Wiki Errors

[Thomaerys Velaryon]

@Loraq Thank you for pointing out the mistakes. I've fixed them.

[loveigniting09]

There's a wiki error on Aemond Targaryen's page.

It says "on the same day they battled and died, Queen Helaena Targaryen committed suicide at sunset the capital."

The sources listed (Fire & Blood, The Dying of the Dragons - Rhaenyra Overthrown and The World of Ice & Fire, The Targaryen Kings: Aegon II) for this statement do not say this nor can it be inferred.

F&B, TWOIAF, and TPATQ doesn't have a day of death for Helaena nor does it state she died the same day as Daemon and Aemond. Neither does Rise of the Dragon which explicitly puts her death days after Daemon's death.

Her own wiki page just lists 130 AC as her time of death and no specific date.

There's nothing ruling it out but there's nothing validating it in any source.  It states in every source that she died the same day as men abandoning Rhaenyra's cause, not that she died the same day as Daemon and Aemond. 

Edited November 9, 2022 by loveigniting09

[The Wondering Wolf]

3 hours ago, loveigniting09 said:

F&B, TWOIAF, and TPATQ doesn't have a day of death for Helaena nor does it state she died the same day as Daemon and Aemond. Neither does Rise of the Dragon which explicitly puts her death days after Daemon's death.

We have also discussed the matter recently over here. @Ran I was surprised about the line in TROTD that Rhaenyra disowned Mooton because she blamed him for Daemon's death. I think it was the first time that it's made clear that she knew about Daemon's death before she fled King's Landing. Was that a deliberate choice on your side?

[Oneiros Drakontos]

On 11/9/2022 at 2:26 AM, loveigniting09 said:

There's a wiki error on Aemond Targaryen's page.

It says "on the same day they battled and died, Queen Helaena Targaryen committed suicide at sunset the capital."

The sources listed (Fire & Blood, The Dying of the Dragons - Rhaenyra Overthrown and The World of Ice & Fire, The Targaryen Kings: Aegon II) for this statement do not say this nor can it be inferred.

F&B, TWOIAF, and TPATQ doesn't have a day of death for Helaena nor does it state she died the same day as Daemon and Aemond. Neither does Rise of the Dragon which explicitly puts her death days after Daemon's death.

Her own wiki page just lists 130 AC as her time of death and no specific date.

There's nothing ruling it out but there's nothing validating it in any source.  It states in every source that she died the same day as men abandoning Rhaenyra's cause, not that she died the same day as Daemon and Aemond. 

The same mistake about Helaena's death day can also be found in 130 AC, where it's said "Queen Helaena Targaryen, on the twenty-second day of the fifth month, by committing suicide."

[Thomaerys Velaryon]

4 hours ago, Oneiros Drakontos said:

The same mistake about Helaena's death day can also be found in 130 AC, where it's said "Queen Helaena Targaryen, on the twenty-second day of the fifth month, by committing suicide."

Fixed.

[Oneiros Drakontos]

Another detail that should be fixed, in my opinion: in Great Council of 101 AC it's said "While he was not present for the final deliberations, King Jaehaerys I honored the vote and named Viserys the new Prince of Dragonstone " (the reference is TWOIAF). However, in F&B (Heirs of the Dragon – A Question of Succession), it's explained that "King Jaehaerys had not attended the council, but when word of their verdict reached him, His Grace thanked the lords for their service and gratefully conferred the style Prince of Dragonstone upon his grandson Viserys".

The King was absent not only for the final deliberations, but for the whole council.

[The hairy bear]

The Behind the Scenes section for House Peake claims that:

House Peake is a reference by George R. R. Martin to the books of Mervyn Peake. Titus Groan is the main character of the Gormenghast series. Furthermore, the history of House Peake and its sigil may refer to the three castles that the Groan family owned before it was left with only one. The remaining castle is Starpike, which is similar to Steerpike, the name of the main antagonist of the series.

Can anyone familiar with the Gormenghast series confirm if the underlined part is correct? I had never heard that before.

[direpupy]

58 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

The Behind the Scenes section for House Peake claims that:

House Peake is a reference by George R. R. Martin to the books of Mervyn Peake. Titus Groan is the main character of the Gormenghast series. Furthermore, the history of House Peake and its sigil may refer to the three castles that the Groan family owned before it was left with only one. The remaining castle is Starpike, which is similar to Steerpike, the name of the main antagonist of the series.

Can anyone familiar with the Gormenghast series confirm if the underlined part is correct? I had never heard that before.

I know the Steerpike thing is correct, but i do not know about the three castles.

[Oneiros Drakontos]

A couple of characters missing in the categories:

1. Daena Targaryen in Category: Characters with heart-shaped face

2. Aenys Frey in Category: Characters with red eyes

[Annara Snow]

This is not so much an error as a... uh, very creative interpretation of the text, shall I say? But the Alys Rivers article really bothers me (and even more so now that so many in the HotD fandom are obviously  using the wiki as their source of information rather than the books).

The "Origin" part starts with:

Quote

Alys's origins are shrouded in mystery, and it is unclear if she was ever a formally acknowledged bastard or simply claimed to be one. 

This is a very weird statement that isn't supported by anything in Fire & Blood. This is what Maester Gyldayn (who hates Alys' guts ) writes:

Quote

Who was this woman? A serving wench who dabbled in potions and spells, says Munkun. A woods witch, claims Septon Eustace. A malign enchantress who bathed in the blood of virgins to preserve her youth, Mushroom would have us believe. Her name suggests bastard birth... but we know little of her father, and less of her mother. Munkun and Eustace tell us she was sired by Lord Lyonel Strong in his callow youth, making her a natural half-sister to his sons Harwin (Breakbones) and Larys (the Clubfoot). But Mushroom insists that she was much older, that she was wet nurse to both boys, perhaps even to their father a generation earlier.

At other places, this is what he says about her age:

Quote

Alys Rivers was at least forty years of age during the Dance of the Dragons, that much is known; Mushroom makes her even older.

and 

Quote

Though the wet nurse was twice his age (if we put trust in Mushroom)

Nowhere is it said that she "claimed to be" a bastard of House Strong, or that anyone doubted that and thought she was lying, which the Wiki article implies.  (It also makes no sense. People in Harrenhal, including the Strongs, would know if she was a bastard of one of the Strongs. So who would she be falsely 'claiming' that to? Aemond? Why? To try to make him hate her and possibly want her dead?)

"Her name suggests bastard birth" suggests that Gyldayn simply doesn't have a lot of info - surprise, surprise, no one was interested in a lowborn wet nurse from Harrenhal  before she became involved with a Targaryen prince.

"Her origins are shrouded in mystery" is also a questionable statement. It seems to be only based on Gyldayn's over-dramatic phrasing "we know little about her father", but then he says both Munken and Eustace, 2 of his 3 sources, say her father was Lyonel Strong. The only 'dispute' about her origin is by Mushroom. And even Mushroom, who has a wild rumor as usual, just makes her a generation older (60+), and never says that she wasn't a daughter of one of the Strongs. Even if we believe Mushroom rather than the others (and believe that a 60+ woman had a successful pregnancy... but OK, let's say Mushroom was right and the other two wrong), that would still only make it impossible for Lyonel to be her father and instead likely that herfather was another Strong (Lyonel's father or uncle etc.)

She was a servant in Harrenhal, so her mother was likely smallfolk and it's hardly surprising that her name is not known. By the same logic, we could say that pretty much every Westerosi bastard's origin (aside from those whose both parents were highborn, like the Great Bastards or Edric Storm),  and almost every common born person's origin is "shrouded in mystery". Mya Stone's origin, shrouded in mystery! They say Robert fathered her in Vale as a young man, but we don't know who her mother is. Falia Flowers, we don't know who her mother was, so her origin is shrouded in mystery! etc. 

It doesn't stop here - the main info has this:

Quote   Spouse Prince Aemond Targaryen (allegedly) Issue Stillborn children[3] Son[1] (allegedly)	)

I dan see why spouse (allegedly), this can be justified because the people in-universe didn't believe Alys when she said she was Aemond's widow and that their son was trueborn. But "son (allegedly)"? Not even Gyldayn or other people in-universe doubted that she had a son with Aemond. She was pregnant when Sabitha Frey took her captive, she was heavily pregnant during the battle above the God's Eye, and then she is with her son in Harrenhal when the regents' men come:

Quote

When Ser Regis demanded to speak to their lord, a woman emerged to treat with him, with a child beside her. The "witch queen" of Harrenhal proved to be none other than Alys Rivers, the baseborn wet nurse who had been the prisoner and then the paramour of Prince Aemond Targaryen, and now claimed to be his widow. The boy was Aemond's, she told the knight. "His bastard?" said Ser Regis. "His trueborn son and heir", Alys Rivers spat back, "and the rightful king of Westeros". She commanded the knight to "kneel before your king" and swear him his sword. Ser Regis laughed at this, saying: "I do not kneel to bastards, much less the baseborn whelp of a kinslayer and a milk cow".

Even Ser Regis didn't doubt that the boy was Alys' son with Aemond, but the article is written as if this is some huge controversy. It's almost as if the article was written by a maester from 133 AC who thought the others were just not misogynistic and classist enough and didn't hate Alys enough, so let's also accuse her of being a liar about everything.

If I had an account (but getting one seems really difficult), I would remove this completely: "Alys's origins are shrouded in mystery, and it is unclear if she was ever a formally acknowledged bastard or simply claimed to be one. " as well as the "allegedly" and just leave "Stillborn children - Son".
 

Edited December 30, 2022 by Annara Snow

[Ran]

A thread elsewhere raise the point that nowhere does the wiki explicitly name Rhaena Targaryen as being homosexual/bisexual, nor even raising the possibility. I've no problem with this, as we stick to what's factually stated in the text and while there are plenty of hints there's nothing confirmed. Until someone asks GRRM point-blank, basically, the wiki is fine (though I guess if someone wants to do a Rhaena Targaryen/Theories page noting the very obvious speculation, that's fine).

Although, oddly, the infobox for Rhaena also does call Elissa Farman her lover ... Since its inception, the Elissa Farman page has named Elissa as Rhaena's lover with the F&B chapter "A Surfeit of Rulers" cited as the source. I've skimmed through the chapter again, and while there's certainly suggestive stuff about their closeness, am I wrong in thinking there's nothing explicit? In that case, should Elissa's info box "lover" entry be removed, and vice versa for Rhaena and her entry? Or should it be dropped there and placed in an Elissa Farman/Theories page?

Like, it's pretty damned obvious, but the step to say that they are in fact lovers requires a (small) amount of speculation because I don't think there's anything explicit.

Alternatively, we decide to at least canonize that speculative leap by noting that the text at least implies the relationship, rather than just leaving it unaddressed while leaving the infoboxes untouched.

Edited January 3, 2023 by Ran

[direpupy]

22 hours ago, Ran said:

A thread elsewhere raise the point that nowhere does the wiki explicitly name Rhaena Targaryen as being homosexual/bisexual, nor even raising the possibility. I've no problem with this, as we stick to what's factually stated in the text and while there are plenty of hints there's nothing confirmed. Until someone asks GRRM point-blank, basically, the wiki is fine (though I guess if someone wants to do a Rhaena Targaryen/Theories page noting the very obvious speculation, that's fine).

Although, oddly, the infobox for Rhaena also does call Elissa Farman her lover ... Since its inception, the Elissa Farman page has named Elissa as Rhaena's lover with the F&B chapter "A Surfeit of Rulers" cited as the source. I've skimmed through the chapter again, and while there's certainly suggestive stuff about their closeness, am I wrong in thinking there's nothing explicit? In that case, should Elissa's info box "lover" entry be removed, and vice versa for Rhaena and her entry? Or should it be dropped there and placed in an Elissa Farman/Theories page?

Like, it's pretty damned obvious, but the step to say that they are in fact lovers requires a (small) amount of speculation because I don't think there's anything explicit.

Alternatively, we decide to at least canonize that speculative leap by noting that the text at least implies the relationship, rather than just leaving it unaddressed while leaving the infoboxes untouched.

While i have no problem with the speculation i do think the pages should reflect that there is nothing confirmed, i would put it on the respective pages but have the text make it clear that its speculation and that includes the infobox saying something like "alleged lover" or "possible lover"

I actually have a bigger problem with the alleged attraction to women of Nymeria Sand, which is based entirely on her friendship with Jeyne and Jennelyn Fowler. There is nothing there to suggest that it is anything more then friendship, apart from her being "abed" white them when she was informed of Oberyn's death. But women in the Middle ages often slept in the same bed and we also see this in the books where Cersie, Daenaerys and Margaery all have bed companions. So while it is tempting to assign here a LGBTQ+ label i think its not supported by the text's in the books. Like wise Jeyne and Jennelyn Fowler are given such a label, but this is based on the same being "abed" text as Nymeria so here too i do not think its supported by the text's in the books.

Edited January 4, 2023 by direpupy

[Ran]

@direpupy

Yeah, that seems reasonable in all cases. While I suspect Nymeria means something sexual when she references the twins, it's not confirmed and shouldn't be treated as confirmed.

[Nittanian]

On 12/30/2022 at 5:16 PM, Annara Snow said:

If I had an account (but getting one seems really difficult), I would remove this completely: "Alys's origins are shrouded in mystery, and it is unclear if she was ever a formally acknowledged bastard or simply claimed to be one. " as well as the "allegedly" and just leave "Stillborn children - Son".
 

Thanks for the suggestion! I removed that sentence and added some more stuff from F&B. 

[Ran]

So, another call on thoughts on including "Lovers" as an infobox field for characters who can only be speculated to have been lovers, since the text isn't explicit? Should it be "Possible Lovers" in that case? Should instead the possibility be included in the body of the wiki page rather than be ensconced in the infobox?

Edited January 12, 2023 by Ran

[direpupy]

In order to not make the infobox over sized i would not ad possible lovers so i think placing it in they page text would be beter.

[cytherea]

Guys, letting you know since I can't edit it myself, the House Targaryen page's sidebar kinda broke, it's in the regular text place.

[Abjiklam]

13 hours ago, cytherea said:

Guys, letting you know since I can't edit it myself, the House Targaryen page's sidebar kinda broke, it's in the regular text place.

Thank you for pointing it out, I made a test I shouldn't have saved. Should be fixed now.

[Oneiros Drakontos]

A mistake in Alicent's page

In the paragraph "Early life" it's said: Already early in the reign of Viserys, Ser Otto and Prince Daemon Targaryen were at odds with each other, and the court fool Mushroom has suggested that the quarrel between the two men began when Daemon deflowered Alicent. The truths of these tales have never been uncovered.

The reported source for that is Fire & Blood, Heirs of the Dragon - A Question of Succession.

However, in F&B there are no references about a tryst involving Daemon; instead there's a refererence about Jaehaerys I: A few even cast doubt on Lady Alicent’s virtue, suggesting she had welcomed King Viserys into her bed even before Queen Aemma’s death. (These calumnies were never proved, though Mushroom repeats them in his Testimony and goes so far as to claim that reading was not the only service Lady Alicent performed for the Old King in his bedchamber.)

The reference about Daemon can be found in The Rogue Prince, and can be considered outdated after F&B publishing: A few cast doubt on Lady Alicent’s virtue, suggesting she had given her maidenhead to Prince Daemon and later welcomed King Viserys into her bed as well, even before Queen Aemma’s death.

My advice is to replace the speculation about Daemon with the rumor about Jaehaerys I.

Edited February 27, 2023 by Oneiros Drakontos

[Loraq]

@Ran 

I don't know if this is a wiki error or not. I only want to clarify a situation because I'm a little confused.

The only time Ramsgate is mentioned in the books it's in a conversation between Wyman Manderly and Davos Seaworth, where Wyman says: 

"I can deliver King Stannis the allegiance of all the lands east of the White Knife, from Widow's Watch and Ramsgate to the Sheepshead Hills and the headwaters of the Broken Branch. All this I pledge to do if you will meet my price."

From what Wyman says, it seems like Widow's Watch is also a place sworn to the Manderlys just like Ramsgate, the Sheepshead Hills and the headwaters of the Broken Branch. 

However, I have noticed that the wiki says that while Ramsgate is indeed sworn to House Manderly, Widow's Watch is sworn to House Stark.

Furthermore, the information used in the wiki about Ramsgate was taken from a semi-canon source - A World of Ice and Fire - but was this information in specific confirmed by GRRM himself?

Maybe what Manderly meant to say was that he had the power to make the lords of all the lands east of the White Knife deliver their allegiance to Stannis, not that they all were sworn directly to himself.

I doubt Wyman owns, at least directly, all the lands east of the White Knife, including Widow's Watch. It seems to me that what he has is a certain ascendancy over the lords of that lands, who follow him in his decisions as he's the most powerful lord of the region.

From their names and location, it seems like the Sheepshead Hills, the Broken Branch and Ramsgate are all related to each other. If the Woolfields are the ones who rule this area from their seat (Ramsgate), Wyman may think that since his heir is married to a Woolfield he himself has some sort of control over it.

Edited April 8, 2023 by Loraq
Correction of some errors