you are referring to: These are large claims for a small man, and ones not borne out by any of our other chroniclers, no more than by the facts. Her Grace was far from alone. Four living sons remained to her. "My strength and my consolation," the queen called them. Aegon the Younger and Viserys, Prince Daemon's sons, were nine and seven, respectively. Prince Joffrey was but eleven… but Jacaerys, Prince of Dragonstone, was on the cusp of his fifteenth nameday. It was Jace who came to the fore now, late in the year 129 AC. Mindful of the promise he had made to the Maiden of the Vale, he ordered Prince Joffrey to fly to Gulltown with Tyraxes. [...]

I've searched the chapter on "Jacaerys", "Jace","manhood", and "man grown" but found nothing of such a statement.

No idea for the reason, but as the contents of the sample chapters from Winds can still change, we should go with the ASOS description as canon. We could, however, add a footnote mentioning the description given in Barristan's Winds of Winter chapter, so as to be as complete as possible.

The infoboxes should give a quick, clear view of a character, hence their name, titles, aliases, spouses, children, years of birth and death, etc. But personally, I would argue for leaving the betrothals out of the infoboxes. If we put too much in the infoboxes, they become too full and lose their purpose of giving a quick overview. Although betrothals can be an important part of a character's story arc, overall, who a person once planned to wed is not as important as who they eventually did marry (and the children that came forth from such a union). But that's my opinion. I am very curious to hear the opinion of others!

Until confirmation that it refers to the acolytes or priest, I suggest keep it as the text currently says, and that is using the term in reference to Aeron's men (even though he is the only priest we have seen). As to Kirth's book, it is imo not clear who he is referring to. Acolytes and priests? Or the ironborn in general, who are all "drowned men" in a way, as they all get drowned (whether properly or not) when still young: Only then did the priest turn to the three riders, watching from their saddles. “Have you come to be drowned, my lords?” The Sparr coughed. “I was drowned as a boy,” he said, “and my son upon his name day.”

I have to disagree. They are listed as Leyton's children, and no further specification is given.

I'm not sure if the first one is possible, but I'll take a look!

Like this?

I always assumed Varys refers with "ghosts" to the builders who made the castle and its secret passages, and were killed once the work was done. In 45 AC, construction finally came to an end on the Red Keep. King Maegor celebrated its completion by feasting the builders and workmen who had labored on the castle, sending them wagonloads of strong wine and sweetmeats, and whores from the city’s finest brothels. The revels lasted for three days. Afterward, the king’s knights moved in and put all the workmen to the sword, to prevent them from even revealing the Red Keep’s secrets. Their bones were interred beneath the castle that they had built

For example Maegor I Targaryen, Rogar Baratheon, Qoren Martell

Any other opinions on this?

@Gonzalo No comments on the current contents of the manual of style itself? I can take a look at making it collapsible per king this weekend. We have no intoboxes for Hands of the King, if I'm not mistaken? Or do you mean template boxes used at the bottom of the pages?

Seems to work! Thanks!

@Ran, There seems to be a problem with the wiki: edits can no longer be saved (it states there has been a loss of session data), and pages have great trouble loading.

So multiple lists of characters with the same or a similar name? We already have that in the sense of disambiguation pages, which can all be found under Category:Disambiguation pages

The definition of "namesake" is "a person or thing that has the same name as another." English is not my first language either, but from that definition I take it that everyone who is named after someone is that person's namesake. However, the other way around it is not interchangeable (like in your Theon example, Theon Greyjoy is Theon Stark's namesake, but he was not named after Stark). I'm curious, what kind of information would go on such a page? Do you already have something in mind?

Not entirely a true story. In Fire and Blood, we learn the following: [Visenya] was not without humor, however, and for many years kept her own fool, a hirsute hunchback called Lord Monkeyface whose antics amused her greatly. When he choked to death on a peach pit, the queen acquired an ape and dressed it in Lord Monkeyface's clothing. "The new one is cleverer," she was wont to say. It seems this is what Axell was referring to, twisting the truth in such a way as to insult Davos (which was his goal with the statement). No other Targaryens fit the description.

In some Family sections, where the family trees are displayed, we now have in text an explanation of the family tree. Is this something we want to do? Or is that more or less repeating what is said elsewhere on the page, as history sections state who a character was married to and how many children they had?

Hmm.. the page currently deals with issues directly related to the king and his regents, and that is not something that applies to each of these events described here, I think (but I am not sure, as I cannot check the text at the moment). Nor are all conflicts related to the same main conflict (as is the case for all the struggles during the Dance), so at the moment I would be inclined to say that a template is not the best option. Of course, the information for these struggles should be mentioned on the text the pages where they are relevant. (The struggles surrounding Dalton's succession on the pages of House Greyjoy and all those involved, for exampl). If the relevance allows for it, separate pages can be created.

Not in any other words than those I quoted. The link provides the search for the term.

Thanks! I'll add the reference to the House Karstark page! And no worries, replying here is fine Btw, replying to talk pages can be done the same way as editing a page, simply by hitting the "edit" button. When you do add something to a talk page, don't forget to add your signature (by typing --~~~~)!