Rhaenys_Targaryen Posted September 14, 2018 Share Posted September 14, 2018 @Ran, Question for the errata of TWOIAF. There are several quotes placing the destruction of the Rhoynar/flight of Nymeria and her people and their arrival in Dorne/ the Rhoynish Wars "a thousand years ago". "That was the Rhoynar name," said Haldon Halfmaester, "but for a thousand years this has been the Palace of Sorrow." (ADWD Tyrion 5) This series of conflicts reached a bloody climax a thousand years ago in the Second Spice War, when three Valyrian dragonlords joined with their kin and cousins in Volantis to overwhelm, sack, and destroy Sarhoy, the great Rhoynar port city upon the Summer Sea. (TWOIAF: Ancient History: Ten Thousand Ships) Separate as they have been—and then a thousand years ago joined with the Rhoynar—the Dornish have their own proud, fraught history and their own ways. (TWOIAF: Dorne: Queer Customs of the South) However, in TWOIAF, at the end of the chapter describing the arrival of the Rhoynar in Dorne, and the start of the rule of House Martell over Dorne, we get this: House Martell has guided Dorne for seven hundred years, raising its great towers at Sunspear, seeing the shadow city and the Planky Town rise, and defeating all those who threatened its dominion. (TWOIAF, Dorne: The Coming of the Rhoynar) The inconsistency seems to be 300 years here. Although the phrase "a thousand years ago" is often used to generalize, the proclamation that a series of wars that lasted ~2,5 centuries climaxed a thousand years ago appears quite precise. This would, however, mean that the phrase in "The Coming of the Rhoynar" is incorrect. My question is, what is correct? Does this phrase mistakenly state 700 years while it was supposed to be 1000? Is the use of "a thousand years" in this case too a generlization? (meaning that the Rhoynar city-states fell 700 years ago, only ~300 years before the Doom?). Or, does this phrase reflect the status of the rule of House Martell as it was shortly before Aegon's Landing and subsequent Conquest? The reason I wonder about this is that this phrase is used to end the section of how House Martell came to rule and is followed by a section ("Queer Customs of the South") discussing the Rhoynish and Dornish customs, not a particular part of Dornish history, with the next section ("Dorne Against the Dragons") starts off with Aegon's Conquest, 300 years before the presence. And those 300 years added to the 700 years from the earlier section fit neatly with the "thousand years" given earlier. So is "a thousand years" in this context a general phrasing, or does it point to a specific time period of actually ~1000 years? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wondering Wolf Posted September 19, 2018 Share Posted September 19, 2018 @Rhaenys_Targaryen Since the calculation thread was closed for some reason, I am putting it here. Seven years ago Ran stated the year of birth and year of death for Lyanna Stark. I do not know if this is enough for you to replace the calculations, aber I guess you could use it at least as support of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dragon Demands Posted September 20, 2018 Share Posted September 20, 2018 What is the canon status for Unseen Westeros art? What are the copyright restrictions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dragon Demands Posted September 20, 2018 Share Posted September 20, 2018 What is the “semi canon” status, if any, of info coming out about the prequel TV pitches? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ran Posted September 20, 2018 Share Posted September 20, 2018 Unseen Westeros are artists just doing their thing. George has okayed the project, us as well, but the art is being done with the only input being TWoIaF and the imagination of the artists. So, non-canon. Prequel pitches are not really canon until we know what GRRMs actual contributions are, and George is the only person who's going to be able to reliably say what he did or did not contribute. So I wouldn't consider the prequels -- especially as they haven't even aired -- even semi-canon. Do not include information gleaned from comments or leaks regarding prequels into the wiki. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dragon Demands Posted September 27, 2018 Share Posted September 27, 2018 No Alaric Stark page until December 20? Etc? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ran Posted September 27, 2018 Share Posted September 27, 2018 The rule is to prevent the wiki cannibalizing sales in any way of texts, and to keep people from being spoiled by plot details before they have a chance to read a book. As the excerpt is online and free, the rule does not apply. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dragon Demands Posted September 28, 2018 Share Posted September 28, 2018 (edited) Oh...thanks! …as you can see from the "Recent Changes" tab I started a round of updates on September 28: a few new ones like Alaric Stark, Jonquil Darke, and updating others (Jaehaerys I, White Harbor). ….however, the wiki slowed down until it ground to a halt and editing became physically impossible, so I had to stop. I suspect because the videos continue to play even in editing mode. Didn't have a chance to start updating a family tree template for Alaric - btw, if we know his wife was a Mormont and some description of her but not her first name, does she get her own article? And in what title format? ("Wife of Alaric Stark"? "Lady Mormont (Alaric Stark)"? What is the relationship between Alaric and Ellard Stark? I left the note in the article. Did Alaric..."supersede" Ellard, and "Ellard Stark" no longer exists as a character? And Alaric is the renamed Ellard? You've mentioned before there were issues regarding Ellard Stark and the chronology of which Stark ruled when that had to be updated due to new developments from GRRM (line got removed from World book as a result) Edited September 28, 2018 by The Dragon Demands Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhaenys_Targaryen Posted September 29, 2018 Share Posted September 29, 2018 On 5/16/2018 at 10:44 PM, Mindset said: Yep, up to four. If you like, it might be possible to even do six (three lines coming out of each side), though that might look a little crowded, and the name box would probably end up taller than usual. Regarding notes, sure that's possible, with no CSS or anything, just regular wiki coding. It's the same as when we add the ref tag in a family tree, you can add the {{references}} section at the bottom while still in the included part of the template. But instead of adding ==Notes== to set it off, you'd just do '''Notes:''' or something with a table format like in that wikipedia tree you linked. And to make sure it stays separate from the other references or notes on the page that the tree might be transcluded into, you'd do <ref group="T">note</ref> and {{references|group="T"}} or something like that. You can see an example of how it could look at the top of my sandbox. Though I'm not sure what would happen if two separate family trees with notes were included on the same page (like for ancestors and descendants), it might duplicate the notes from each tree? But I think they're rare enough that that wouldn't happen. But if you do want to do fun things with CSS and family trees, it would be really easy to put a border around a family tree (and its notes), like in that wikipedia example, or set it off with a different color background, add that v*t*e and hide, anything you like... To come back to this, I've used this method in this and this template. Any feedback on the layout? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ran Posted September 29, 2018 Share Posted September 29, 2018 (edited) I don't think an entry for an unnamed Lady Stark of House Mormont is necessary. Note that his wife was a Mormont in his entry, note that Lord Alaric's wife was a Mormont in the House Mormont section, and that should be enough (obviously if the sons get names their entries should mention their mother being of House Mormont). Edited September 29, 2018 by Ran Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nittanian Posted October 1, 2018 Share Posted October 1, 2018 Besides being Lord of White Harbor, should it be assumed that Theomore also held the other titles claimed by Wyman (Warden of the White Knife, Shield of the Faith, etc.)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ran Posted October 2, 2018 Share Posted October 2, 2018 It seems probable enough that such styles are hereditary that I would include them, until we learn otherwise. Certainly, some of those styles, at least, are simply given by the Manderlys to themselves. Only the Warden of the White Knife might be something that is granted by someone else (the Starks) and it seems pretty obvious why the Manderlys would hold such a position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nittanian Posted October 4, 2018 Share Posted October 4, 2018 The Cerwyns, Hornwoods, Mormonts, and Ryswells are included in "Category:Houses of First Men origin". Should they be removed from that category since we don't know when they were founded? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
direpupy Posted October 5, 2018 Share Posted October 5, 2018 11 hours ago, Nittanian said: The Cerwyns, Hornwoods, Mormonts, and Ryswells are included in "Category:Houses of First Men origin". Should they be removed from that category since we don't know when they were founded? They are northern houses of who unlike for instance the Manderly's it is not said they came from somewhere else so it is doubtful that they are anything other then First men and in the case of the Cerwyns and the Hornwoods there lands and castle's have the same name as them indicating that they are they original owners and not a later house. The Cerwyns also live so close to Winterfell that it is doubtful that they are a new house of different origin, the Ryswells seem to be they successors/heirs to house Ryder who where certainly First men. The Mormont's seem to have been in the service of house Stark before they where made Lords so i doubt there origin is any other then First Men. So in short i would leave them in the category Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nittanian Posted October 8, 2018 Share Posted October 8, 2018 I agree they most likely were founded by First Men (especially the Hornwoods), but I think we should be cautious about including them in the category without a source. @Ran, would you happen to know more about them? Also, http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/Heraldry/Entry/House_Ryswell/ mentions Rodrik's quarrelsome cousins. This matches the appendices of AFFC and ADWD ("ROGER RYSWELL, RICKARD RYSWELL, ROOSE RYSWELL, his quarrelsome cousins and bannermen"), but contradicts ADWD Reek II ("A column of riders came wheeling up behind them, led by a lordling with a horsehead on his shield. One of Lord Ryswell's sons, Reek knew. Roger, or maybe Rickard. He could not tell the two of them apart.") and ADWD Reek III ("Barbrey Dustin is my second wife's younger sister, Rodrik Ryswell's daughter, sister to Roger, Rickard, and mine own namesake, Roose, cousin to the other Ryswells."). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dragon Demands Posted October 22, 2018 Share Posted October 22, 2018 I was looking over the Volantis political party articles and hope we can get some clarification. https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Elephants_(Volantis) What is the distinction, if any, between "freeborn landholders" in Volantis, and those of the Old Blood, who can trace their ancestry back to Valyria? Do the Elephants differ from the Tigers on this? Quotes from A Dance With Dragons: Quote "After the Doom it pleased the Volantenes to consider themselves the heirs of the Freehold and rightful rulers of the world, but they were divided as to how dominion might best be achieved. The Old Blood favored the sword, while the merchants and moneylenders advocated trade. As they contended for rule of the city, the factions became known as the tigers and elephants, respectively. Quote "The triarchs are neither kings nor princes. Volantis is a freehold, like Valyria of old. All freeborn landholders share the rule. Even women are allowed to vote, provided they own land. The three triarchs are chosen from amongst those noble families who can prove unbroken descent from old Valyria, to serve until the first day of the new year. And you would know all this if you had troubled to read the book that Maester Kedry gave you." The first quote actually seems to imply that "the Old Blood" consists ONLY of the Tigers (the pro-war faction), while "the merchants and moneylenders" ARE SEPARATE from "The Old Blood" (the Elephant party, who advocate trade). The second quote, however, seems to indicate that while all "freeborn landholders" can VOTE, ONLY those of the Old Blood can run for triarchy - in EITHER party. And thus the Elephant candidates must by definition ALSO be "Old Blood" families, albeit those who favor trade. The two quotes contradict each other. So...are the Elephants Old Blood or not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dragon Demands Posted October 23, 2018 Share Posted October 23, 2018 (edited) yeah Edited July 27, 2022 by The Dragon Demands Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ran Posted October 23, 2018 Share Posted October 23, 2018 Kind of you to offer, but no need for my part. As to the Old Blood and the elephants, I would assume that while the initial faction lines might be seen as broadly landholders vs. merchants, I think it probable that there are Old Blood who are _primarily_ landholders with little mercantile interests, and Old Blood who have substantial mercantile interests, and these likely divided up between the Tigers and the Elephants. So I expect there are members of the Old Blood in both parties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dragon Demands Posted October 23, 2018 Share Posted October 23, 2018 (edited) yeah Edited July 27, 2022 by The Dragon Demands Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ran Posted October 23, 2018 Share Posted October 23, 2018 I'm not seeing the contradiction. Not least because the first quote is discussing the situation at the Doom, when the Old Blood were likely pretty exclusively tigers and so led Volantis into conquest and war. You have to pair this up with the rest of the talk of the ruinous cost of the wars, its ultimate failure, and the rise of the elephants, who would have made inroads among the Old Blood in the wake of the setback. 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.