Jump to content
Onion Knight

The ASOIAF wiki thread

Recommended Posts

First of all let me say that before Dimadick started on these articles most of them were very summary and without references. So I think his work improved them. Also we don't "do something about somebody". We try to improve the wiki!

Back on topic: yes I would say that the articles are getting somewhat too large. In the example above of Aliser Thorne's meeting with the council we do not need the complete dialogue. His demand and the reaction should be enough with the possible addition of Tyrion's motives.

How long and detailed an perfect articles is... Hmm that is a difficult question. We use the articles of Jaime and of Tyrion as models how we want articles to be but this is not exact. Generally speaking and article should not contain a lot of dialogues. Including dialogues or quotes in an article can be useful but we should keep in mind that the article is about somebody or something; it is not the book itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I'll agree that "do something about him" was a bad choice of words. The user is clearly very dedicated to the Wiki, and we wouldn't necessarily want to lose someone with such passion. Still, I think that we need to get it across to him (or her) in one way or another that the articles he's writing do not fit the guidelines, before he does the same with too many other pages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all let me say that before Dimadick started on these articles most of them were very summary and without references. So I think his work improved them. Also we don't "do something about somebody". We try to improve the wiki!

Back on topic: yes I would say that the articles are getting somewhat too large. In the example above of Aliser Thorne's meeting with the council we do not need the complete dialogue. His demand and the reaction should be enough with the possible addition of Tyrion's motives.

The conversation between Alliser, Tyrion, Pycelle, Varys, and Petyr goes beyond the request. It includes a volley of insults, information on public reaction to the Watch and its claims, and ends with a Kingsguard and Bronn having to intervene to prevent Tyrion from being assaulted. Other than the length is it a particular aspect of the section which you find I mishandled or misrepresented. Have you any particular summary in mind?

How long and detailed an perfect articles is... Hmm that is a difficult question. We use the articles of Jaime and of Tyrion as models how we want articles to be but this is not exact.

I would not call the article on Tyrion a model. In fact it has long frustrated me, but I keep away from editing articles on POV characters.

*The History section mentions "Tyrion finds himself excluded from regular family life" and makes no mention of his rather positive interactions with his uncles and aunt.

*While the sections on "Game" and "Clash" are detailed, some of the content is unreferenced. The entire paragraph on preparations for the Battle of the Blackwater has no reference, and the concluding phrase "Tyrion suspects that Cersei was behind the assassination attempt." has no reference.

*The section on "Storm" is underdeveloped. His entire interaction with Oberyn is limited to two lines, his emotional confrontation with Jaime has one (unreferenced) line, and his escape seems entirely unreferenced.

*The section on "Feast" is short, entirely unreferenced and speculative. "He is regarded by most... ". How do we know?

*The section on "Dance" is not too bad, but misses a bit on key information.

**The entire storyline of Tyrion deducing the identities of Aegon and Jon is not mentioned. The encounter with the Stone men is mentioned but without mentioning its lasting consequences. That it exposes Tyrion to greyscale, and he continues piercing himself for most of the book, looking for signs of infection.

**"Penny joins the pair as they travel to Meereen" In the text, Jorah mentions that Tyrion insisted on taking the girl with them: " You were the one who insisted that we bring her"

The "relationships" section includes information that should probably be in History and the book-events sections. At least to offer a chronological view of events and interactions. But it also has referencing problems of its own. There are five paragraphs on the relationship of Tyrion and Cersei. Only two short lines contain references. The relationship with Jaime contains three short paragraphs and only one reference. The section on his uncles is entirely unreferenced, and I am not certain we have actually seen Kevan be "respectful" of Tyrion.

The quote section is one of the largest in the Wiki with 9 quotes (and 8 references between them).

I mostly took this featured article as an example of what to avoid.

Generally speaking and article should not contain a lot of dialogues. Including dialogues or quotes in an article can be useful

The dialogues are often what give us the necessary, enlightening information on situations and characters, and the context of this information. I agree on not using a lot of direct quotes, and I typically attempt to paraphrase whatever is mentioned outside of the "quote" section.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would not call the article on Tyrion a model. In fact it has long frustrated me, but I keep away from editing articles on POV characters.

I mostly took this featured article as an example of what to avoid.

Ofcourse you are allowed your opinion about the Tyion article but it was suggested as feature article by a number of users. So it is what they feel an article should be. And we have agreed a long time ago that we use the feature articles as models.

I agree that your paraphrase of Thorne's meeting with the council goes beyound his request. That is exactly what I find fault in it. The article should be about Thorne and what he did. That does include every single detail about HOW he did it and all the thought of other about that (How) part. Else it is not a summary anymore but a complete retelling of the books.

For example that Littlefinger makes as a jape about the dangers the Night's watch faces says something about Littlefinger's character and the image of the Night's watch. So include a reference there. Of Thorne it says little to nothing so it should be left out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that your paraphrase of Thorne's meeting with the council goes beyound his request. That is exactly what I find fault in it. The article should be about Thorne and what he did. That does include every single detail about HOW he did it and all the thought of other about that (How) part. Else it is not a summary anymore but a complete retelling of the books.

For example that Littlefinger makes as a jape about the dangers the Night's watch faces says something about Littlefinger's character and the image of the Night's watch. So include a reference there. Of Thorne it says little to nothing so it should be left out.

Isn't Petyr one of the decision-makers involved in distributing resources? Then that jape affects policy making. I am intrigued however by the idea of covering the image of the Night's Watch, since several characters do comment on that across the books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't Petyr one of the decision-makers involved in distributing resources? Then that jape affects policy making.

So? How is that relevant? Remember the article is about Thorne. This is not the article "Reception of the Night's Watch request by the Small Council with all comments"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I noticed that on the wiki there are more people who think that some of the articles are getting too large:

And I think KamiShikkaku's opinion has not changed nor has mine so I hope we can conclude this discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm of the same mind. The articles are getting to the point where you don't really have to read the books to know everything about a character, and that's certainly too much. Get the essentials down, that's my view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Skahaz and Mirri Maz Duur are definitely way OTT in their summaries of the characters. I'd definitely suggest cutting those back.

However, Aegon looks mostly fine to me. The actual summary-of-what-he-does-in-the-books is comparatively brief and the rest is dedicated to background, context and his family descent. It's actually pretty reasonable, and in line with character pages on numerous other wikis for other franchises. It's unusual only that it's quite in-depth for a character with comparatively little 'screen time' so far, although his impact on the story is obviously huge. The one thing I'd shrink is the 'death' section, which is way too long for a very brief event. His ADWD plot summary is fairly in-depth and perhaps could be trimmed a little in. In terms of layout and info given, though, it's pretty good.

Edited by Werthead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll go through the articles when I am done with the images.

And now for something completely different: as of this day we have 5000 articles!!!

Congrats everybody!!! :cheers:

Edited by Scafloc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the impression that the maintenance reports are not ok. For instance the Uncategorized files report has no results. That would mean that every files has been added to a category. That seems to be good to be true.

This page may give some clues how to fix it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congrats Scafloc. More than anyone you should get some credit for seeing it from near start to present. You're the only one I've seen other than Ran and maybe Werthead who stuck through it. Too bad they won't give you a title on the boards because I would nominate The Great Shepherd as your new one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're the only one I've seen other than Ran and maybe Werthead who stuck through it

To be fair, I haven't done much work on the WoIaF. Most of my wiki time has been on the TV-specific Wiki.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congrats Scafloc. More than anyone you should get some credit for seeing it from near start to present. You're the only one I've seen other than Ran and maybe Werthead who stuck through it. Too bad they won't give you a title on the boards because I would nominate The Great Shepherd as your new one.

Hi TPG, good to see you back!

Really lots of people helped out. We began in 2007 with a few articles copied from wikipedia. Then started changing them and adding new ones. If you look back at our first pages it really amazing how far we have come.

Especially the last few years the quality has gone up!

Edited by Scafloc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The screencap is not there anymore. Is the problem solved? if not do you have an example of a page where it occurs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried all the regular different skins to see if I could recreate the error but to no avail. I also checked if you have a personal skin (with code to would explain the layout) but nothing. So I have no clue what causes this. Sorry

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

×