Jump to content

The ASOIAF wiki thread


Onion Knight
 Share

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, RumHam said:

Oh my mistake then. The recording was hosted on google drive docs also, and I just assumed that was what it was linking to. 

Edit: The links aren't working anyway, it says Bad reference param1.

Yeah, I just saw that the ref was not written as <ref>googledoc etc.</ref>, but as {{Ref|Balticon|htmlcode google doc etc..}}..

As {{ref|balticon|...}} is not a recognized ref in the template, it gives a bad reference param 1. It just needs to be changed to <ref></ref> instead, and it will display just fine.

But atm I am too busy to change it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Ran said:

Yes, remove that. The outlined notes from https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VuqHngBpOZ1p0jqkD7xRTCHExMFwBa8qE7VCLsKXzxU/ is acceptable as a source, though.

I thought our policy was to wait until George releases chapters on his website, rather than just being read aloud at a convention. Written chapters can be verified by the wiki user (whether on George's website or in the excerpts section of the app). We did our best to recall how this new chapter went and some people took notes, but our memory isn't 100%. Plus, George mentioned in-between the end of the chapter and the start of the Q&A that he may still make changes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the other hand we have references to semi-canon sources such as SSM, even given the fact that we know there may be changes or outright rebuttals when George gets around to referencing a detail in a published work.

The danger with chapters and unpublished materials, I suppose, is the fact that not only are they subject to change, the changes may be relatively few (but significant) or many (but subtle) to the point where no one realizes that these details need changing on the wiki. SSM references tend to stand out more as specific, distinct pieces of info...

So, yeah, probably best not to reference unpublished chapters because of amount of information may end up making it impossible to correct things when they are published and there are changes.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Ran,

But a similar danger exists when using the SSMs, and we still use those despite that.

We know which chapters are known to readers prior to Winds's release (all chapters published on GRRM's website, and the Aeron chapter read at Balticon, based on the notes published online), and thus what kind of info to be on the look-out for. We can also see which pages all contain a Winds of Winter reference. So that way, we know which pages need an additional check once Winds is released.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SSMs are very discrete pieces of information. You will list that information with a specific reference. Drawing information from a transcript or outline of a chapter could easily lead to cases where you get a single reference for multiple pieces of information and really won't have any way to be 100% sure you'll weed out every single change.

As I recall, we did the same thing with the Westerlands material George read or what have you that was not used in TWoIaF, and it feels right that the same should hold for unpublished chapters.


If it's fiction from GRRM, it has to be in a form where it has been published and there are pages and so on.

And, frankly, we shouldn't support people violating GRRM's wishes. He doesn't want people recording. Notes, fine. Audio recordings, or transcriptions made from audio recordings, are not okay.

Edited by Ran
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you mean the Westerlands reading, or the published chapter on GRRM's website? We indeed did not place anything from the reading online, IIRC, but some info from the published chapter as displayed on GRRM's website has been edited into some pages.

So, just to clarify, notes from the reading should not be written on the wiki (unless they've been accepted as an SSM, I suppose, as happened for "the Sons of the Dragon" from LonCon?), but information from published sample chapters are allowed (perhaps minimally)?

Edited by Rhaenys_Targaryen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't think Sons of the Dragon should be used there at all, no.

Very minimal use from published sample chapters... okay, if that's more convenient, but it has to be noted as not being canon and so on. And honestly probably every single sentence drawn from those unpublished-but-posted chapters should have referencing so people know that all of it will need to be examined closely against the published chapter if it ever comes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Valyrian steel was manufactured in the Valyrian Freehold with dragonfire before the freehold fell.[3] Valyrian steel blades are lighter, stronger, and sharper than even the best castle-forged steel, and feature distinctive rippled patterns similar to real world Damascus steel, the mark of steel that has been folded back on itself many thousands of times.[4]Most Valyrian steel blades in Westeros are treasured heirlooms of noble houses, each with its own name and storied history. Valyrian steel keeps its edge forever.[3]

These statements are based on the TV series. If there is no canon source for that, it should be removed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Ran said:

And honestly probably every single sentence drawn from those unpublished-but-posted chapters should have referencing so people know that all of it will need to be examined closely against the published chapter if it ever comes.

Should we make a brief "The Forsaken" article for TWOW section of Chapters, which currently only has articles for published sample chapters? Using the Alayne chapter as an example, "Alys Stone" links to "Alayne I (The Winds of Winter)". That title would eventually be moved to "The Winds of Winter-Chapter XX" when TWOW is released, but we would still be able to see which articles use "Alayne I (The Winds of Winter)" as a reference. Their content would then be compared to the finalized print version.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry if this is out of place, but this error has been bothering me for a while now! On the House Branfield wiki page someone has put that the house is originally from the Crownlands without giving a source. I don't remember any dialogue from ttgot that states this, and over on the official website both Lady Forrester and Malcolm's descriptions only state it was a Southern house.

Seeing as Mira Forrester is written as a Tyrell handmaiden, I would hope the Branfields would be from The Reach (lest her occupation be completely nonsensical), but without a description they should just be "Southern".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

These statements are based on the TV series. If there is no canon source for that, it should be removed.

The source should be changed to something from the books, and "keeps its edge forever" might be overstating it. I believe we're told "nothing holds an edge like Valyrian Steel." But the other two facts are true. They just need book sources instead of one from the show. 

53 minutes ago, Alysanne Donnelly said:

Sorry if this is out of place, but this error has been bothering me for a while now! On the House Branfield wiki page someone has put that the house is originally from the Crownlands without giving a source. I don't remember any dialogue from ttgot that states this, and over on the official website both Lady Forrester and Malcolm's descriptions only state it was a Southern house.

Seeing as Mira Forrester is written as a Tyrell handmaiden, I would hope the Branfields would be from The Reach (lest her occupation be completely nonsensical), but without a description they should just be "Southern".

Well all that info comes from one source, so I assume that's why individual statements like that aren't sourced. I suppose someone could go through and list which episode each fact comes from. I only played the first episode, but doesn't the dialogue change based on your choices? Is it possible the reason you don't remember House Branfield's origins being mentioned is because of the path you followed in the game? 

Edited by RumHam
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, RumHam said:

Well all that info comes from one source, so I assume that's why individual statements like that aren't sourced. I suppose someone could go through and list which episode each fact comes from. I only played the first episode, but doesn't the dialogue change based on your choices? Is it possible the reason you don't remember House Branfield's origins being mentioned is because of the path you followed in the game? 

It is definitely possible there is dialogue to suggest House Branfield is from the Crownlands, but if it exists it's not sourced in the wiki's article. Not even the ttgot fan wiki is sure which region they come from, and it's been a year since the game's release.

Until a quote or another source can be provided, I think it would be best to use the information given by the official website. Otherwise it's speculation and misinformation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

I didn't find any source that Valyrian steel was created with dragonfire, but maybe you have more luck. ;)

I think the Sons of the Dragon reading gave us our first hard confirmation of this. (this not a direct quote from the reading)

Quote

Aegon was cremated on a pyre, as was the custom for Targaryens, along with Blackfyre. Aenys later retrieved the blade from the ashes, unharmed of course, having been forged with dragon fire.

It was suggested in the books too, with Daenerys promising Jorah a dragon-forged Valyrian Steel sword back in book one. And the whole Dragonsteel thing. It may have been mentioned in the worldbook as well, I'd have to search through it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Alysanne Donnelly said:

It is definitely possible there is dialogue to suggest House Branfield is from the Crownlands, but if it exists it's not sourced in the wiki's article. Not even the ttgot fan wiki is sure which region they come from, and it's been a year since the game's release.

Until a quote or another source can be provided, I think it would be best to use the information given by the official website. Otherwise it's speculation and misinformation.

Thank you for noting the error! It will certainly be corrected!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, so I thought I had posted this before but it must have somehow not gotten through, maybe my Internet was down, idk.

Anyway I've said before that the inconsistency concerning the description of House coats of arms really annoys me. So sometimes there is only a normal English description (House Stark) and sometimes there is only the formal blazon (House Cerwyn). Mostly, however, both are used, first the English description and then, in Italic and in parentheses, the blazon, so I would propose doing that everywhere.

Moreover, some descriptions or blazons are just incorrect (House Bolton) ore use, in my opinion, too much heraldic vocabulary in what's supposed to be the normal English description (House Locke).

Also, sometimes the blazon seems to have formed around an interpretation of the artist who designed the House crest used in the wiki, even though such a clear description was never given in any canon or semi-canon material and should therefore not be included in the blazon. E.g. the description of the bullmoose of House Hornwood includes the adjective "trippant" which would be the correct word for the description of the position of the moose (in this case just walking) if this description were ever mentioned anywhere. Sure, the artist had to make a choice when designing the Hornwood banner, and decided that the moose should be walking, but that doesn't mean it's canon. Maybe I'm just nitpicking here, but I think these things are important. I mean, if an artist to give the House Stark direwolf brown eyes, that would be alright since the eye colour is never explicitly stated and doesn't change the fact that it's still a grey direwolf. But you couldn't start saying in the blazon that the wolf is "orbed brunâtre" retroactively because it isn't necessarily.

Anyway, I would therefore strongly propose going for more consistency here and I could absolutely provide the blazons where missing. Here just a few examples of some Northern Houses coats of arms and how I would correct their descriptions.

 

  • House Stark: A running grey direwolf, on an ice-white field (Argent, a direwolf courant cendrée)
  • House Bolton: A red flayed man on pink scattered with red drops (Rose goutty de sang, a flayed man gules) 
  • House Cerwyn: A black battle-axe on silver (Argent, a battle-axe sable) [I've removed the adjective "pale-ways" here, because I'm fairly certain that this is never mentioned either.]
  • House Dustin: Two rusted longaxes with black shafts crossed, a black crown between their points, on yellow (Or, two longaxes in saltire tenné shafted sable, between their points a crown sable) [I'm not quite satisfied using the tincture "tenné". That would be a colour somewhere between orange and brown but the original description only uses "rusted" which could be any shade of red, brown or orange. I could include rusted in the blazon but since that's not a tincture, you would still have to include some tincture if you conform to traditional heraldry. GRRM doesn't however, so maybe using just rusted IS enough, idk. So that's a bit tricky... I'm open to other suggestions.]
  • House Hornwood: A brown bullmoose with black antlers on orange [taken from The Citadel] (Tenné, a bullmoose brunâtre attired sable)
  • House LockeTwo bronze keys crossed on an white pale on purple (Purpure, on a pale argent two keys in saltire bronze) [There is only one precedent for using "bronze" as a heraldic tincture in real life, and in medieval times this would not have existed, the only metals used in thoses times being gold (or) and silver (argent). However, since GRRM breaks with traditional heraldry anyway, I don't see why we can't include it here. I really don't want to describe it as orange (tenné) or brown (brunâtre) since it clearly isn't.]
  • House Manderly: A white merman with dark green hair, beard and tail, carrying a black trident, over a blue-green field (Aquamarine, a merman argent crined, bearded and queued vert, carrying a trident sable)
  • House Poole: A blue plate on white, with a grey tressure (Argent, a hurt within a tressure cendrée)
  • House Reed: A black lizard-lion on grey-green (Vert, a lizard-lion sable)
  • House Umber: A roaring giant, brown-haired and wearing a skin, with broken silver chains, on flame-red (Gules, a giant roaring brunâtre habited with a skin wearing chains broken argent)

 

So like I said, these are just a few examples. I would really like to know if I am wasting my time with this stuff or if it is actually appreciated. If it is, I will comb through every House and correct the blazons where necessary but I just wanted to give you guys some examples and see what you think of this. Am I nitpicking or do you agree that we should go for more consistency?

Edited by chris1994
Some corrections, additional info and formatting
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...