Jump to content
Onion Knight

The ASOIAF wiki thread

Recommended Posts

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).

Any opinions about this merger?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, separate entries. Whilst they are the same person technically, I think they should be viewed like Catelyn and Lady Stoneheart; i.e. two different personas, with separate entries.

With Barristan and Arstan, I would leave the pages as one though, and simply state something like: "...joined Daenerys Targaryen, under the false guise of a squire, Arstan Whitebeard."

In terms of the Aegon Targaryen split, you mean one page for the baby, another for the boy now.in the Stormlands? In.which case I agree. Even if he is the real deal I think it makes sense, at least until his story is confirmed. Can't check the page right now, but I do seem to recall when reading it that it felt slightly messy/out of sync. Even if not given two pages, I think his entry needs work (I'll take a further look later, when I have my.laptop)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, separate entries. Whilst they are the same person technically, I think they should be viewed like Catelyn and Lady Stoneheart; i.e. two different personas, with separate entries.

With Barristan and Arstan, I would leave the pages as one though, and simply state something like: "...joined Daenerys Targaryen, under the false guise of a squire, Arstan Whitebeard."

In terms of the Aegon Targaryen split, you mean one page for the baby, another for the boy now.in the Stormlands? In.which case I agree. Even if he is the real deal I think it makes sense, at least until his story is confirmed. Can't check the page right now, but I do seem to recall when reading it that it felt slightly messy/out of sync. Even if not given two pages, I think his entry needs work (I'll take a further look later, when I have my.laptop)

Sounds good to me. My concern is for spoiler purposes - most topics have now successfully been described in Recent Events by book, but having something like the three-eyed crow directly link to Brynden Rivers would spoil someone who is just looking for TEC content from the earlier books. I think there is enough content in ACOK and ASOS to allow a separate Arstan article, but it is less vital than the other splits. After all, I don't think we need separate articles for Arya's personas.

Thanks for looking into Aegon / Young Griff! Maybe "Aegon Targaryen (son of Rhaegar)" could discuss the infant traditionally believed to have been slain by Gregor, and the youth from ADWD could be "Aegon Targaryen (Young Griff)" or "Aegon VI Targaryen" (although I don't think GRRM has published that phrasing yet).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aegon is not yet crowned, so he's not yet Aegon VI Targaryen..

The difference between Arya's personas and Arstan Whitebeard, is that the reader knows it is Arya, whereas that wasn't he case with Selmy. So perhaps Arstan needs a separate article indeed.

Edited by Rhaenys_Targaryen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aegon is not yet crowned, so he's not yet Aegon VI Targaryen..

The difference between Arya's personas and Arstan Whitebeard, is that the reader knows it is Arya, whereas that wasn't he case with Selmy. So perhaps Arstan needs a separate article indeed.

Good points!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I removed this from the Arya Stark page, due to it coming from the Winds chapter:


*[[Rafford|Raff the Sweetling]]. Killed by Arya under her guise of "Mercy" at the [[Gate]], a mummers playhall in [[braavos]].


Since there are people who actively try to avoid the spoiler chapters, I think it unfair if they come across this info accidentally.



I've looked at the Aegon page and definitely think it would benefit from being two separate pages - although I'm not sure how you title them. Either that or it needs a complete rethink. The format just seems somewhat cluttered and disorganised. I'll have a think about how to change a=it and come back with my ideas.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I removed this from the Arya Stark page, due to it coming from the Winds chapter:

*[[Rafford|Raff the Sweetling]]. Killed by Arya under her guise of "Mercy" at the [[Gate]], a mummers playhall in [[braavos]].

Since there are people who actively try to avoid the spoiler chapters, I think it unfair if they come across this info accidentally.

I've looked at the Aegon page and definitely think it would benefit from being two separate pages - although I'm not sure how you title them. Either that or it needs a complete rethink. The format just seems somewhat cluttered and disorganised. I'll have a think about how to change a=it and come back with my ideas.

The thing is, every single page has TWOW spoilers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is, every single page has TWOW spoilers.

It should be contained to TWOW spoiler chapter pages imo. Not everyone wants to read the spoiler stuff, and if they happen to look at say Arya's page (which is hardly obscure or unpopular) they will be spoiled. It should be avoided where possible I think (plus, as I understand it the spoiler material shouldn't be on the wiki (outside of the appropriate pages) until it is actually published. Since unpublished stuff is sunject to change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The society originated in the volcanic slave mines of Valyria, prior to the founding of Braavos and the Doom of Valyria. The tale of its beginnings centers around a figure of unknown origins who was the first Faceless Man. This man heard the prayers of the slaves to their various gods and came to conclude that they all prayed to the same god "with a hundred different faces", the Many-Faced God, and that he was "that god's instrument". This led to him giving "the first gift" to the most desperate slave. The first Faceless Man later brought the gift to the masters as well,[1] leading many fans to speculate that the society was somehow involved in the Doom.[2]



About the bolded part.. "leading many fans to speculate..." the source for that leads to a thread here on the forum.. Does this count as speculation, and should it thus be removed?



ETA: because I forgot to bold the text... :)


Edited by Rhaenys_Targaryen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good..

Especially since I referred to a bolded part I had fogotten to bold :p

I knew what you meant ;)

But know also that I am little miss raincloud when it comes to the wiki :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question on the family trees as they are currently displayed on the wiki.


For example, the page of Rhaegar Targaryen, the family tree there is wider that the actual page, causing only part of the tree to be displayed. If you wish to see the right side of the tree, you need to actively slide the tree over to that side.



Shouldn't we make the family trees in such a way that this doesn't happen anymore? I suppose dividing trees in only 3 generations per tree would make things somewhat better to read, and if necessary, multiple trees can be placed per page.



What do you guys think?


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The society originated in the volcanic slave mines of Valyria, prior to the founding of Braavos and the Doom of Valyria. The tale of its beginnings centers around a figure of unknown origins who was the first Faceless Man. This man heard the prayers of the slaves to their various gods and came to conclude that they all prayed to the same god "with a hundred different faces", the Many-Faced God, and that he was "that god's instrument". This led to him giving "the first gift" to the most desperate slave. The first Faceless Man later brought the gift to the masters as well,[1] leading many fans to speculate that the society was somehow involved in the Doom.[2]

About the bolded part.. "leading many fans to speculate..." the source for that leads to a thread here on the forum.. Does this count as speculation, and should it thus be removed?

ETA: because I forgot to bold the text... :)

In this case I do not think the fan speculation is very important. But in some cases the fact that fans speculate on something is noteworthy.

For instance Jon's parentage. Without at least nothing that fans speculate a lot about it the articile about Jon can never be complete.

Please take note that the wiki is not restricted to the content of the books. We also write about the reception, critics and so. In the case of Jon's parentage the fan speculation should definitetely be part of the Jon article.

Edited by Scafloc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question on the family trees as they are currently displayed on the wiki.

For example, the page of Rhaegar Targaryen, the family tree there is wider that the actual page, causing only part of the tree to be displayed. If you wish to see the right side of the tree, you need to actively slide the tree over to that side.

Shouldn't we make the family trees in such a way that this doesn't happen anymore? I suppose dividing trees in only 3 generations per tree would make things somewhat better to read, and if necessary, multiple trees can be placed per page.

What do you guys think?

Yeah I think that would be a good idea, also remove branches to other familys, for example the tree on Rhaegar Targaryen's page has the Baratheon tree in it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any more opinions about my suggestion regarding the family trees?




Also, could someone with more knowledge of the date-template update the template sometime during the next two weeks? Currently, entering, for example, {{Date|300}} gives 300AC, and the World Book has shown that it should be 300 AC, so with a space in between the 300 and the AC. I've tried to figure out how it should be done, but my knowledge of templates isn't all too much, so if someone could do that around the 27th? That'd be great :)


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the dates in all the wiki pages currently seem to be effed, They are all showing up as: {{# if: 209 |209AC }}. See for example: http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/House_Fossoway_of_Cider_Hall

I don't know how fast changes in a template like that should show up on the wiki, but the only difference between the template today, and the template as it was in may that I could see, was one space, which I've deleted.

I fixed the problem with House Fossoway though.. the template there didn't read {{Date|209}}, but {{date|209}}.. It seems the template is capital sensitive?

Did you see the problem on other pages (and do you still see the problem there now)?

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

×