Jump to content
Onion Knight

The ASOIAF wiki thread

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

Speaking of theories, the Brandon Stark page currently discusses the possibility of him having been knighted. Does that count as a theory?

It feels like there's no evidence to speak of for it, so... a theory needs some genuine grounding in something. The fact that brandon's never referred to as "Ser Brandon" by anyone is a pretty big tell. The fact that GRRM references Ned being a squire as not meaning he was going to be a knight, too.

There really needs to be more to something for it to be a legitimate theory for the purposes of the wiki.

Share this post


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

It feels like there's no evidence to speak of for it, so... a theory needs some genuine grounding in something. The fact that brandon's never referred to as "Ser Brandon" by anyone is a pretty big tell. The fact that GRRM references Ned being a squire as not meaning he was going to be a knight, too.

There really needs to be more to something for it to be a legitimate theory for the purposes of the wiki.

Ok. I removed the section.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ack, I just dashed off the "Harpy" theory page from memory to get the ball rolling....looking over it with fresh eyes today, it's not really presentable (it wasn't meant to be) and I'll sit down to thoroughly add in citations/rewrite it from scratch.  I'm not satisfied with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, here is the totally revised theory page.  It may need to be retitled.  It's really just writing up, on the wiki itself here, the Meereenest Blot theory:


http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/The_Harpy/Theories

This version has citations in it and is more concise - I hope.

Edited by The Dragon Demands

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've started busting up the "Organizations" super-template into smaller ones (I made the huge one in imitation of the "Creatures" template which has everything in it).

http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Template:Political_factions

Turns out there was already a basic "Sellsword Companies" template years ago, it was just never added to everything.  I want to update it to include a sub-field for "Assassin's Guilds":

http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Template_talk:Sellsword_companies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, The Dragon Demands said:

Okay, here is the totally revised theory page.  It may need to be retitled.  It's really just writing up, on the wiki itself here, the Meereenest Blot theory:


http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/The_Harpy/Theories

This version has citations in it and is more concise - I hope.

The theory is about the identity of the Harpy. So the poisoned locusts should be removed from its introduction entirely, as “who provided the poisoned locusts” is a different theory. (The locusts-discussion is a larger one, and if you wish to present it on a theory-page, it should receive its own page, discussing 1) who the poisoner is, and 2) who the intended victim was). Subsequently, under Hizdahr subsection, the locusts should be removed, as they add no support no counter-evidence for him being the Harpy.

Main issues with the introduction:

·        The introduction should at first discuss that it is uncertain whether or not there is a Harpy. It is Skahaz who suggests it, while Daenerys is skeptical.{{Ref|adwd|30}} I feel that the introduction should also mention that both the characters in the story, as well as the readers of A Song of Ice and Fire have speculated about the Harpy’s identity, providing he indeed exists, and that the most popular suggestions are discussed below.

·        The poisoned locusts are a different theory, and should be removed from the introduction.

 

Main issues with the text:

  • The counter-arguments under Hizdahr only argue why he cannot have been the one behind the poisoned locusts. There’s nothing there that argues why he cannot be the Harpy.
  • The following point seems contradictory:

Hizdahr has repeatedly argued that peace is in the best interest of the former slave-master familiesMeereen:{{fact}} if Daenerys goes to war with other external slaver powers such as Yunkai, the slave-master families in Meereen itself would still be slaughtered by Daenerys's freedmen before she could be defeated.

How does this prove or imply that Hizdahr is not the Harpy? And the bolded is purely assumption (Daenerys marching towards an enemy on the field does not mean her freedmen will do whatever they like inside the city, and so, Daenerys marching does not necessarily mean that the freedmen will start killing).

  • The section “The "Meereenese Blot" theory: Galazza Galare and Skahaz mo Kandaq” needs a new title (and quite a simple one, “Galazza Galare”, as the entire section basically only suggests her as the Harpy). While the theory as posted on The Meereenese Blot discusses the possible identity of the Harpy, there are others who have other arguments. The theory page should, imo, reflect the overall and general arguments used by the fandom, (or by the characters in the story). Only the section “the identity of the Harpy” can remain, although it requires some expansion (because there are actually arguments that have been made for Galazza other than “she is of old Meereenese blood”). In the explanation of the theory you can mention the Meereenese Blot article, albeit shortly. I’d vote for linking it at the bottom of the page at the very least, under a heading “see also”. Other important threads (for each of the suggestions made on the page, that is), can be linked there as well.
  • As readers have also suggested Skahaz as the Harpy, he should receive his own section, with arguments in favor of the theory, and arguments against the theory.
  • The sections on Xaro, Illyrio, and Varys have remained unchanged. My previous comments on these sections remain the same.
  • Question regarding the options of Xaro, Illyrio and Varys: What are the argumentation of the people who presented the theories? And what are the counter arguments of others (not counting "I don't believe this" etc.) in those discussions?

 

And although there are now a few references, I’m still missing a number. :) Also, the writing style still does not fit with wiki-style overall.

Edited by Rhaenys_Targaryen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Father_(the_Seven) : "The Father represents judgement. He is depicted as a bearded man who carries scales." 

Of course they have scales in Westeros, as Tyrion says "a scale tips two ways". But how do we know Father have a piece of scales? I searched for "father  scales" in asearchoficeandfire.com with no results.

The closest thing I can find is The Song of the Seven:

Quote

The Father's face is stern and strong, he sits and judges right from wrong. He weighs our lives, the short and long, and loves the little children.

2. As Ran said in the following thread, the sigil of House Dayne contains an 8-pointed star now. The sigil description and the image should be updated, namely, File:House_Dayne.svgList_of_houses, and House_Dayne. Moreover, the older version of the image File:DayneCoA.png is used on the pages of many Daynes, which need updates.

 

Edited by zionius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, zionius said:

1. http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Father_(the_Seven) : "The Father represents judgement. He is depicted as a bearded man who carries scales." 

Of course they have scales in Westeros, as Tyrion says "a scale tips two ways". But how do we know Father have a piece of scales? I searched for "father  scales" in asearchoficeandfire.com with no results.

The closest thing I can find is The Song of the Seven:

I don't know how we are treating the "canonicity" of the show's side-material, but the father having scales is explicitly mentioned in one of the narrations from the sixth season dvd's:

The Great Sept was built to impress upon a man how much greater the gods are than him. (...) The Crone  with her lantern for lost souls, the Mother with her welcoming arms, the Father with his scales of justice, the Maiden with her purity, the Warrior with his sword, the Smith with his hammer and lastly the Stranger with his shrouded face.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said:

I put that in the errata thread for F & B V1.

....oh.....darn (darn the error, not you).

Well I've attempted to re-write up the Harpy theory yet again:

http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/The_Harpy/Theories

I feel bad that I let you down and it wasn't good wiki format; I didn't think it WAS, but that some days of refinement would fix it up (not spring forth fully formed like Minerva from Jove's head).

I added in a Skahaz mo Kandaq section, reworded the others.

Oh...to be clear:  even I didn't think Xaro, Ilyrio, or Varys made any sense as candidates.  In past months, I've seen those suggestions floating around on messageboards but never as a coherent theory with good evidence:

I added them to the list purely to discredit them, by listing off why that makes no sense.

If you think they don't even merit inclusion, please remove those candidates.

This brings up a broader question:  when should a theory page "prove a negative"?

That is....if a REALLY crazy theory was gaining widespread attention throughout the audience and messageboards......something ridiculous like "maybe Rhaegar got an annulment from Elia Martell before marrying Lyanna Stark", right?

I would never dignify that theory by including it...as a "positive".  As a real candidate - marriage just doesn't work like that in Westeros.

BUT, I might feel compelled to "include" it....only to write up a "Counter-Argument" section pointing out why that widespread fan theory makes no sense (citations that annulment doesn't work like that). 

So what about including a theory...purely to debunk it?

Like...you'd think Wikipedia.org wouldn't want to dignify a theory that "the Earth is Flat", so why have a page on it?  In order to have a long sub-section, indeed most of that article, explaining "The Flat Earth theory doesn't make sense for the following reasons". 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, The Dragon Demands said:

....oh.....darn (darn the error, not you).

Well I've attempted to re-write up the Harpy theory yet again:

http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/The_Harpy/Theories

I feel bad that I let you down and it wasn't good wiki format; I didn't think it WAS, but that some days of refinement would fix it up (not spring forth fully formed like Minerva from Jove's head).

I added in a Skahaz mo Kandaq section, reworded the others.

Oh...to be clear:  even I didn't think Xaro, Ilyrio, or Varys made any sense as candidates.  In past months, I've seen those suggestions floating around on messageboards but never as a coherent theory with good evidence:

I added them to the list purely to discredit them, by listing off why that makes no sense.

If you think they don't even merit inclusion, please remove those candidates.
 

Would it be OK if I took a shot at editing the page? I feel there are still some  issues, as well as that there are still often-used arguments that are still missing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

I don't know how we are treating the "canonicity" of the show's side-material, but the father having scales is explicitly mentioned in one of the narrations from the sixth season dvd's:

Guess the comic version of TMK, which also featured Father with scales, is more "canonical" than the show. But still, there seems to be no direct information from GRRM...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

Would it be OK if I took a shot at editing the page? I feel there are still some  issues, as well as that there are still often-used arguments that are still missing.

Oh, I was hoping you would.  I don't want to make work for you, but you suggested making Theory pages a few days ago, so I made the "Harpy" one to try to help out getting a start on one of the more important ones.  My hope was that others would improve it beyond my capabilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been tinkering together an obscure article on "Measurement", branching off from "Science and Technology", and inspired by that fact that the Citadel writeups themselves had a "measurement" section:

http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Measurement

I made it mostly just to help out anyone writing their own stuff - like the RPG etc - who wanted to cross check "what units of measurement have they already mentioned, so we don't have to invent on?" i.e. yes they've mentioned "ounces" before, or "feet" but NOT "cubits". 

....I was surprised to be reminded that the "hour of the [animal]" system has been in place since A Feast for Crows (Cersei says "it's the hour of the owl").  I first really noticed them in The Princess and the Queen - probably when I read through them in AFFC and ADWD, I breezed past them thinking it was just a...turn of phrase or something.

Question:  if this has been part of the mythos since AFFC, Elio, has GRRM ever elaborated upon it in other notes you've seen?  Are they only hour names for the night or all 24 hours?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, The Dragon Demands said:

[8] in Units of Area-Hides, should be Chap.66, Tyrion.

As for time measurement, I recently wrote an essay on that matter(in Chinese). Here are some excerpts that might be helpful.

  • Season is determined by the length of daytime at different latitudes. Because the length of daytime goes shorter as we go further north, the Conclave must collect measurements from different latitudes to determine seasons.
Quote

Already the days grow shorter. There can be no mistake, Aemon has had letters from the Citadel, findings in accord with his own. The end of summer stares us in the face.  -AGOT Tyrion III

This one came to tell us that the Conclave has met, considered the reports and measurements made by maesters all over the realm, and declared this great summer done at last. -ACOK Prologue

Dark came early this far north. Bran had come to dread that. Each day seemed shorter than the last. -ADWD Bran I

  • Week is seldom used, only mentioned 16 times, and 13 of them was in AGOT. GRRM preferred to use fortnight, which appeared 121 times.

The wilding Haggon also mentioned "week", so week might originated from the seven wanderers, rather than the seven gods.

GRRM refused to name weekdays, but I guess they are probably named after the seven wanderers, just like many cultures in our history.

Quote

[Jacob] Is there (going to be) any mention of the names of the days in aSoIaF? I assume it's not 'monday, tuesday, etc...'

[+GeorgeRRMartin] to jacob no  -SSM, Dromen & Demonen Chat

  • Hour. Jon slept for four to five hours with headache (ACOK chap.53), and Barristan slept for ten hours a night was considered quite long(ADWD The Discarded knight). So an hour in Westeros is probably the same as on Earth.

Named hours have no clear definitions. And it seems they have names for times at both day and night. 

Quote

They refer to times of day and night, but with rather less specificity than our own numerical system of hours and minutes. -Re:The Hour of the Wolf

  • Minute, second and heartbeat. Most of the time GRRM used heartbeats to describe a short time, but he also used minutes and seconds from time to time. The exact concept of minutes and seconds didn't appear until invention of mechanical clocks. So I guess they might have some clocks in Westeros. After all, medieval Europe also have many mechanical clocks.
  • Timekeeping tools. The sole mentioned tool is sundial in TMK. And they use the Hightower as a sundial in Old Town(AFFC Prologue). The bell towers in Westeros, the Titan in Braavos, and Bells of Norvos probably also have water clock/hourglass/candle clock/mechanical clock to measure time during the night. A real example is the Tower of the Winds built around 50 BC, which featured eight sundials and a water clock.

A friend of mine guessed bat, eel, owl, wolf, etc. are patterns on the timekeeping tools used during the night(they use sundial during the day) to mark hours. That explained they all take place in the night.

Edited by zionius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A question.

Euron Lannister made this change today in the wiki:

But if we bold claimants then people like Aegon (brother of Jaehearys), leanor and his mother Rhaenys should also be bolded since they to where at on point a claimiant of the throne.

And Daemon Blackfyre who is also in the tree should then also be bolded.

However i feel that this can work confusing, so should or should we not bold claimants?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, direpupy said:

A question.

Euron Lannister made this change today in the wiki:

But if we bold claimants then people like Aegon (brother of Jaehearys), leanor and his mother Rhaenys should also be bolded since they to where at on point a claimiant of the throne.

And Daemon Blackfyre who is also in the tree should then also be bolded.

However i feel that this can work confusing, so should or should we not bold claimants?

Bolding claimants might indeed be confusing, especially since it is not done consistently. I'd vote for either differentiating claimants in another way (perhaps writing their names in italic?) or simply not doing anything to point them out at all.

For what it is worth, since not all claimants actually come from House Targaryen and thus are not shown in the family tree (i.e., Daemon's children and grandchildren, as it is a family tree for House Targaryen, not for House Blackfyre), it might be better not to specify them at all. Although Rhaenyra did sit on the Iron Throne for half a year (which might be shown using a note), she is not counted as a monarch in the histories of the Seven Kingdoms, as far as we know.

Btw, Laenor and his mother Rhaenys were never claimants to the throne. They were claimants for the position of Prince (or Princess) of Dragonstone at the Great Council during Jaehaerys I's reign.

And Prince Aegon (Rhaegar and Elia's son) is currently bolded as well, but as of the end of ADWD, he has not yet put forward his claim for the Iron Throne, so that should be changed as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

Bolding claimants might indeed be confusing, especially since it is not done consistently. I'd vote for either differentiating claimants in another way (perhaps writing their names in italic?) or simply not doing anything to point them out at all.

 

I think not pointing them out at all would be best

1 hour ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

For what it is worth, since not all claimants actually come from House Targaryen and thus are not shown in the family tree (i.e., Daemon's children and grandchildren, as it is a family tree for House Targaryen, not for House Blackfyre), it might be better not to specify them at all. Although Rhaenyra did sit on the Iron Throne for half a year (which might be shown using a note), she is not counted as a monarch in the histories of the Seven Kingdoms, as far as we know.

Very true i think we should just bold the actually reining monarch's recognized by they in story historians and leave it at that.

However that does create the problem that Viserys the beggar king and Dany should then be unbolded to. What are your thoughts on that?

1 hour ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

And Prince Aegon (Rhaegar and Elia's son) is currently bolded as well, but as of the end of ADWD, he has not yet put forward his claim for the Iron Throne, so that should be changed as well.

I agree, but as i said there is the problem of Viserys and Dany.

1 hour ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

Btw, Laenor and his mother Rhaenys were never claimants to the throne. They were claimants for the position of Prince (or Princess) of Dragonstone at the Great Council during Jaehaerys I's reign.

By claiming to be they heir to the throne you do actually claim a right to said throne, but if that does or does not make you a claimant is different discussion.

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

×