The ASOIAF wiki thread

[The Wondering Wolf]

Can we please remove the image of Sonoya Mizuno from the Mysaria page? The actress doesn't look like the character from the book at all, so this image (especially placed prominently like that) is rather misleading.

[direpupy]

11 hours ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

Can we please remove the image of Sonoya Mizuno from the Mysaria page? The actress doesn't look like the character from the book at all, so this image (especially placed prominently like that) is rather misleading.

I agree, that image should not be on the book page as the main image. I have removed it from the infobox when and if she gets a show page it can be used there.

[The Wondering Wolf]

2 hours ago, direpupy said:

I have removed it from the infobox

Thanks.

I don't think Mysaria needs another page, though. There is a huge and very active wiki for the TV series and the prequel(s) that can cover all of this kind of stuff. I get that it makes sense to include a few show related pages for seasons, episodes and important show only characters, but things like creating a page for every single Umber from this lineage book (who are not even supposed to be show canon, because they just invented random names and didn't expect anyone to zoom in the frames) is actually beyond me.

Edited October 6, 2021 by The Wondering Wolf

[Ran]

My feeling with the use of actor images is that they should not be used until such time as we have a piece of art based on the character as the primary infobox image. Then the actor image can appear later for a TV show subsection. So, primary image = book based only.

[The Wondering Wolf]

Sounds like a reasonable guideline to me.

[StarksInTheNorth]

How does the wiki address inconsistencies between the books and the app? Or maybe not an inconsistency, but I was reading something on Catelyn Stark’s page and got confused. Specifically, the following passage:

Quote

In 276 AC or 277 AC, when Catelyn was twelve years old,^[7] she was betrothed to Brandon Stark, the heir to Winterfell, she thanked her father for making such a splendid match for her.^[31] Lord Hoster Tully's ward, Petyr Baelish, was less pleased with the match, however. While Catelyn had come to regard Petyr as a brother,^[3][15] Petyr had fallen in love with Catelyn.^[18]When Catelyn's betrothal to Brandon was announced,^[42.  . . . Petyr, wounded by the rejection, became drunk and had to be brought to bed by Catelyn's uncle, Ser Brynden Tully. Catelyn's younger sister, Lysa, who had fallen in love with Petyr, snuck into Petyr's chambers and had sex with him that night. However, the drunken Petyr believed he was having sex with Catelyn, and he called Lysa "Cat" before falling asleep again.^[42][43]

The way this paragraph is worded makes it sound like 9-10 year old Lysa snuck in to have sex with 8-9 year old Petyr and he thought it was 12-year-old Catelyn. I’m not quite sure what the proper fix is and was wondering whether anyone could advise?

[The Wondering Wolf]

1 hour ago, StarksInTheNorth said:

How does the wiki address inconsistencies between the books and the app? Or maybe not an inconsistency, but I was reading something on Catelyn Stark’s page and got confused.

I guess the only way to reconcile these statements is to assume that the negotiation of the betrothal and the announcement were two different things. I'm not sure it makes sense to announce a betrothal something like four years later, though. Unless there were political reasons to wait till a moment when the wedding could take place shortly after.

[Ran]

That's a error in the app, and a rather big one! The event being recounted had nothing to do with Brandon -- it's when the Blackwoods and Brackens came to hash out issues under Lord Hoster's supervision, and Catelyn had danced a bunch of times with Littlefinger but seemed unaware that he was in love with her.

Will make a note to the app people to get that fixed. I obviously conflated a couple of things, as Lysa (the source of the event) switches to talking about Brandon and the duel with Littlefinger. 

[Ser Jon Darry]

Do the predecessor and successor really need to be listed in the non-royal character infoboxes, when it's usually mentioned in the body of the text and always found at the bottom of the page anyway? For example, Otto Hightower has five different characters listed as predecessor and successor as Hand of the King. Which I personally think over clogs the infobox.

[The Wondering Wolf]

In my opinion predecessors/successors and lovers should be removed. It makes the box unnecessarily convoluted.

[direpupy]

predecessors/successors make sence in the case of inheritible titels, but for positions on the small counsil i think its overkill.

The lovers thing  i think is also overkill such information can be found in the text on the page.

[LordSeaSnake]

Agreed with the lovers field.

I think it would look cleaner if the predecessors/successors fields were replaced with a succession template similar to Wikipedia's, for example see the very bottom of this Wikipedia page where the Duke of Buckingham's noble titles and offices are listed with the predecessors and successors. Perhaps this isn't needed for offices like master of coin and such, as there are existing templates, but I think it looks cleaner than having it all in the infobox.

Edited October 14, 2021 by LordSeaSnake
formatting

[StarksInTheNorth]

On 10/12/2021 at 1:52 AM, Ser Jon Darry said:

Do the predecessor and successor really need to be listed in the non-royal character infoboxes, when it's usually mentioned in the body of the text and always found at the bottom of the page anyway? For example, Otto Hightower has five different characters listed as predecessor and successor as Hand of the King. Which I personally think over clogs the infobox.

As someone who goes through the orders and lists a lot YES. It's incredibly helpful to have that tab there when trying to find an era in time. 

[The Wondering Wolf]

2 hours ago, StarksInTheNorth said:

As someone who goes through the orders and lists a lot YES. It's incredibly helpful to have that tab there when trying to find an era in time. 

And templates at the bottom of the page wouldn't do that?

[Ser Jon Darry]

3 hours ago, StarksInTheNorth said:

As someone who goes through the orders and lists a lot YES. It's incredibly helpful to have that tab there when trying to find an era in time. 

As I already said the immediate predecessor and successor (if they're known) is always in the body of the text. And as The Wondering Wolf points out above the templates at the bottom of the page make it easy to navigate through the titles and offices. So in my opinion it's redundant to have it a third time in the infobox.

[StarksInTheNorth]

4 hours ago, Ser Jon Darry said:

As I already said the immediate predecessor and successor (if they're known) is always in the body of the text. And as The Wondering Wolf points out above the templates at the bottom of the page make it easy to navigate through the titles and offices. So in my opinion it's redundant to have it a third time in the infobox.

Yes but having it in the info box is a major timesaver to get through it all. For the body, you have to scroll through and find it. If you don’t know who you’re looking for, you have to read. And you still have to scroll for the bottom. 

[StarksInTheNorth]

5 hours ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

And templates at the bottom of the page wouldn't do that?

Takes additional time to scroll when clicking through. Though I do agree with you re lovers. 

[The Wondering Wolf]

12 minutes ago, StarksInTheNorth said:

Takes additional time to scroll when clicking through. Though I do agree with you re lovers. 

I think the infobox should give you a quick overview of a character like titles, nicknames, allegiance and dates of birth and death. It's not the place to list people who lived at the time as the character.

[direpupy]

22 hours ago, StarksInTheNorth said:

Takes additional time to scroll when clicking through. Though I do agree with you re lovers. 

 

19 hours ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

I think the infobox should give you a quick overview of a character like titles, nicknames, allegiance and dates of birth and death. It's not the place to list people who lived at the time as the character.

I agree with The Wondering Wolf on this its an overview of the character and while i think the predecessor and successor of inheritable titles are useful in the infobox they are not necessary, and if they clutter the box to the point of defeating the purpose of the box they should be removed. For non-inheritable titles i do not think its useful at all, people who want to know about who held that title would go to the page about that title anyway, so it would then only be for the convenience of editors which should never be a leading principle.

As for lovers that is really something for the main text not an infobox but that is my personal opinion.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

On 9/2/2021 at 11:56 PM, The Wondering Wolf said:

The article of Amory Lorch states about the last Lord Tarbeck incident: 

Assuming that Amory Lorch was at least fifteen years old at the time of the Reyne-Tarbeck Rebellion (as he was already a knight), this would make him 37 years old or older during the Sack of King's Landing, and thus unlikely to be in prime condition to scale the walls of Maegor's Holdfast. Additionally, he would be 53 years old or older during the War of the Five Kings, and he is not mentioned to be an older man in his appearances in A Clash of Kings. This inconsistency may be why this incident was not included in the published Westerlands chapter of The World of Ice & Fire.

I can see no reason why a forty year old professional fighter wouldn't be able to scale some walls. And while no-one says Amory looks a bit older in 299 AC, the opposite isn't stated neither. So I would remove this part from the article.

I agree with this conclusion, and have removed the note from the page. It is clearly stated that the information comes from a semi-canon source, and until there is something canon published that contradicts this semi-canon information, it should be fine to have it written like this without a note speculating why it might not have been included in the published materials.