Rhaenys_Targaryen Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Right, "waking giants from/in the earth" seems to be a way of describing an earthquake. So presumably the horn is supposed to cause an earthquake that would bring down the Wall. Edit: the idea that this horn somehow caused the actual giants to wake up and climb out of the ground is a little silly. Especially since the giants are said to have existed in Westeros long before Joramun or even the Wall. I agree, that can be changed.The entries of Aegon III and Viserys II both name Visenya explicitly as their "only sister" ("This pregnancy led to the birth of Viserys' only sister, named Visenya." "This pregnancy led to the birth of the only sister Aegon would have, named Visenya"), but Baela and Rhaena could probably count as sisters as well. They are however not mentioned unlike the three Velaryons.Visenya could be the "only full-blood-sister" or "his mother's only daughter".Right. That's not correct. It shall be changed ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhaenys_Targaryen Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 For those characters who are listed in the appendix of a book, but do not appear in that specific book, nor are mentioned, would it be an idea to, instead of stating, for example for Irri, A Feast for Crows (mentioned), state A Feast for Crows (appendix only)?To avoid confusion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Knightmare Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 For those characters who are listed in the appendix of a book, but do not appear in that specific book, nor are mentioned, would it be an idea to, instead of stating, for example for Irri, A Feast for Crows (mentioned), state A Feast for Crows (appendix only)?To avoid confusion?That's actually not a bad idea, a lot of the Frey's are only named in the appendixes as well Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nittanian Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 The article on the Shadow Tower has been moved to "The Shadow Tower". Is this preferred? Wikipedia generally discourages having "the" within article titles (see WP:THE).The app, A World of Ice and Fire, has its entry at "Shadow Tower". The only AWOIAF entries with "the" in their titles are: The Drowned God, The Great Walrus, The Grey Waste, The Known World, The Red Lamb, The Tattered Prince, The Thousand Islands, and The Widow of the Waterfront. I personally think it would be better to remove "the" from titles unless it is part of a formal name. If GRRM capitalizes "The" mid sentence then so should we, otherwise I would suggest removing "the" from the article's title. For instance, move "The Dreadfort" to "Dreadfort" ("Hold him secure at the Dreadfort till we've retaken the north."), but keep "The Bear and the Maiden Fair" as is ("With these players, it might as easily have been 'The Bear and the Maiden Fair.'"). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhaenys_Targaryen Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 Fine by me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RumHam Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 Yeah I'd agree loose the 'the.' Are we allowed to use worldbook art on the wiki? The page for Caraxes has a picture from there and I thought that was a no no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhaenys_Targaryen Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 Yeah I'd agree loose the 'the.' Are we allowed to use worldbook art on the wiki? The page for Caraxes has a picture from there and I thought that was a no no.There already is a lot of world book on the wiki. I assumed the artist had given permission...? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RumHam Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 There already is a lot of world book on the wiki. I assumed the artist had given permission...? I have no idea, but that doesn't seem like something we should assume... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhaenys_Targaryen Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 I have no idea, but that doesn't seem like something we should assume...I checked a license before assuming anything ;)This work is copyrighted, the copyright holder has granted permission for this image to be used in Wiki of Song of Ice and Fire. This permission does not extend to third parties.Taking the image of Casella Vaith as an example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RumHam Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 I checked a license before assuming anything ;)Taking the image of Casella Vaith as an example. You said you were assuming, so I assumed you were just assuming :P No offense intended. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhaenys_Targaryen Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 (edited) You said you were assuming, so I assumed you were just assuming [emoji14] No offense intended.I know! I thought that's what you thought. I was in a hurry and unable to explain.. which I should have done. Edited February 6, 2015 by Rhaenys_Targaryen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nittanian Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 Some pictures have their creators' approval mentioned in the Licensing section. For instance File:Randyll Tarly TheMico.jpg has TheMico's permission (Тхе Мичо Permision granted...im a fan....and this is fan art....so if anybody wants to look at tham ill be honored...) and File:Sardag randyll tarly.jpg states "For use on this wiki. Upon asked for permission: "Yes of course. You can use them." October 26th, 2012." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhaenys_Targaryen Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 As discussed previously, I've begun to change every link to 'Aegon Targaryen' into 'Aegon Targaryen (son of Rhaegar)', to free up 'Aegon Targaryen' as the disambiguation page. The first changes I made were the templates Aegon was mentioned in, as those might take a while to be processed by the wiki. However, the 'what links here' page for 'Aegon Targaryen' keeps displaying the paged of all kings as featuring a link to his page, as well as every member of the 'Targaryen tree now' template, while o definitely changed it there more than 12 hours ago. Am I missing a linking? I'd like to be certain that there won't be anything there linking to he wrong page before I make 'Aegon Targaryen' the disambiguation page.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nittanian Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 As discussed previously, I've begun to change every link to 'Aegon Targaryen' into 'Aegon Targaryen (son of Rhaegar)', to free up 'Aegon Targaryen' as the disambiguation page.The first changes I made were the templates Aegon was mentioned in, as those might take a while to be processed by the wiki. However, the 'what links here' page for 'Aegon Targaryen' keeps displaying the paged of all kings as featuring a link to his page, as well as every member of the 'Targaryen tree now' template, while o definitely changed it there more than 12 hours ago. Am I missing a linking? I'd like to be certain that there won't be anything there linking to he wrong page before I make 'Aegon Targaryen' the disambiguation page.. I think it just takes a little while for the system to update links from templates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhaenys_Targaryen Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 I think it just takes a little while for the system to update links from templates. Yeah, usually you can see it happening over a few hours, page per page... This time it apparenty took two days.. I don't see them on the list anymore, so it's fine now :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gonzalo Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 I'm thinking of categorizing characters that undergo "dragon dreams" but I don't like "dragon dreamers". Any ideas? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhaenys_Targaryen Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 Only prophetic dreams, or simply any dream involving a dragon?Why not make a category for prophetic dreams, if a category needs to be made at all? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhaenys_Targaryen Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 (edited) On the War of the Five Kings page, in the infobox under "notable commanders", behind the names "Ser Jaime Lannister" and "Ser Edmure Tully", someone placed "(POW)". What does that mean? Edited February 17, 2015 by Rhaenys_Targaryen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HexMachina Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 On the War of the Five Kings page, in the infobox under "notable commanders", behind the names "Ser Jaime Lannister" and "Ser Edmure Tully", someone placed "(POW)". What does that mean?Prisoner of war? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuisDantas Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 (edited) I agree sometimes finding the reference can be a chore, I've been there. But again the problem is that my page numbers might not match up with yours. Having a page number that is not correct for your edition would make it even more confusing. Just giving the chapter may not be very precise, but at least we know it's accurate for everybody. 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. Edited February 20, 2015 by LuisDantas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.