Jump to content

The ASOIAF wiki thread


Onion Knight
 Share

Recommended Posts

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

Link to comment
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?

Link to comment
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.


Link to comment
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?


Link to comment
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

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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?

Link to comment
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).


Link to comment
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


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...