Jump to content
Onion Knight

The ASOIAF wiki thread

Recommended Posts

On 1-5-2016 at 1:00 AM, Nittanian said:

I believe it is to emulate the round shields often used by Dornishmen.

 

On 2-5-2016 at 9:16 PM, The Wondering Wolf said:

I even think that it came from GRRM himself.

 

Would it be an idea to use banners instead of shields for the houses? To make the presentation of the sigils more consistent?

Share this post


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

Would it be an idea to use banners instead of shields for the houses? To make the presentation of the sigils more consistent?

I would ask Ran or Linda, they can tell you the reson for the round shields for sure. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Ran According to the maps released in A Feast for Crows and A Dance with Dragons Felwood is located south of the Wendwater, but on the stormlands map in The World of Ice and Fire it's located where the river originates. Can you tell the actual position of the castle?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/6/2016 at 3:26 PM, The Wondering Wolf said:

@Ran According to the maps released in A Feast for Crows and A Dance with Dragons Felwood is located south of the Wendwater, but on the stormlands map in The World of Ice and Fire it's located where the river originates. Can you tell the actual position of the castle?

Alas, Yandel barely scrimped by to get his cartography link.

(I.E. go with the ASoIaF books on that one.)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a non-canon Baratheon family tree hosted on the wiki that got picked up by some clickbait "news" sites recently. After a bit I figured out that it and some others are from this userpage. What's the wiki's policy on hosting images that are techically someone's fanfic? Especially when it has such an official-looking name as "BaratheonTree.jpg". Personally I think they should be deleted (and if the user still wants to keep them on his page he can host them on imgur.com or something). But what do others think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Mindset said:

There's a non-canon Baratheon family tree hosted on the wiki that got picked up by some clickbait "news" sites recently. After a bit I figured out that it and some others are from this userpage. What's the wiki's policy on hosting images that are techically someone's fanfic? Especially when it has such an official-looking name as "BaratheonTree.jpg". Personally I think they should be deleted (and if the user still wants to keep them on his page he can host them on imgur.com or something). But what do others think?

Despite the user who created them stating that they are not canon, that clearly isn't enough. It is apparently causing some confusion. As well, multiple non-canon sources are used to create that tree. So no, I don't think the wiki is necessarily the right place to display such a tree (even if it is only on a userpage).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Characters who are listed only in the appendix of a book, are currently listed as having been mentioned in that book. Would it be an idea to list those cases as (appendix) instead? That would prevent any confusion about where in the text a character was mentioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No opinions?
 

On 13-5-2016 at 4:38 PM, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

Characters who are listed only in the appendix of a book, are currently listed as having been mentioned in that book. Would it be an idea to list those cases as (appendix) instead? That would prevent any confusion about where in the text a character was mentioned.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think that's reasonable.

And yes, that tree -- however nice it looks -- isn't appropriate, as it drew on MUSH information which is not necessarily canonical. I'm not sure who has the ability to permanently remove images. I believe I recall there were a handful of others from the same user as well, of similar type, which also should be removed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Ran,

Thank you for the feedback :)

Also a question, if you don't mind. In The World of Ice and Fire, the chapter on Aerys II states that the Tourney at Harrenhal was announced in 281 AC, but the next chapter (The Year of the False Spring) states that the tourney was announced first in late 280 AC. Would you be willing to clarify this? Since both sound like a first announcement.

 

The relevant quotes:

Aerys Targaryen and Tywin Lannister had met as boys, had fought and bled together in the War of the Ninepenny Kings, and had ruled the Seven Kingdoms together for close to twenty years, but in 281 AC this long partnership, which had proved so fruitful to the realm, came to a bitter end.

Shortly thereafter, Lord Walter Whent announced plans for a great tourney to be held at his seat at Harrenhal, to celebrate his maiden daughter's nameday.

(TWOIAF: The Targaryen Kings: Aerys II)

 

This is known: The tourney was first announced by Walter Whent, Lord of Harrenhal, late in the year 280 AC, not long after a visit from his younger brother, Ser Oswell Whent, a knight of the Kingsguard.

(TWOIAF: The Fall of the Dragons: The Year of the False Spring)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't easily untangle that one, as both are from material George wrote, and we missed the discrepancy. But 281 is certainly the year of the False Spring, so I guess the question is if it being announced late in 280 or early in 281 makes more sense.

Looking through my files, I'll tenatively say 280 simply because that date was the last one he provided. May have been an error on his part, or may have been he forgot about the date being given earlier, but it's the latest, so... there's that. That said, I'd call it tenative until such time as TWoIaF has an edition that corrects it, or I otherwise find out otherwise, as this is one we need to run past George.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Ran said:

Can't easily untangle that one, as both are from material George wrote, and we missed the discrepancy. But 281 is certainly the year of the False Spring, so I guess the question is if it being announced late in 280 or early in 281 makes more sense.

Looking through my files, I'll tenatively say 280 simply because that date was the last one he provided. May have been an error on his part, or may have been he forgot about the date being given earlier, but it's the latest, so... there's that. That said, I'd call it tenative until such time as TWoIaF has an edition that corrects it, or I otherwise find out otherwise, as this is one we need to run past George.

Thank you.

Are you still planning on releasing an official errata for the earlier prints, or is that plan no longer in the works?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's such a lack of time these days that I don't know when it'll ever be done, I'm afraid.

Share this post


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

And yes, that tree -- however nice it looks -- isn't appropriate, as it drew on MUSH information which is not necessarily canonical. I'm not sure who has the ability to permanently remove images. I believe I recall there were a handful of others from the same user as well, of similar type, which also should be removed.

Thank you. I've deleted those family tree images off the wiki -- which seems to have deleted the source files as well, I think, as there's a 404 when you go to the direct links now. But as a courtesy to the user who uploaded them (since I didn't know if he retained his own copies) I've made copies on a free image hosting site and put those on his userpage. That should hopefully resolve things there. :)

 

Share this post


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

Can't easily untangle that one, as both are from material George wrote, and we missed the discrepancy. But 281 is certainly the year of the False Spring, so I guess the question is if it being announced late in 280 or early in 281 makes more sense.

Looking through my files, I'll tenatively say 280 simply because that date was the last one he provided. May have been an error on his part, or may have been he forgot about the date being given earlier, but it's the latest, so... there's that. That said, I'd call it tenative until such time as TWoIaF has an edition that corrects it, or I otherwise find out otherwise, as this is one we need to run past George.

@Rhaenys_Targaryen

Perhaps it could work like this: in 280 Lord Whent announced his intent to host a tourney, presumably when the winter broke. And then in 281, presumably with the winter (temporarily) breaking, he announced the official dates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Ran The Citadel's House Glover entry says, "Robett Glover rules the house, although he seems to share power with his brother Galbart." The newer appendices clarify that Galbart is the "Master of Deepwood Motte", however. "Sybelle" is also misspelled once as "Sybella" in the spoilers section.

 

Also, it is often claimed on fora that the Glovers and Tallharts are of a "masterly" rank equivalent to the southron landed knight. Do you know if this is what GRRM intends? The Velaryons and Borrells are both lords and masters, however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, long ago when we were hashing out this stuff, GRRM's indicated that the "master" title -- at least in the north -- was his way of indicating the equivalent of a landed knightly house, like the way the Templetons are Knights of Sevenstars. The Glovers and Tallharts are never called lords, one notes.

I can't speak with a certainty what this means in the south, although it's possible that basically they hold multiple feudal stations -- Lord of the Tides is obviously feudal lordship over some jurisdiction, Master of Driftmark is a great knightly holding, etc -- or is simply a style used by some lords. Curiously, both examples given are island lords. We never quite discover what "Lord of the Tides" actually _means_ in practical terms, for example the jurisdiction in which they have the right of pit and gallows. Or maybe it's even a notion that lords of small islands tend to try to big themselves up by tacking on additional titles ...

Edited by Ran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17/5/2016 at 5:37 PM, Ran said:

The Glovers and Tallharts are never called lords, one notes.

One question: is there a proper way of address to the wife of a master, or even a female master? I ask this because I'm unsure of whether the Sybelle Glover's article should be corrected:

Lady Sybelle Glover, originally from House Locke, is the wife of Robett Glover and the mother of Gawen and Erena Glover. In the absence of the brothers Galbart and Robett, Sybelle is the Lady of Deepwood Motte.

Sybelle is called "Lady Sybelle" a couple of times in ADWD. But still, the term "Lady of Deepwood Motte" seems odd, since there are no "lords of Deepwood Motte". I wonder if this should be changed to something like "Mistress of Deepwood Motte"? Sybelle being called a lady could be attributed to her coming from House Locke.

Or a female master is just called a "lady" and that's all?

Edited by The hairy bear

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

×