Jump to content
Onion Knight

The ASOIAF wiki thread

Recommended Posts

On 1/23/2021 at 3:44 PM, The Grey Wolf said:

I think we can further narrow the range of years for Vaegon's death. When Aegon III's regents are discussing the succession no one, not even Munkun, brings up Vaegon despite him being the only other male Targaryen left, which means he must have died in or before 132 AC, at which point he'd be sixty-nine, the same age as his father, which is believable.

I'm not sure that we can take the absence of Vaegon being mentioned or considered as a confirmation that he had died previously. He had been ruled out on account of his vows during the Great Council, and that fact had not changed.

Share this post


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

I'm not sure that we can take the absence of Vaegon being mentioned or considered as a confirmation that he had died previously. He had been ruled out on account of his vows during the Great Council, and that fact had not changed.

According to the GC of 101 AC Rhaenyra wouldn't have a claim yet she did so I don't see why the same wouldn't apply to Vaegon. Furthermore, Baelor I was both a Septon and a king without any vow-related issues. Finally, when the succession is being discussed in 132 AC, Vaegon, if alive, would be the only male Targaryen left after Aegon III. I'm pretty sure everyone would prefer an old Archmaester to nothing short of uncertainty, especially since Munkun is the one who argues Baela/Rhaena can't be Aegon III's heirs because they're women yet when asked where they can find more male Targaryens says he has to "research the issue".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Vaegon were still alive when the regents discussed the succession of Aegon III then his name would have come up. However, his fate may have been unclear, so when Munkun gives his 'I'll come back to you' line he may have intended to find out if Vaegon was still alive and/or if he had fathered any male issue they could legitimize. Because if they were truly wanting to go with the male line only Vaegon and/or his descendants would be the only way for them to go. There simply aren't any possible other males through the male line around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is the Dragonknight listed as the predecessor to Duncan the Tall as Lord Commander of the Kingsguard? Sure, Aemon is the last dated LC before Dunk, but there's 50-odd years & several kings between them. Shouldn't it just be stated as unknown or something?

Also, I'm not sure Rohanne Webber should be included as (one of) Dunk's lover(s) when, afawk, they've only shared a kiss (& she's soon enough wed to Gerold Lannister after Eustace Osgrey dies sometime in the 210s).

Edited by Lord Corlys Velaryon
Added Rohanne query

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Lord Corlys Velaryon said:

Why is the Dragonknight listed as the predecessor to Duncan the Tall as Lord Commander of the Kingsguard? Sure, Aemon is the last dated LC before Dunk, but there's 50-odd years & several kings between them. Shouldn't it just be stated as unknown or something?

Also, I'm not sure Rohanne Webber should be included as (one of) Dunk's lover(s) when, afawk, they've only shared a kiss (& she's soon enough wed to Gerold Lannister after Eustace Osgrey dies sometime in the 210s).

Apparently some people decided to put as much content as possible into the infoboxes, so I would not be surprised if some day the article pages do not need any text anymore because the infoboxes cover all information. On a more serious note, the non-immediate predecessors and successors should all be removed from the boxes. That was the decision of one editor and many others argued against it. @direpupy was so kind to remove it in this case.

The lover section... well, I have to admit I am no big fan of that one either. It is way to vague to include in a place that should just give the most important information. One could discuss a paramour lable, but even that is another step into a wrong direction in my opinion, because it makes the boxes just more convoluted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/4/2021 at 3:46 PM, The Wondering Wolf said:

Apparently some people decided to put as much content as possible into the infoboxes, so I would not be surprised if some day the article pages do not need any text anymore because the infoboxes cover all information. On a more serious note, the non-immediate predecessors and successors should all be removed from the boxes. That was the decision of one editor and many others argued against it. @direpupy was so kind to remove it in this case.

The lover section... well, I have to admit I am no big fan of that one either. It is way to vague to include in a place that should just give the most important information. One could discuss a paramour lable, but even that is another step into a wrong direction in my opinion, because it makes the boxes just more convoluted.

Agreed, infoboxes are meant to provide a brief overview about a character. If a predecessor/successor field is deemed necessary, it should be modeled off of Wikipedia's method, where it's located at the bottom of the page.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/7/2020 at 8:31 AM, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

I agree. I don't know who added it, but I will remove it.

Thanks.

However, in the family tree of House Stark's page it's still mentioned Brandon Stark's supposed bastard children, although it was already removed from the family tree in his page. 

I also noticed that in House Stark's page, in the Historical Members section, the birth orders of Sansa (daughter of Rickon) and Serena and Arrana and Aregelle Stark are switched, and that it says there that "Lord Jonnel Stark, known as One-Eye, married both Lady Robyn Ryswell and Lady Sansa Stark." when now we known that it was Sansa his first wife, while Robyn was his second.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Old Valyria said:

Thanks.

However, in the family tree of House Stark's page it's still mentioned Brandon Stark's supposed bastard children, although it was already removed from the family tree in his page. 

I also noticed that in House Stark's page, in the Historical Members section, the birth orders of Sansa (daughter of Rickon) and Serena and Arrana and Aregelle Stark are switched, and that it says there that "Lord Jonnel Stark, known as One-Eye, married both Lady Robyn Ryswell and Lady Sansa Stark." when now we known that it was Sansa his first wife, while Robyn was his second.

I don't see any potential issue depicted for Brandon.

For Jonnel Stark, the texts accurately depicts the order of his marriage:

Lord Jonnel Stark, known as One-Eye, married first to his half-niece Lady Sansa Stark and second to Lady Robyn Ryswell.

If this is not the text you see, try clearing your cache.

 

Arrana and Aregelle are depicted correctly. Arrana was the elder of the two.

Sansa and Serena are also depicted correctly, as it has been confirmed that the order as presented in the book is incorrect compared to Martin's notes for the tree. Sansa was the elder of the two.

 

Can you let me know if clearing your cache worked?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This "Young Rhaenyra and Alicent" artwork is mind-blowingly good.  Read the thread, where the artist explains they tried to base the clothes and hairstyles from various period pieces like "The Tudors".  

I seriously think we should investigate asking the artist to use it in the wiki:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The intro of Ros's article states:

Although her character was created specifically for the TV series, she is based in part on a character in A Game of Thrones known as the "red-headed whore". Additionally, some of Chataya and Alayaya's roles have been folded into her character. George R. R. Martin has said he will likely work Ros into the books at some point as a cameo.

There are no sources for any of that, and at least the first statement seems very doubtful to me. Just because there were a few sentences about a red-haired whore in King's Landing, it does not mean Ros's character was based on her at all. So unless anyone knows a source for that one, I would propose to remove it. The latter statement should be backed up with a source.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

The intro of Ros's article states:

Although her character was created specifically for the TV series, she is based in part on a character in A Game of Thrones known as the "red-headed whore". Additionally, some of Chataya and Alayaya's roles have been folded into her character. George R. R. Martin has said he will likely work Ros into the books at some point as a cameo.

There are no sources for any of that, and at least the first statement seems very doubtful to me. Just because there were a few sentences about a red-haired whore in King's Landing, it does not mean Ros's character was based on her at all. So unless anyone knows a source for that one, I would propose to remove it. The latter statement should be backed up with a source.

 

It's from a NaB post, i'd find it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The Translations article on the books translated into non-English languages hasn't been updated in almost a decade:

https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Translations

The Wikipedia page it's based on was deleted a few years ago. So I used the Internet Archive to get the most recently saved version, from April 2016, then copy-pasted the updated entries. This was difficult because the archived page doesn't save the wiki code, so I couldn't just copy-paste the whole thing but had to spend over an hour adding it in one at a time.

It doesn't contain any info on The World of Ice & Fire, A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms, or Fire & Blood.

I updated it as best I could quickly slapping what info I could find in there.

Which major languages definitively do not have even a single book translated, as of 2021?

To my knowledge, there has never been a translation in:

  • - Persian / Farsi
  • - Indonesian / Malay
  • - Filipino
  • - Hindi, Marathi, Bengali, etc.

....We can probably skip the Esperanto translation.

Ironically, there's been a MASSIVE surge in popularity for the TV show in India and Southeast Asia since only 2017. That's when HBO finally started promoting it heavily there, and actually produced localized dubs (putting real effort into making a decent Thai dub for the first time in 2017).  In the later seasons of the show, India led the world in online piracy of the show. And according to analytics, this wasn't just casual viewing either; during Season 8, the top 5 countries discussing the show on Instagram (by volume) were the USA, Brazil, UK, India, and Germany. And starting in only 2017, there are YouTube channels in Hindi with hundreds of thousands of views, going through the entire series, but I think much of it is fans trying to make their own amateur translations and explain them to other Hindi speakers. And not just translated dialogue, I'm not sure if there's ever been an official translation for proper nouns and concepts from the books.

EDIT:  Interesting....GRRM himself remarked back in early 2017 that he'd just signed a contract to have the books translated into Azerbaijani (a Turkish language), marking the "47th" language the books have been translated into:

https://grrm.livejournal.com/516673.html

47th, yet a hand count of the wiki's list reveals only 38.  Well, I counted variants as one thing; maybe European and Brazilian Portugese are counted as two different languages? And traditional vs simplified Chinese? Even so we're about half a dozen short.

And GRRM himself states in this specific comment to that blog post from January 2017, that there is no Hindi translation:
 

Quote

 

https://grrm.livejournal.com/516673.html?thread=25640513#t25640513

My books are widely read in India, I am told, but in English. Mainly the UK editions, I believe.

Hindi is probably the biggest language that Ice & Fire has not yet appeared in.

 

 

Edited by The Dragon Demands

Share this post


Link to post
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.


×
×
  • Create New...