The ASOIAF wiki thread

[The Wondering Wolf]

47 minutes ago, Nittanian said:

While it hypothetically could be different Lords Staunton, GRRM's phrasing in those chapters suggest to me that it is the same individual (who is unfortunately not given a first name).

I mean it would make sense for sure, but question remains if this is enough to state it as fact. One of the issues of the book is that it introduces a lot of characters with their given names only stated later or not at all. I've already mentioned the case of Lord Darklyn, but there are also several references to Lord Tully in the Sons of the Dragon chapter and in my opinion there are good reasons to assume they refer to at least two different Tully lords. So I think it's just impossible to tell if the Lord Staunton who stayed with Maegor is the same who died of the Shivers in 59 AC.

59 minutes ago, Thomaerys Velaryon said:

Yeah, it is possible to have several Lords Staunton with such close set of dates.

I don't think there were more than two, but even if that was the case, it would be impossible to tell where to make the cut between them. 

1 hour ago, Thomaerys Velaryon said:

I don't know how to prove it one way or the other, however.

Sure, but I think the wiki should present only things we can prove. Otherwise we would open Pandora's box.

1 hour ago, Thomaerys Velaryon said:

Do you want to create up to 4 Lords Staunton at that time ?

Of course not. I would delete the article and put the content into House Staunton's page, one paragraph dealing with the Staunton stuff from 48 to 59 AC, stating something like "It is not clear whether these Lord Stauntons were one or more individuals"  after the last footnote.

[direpupy]

On 7/31/2021 at 12:16 AM, The Wondering Wolf said:

I mean it would make sense for sure, but question remains if this is enough to state it as fact. One of the issues of the book is that it introduces a lot of characters with their given names only stated later or not at all. I've already mentioned the case of Lord Darklyn, but there are also several references to Lord Tully in the Sons of the Dragon chapter and in my opinion there are good reasons to assume they refer to at least two different Tully lords. So I think it's just impossible to tell if the Lord Staunton who stayed with Maegor is the same who died of the Shivers in 59 AC.

I don't think there were more than two, but even if that was the case, it would be impossible to tell where to make the cut between them. 

Sure, but I think the wiki should present only things we can prove. Otherwise we would open Pandora's box.

Of course not. I would delete the article and put the content into House Staunton's page, one paragraph dealing with the Staunton stuff from 48 to 59 AC, stating something like "It is not clear whether these Lord Stauntons were one or more individuals"  after the last footnote.

So if i understand you correctly you want to migrate the content of the page to the house Staunton page and turn it into a paragraph there, with a note attached to it saying we do not know if there was one or more lords Staunton in this period?

If you do this you also have to alter the historical member section of the house Staunton page and the page of Cassela Staunton which has a link to the page you want to delete.

Not saying that you should not do it, but keep in mind that this has consequences for other pages.

[The Wondering Wolf]

56 minutes ago, direpupy said:

So if i understand you correctly you want to migrate the content of the page to the house Staunton page and turn it into a paragraph there, with a note attached to it saying we do not know if there was one or more lords Staunton in this period?

Exactly.

56 minutes ago, direpupy said:

If you do this you also have to alter the historical member section of the house Staunton page and the page of Cassela Staunton which has a link to the page you want to delete.

Not saying that you should not do it, but keep in mind that this has consequences for other pages.

Sure, these would be pretty minor adjustments, though.

In my opinion there is a slight tendency of over-creating articles in the wiki, especially with lords lacking a given name. I know creating article is fun, but if people want to read about the Lord Staunton who stayed with Maegor or want to learn more about Cassella's father, the House Staunton page will serve them well. No-one will search for Lord Staunton and leave disappointedly just because that page doesn't exist.

[direpupy]

1 hour ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

Exactly.

Sure, these would be pretty minor adjustments, though.

In my opinion there is a slight tendency of over-creating articles in the wiki, especially with lords lacking a given name. I know creating article is fun, but if people want to read about the Lord Staunton who stayed with Maegor or want to learn more about Cassella's father, the House Staunton page will serve them well. No-one will search for Lord Staunton and leave disappointedly just because that page doesn't exist.

I get what you are saying and in this particular case i agree, but as a caution, watch out that the pendulum does not swing they other way sometimes even if its a minor thing there are good reasons for giving it a page of its own.

[The Wondering Wolf]

1 hour ago, direpupy said:

watch out that the pendulum does not swing they other way sometimes even if its a minor thing there are good reasons for giving it a page of its own

Given the enthusiasm of our wiki editors, I don't think this is a real danger. :-) But of course the decision whether a page should be created or not needs to be made as the case arises. Anyway, this only came up as a side issue, my main point still is that GRRM likes his Lord Stauntons unnamed and merging Lord Staunton's page into the history section of his house would solve the issue.

[direpupy]

@Thomaerys Velaryon I undid your change to to the Yronwood page because your note on they heir was based on they assumption that Ynys Yronwood is Anders Yronwood's oldest child, but this is not true. She is only ever called his oldest daughter which only tells us that she is older then her sister but says nothing about whether ore not she is older then her brother.

I know they idea that Ynys got passed over for her brother as heir is a popular one on the forum, but it is not based on anything.

There is no reason to assume her marriage to they heir of an other house is a reason for her to be passed over, for example the Peakes held multiple Lordships and the Lady Stokeworth claims that Rosby should go to her on Gyles Rosby's death.

A popular reason given for they assumption Ynys is older then her brother Cletus is that she has two children, but with noble lady's flowering at age 13 and being married at a young age as well  Ynys could have been born as late as 286 AC (see the age calculation on the wiki for Ynys)  Cletus on they other hand was of an age with Quentyn Martell who in 300 AC is 18 which means Cletus could be as much as 4 or 5 years older then Ynys.

I therefore think that we can not assume that Ynys ever got passed over at all.

Edited August 11, 2021 by direpupy

[Thomaerys Velaryon]

@direpupy I took information from the ADWD appendix to determine the birth order of Lord Anders Yronwood's children (thus Ynys > Cletus > Gwyneth), just like we have always done for siblings listed in the appendices. I don't understand what is wrong with that.

Edited August 11, 2021 by Thomaerys Velaryon

[direpupy]

9 hours ago, Thomaerys Velaryon said:

@direpupy I took information from the ADWD appendix to determine the birth order of Lord Anders Yronwood's children (thus Ynys > Cletus > Gwyneth), just like we have always done for siblings listed in the appendices. I don't understand what is wrong with that.

I thought we stopped doing that after we found out that the appendixses of the books where not made by GRRM but by his publishers (based on ifo from GRRM but stil) and we also have GRRM changing his mind about birth orders on several occasions.

And the appendix from ADWD is also the appendix that specificaly states that she is his his eldest daughter not his eldest child.

Also the ADWD appendix is the one with the Clifford Swan mistake in it.

Edited August 12, 2021 by direpupy

[Thomaerys Velaryon]

12 minutes ago, direpupy said:

I thought we stopped doing that after we found out that the appendixses of the books where not made by GRRM but by his publishers (based on ifo from GRRM but stil) and we also have GRRM changing his mind about birth orders on several occasions.

I'm not aware of that. If we stop editing the wiki for fear of little mistakes and future retcon, then we would not edit anything anymore. That's a bit silly to think like that in my opinion.

Let us wait on others opinions on the matter and we will see. If you are correct, at least I would have learned something new today. Thanks.

[direpupy]

11 minutes ago, Thomaerys Velaryon said:

I'm not aware of that. If we stop editing the wiki for fear of little mistakes and future retcon, then we would not edit anything anymore. That's a bit silly to think like that in my opinion.

Let us wait on others opinions on the matter and we will see. If you are correct, at least I would have learned something new today. Thanks.

This would not be a little mistake but an entire elaborate theory that is based on no offense absolutly nothing.

But i agree we should wait what others say.

[The Wondering Wolf]

I seem to remember GRRM does the appendices himself, maybe @Ran can clarify. 

Anyway, just because they contain some mistakes does not mean we can't use them. Anything published under GRRM's name is canon unless it contradicts something else. That said, I would just state that the heir of House Yronwood is unknown and leave it at that. No need for further speculation.

[direpupy]

14 minutes ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

I seem to remember GRRM does the appendices himself, maybe @Ran can clarify. 

Anyway, just because they contain some mistakes does not mean we can't use them. Anything published under GRRM's name is canon unless it contradicts something else. That said, I would just state that the heir of House Yronwood is unknown and leave it at that. No need for further speculation.

That would be a good solution, but i do want to stress that because of the elaborate passing over theory this would not be a small mistake.

[Ran]

Yes, the appendices are put together by George who sends them on.

Perhaps the best solution is to acknowledge the fact that there may or may not be an error with implications as to the succession situation.

[Thomaerys Velaryon]

@Ran Ok thank you. I won’t put my edit back up again.

Concerning the melting-pot of cultures in Dorne, I seem to remember you once sent a list of Southron Houses that could potentially being changed to followers of the Old Gods to GRRM. IIRC the goal was to flesh out this part of the world building and give us other examples of Old Gods whorshippers south of the Neck apart from House Blackwood (+ minor unnamed Houses). I could be wrong but I beleive House Yronwood and House Wyl were on your list. To your knowledge, did anything ever came out of that ?

[Ran]

@Thomaerys Velaryon Not that I have heard of as of yet.

[The Wondering Wolf]

2 hours ago, Thomaerys Velaryon said:

I could be wrong but I beleive House Yronwood and House Wyl were on your list.

The list included only houses with no associations to knighthood. Since the Yronwoods have several knights, I don't think they were considered a possibility. The Wyls could work though.

Edited August 12, 2021 by The Wondering Wolf

[Ran]

4 minutes ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

The list included only houses with no associations to knighthood. Since the Yronwoods have several knights, I don't think they were considered a possibility. The Wyls could work though.

Correct. Blackmont and Fowler as well, as I recall. Depends on what you make of Benedict and the report of the "dark god" he worshipped.

[The Wondering Wolf]

18 minutes ago, Ran said:

Blackmont and Fowler as well, as I recall. Depends on what you make of Benedict and the report of the "dark god" he worshipped.

Benedict definitely has some warg vibes, so there could be some deeper connection to the First Men and it may indicate they did not follow the Seven back then. Perros Blackmont is a squire, though. I guess he could just be trained to become a warrior, but usually noble squires aim at knighthood.

[Ran]

29 minutes ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

Benedict definitely has some warg vibes, so there could be some deeper connection to the First Men and it may indicate they did not follow the Seven back then. Perros Blackmont is a squire, though. I guess he could just be trained to become a warrior, but usually noble squires aim at knighthood.

Theon was Ned's squire, Ned acted as Jon Arryn's squire. Neither had any intention of being knighted.

[Thomaerys Velaryon]

Wex Pyke, Ethan Glover, Domeric Bolton, ... the list goes on. Even Lord Tytos Blackwood offers Jaime Lannister to take his son (Edmund "Ben" Blackwood) as his squire and we all know the Blackwoods don't seek knighthood.