Jump to content
Onion Knight

The ASOIAF wiki thread

Recommended Posts

Or perhaps, edit behind the message "To see what is allowed, see here", with here linking to a short list stating what is and isn't allowed in that timeframe period.


Or don't you think that that is a good way to quickly explain a policy?


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The current way the theories are organized on the wiki are, to be frank, bad. I propose that we change theory articles to this format:

-Theory: Jon Snow is the son of Rhaegar and Lyanna
-Theory: Howland Reed is the High Sparrow

This is how things are done in most wikis, such as WP (where there is Wikipedia:blah or Help:blah), WT (Thesaurus: Blah, Wiktionary: Blah), and indeed the vast majority of wikis.

And change the content to
1. Introduction
2. Argument for
Refutation
Rebuttal
3. Another argument for
Refutation
Rebuttal

4. Argument against

Refutation

Rebuttal

5. Another argument against

Refutation

Rebuttal
6. Unanswered Questions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The current way the theories are organized on the wiki are, to be frank, bad. I propose that we change theory articles to this format:

-Theory: Jon Snow is the son of Rhaegar and Lyanna

-Theory: Howland Reed is the High Sparrow

This is how things are done in most wikis, such as WP (where there is Wikipedia:blah or Help:blah), WT (Thesaurus: Blah, Wiktionary: Blah), and indeed the vast majority of wikis.

And change the content to

1. Introduction

2. Argument for

Refutation

Rebuttal

3. Another argument for

Refutation

Rebuttal

4. Argument against

Refutation

Rebuttal

5. Another argument against

Refutation

Rebuttal

6. Unanswered Questions

Could you perhaps link an example page?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not doing wiki stuff at all, or only when I'm feeling up to it, but I'd recommend that this theory thing proposed above is expanded in hindsight of TWoIaF.



There will be tons of hard facts to be included eventually, but there will also be theories mentioned, weighed, and dismissed by Maester Yandel, and the wiki should, I think, correctly reflect those things, perhaps also including commentaries how the broader community (i.e. the consensus of the readers - if such a thing exists on the particular topic) judge the proposed theories on various phenomena, developments, and so forth.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, there should be criteria on which theories are accepted or not.



For instance, HR=HS is widely considered a crackpot but as it is (in)famous and believed to be true by many posters, it should be included IMO. But Tywin=Dusky Woman is obviously a joke that should not be included. So where do we draw the line? Should we include Benjen=Daario? What about theories that are confirmed to be wrong but are still believed by many, like Fire-resistant Targaryens or R+L=J+D?


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm personally not interested in wikifying theories, but a theories page for the hooded man article ("Theon Durden" / Harwin / Hullen / Chayle, etc.) could be made if anyone is interested.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that there really isn't a need to make a wiki page for theories. Isn't the whole point of the wiki that it gives "facts" as they are laid out in the book?


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that there really isn't a need to make a wiki page for theories. Isn't the whole point of the wiki that it gives "facts" as they are laid out in the book?

It's sort of because a wiki format makes it much easier to see the arguments, refutations, and rebuttals than reading an entire thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think that theories ca n be on wikis. the myateries of the books are fit for wiking. i like the jon snow/theories page and indeed high sparrow/theories deserves one too. as well as Robert Strong/theories

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A wiki is supposed to be objectively written and identify the facts as they are presented in the books. A theory page would doubtlessly be written with a bias slant (because the person writing it is either for or against) and does not represent facts from the books, but fans interpretations of the facts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A wiki is supposed to be objectively written and identify the facts as they are presented in the books. A theory page would doubtlessly be written with a bias slant (because the person writing it is either for or against) and does not represent facts from the books, but fans interpretations of the facts

Additionally, what about the pages for theories that have been confirmed or disproven? For example, the app has verified that the three-eyed crow is Brynden Rivers, so "Three-eyed crow/Theories" seems redundant at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Additionally, what about the pages for theories that have been confirmed or disproven? For example, the app has verified that the three-eyed crow is Brynden Rivers, so "Three-eyed crow/Theories" seems redundant at this point.

Agreed

I find it difficult to find a brief way to convey the nuance of such a policy, I admit. Any thoughts on that?

Any final word on this (seeing as the book is officially released tomorrow)? Do we follow the policy, and when asked, just refer to it in this thread? Or do we completely abandon the policy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Follow the policy and answer questions in this thread, so people can be referred to it.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Knight of the Mind deleted "three-eyed crow" and added some of its previous content to "Brynden Rivers". Is this preferred? I personally think it would be better to have separate articles (most Bloodraven content is from D&E, the TEC is from ASOIAF, GRRM only makes the connection in ADWD). Similar splits could be done for Catelyn Tully / Lady Stoneheart, Barristan Selmy / Arstan Whitebeard, and Aegon Targaryen / Young Griff (especially if Aegon is a fake).


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't it a better idea to add to the Theories page a remark that clarifies that the theory is proven? That way we can still check why this was -> if you delete a page another user may not be aware of that and could try to add it again


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

×