Jump to content
Onion Knight

The ASOIAF wiki thread

Recommended Posts

I've added Fire & Blood to the references template of the wiki, so it is ready for use when the moratorium has ended.

The code is {{Ref|fab|Chapter name}} (unlike the ref template for TWOIAF, there's no extra space required :) )

Please use the full chapter title (eg, Reign of the Dragon — The Wars of King Aegon I, Prince into King — The Ascension of Jaehaerys I, The Dying of the Dragons — Rhaenyra Triumphant, Under the Regents — The Voyage of Alyn Oakenfist, etc.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/19/2018 at 10:13 PM, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

The code is {{Ref|fab|Chapter name}} (unlike the ref template for TWOIAF, there's no extra space required :) )

I fixed this requirement for twoiaf. No space needed any longer :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Abjiklam said:

I fixed this requirement for twoiaf. No space needed any longer :)

I see that the template correctly displays the reference, regardless of the presence of the space, that's great!

Would it be possible to write the template in a way that it places the references with and without space under the same reference number, instead of two different ones? (see Sandbox)

Edited by Rhaenys_Targaryen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although it seems very likely that Cowyn Velaryon is the father of Corlys, the Sea Snake, Fire and Blood does not confirm it.

So how can be best place these Velaryons in the family tree? Because at the moment, it displays Corlys as Corwyn's son as if it is confirmed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Corlys was the son of Daemon's eldest son, and Corwin is listed as Daemon's eldest son, so I think you can consider it confirmed. If you still do not think so, you can create two Velaryon trees, one from Daemon (I) to Corwin and one from Corlys to Daenaera.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

Corlys was the son of Daemon's eldest son, and Corwin is listed as Daemon's eldest son, so I think you can consider it confirmed. If you still do not think so, you can create two Velaryon trees, one from Daemon (I) to Corwin and one from Corlys to Daenaera.

His name is given first when Daemon's sons are listed, and although that makes it highly likely that Corwin is thus the eldest, can we actually call it confirmed?

Perhaps in the family tree we should put in a note stating that Corwin is assumed to be the eldest because of the order of the names given?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going through my notes....

I want to make an article on....the things that killed Aerea Targaryen.

What the heck do I title it?

Were they, in fact, some form or larval stage of "Firewyrms"?

Giving them a name imposes assumptions.

This may be sensitive enough to ask GRRM if it's appropriate.  

Regardless....er….what title does Elio think we should use? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be hesitant to give any name to it, and because of that I'm not sure it merits its own article. I guess it was parasitic, so in that sense any other parasites mentioned in the course of the series and other texts could be lumped together into a Parasites article (assuming we don't have one already).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Ran said:

I'd be hesitant to give any name to it, and because of that I'm not sure it merits its own article. I guess it was parasitic, so in that sense any other parasites mentioned in the course of the series and other texts could be lumped together into a Parasites article (assuming we don't have one already).

Given we don't even know it was a chimera or if someone specificially put the chimera into her. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Ran, has there been an update on the wiki's software recently? The familytree templates do not display properly anymore, since some of the familytree codes have been given a new outcome. Currently, all the codes that were supposed to give a line (no matter whether entirely solid, dashed, or a mix of the two) that goes downwards, then makes a turn to the left, has been changed into a line that goes downwards, then splits to both left and right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

@Ran, has there been an update on the wiki's software recently? The familytree templates do not display properly anymore, since some of the familytree codes have been given a new outcome. Currently, all the codes that were supposed to give a line (no matter whether entirely solid, dashed, or a mix of the two) that goes downwards, then makes a turn to the left, has been changed into a line that goes downwards, then splits to both left and right.

No recent updates. Who created the code? Should ping them and see if they can help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ran said:

No recent updates. Who created the code? Should ping them and see if they can help.

The code was copied from wikipedia in 2012 and there have been no changes besides one from you changing the protection of the template. I cannot imagine that that change is the cause, however.

The code has remained unchanged, so the code itself _should_ not be the issue.. However, though I noticed the issue today, I don't know how long it has already been present, and what might have possibly caused it.

Has some change been made to the CSS during the past few months?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

The code was copied from wikipedia in 2012 and there have been no changes besides one from you changing the protection of the template. I cannot imagine that that change is the cause, however.

The code has remained unchanged, so the code itself _should_ not be the issue.. However, though I noticed the issue today, I don't know how long it has already been present, and what might have possibly caused it.

Has some change been made to the CSS during the past few months?

Sure, when we upgraded to the new version and skin, some tweaks were made. IIRC, we had @Abjiklam and @Mindset helping with some templates, maybe they have an idea. I'll look at it as well.

 

ETA: Can you give a simple example of this as well?

Edited by Ran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Ran said:

I'd be hesitant to give any name to it, and because of that I'm not sure it merits its own article. I guess it was parasitic, so in that sense any other parasites mentioned in the course of the series and other texts could be lumped together into a Parasites article (assuming we don't have one already).

I already made a page on “chimera” as Fire and blood is the first time that term was used.

http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Chimera 

....given that the only identification given for them by Barth is essentially to say that they were some KIND of chimera, it may make sense to go with that.  Not that they are named “Chimeras” capital C - but that they are apparently a specific strain of chimera-creature.  And thus list them off as a subsection on that page.  I’ll try a write up.

 

Edited by The Dragon Demands

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Ran said:

Sure, when we upgraded to the new version and skin, some tweaks were made. IIRC, we had @Abjiklam and @Mindset helping with some templates, maybe they have an idea. I'll look at it as well.

Hasn't CSS been added reasonably recently to allow for the depiction of multiple marriages? Perhaps it is something there that is causing this? @Mindset, perhaps you can take a look?
 

20 hours ago, Ran said:

ETA: Can you give a simple example of this as well?

I've uploaded some screenshots. It can be seen in this family tree (circled red). While the codes ^and ' are supposed to give the following encircled pieces of the family tree (^ is green, ' is red), I've pasted every code into my own sandbox, and you can see that both codes now give the outcome of the ^. The example is only for the solid line variant, but the same applies for the dashed line variant, and the mixed variants (not visible on the image).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Rhaenys_Targaryen

Some points from the errata page:

Alyssa Velaryon is said to have been forced to watch her daughter Rhaena Targaryen's wedding to King Maegor I Targaryen in 47 AC, which did not happen as Alyssa had fled beyond Maegor's reach by that point.

I think you can also see the statement as a way to say that Alyssa had to suffer the marriage and could not intervene.

The spring at Maidenpool is described as being inside a spa-like structure in Fire & Blood, while it is described as a bare pool in A Feast for Crows. Although apparently a contradiction, the author decided to keep the descriptions as they are.

Cities change, so I would not place it in the errata.

Corwyn Corbray is referred to as "Lord Corbray" (US hardcover, page 634) despite only inheriting his brother's seat after his brother's death at a later moment.

I think Corwyn never inherited his brother's seat, it was his nephew Quenton.

The US version of Fire & Blood states that Prince Daemon Targaryen was twenty years old in 101 AC, which is incorrect as he is known to have been born in 76 AC.

Daemon was born in 81 AC. I remember there was an issue with Daemon's age, but it was not that one.

 

And Martyn's father Mandfryd was the son of Addam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

@Rhaenys_Targaryen

Some points from the errata page:

Alyssa Velaryon is said to have been forced to watch her daughter Rhaena Targaryen's wedding to King Maegor I Targaryen in 47 AC, which did not happen as Alyssa had fled beyond Maegor's reach by that point.

I think you can also see the statement as a way to say that Alyssa had to suffer the marriage and could not intervene.

But would that be described as "forced to watch"? The usage of that phrase heavily implies Alyssa's presence, doesn't it? And that would be an error..

 

5 hours ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

The spring at Maidenpool is described as being inside a spa-like structure in Fire & Blood, while it is described as a bare pool in A Feast for Crows. Although apparently a contradiction, the author decided to keep the descriptions as they are.

Cities change, so I would not place it in the errata.

Removed!

 

5 hours ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

Corwyn Corbray is referred to as "Lord Corbray" (US hardcover, page 634) despite only inheriting his brother's seat after his brother's death at a later moment.

I think Corwyn never inherited his brother's seat, it was his nephew Quenton.

The US version of Fire & Blood states that Prince Daemon Targaryen was twenty years old in 101 AC, which is incorrect as he is known to have been born in 76 AC.

Daemon was born in 81 AC. I remember there was an issue with Daemon's age, but it was not that one.

Fixed!

 

5 hours ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

Thanks! Very useful! :)

Would you happen to know of any confirmation concerning Corwyn Velaryon and whether or not he was the father of Corlys?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×