Rhaenys_Targaryen Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 Or perhaps, edit behind the message "To see what is allowed, see here", with here linking to a short list stating what is and isn't allowed in that timeframe period.Or don't you think that that is a good way to quickly explain a policy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stannis's Lawyer Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 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 to1. Introduction2. Argument forRefutationRebuttal3. Another argument forRefutationRebuttal4. Argument againstRefutationRebuttal5. Another argument againstRefutationRebuttal6. Unanswered Questions Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhaenys_Targaryen Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 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 to1. Introduction2. Argument forRefutationRebuttal3. Another argument forRefutationRebuttal4. Argument againstRefutationRebuttal5. Another argument againstRefutationRebuttal6. Unanswered QuestionsCould you perhaps link an example page? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stannis's Lawyer Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 Could you perhaps link an example page? Making one now... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stannis's Lawyer Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 Making one now... Can't think of a good one. It needs to be a simple but controversial theory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhaenys_Targaryen Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 Can't think of a good one. It needs to be a simple but controversial theory. You mentioned examples as WT and WP.. No good example page there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stannis's Lawyer Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 You mentioned examples as WT and WP.. No good example page there? No, because WMF wikis are all about facts and education, not theories. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stannis's Lawyer Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nittanian Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 I'm personally not interested in wikifying theories, but a theories page for the hooded man article ("Theon Durden" / Harwin / Hullen / Chayle, etc.) could be made if anyone is interested. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HelenaExMachina Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 I agree that there really isn't a need to make a wiki page for theories. Isn't the whole point of the wiki that it gives "facts" as they are laid out in the book? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhaenys_Targaryen Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 Yes, it is. Personally, I'm not that happy with theories on the wiki either.. that's what the forums are for :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stannis's Lawyer Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 I agree that there really isn't a need to make a wiki page for theories. Isn't the whole point of the wiki that it gives "facts" as they are laid out in the book? It's sort of because a wiki format makes it much easier to see the arguments, refutations, and rebuttals than reading an entire thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makrell Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 i think that theories ca n be on wikis. the myateries of the books are fit for wiking. i like the jon snow/theories page and indeed high sparrow/theories deserves one too. as well as Robert Strong/theories Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HelenaExMachina Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nittanian Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhaenys_Targaryen Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linda Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 Follow the policy and answer questions in this thread, so people can be referred to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nittanian Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 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). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scafloc Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.