The ASOIAF wiki thread

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

15 minutes ago, Thomaerys Velaryon said:

Did Lord Beron Stark died in 212 AC ?

Hi everyone, I'm currently working on calculating the years of births and deaths for the members of House Stark. If I could confirmed Beron's death in 212 AC, it would give me more information to work on.

In The Mystery Knight (which takes place in 212 AC), Beron is said to gather swords to fight the Ironborn. But when Dunk and Egg will arrive in Winterfell at the beginning of D&E 4, Beron will be dying from a mortally wound he took fighting the Ironborn. I don't know how much time Dunk and Egg will take to go from Whitewalls to Winterfell but I'm guessing they will probably arrive in late 212 AC and witness Beron's death and burial.

Any insight would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

We don't know, and as such, cannot use it for any calculations.

 

With regards to the birth/death years project, we have this thread to discuss anything regarding the project  figured you might like to know.

[Thomaerys Velaryon]

10 minutes ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

We don't know, and as such, cannot use it for any calculations.

 

With regards to the birth/death years project, we have this thread to discuss anything regarding the project  figured you might like to know.

It's too bad. I'll continue without it then.

I didn't know the specific thread, thank you.

[zionius]

@Abjiklam Could you revise the Dayne sigil to 8-pointed star? Source.

[Abjiklam]

11 hours ago, zionius said:

@Abjiklam Could you revise the Dayne sigil to 8-pointed star? Source.

Done. Do let me know if you find other inaccuracies.

[The Wondering Wolf]

Various things:

Quote

Aethan Velaryon

Death

Aethan is known to have still been alive in 42 AC.^[4] By 47 AC, his son Daemon had succeeded him as Lord of the Tides and Master of Driftmark,^[4] demonstrating that Aethan had died by 47 AC.

No further specifications can be given. Aethan thus died in or between 42 AC and 47 AC.

This is the calculation for Aethan Velaryon. The first sentence seems to be based on:

[Alyssa] had taken them from Dragonstone within hours of her husband’s funeral, crossing to her lord father’s castle on nearby Driftmark.

Some pages later it reads:

A visit from the Dowager Queen and Vhagar had persuaded her to leave her sanctuary on Driftmark and return to court, where Alyssa and her brothers and cousins of House Velaryon did homage to Maegor as the true king.

There is no mention of Aethan, so I was wondering if that means Aethan had died in the meantime. Or if "her lord father's castle" could even be some loose wording and Aethan was already dead back then.

 

Quote

Falena's father was the Lord of Stokeworth at the ourbreak of the Dance of the Dragons. In 130 AC, when Falena was eight years old, her father was executed by Queen Rhaenyra Targaryen. Afterwards, it was proposed by Prince Daemon Targaryen that Falena should be wed to Ulf White, so White could claim Castle Stokeworth. However, Lord Corlys Velaryon argued against this, as Falena's father had named her younger brother as his heir. Lord Corlys argued that disinheriting the son would overturn centuries of precedent. Rhaenyra eventually decided in favor of Lord Corlys's proposal, and Falena's brother was named Lord of Stokeworth.^[4]

From the entry of Falena Stokeworth. I think it is nowhere mentioned that Falena was that girl, there even seems to be a discrepancy regarding her age by one year since she was ten years older than Aegon IV who was born in 135 AC, but according to F&B Stokeworth's daughter was born in 124 AC (six years old in 130 AC, not eight as the wiki states). So this could mean that Falena was not said Stokeworth lady.

 

The family tree for the Corbrays during the Dance states that Quenton was the son of Leowyn (which is not stated by the text). When I changed the template, @Thomaerys Velaryon changed it back and wrote on my talk site, I answered here. My main point is: Even if we decide to depict Quenton as Leowyn's son, we have to think about the source, because it is not stated anywhere in the text.

 

 

 

 

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

On 3/12/2019 at 11:21 PM, The Wondering Wolf said:

Various things:

This is the calculation for Aethan Velaryon. The first sentence seems to be based on:

[Alyssa] had taken them from Dragonstone within hours of her husband’s funeral, crossing to her lord father’s castle on nearby Driftmark.

Some pages later it reads:

A visit from the Dowager Queen and Vhagar had persuaded her to leave her sanctuary on Driftmark and return to court, where Alyssa and her brothers and cousins of House Velaryon did homage to Maegor as the true king.

There is no mention of Aethan, so I was wondering if that means Aethan had died in the meantime. Or if "her lord father's castle" could even be some loose wording and Aethan was already dead back then.

It is always possible it is a bit of loose wording, of course, but if Daemon had been Lord at the time of Aenys's death, I would expect it to read "her lord brother's castle" or "her brother's castle" or something to that effect.

So, I personally think that, until other confirmation, we should take it to mean Aethan was still alive.

After all, that Alyssa, her brothers, and her cousins went to King's Landing to do homage and not Aethan does not have to mean Aethan had already died. He could have send his children  to KL but stayed at home himself (for example because of his age or health).

 

On 3/12/2019 at 11:21 PM, The Wondering Wolf said:

From the entry of Falena Stokeworth. I think it is nowhere mentioned that Falena was that girl, there even seems to be a discrepancy regarding her age by one year since she was ten years older than Aegon IV who was born in 135 AC, but according to F&B Stokeworth's daughter was born in 124 AC (six years old in 130 AC, not eight as the wiki states). So this could mean that Falena was not said Stokeworth lady.

It is not stated anywhere?

Unless we can get confirmation, it should not be there.

Perhaps @Ran knows whether the six year old daughter of Lord Stokeworth is supposed to be a young Falena?

 

As to the discrepancy between FaB and TWOIAF, "ten years his elder" might not have been precise (although I always assume it is until there is evidence to the contrary). And even so, being six in 130 AC and, 8 in 133 AC, and 24 in 159 AC is possible. It would only mean that, in the second two instances, her age is stated as it was at the time of the event (so she would still have to celebrate her nameday those years), which could again point to loose wording on Yandel's part ("ten years his elder"), while for Gyldayn it would only be a slight deviation from his usual writing style (he does not state the age a character would  turn that year in all instances of his story, although the exception is usually limited to monarchs, as far as a quick analysis tells me.

 

On 3/12/2019 at 11:21 PM, The Wondering Wolf said:

(six years old in 130 AC, not eight as the wiki states).

A mistake made in editing, clearly.

 

On 3/12/2019 at 11:21 PM, The Wondering Wolf said:

The family tree for the Corbrays during the Dance states that Quenton was the son of Leowyn (which is not stated by the text). When I changed the template, @Thomaerys Velaryon changed it back and wrote on my talk site, I answered here. My main point is: Even if we decide to depict Quenton as Leowyn's son, we have to think about the source, because it is not stated anywhere in the text.

Hmm.. while I agree it is highly likely that Quenton is Leowyn's son, I agree that there are too many other possibilities that we cannot exclude, as mentioned by @The Wondering Wolf. So I vote for not depicting them as father and son i  the family tree, unless we can get some confirmation somewhere.

[The Wondering Wolf]

10 hours ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

It is always possible it is a bit of loose wording, of course, but if Daemon had been Lord at the time of Aenys's death, I would expect it to read "her lord brother's castle" or "her brother's castle" or something to that effect.

So, I personally think that, until other confirmation, we should take it to mean Aethan was still alive.

After all, that Alyssa, her brothers, and her cousins went to King's Landing to do homage and not Aethan does not have to mean Aethan had already died. He could have send his children  to KL but stayed at home himself (for example because of his age or health).

Alright, I'm ok with that.

10 hours ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

As to the discrepancy between FaB and TWOIAF, "ten years his elder" might not have been precise (although I always assume it is until there is evidence to the contrary). And even so, being six in 130 AC and, 8 in 133 AC, and 24 in 159 AC is possible. It would only mean that, in the second two instances, her age is stated as it was at the time of the event (so she would still have to celebrate her nameday those years), which could again point to loose wording on Yandel's part ("ten years his elder"), while for Gyldayn it would only be a slight deviation from his usual writing style (he does not state the age a character would  turn that year in all instances of his story, although the exception is usually limited to monarchs, as far as a quick analysis tells me.

I considered something like this, as well, but since there is no confirmation, I would remove that specific part from Falena's page.

 

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

14 hours ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

I considered something like this, as well, but since there is no confirmation, I would remove that specific part from Falena's page.

Done, Falena's page, the House Stokeworth page, and the calculation have been adjusted

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

@Ran

Errata question:

In TWOIAF, Laenor Velaryon is called "Prince Laenor" twice when discussing the Great Council of 101 AC in the chapter The Stormlands: House Baratheon, and Baela and Rhaena are described as "princess" once in The Targaryen Kings: Aegon III. This contradicts Gyldayn's work (and the remainder of Yandel's own work), in the sence that Laenor is otherwise always referred to as Ser, and Rhaena and Baela always as "Lady". Can we count the usage of "Prince" for Laenor and "princesses" for Baela and Rhaena as an errata? Do you know if this had been changed in later prints?

[Ran]

Yes, it's in error. George switched up the naming conventions. I'm not sure if it's been fixed yet.

[zionius]

On 3/24/2019 at 6:37 AM, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

@Ran

Errata question:

In TWOIAF, Laenor Velaryon is called "Prince Laenor" twice when discussing the Great Council of 101 AC in the chapter The Stormlands: House Baratheon, and Baela and Rhaena are described as "princess" once in The Targaryen Kings: Aegon III. This contradicts Gyldayn's work (and the remainder of Yandel's own work), in the sence that Laenor is otherwise always referred to as Ser, and Rhaena and Baela always as "Lady". Can we count the usage of "Prince" for Laenor and "princesses" for Baela and Rhaena as an errata? Do you know if this had been changed in later prints?

"Princesses Rhaena and Baela" is corrected in new e-editions of TWOIAF, whereas it's still "Prince Laenor".

[Potsk]

Doesn't "princess" override "lady", though?

[DanaKz]

Ok... So, Baela and Raena are Prince Daemon's daughters and they are called "ladies".

Prince Daemon is king's younger brother. So, does it mean king's younger brother's children are not princes and princesses?

Viserys is Aegon III's younger brother. But his second son Aemon is called "new prince" (though Aemon and Aegon are never called "prince Aegon or prince Aemon in the book").

So, let's speculate:  when kids are current king's grandchildren via sons they are princes no matter what (Baelon's sons, Maekar's sons during Hedge Knight) but if kids are born when they are king's nephews and nieces, they are lords and ladies?

I looked into British system thru Wikipedia:

Quote

Prior to 1714, the title of prince and the style of HRH was not customary in usage. Sons and daughters of the sovereign were not automatically or traditionally called a prince or princess. An exception was the Prince of Wales, a title conferred on the eldest son of the sovereign since the reign of Edward I of England. In the Kingdom of Scotland, even though an honorific principality was created by James I, the heir-apparent was only referred to as Duke of Rothesay. Some others include John, brother of Richard the Lionheart and later King John, who is sometimes called Prince John.

Quote

After the accession of George I (the first monarch from the House of Hanover), it became customary for the sons of the sovereign and grandsons of the sovereign in the male line to be titled 'Prince' and styled His Royal Highness (abbreviated HRH). Great-grandsons of the sovereign were princes styled His Highness (abbreviated HH).

Quote

Later that year, letters patent altered the rights to the title prince and the style Royal Highness. These letters patent, dated 30 November 1917, stated that "the children of any Sovereign of these Realms and the children of the sons of any such Sovereign (as per the above Letters Patent of 1864) and the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales (a modification of the Letters Patent of 1898) shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness with their titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their respective Christian names or with their other titles of honour". It was also decreed in these letters that "grandchildren of the sons of any such Sovereign in the direct male line ... shall have and enjoy in all occasions the style and title enjoyed by the children of Dukes of these Our Realms" (i.e., Lord or Lady before their Christian name).^[

So, I suppose Westeros is using George I's system.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

From the wiki's talk page of Ned Bean by user @Potsk

Quote

 

Should we note that this is most likely a nod to Sean Bean, who played Ned Stark? Ned Stark + Sean Bean = Ned Bean, it's a no-brainer. --Potsk (talk) 20:53, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

 

 

 

 

Edited April 1, 2019 by Rhaenys_Targaryen

[Nittanian]

We could add that it might be an homage, but I wouldn't say it is conclusive. 

[Nittanian]

Is there a consensus on whether infobox content that is not a proper noun should be in lower or upper case? For instance, Rodrik Cassel is a knight and the master-at-arms of Winterfell, and he is named by Catelyn as the castellan of Winterfell. George identifies knights with the capitalized "Ser", but he usually does not designate master-at-arms or castellan as formal titles with capitalization.

Should the "Titles" section of Rodrik's infobox display his content as:

Quote

Title: Ser
        Master-at-arms at Winterfell
        Castellan of Winterfell

or

Quote

Title: Ser
        master-at-arms at Winterfell
        castellan of Winterfell

In contrast to Rodrik Cassel, FAB and TWOIAF give Jon Rosby the formal title of Castellan of Sunspear. His infobox displays his titles as:

Quote

Title: Lord of Rosby
        Castellan of Sunspear
        Warden of the Sands

In the ADWD Appendix, George describes Victarion Greyjoy as "master of the Iron Victory" and Boremund Harlaw as "master of Harridan Hill". In contrast, George gives Galbart Glover the formal title "Master of Deepwood Motte".

Should Victarion be listed as:

Quote

Title: Lord Captain of the Iron Fleet
        Master of the Iron Victory

or

Quote

Title: Lord Captain of the Iron Fleet
         master of the Iron Victory

Should Victarion's family be displayed as:

Quote

Issue: Stillborn daughter

or

Quote

Issue: stillborn daughter

George refers to the province of the Lannisters as the westerlands instead of the Westerlands. Should Tyler Hill, a Lannister bastard, be displayed as:

Quote

Culture: Westermen

or

Quote

Culture: westermen

 

[Abjiklam]

14 hours ago, Nittanian said:

Is there a consensus on whether infobox content that is not a proper noun should be in lower or upper case? For instance, Rodrik Cassel is a knight and the master-at-arms of Winterfell, and he is named by Catelyn as the castellan of Winterfell. George identifies knights with the capitalized "Ser", but he usually does not designate master-at-arms or castellan as formal titles with capitalization.

Should the "Titles" section of Rodrik's infobox display his content as:

or

In contrast to Rodrik Cassel, FAB and TWOIAF give Jon Rosby the formal title of Castellan of Sunspear. His infobox displays his titles as:

In the ADWD Appendix, George describes Victarion Greyjoy as "master of the Iron Victory" and Boremund Harlaw as "master of Harridan Hill". In contrast, George gives Galbart Glover the formal title "Master of Deepwood Motte".

Should Victarion be listed as:

or

Should Victarion's family be displayed as:

or

George refers to the province of the Lannisters as the westerlands instead of the Westerlands. Should Tyler Hill, a Lannister bastard, be displayed as:

or

 

Just like we would capitalize each of these words if they were at the beginning of a sentence, they should also be capitalized when they are the first word of an entry in the infobox.

[Nittanian]

I looked at Wikipedia's Manual of Style, since we try to follow their example.

The Manual of Style for Capitalization (MOS:CAPS) says,

Quote

Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization. In English, capitalization is primarily needed for proper names, acronyms, and for the first letter of a sentence.

I didn't see anything specific about capitalization at the Manual of Style for Infoboxes (MOS:IBX), unfortunately.

The Manual of Style for Bullets and Numbered Lists (MOS:LISTBULLET) says,

Quote

 

Use the same grammatical form for all elements in a list, and do not mix sentences and sentence fragments as elements, for example when the elements are:

    Complete sentences – each one is formatted with sentence case (its first letter is capitalized) and a final period (full point);
    Sentence fragments – the list is typically introduced by an introductory fragment ending with a colon;
    Titles of works – they retain the original capitalization of the titles;
    Other elements – they are formatted consistently in either sentence case or lower case.

 

That is for lists instead of infoboxes, but the concepts could be comparable. Since infobox content should be brief instead of in full sentences, "other elements" might be in either format.

The Manual of Style for Lists (MOS:LISTBASICS) says,

Quote

 

Use sentence case by default for list items, whether they are complete sentences or not. Sentence case is used for around 99% of lists on Wikipedia. Title case (as used for book titles) is not used for list entries.

Lowercase is best reserved for:

    lists introduced by a sentence fragment, with a short list of items, also fragments, continuing the extended sentence;
    glossary entries, where it is important to convey whether something is usually capitalized or not;
    lists of items with non-English names (that have not been assimilated into English), from a language in which their capitalization would be incorrect.

 

That page for lists states sentence case should be used when in doubt, at least. Infoboxes have sentence fragments, so might it be considered that lower case could be used after capitalized parameters (Issue: stillborn daughter)?

The Manual of Style for Headings (MOS:SECTIONCAPS) says,

Quote

Use sentence case, not title case, capitalization in all section headings. Capitalize the first letter of the first word, but leave the rest lower case except for proper names and other items that would ordinarily be capitalized in running text.

Most articles at AWOIAF have been using title case in headings ("Recent Events", "Appearance and Character"), while Wikipedia would instead recommend sentence case ("Recent events", "Appearance and character"). Any thoughts?

[Potsk]

Can we change "other titles" in the monarch infobox to just "titles"?

[The Wondering Wolf]

@Ran Would it be possible to establish interwiki links to the German Ice and Fire wiki?