Jump to content
Onion Knight

The ASOIAF wiki thread

Recommended Posts

Should we put Rhaena Targaryen (daughter of Aenys I) as Lady of Dragonstone in the wiki ?

Jaehaerys I Targaryen gifted her the lands but he never named her "Princess of Dragonstone" like heirs of the Iron Throne tends to be.

Quote

 

“All the lands are taken, all the castles occupied,” Rhaena replied, “but there is one I have a claim to…a better claim than your own, brother. I am the blood of the dragon. I want my father’s seat, the place where I was born. I want Dragonstone.”

To that King Jaehaerys had no answer, promising only to take the matter under consideration. His council, when the question was put to them, were united in their opposition to ceding the ancestral seat of House Targaryen to the widowed queen, but none had any better solution to offer.

After reflecting on the matter, His Grace met with his sister again. “I will grant you Dragonstone as your seat,” he told her, “for there is no place more fitting for the blood of the dragon. But you shall hold the island and the castle by my gift, not by right. Our grandsire made seven kingdoms into one with fire and blood, I cannot and will not make them two by carving you off a separate kindom of your own. You are a queen by courtesy, but I am king, and my writ runs from Oldtown to the Wall…and on Dragonstone as well. Are we of one mind on this, sister?”

 

“Are you so uncertain of that iron seat that you must needs have your own blood bend the knee to you, brother?” Rhaena threw back at him. “So be it. Give me Dragonstone and one thing more, and I shall trouble you no further.”

 

“One thing more?” Jaehaerys asked.

 

“Aerea. I want my daughter restored to me.”

 

“Done,” the king said…mayhaps too hastily, for it must be remembered that Aerea Targaryen, a girl of eight, was his own acknowledged successor, heir apparent to the Iron Throne. The consequences of this decision would not be known for years to come, however. For the nonce it was done, and the Queen in the West at a stroke became the Queen in the East.

Fire and Blood, A Time of Testing: The Realm Remade

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/1/2019 at 3:18 PM, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

Any opinions on this issue raised on the Aegon Targaryen (son of Rhaegar) page?

I'm okay with the current arrangement (although the article has large Motivations/Reactions/Succession sections outside of the norm). The text of ADWD designates the youth as Aegon in the chapters of Tyrion and JonCon. Without further information (future books), we should follow that designation. He might be an impostor, of course, but we don't have confirmation of that yet. Theories that the youth identified as Aegon is actually someone else are already presented at Aegon Targaryen (son of Rhaegar)/Theories. If a future book confirms he is an impostor, we would then split them into separate articles. The AWOIAF app also only has one entry instead of two. Separately, I wouldn't be adverse to a picture of the baby Aegon in the infobox, as pictures of Young Griff can be displayed further in the article. 

On 6/2/2019 at 9:01 AM, Thomaerys Velaryon said:

Should we put Rhaena Targaryen (daughter of Aenys I) as Lady of Dragonstone in the wiki ?

Jaehaerys I Targaryen gifted her the lands but he never named her "Princess of Dragonstone" like heirs of the Iron Throne tends to be.

We could mention in the LoD and PoD articles that she held the castle, at least. Rhaena's article could state something like "It is unknown if she was regarded as Lady of Dragonstone."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I have added the title of Prince to Daemon I Blackfyre. As I was re-reading D&E (because I had nothing else to do since I've been laid off). 

https://i.gyazo.com/0366253ad02fb46d71ad19df37143ae2.png

Though not referred to as such by the Targaryens, he was the legitimized son of a king. Legitimized while that king was alive. And as a son he would have been granted full rights to at least that title. If nothing else, it seems that Eustace Osgrey (and by extension the Black Dragon's followers) did consider him a prince.

Is this an acceptable addition? I can remove it if it is not.

Edited by Widowmaker94

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Widowmaker94 said:

 (because I had nothing else to do since I've been laid off)

That stinks :(

19 minutes ago, Widowmaker94 said:

Is this an acceptable addition? I can remove it if it is not.

Should be fine! In addition to your excerpt:

Quote

Daemon stood straight and proud, and his stomach was flat and hard as an oaken shield. And he could fight . With ax or lance or flail, he was as good as any knight I ever saw, but with the sword he was the Warrior himself. When Prince Daemon had Blackfyre in his hand, there was not a man to equal him ... not Ulrick Dayne with Dawn, no, nor even the Dragonknight with Dark Sister.

Yandel also refers to him as a bastard prince:

Quote

It has been said in the years after Daemon Blackfyre proved a traitor that his hatred of Daeron began to grow early. It was Aegon's desire—not Daemon's—that he be wed to Rohanne of Tyrosh. Instead, Daemon had developed a passion for Daeron's sister, young Princess Daenerys. Only two years younger than Daemon, the princess supposedly loved the bastard prince in turn, if the singers can be believed, but neither Aegon IV nor Daeron II were willing to let such feelings rule in matters of state. Aegon saw more profit in a tie to Tyrosh, perhaps because its fleet would be of use if he made another attempt to conquer Dorne.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When editing some pages, I saw a warning I had not seen before:

Warning: This page contains too many expensive parser function calls.

It should have less than 100 calls, there are now X calls.

With the X differing between the pages.

 

Now, the page seems to display just fine, but in case it might start to cause trouble, could perhaps the minimum be increased?

And, could someone explain what exactly 'expensive parser function calls' are? My knowledge on wiki-editing has increased much over the years, but the exact meaning of this phrase is still unclear to me, so an explanation would be very much appreciated :)

Share this post


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

And, could someone explain what exactly 'expensive parser function calls' are?

Here's a list of parser functions: https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Help:Extension:ParserFunctions

If you search for "expensive" you'll find which one are considered expensive and subject to a limit per page.

Which page is showing this?

Share this post


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

Here's a list of parser functions: https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Help:Extension:ParserFunctions

If you search for "expensive" you'll find which one are considered expensive and subject to a limit per page.

Which page is showing this?

So far I've seen the warning only on the calculation pages, the URL below linking to the first of four:

http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Years_after_Aegon's_Conquest/Calculations_Ages

 

The page you linked only identifies #ifexist: as an expensive parser function. 

Could this point to the number of references used on the page?

Share this post


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

So far I've seen the warning only on the calculation pages, the URL below linking to the first of four:

http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Years_after_Aegon's_Conquest/Calculations_Ages

 

The page you linked only identifies #ifexist: as an expensive parser function. 

Could this point to the number of references used on the page?

I'm quite certain the culprit is Template:Date. It was recently updated by User:Xeno of Carcosa and it contains quite a few calls to #ifexist.

A few months ago I implemented this template using a Lua module, but it was reverted because of errors. I never saw these errors so I don't know what it was.

In any case, we should probably revert to the last stable revision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am going through categories at the moment, and I am wondering if the members of the Rainbow Guard should have Category:Members of the Kingsguard.

Loras is already in Category:Lords Commander of the Kingsguard, so the wiki already sees the Rainbow Guard as an equivalent to the Kingsguard, and members of claimant Kingsguard such as Glendon Goode and Rolly Duckfield are in Category:Members of the Kingsguard.

So it would be right to add Brienne, Robar Royce, Parmen Crane, etc. to Category:Members of the Kingsguard? Just asking here before I do add it to their pages. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are a new and separate order. I wouldn't equate the two.

Share this post


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

They are a new and separate order. I wouldn't equate the two.

Should Loras be removed from Category:Lords Commander of the Kingsguard, then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Vaith said:

Should Loras be removed from Category:Lords Commander of the Kingsguard, then?

Yes, I'd remove him from that as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only mention of Rogar Bolton is this:

Yet in the end, even the Dreadfort fell before the might of Winterfell, and the last Red King, known to history as Rogar the Huntsman, swore fealty to the King of Winter and sent his sons to Winterfell as hostages, even as the first Andals were crossing the narrow sea in their longships.

Is this enough to name Rogar a "Lord of the Dreadfort", or should he be removed from that category?

Share this post


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

Is this enough to name Rogar a "Lord of the Dreadfort", or should he be removed from that category?

Do you take the quote as he wasn't the head of House Bolton anymore and thus it wasn't him who became the first Lord of the Dreadfort ? If not I don't see why we should doubt he wasn't the first person to held this title.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Thomaerys Velaryon said:

Do you take the quote as he wasn't the head of House Bolton anymore and thus it wasn't him who became the first Lord of the Dreadfort ? If not I don't see why we should doubt he wasn't the first person to held this title.

He most definitely was the head of House Bolton as the Red King.

I was wondering whether we could be certain that he was allowed to keep his position after giving up his crown, but I suppose that the fact that he was the person to swear fealty indicates that he was, in fact, allowed to remain at the Dreadfort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/15/2019 at 4:36 PM, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

The only mention of Rogar Bolton is this:

Yet in the end, even the Dreadfort fell before the might of Winterfell, and the last Red King, known to history as Rogar the Huntsman, swore fealty to the King of Winter and sent his sons to Winterfell as hostages, even as the first Andals were crossing the narrow sea in their longships.

Is this enough to name Rogar a "Lord of the Dreadfort", or should he be removed from that category?

I wouldn't be surprised if he already carried the title before kneeling, since Starks called themselves Lords of Winterfell before submitting to the Targaryens. 

Quote

The first Lords of Winterfell had been men hard as the land they ruled. In the centuries before the Dragonlords came over the sea, they had sworn allegiance to no man, styling themselves the Kings in the North. (AGOT Eddard I)

 

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

×