The Wondering Wolf

39 minutes ago, Ran said:

Yeah, our heraldry pages shouldn't be used as a source for anything other than the arms -- the descriptive texts are our own works. I'm going to have to double check on why we have this issue, but I believe it relates to GRRM himself having equivocated at some point on where Robin belongs.

ETA: Per GRRM in 1999, after the publication of ACoK, he indicated that he didn't think he had indicated which house he belonged to. Which is not correct, as you say, but it may indicate that GRRM had second thoughts about it. Notably, the ASoS appendix no longer states that Lyessa is Robin Flint's mother. So... I think the way the page is currently written is okay, indicating that there's uncertainty on the matter. In ACoK, yes, he was the son of the Lady of Widow's Watch. By the time of ASoS, it's no longer clear if GRRM stuck to that or changed his mind.

The wiki also states that based on the semi-canon Campaign Guide Robin is the Lord of Flint's Finger, but I seem to remember you said that the book isn't really semi-canon, so do you think that part should be removed?

@Ran

The Citadel page of the Flints of Flint's Finger mentions Robin, indicating he is a member of the house, although the appendix says he is the son of Lady Lyessa Flint of Widow's Watch. The wiki uses this source to make Robin a Flint of Flint's Finger, but I am not sure that this is right.

Hobbling is one of the most disgusting things I have ever read about. But Dust of Dreams is so full with all kinds of violence that I think Erikson went too far with his 'You need to see what humans are capable of doing to each other' attitude. No I don't have to, I read this for entertainment. If I want to read about stuff like this, I look for some reports on the Holocaust or some genocide. Doesn't mean there must be no violence in these books, but in my opinion the style changed at some point. There were really cruel parts in the Chain of Dogs as well, but it was more balanced (and sometimes less is more, Duiker's rather distant view on the things had a huge impact on me), now it's way too much.

30 minutes ago, Nittanian said:

"Struggle for power following Dalton Greyjoy's death" would be more faithful to GRRM's phrasing, at least.

Seems like a good compromise.

Since there were (and still are) huge intervals between the releases of the German editions, I had to reread the books almost every time another one was published, because I had always forgotten too much. Thus I read Gardens of the Moon like five times, and I still like it, as I like all of the earlier books a lot. At some point the story (maybe around the 4th or 5th book) became a bit repetitive to me, but I continued (and there were still a lot of great parts), but right now the only reason why I will wait for the release of the last book is that I have invested so much time now that I want to know how it ends. The level of brutality in general and the violence towards women (and to a lesser degree also men) piss me off more and more, and while there are still humorous elements, I skip entire conversations between Malazan sodiers because they have been talking the same shit for four damn books and I don't care about it anymore. It feels I have already read any interior monologue at least two times somewhere else. So right know I am under the impression the series is too long by at least two books, but maybe I am going to change my opinion after reading the end. Sorry for highjacking the thread, just saw the title and since I finished Dust of Dreams a week ago, I felt triggered.

10 minutes ago, Thomaerys Velaryon said:

Hence I propose: "Succession struggle following Dalton Greyjoy's death" and "Joffrey Arryn's ascension war".

I still don't think people will search for these articles, they will get there only by links on other pages, and I can think of no title which would change that. So short and clear is a good approach, thus I second these proposals. You can still use Gyldayn's wording for the intro. 

I propose "civil war and struggle for power in the Iron Islands of 133-134 AC on the mysterious death of Dalton Greyjoy and the terrible crisis that came after". Maybe it is even possible to move all the content into the title, so people don't have to read the actual page anymore.

On a more serious note, no-one is going to search for a page like this, you just follow the link on other pages to get there, so the title doesn't really matter as long as the intro explains everything.

5 hours ago, The Dragon Demands said:

So I added the Westerlings to the Dance/Lannister template:

Since it's a Lannister tree, it should focus on the Lannisters. You can also create a Westerling tree including Roland, Johanna and her children with Jason. I guess Harrold was an uncle of Roland, but in the end it's not clear at all, so I would not add him.

When Elissa Farman hired people for her voyage in Oldtown, it says that she succeeded in finding a crew because she had gold at the vaults of the Iron Bank. So she must have had some proof about that.

1 hour ago, Thomaerys Velaryon said:

@zionius Is it this one you were thinking about ?

https://georgerrmartin.com/notablog/2009/10/21/the-big-man-and-the-redhead/

This one makes it pretty clear that Ros is not based on any character from the books.

The intro of Ros's article states:

Although her character was created specifically for the TV series, she is based in part on a character in A Game of Thrones known as the "red-headed whore". Additionally, some of Chataya and Alayaya's roles have been folded into her character. George R. R. Martin has said he will likely work Ros into the books at some point as a cameo.

There are no sources for any of that, and at least the first statement seems very doubtful to me. Just because there were a few sentences about a red-haired whore in King's Landing, it does not mean Ros's character was based on her at all. So unless anyone knows a source for that one, I would propose to remove it. The latter statement should be backed up with a source.

17 hours ago, Lord Corlys Velaryon said:

Why is the Dragonknight listed as the predecessor to Duncan the Tall as Lord Commander of the Kingsguard? Sure, Aemon is the last dated LC before Dunk, but there's 50-odd years & several kings between them. Shouldn't it just be stated as unknown or something?

Also, I'm not sure Rohanne Webber should be included as (one of) Dunk's lover(s) when, afawk, they've only shared a kiss (& she's soon enough wed to Gerold Lannister after Eustace Osgrey dies sometime in the 210s).

Apparently some people decided to put as much content as possible into the infoboxes, so I would not be surprised if some day the article pages do not need any text anymore because the infoboxes cover all information. On a more serious note, the non-immediate predecessors and successors should all be removed from the boxes. That was the decision of one editor and many others argued against it. @direpupy was so kind to remove it in this case.

The lover section... well, I have to admit I am no big fan of that one either. It is way to vague to include in a place that should just give the most important information. One could discuss a paramour lable, but even that is another step into a wrong direction in my opinion, because it makes the boxes just more convoluted.

2 hours ago, Loose Bolt said:

Who was overlord of "first Frey"? We know that he lived about 600 years ago, but we do not know which house gave him that piece of land and permission to build that bridge. Or did he just build his bridge and took over that land without asking permission from anybody?

600 years ago the riverlands were under the rule of the Durrandon kings. I can see a Stormking trying to promote some guys who would be grateful and loyal in return.

3 hours ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

Luckily most are not that broad by far hahaha :p

Sure. As you know, I am a huge fan of the whole project and totally understand the approach to do as many calculations as possible, but when the latest possibility of birth is later than the earliest possibility of death, it is more confusing than helpful in my opinion.

3 hours ago, Lord Corlys Velaryon said:

Lyarra Stark's birth-range could be brought forward a couple of decades, right? She had Benjen in 267 at the earliest & would've been at most in her 40s when she did, but was likely far younger. The only child of Lord Edwyle, Rickard, wouldn't be matched to a cousin far older than him, let alone possibly choose her himself.

These calculations are always kind of ridiculous when basic rules meet common sense and the former wins. ^^ I am not a supporter of these 'born after the Conquest and died before AGOT' calculations, but if you stick to the rules, there is not much scope for interpretation.  Menopause could be a thing here, though.

20 hours ago, Thomaerys Velaryon said:

Would it be appropriate to add characters for which there is only two possible ages too ?

In my opinion the boxes are supposed to give a quick overview about data regarding a certain character. One could always add more stuff, but at some point it gets too convoluted. So giving possibilities for a character's age at the time of death is a bit over the top to me. In the end people can also do the calculation if they are interested in it.

1 hour ago, Alexis-something-Rose said:

Is the eight-pointed star on the Dayne sigil canon or semi-canon?

I am not Ran, but anything coming from GRRM that is not in the books is semi-canon, and I do not remember a description of the Dayne sigil star. 

@The Dragon Demands

I think there were two kinds of claims. The ones that were put forward by the claimant himself and the ones that were considered by the council, although the person in question did not press it. The six lesser claims we know about were put forward by the claimants themselves, which makes sense, because otherwise they would not have been considered at all. So I assume the council only considered claims without claimant when there was a good reason to do so. Otherwise there would have been way more than fourteen claims to be discussed. Vaegon was considered because he was the king's only living son, Rhaenys because she was the eldest grandchild and only child of the former heir, Laena because she was the eldest great-grandchild of the king and eldest grandchild of the former heir. It makes sense to discuss these claims even when the persons themselves do not compete. It makes no sense to consider Daemon, Aemma or Rhaenyra. There is nothing in favour of them. I give you that Saera's claim might have been considered, though. She would have been the king's only living child, not bound by any vows and they had to deal with her claim anyway because they had to consider her sons. I am not sure though, since it might have been an affront to consider her in front of the king who was in denial of her. So I believe at least two (and most likely three) of the missing claims were about nobodies who just wanted to get their five minutes of fame. The man at arms, the hedge knight and even the descendant of Gaemon the Glorious tell you what it needed to get considered. I would not be surprised if there had been a kitchen maid who thought she had a claim because she once served the king his favourite dish. Rhaella's name should have been mentioned, if she or her claim had played a role.

The theory page states: 

This broadly leaves two possibilities: either there were three minor claimants that Martin never developed, or other living Targaryens were considered as "claims", even if they didn't wish to press their claims. There were, in fact, exactly three other living characters at this point of known Targaryen descent:

Then it lists Daemon, Saera and Rhaella. 

Since Rhaella is not known to be alive at that point, the wording should be changed. And actually there was another Targaryen: Even if one discounts Aemma Arryn, Rhaenyra had already been born. In my opinion it makes no sense at all her claim was considered, but same goes for Daemon's. So either both should be mentioned or none of them.

37 minutes ago, Nittanian said:

I agree; I count nine usages of "Great Council of 101", one usage of "Great Council of 101 AC", and one usage of "Great Council in 101" within F&B.

Same here, Great Council of 101 should be the title of the page.

3 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said:

That still leaves everything else I posted but fair enough.

Sure (although I do not think it is necessary to make a page for a short battle that is covered by one sentence in the books, others might agree with you, though). Since I am no native speaker, I do not feel confident enough to do major edits on the wiki, so I usually just point out errors or uncertainties in this thread.

1 hour ago, The Grey Wolf said:

The Sack of Lannisport, the Capture of Kayce, and the Fall of Fair Isle should maybe get their own pages

As long as we don't know if Kayce has actually been captured, I wouldn't make a page for it.

1 hour ago, The Dragon Demands said:

Those were already there I didn't add those, though I agree with including them.

But where is the source for it?

As I have already argued in the Discord chat, the text does not state that Daemon's and Saera's claims were considered by the Great Council, so the wiki should not list them in the table of claimants. 

4 hours ago, zionius said:

Or one can make separate entries for them, assuming Silverhall is another place, rather than the seat of House Serrett.

I guess either only one is correct or Silverhall is the castle and Silverhill the town or somerhing like that.