Jump to content

The ASOIAF wiki thread


Onion Knight
 Share

Recommended Posts

No comment. ;)

Errata should stay, BTW. It's the right word, it's widely used in literary, academic, and RPG contexts. But if someone wants to make a disambiguation that covers Errors and points to the Errata page, I don't have an objection to this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, The Dragon Demands said:

- This was more difficult to transcribe:  you said....there was some early idea that Alysanne was actually Maegor's daughter, "early on" (when? Clash of Kings? When was it first established she was Jahaerys's sister-wife?)....but then Linda shouted in from the other room, "yeah, because there's that line (from ACOK I think?) in which Daenerys says she has the blood of both Rhaenys AND Visenya, which can't literally be true now".  Or something.

I've changed this section to a sentence from AGOT, which is the only thing that I could find that might hint towarsd Alysanne having originally been planned to be Maegor's daughter. In Daenerys IX, she states that she is the blood of Aegon the Conqueror and Maegor the Cruel.

The only thing that I could find that sort of matches the description of the sentence you originally wrote is this:

"The three heads were Aegon and his sisters."

"Visenya and Rhaenys," she recalled. "I am descended from Aegon and Rhaenys through their son Aenys and their grandson Jaehaerys."

From Daenerys V ACOK.

I did a google-search to see if this is a sentence which has been changed between versions, but I could not find anything pointing in that direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was entirely mistaken on the Alysanne thing, which I thought I noted in the podcast but editing may have lost it. I was mis-remembering the fact that when we first got the Wordstar Targaryen tree -- this was over a decade ago, and not the same family tree George had sent to us for TWoIaF/AWoIaF -- it was very difficult to figure out family connections because the em-dash lines George had set didn't show up when we translated it to doc. So we guessed things, and one of the guesses was that Alysanne was descended from Maegor, which GRRM corrected us on as we turned the tree into a visual file. So, yeah, there's nothing to that.

 

Re: Dany and Maegor, I was conflating things between the quote in AGoT that Rhaenys points out, and the later quote where Dany is exclusively descended from Aegon and Rhaenys. Podcast chats like this are fun, but sometimes one blathers a bit too much and gets things crossed. :)

Edited by Ran
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do others think? My main concerns about it are length, especially for a character that doesn't exist in the books, and that it feels like a research piece rather than purely an informative one.

In the latter regard, I think the ASoIaF Wiki has very naturally attempted to follow Wikipedia's No original research  editorial rule, and I think it's served us well. Other sites -- blogs, personal websites, forums, other wikis with different approaches -- strike me as more suitable for this content. The exception has been the various theory articles related to the books, but otherwise we keep it pretty straight.

I believe a much briefer article simply citing the most salient statements from the writers and GRRM would be more suitable both in length and to preserve the wiki style. Something along the lines of your typical IMDB "Trivia" entry for a film discussing why a particular detail happened.

Edited by Ran
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My thoughts on the current Talisa article are:

1. The introduction paragraph is too long. 

Something like "Talisa Maegyr is a Volantene noble woman working the battlefields of the westerlands as a healer during the War of the Five Kings. She appears only in the TV series, where she is played by Oona Chaplin. Her character replaces Jeyne Westerling as the love interest and later wife of King Robb Stark."

This would limit spoilers, as well as remove the information it holds now that is better suited elsewhere on the page (for example, the "behind the scenes" section)

2. The "Game of Thrones" section has no references. Those should definitely be added. All Game of Thrones episodes have their own reference code. The "Background" section could be placed under "History" (for consistency), while the "Season 2" and "Season 3" sections can remain under the "Game of Thrones" heading.

3. The "Behind the scenes" section reads as an essay. I personally think that it should be trimmed significantly, and that the original research should be removed, as Ran says.

4. Concerning the entire text, the interlinking needs some work. Interlinking is currently limited, and should be increased. Additionally, to link to pages on the regular wikipedia, you need to add "w:", for example: [[w:Bryan Cogman|Bryan Cogman]].

 

That said, the GoT pages are in need of an update, so the fact that the page is being updated is great. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, The Dragon Demands said:

Style aside, what do you think of its conclusions?

Overall, I think there is quite some repetition, and the section could do with some shuffeling of the info. The most important comments that I have are given below, with the quoted parts of your text they apply to.

 
Edited by Rhaenys_Targaryen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding the battles of the Faith Militant Uprising:

The Burning of the Sept of Remembrance hasn't been updated to show that 700 Warrior's Sons died.

There were six royalist hosts at the Battle of Stonebridge.

The Battle at the Great Fork needs to be updated to show that the result was a victory for Maegor. Also, those 6800 men from the Westerlands and Riverlands were not all knights so that needs to be changed as well. (And just where exactly is the Great Fork anyway? The Riverlands or the Crownlands?)

Shouldn't there be a page for that ambush at the Wendwater where Ser Horys Hill and his three hundred Poor Fellows died?

Edited by The Grey Wolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said:

Regarding the battles of the Faith Militant Uprising:

The Burning of the Sept of Remembrance hasn't been updated to show that 700 Warrior's Sons died.

There were six royalist hosts at the Battle of Stonebridge.

The Battle at the Great Fork needs to be updated to show that the result was a victory for Maegor. Also, those 6800 men from the Westerlands and Riverlands were not all knights so that needs to be changed as well. (And just where exactly is the Great Fork anyway? The Riverlands or the Crownlands?)

Shouldn't there be a page for that ambush at the Wendwater where Ser Horys Hill and his three hundred Poor Fellows died?

Fixed the first three but as to the page for they ambush i will wait to see what others like @Rhaenys_Targaryen think.

I am also not sure where the great fork is but i will see what i can find out.

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...