Wikipedia talk:WikiProject A Song of Ice and Fire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] George's page goes here as well, no?

The Middle-Earth project includes JRRT, so we should usurp GRRM's page as well, should we not? Unless the Fevre Dream Wikiproject has any objections, that is! Arbor 12:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep! I covered it in Scope. I'll put it in and if you can thinkk of anything else that should be covered here then put it in. NeoFreak 12:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dothraki

I hadn't realized that there was some disagreement over creating a Dothraki page. The Dothraki characters, military forces and culture plays a huge part in the story and the development of one of the (if not the) main character. They need to be covered in more depth but if not a seperate page then how else could we do it in a way that is user-friendly and unobtrusive? NeoFreak 20:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Conceivably, we could have a "non-Westerosi culture" page or something like that; however, I imagine that it would quickly get too big and cumbersome. I definitely agree that the Dothraki are a major force with enough information to give them their own page. Stilgar135 02:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I'm underestimating the amount of relevant information there is about the Dothraki, but I don't see why more details couldn't just be added to their section in Across the Narrow Sea. -Captain Crawdad 21:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
That's what I'd prefer as well; we already have three geography/culture pages dealing with the eastern continent compared to only one for Westeros. I'd rather see Across the Narrow Sea become comprehensive before we start thinking about more daughter articles, and even with every random fact about the Dothraki there's not a good-sized page there. Brendan Moody 23:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
That's fair. My thoughts then are to just expand on the Dothraki Sea section and add some sort of "people of" subsection. I just think it needs to be covered alot more considering the Dothraki's culture influencing one of the two principal protagonists so heavily. NeoFreak 15:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brotherhood Without Banners

I was pondering a BwB page, both because the BwB in the books is of reasonable if not critical importance (although keeping track of who's in it, especially after they seemed to split apart between ASoS and AFFC, would be handy), but also because information on the real-life fan organistion could be put on there. The 'real' BwB does raise some money for charity and has won some awards (best party at Worldcon for several years running) which may be of interest. I do realise this does dangerously teeter on the edge of fancruft, but I also note that several fan groups of Tolkien are listed on Wikipedia. If an article is not warranted, how about a small addition to the GRRM or general ASoIaF article?--Werthead 21:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree, definitely. I think I'll start it right now. Stilgar135 21:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Brotherhood Without Banners is up. It needs a fair amount of work, mostly filling in its actual history and activities. It would also be nice to, as Werthead said, get more information about what happens after the Red Wedding, especially with regards to specific characters. Stilgar135 22:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, I've been pondering how to deal with the smaller organizations and wondering if there should be a "Groups in ASOIAF" page or something to that effect to catch all the smaller groups there are in the story, such as Brotherhood without Banners, the Alchemists, the Silent Sisters and the other monastic orders of the faith, the various mercenary companies, etc. The Maesters article is pretty small, and I don't see the BwB article getting very big either. Does anyone else think these organizations warrent the creation of a large, catch-all article rather than either their own individual articles or no article at all? -Captain Crawdad 00:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree that these organizations should be covered in one catch-all article. The problem with these topics is that if they are covered invidually, they will either become small stubs with no chance of growing or overly-large crufty articles full of unimportant details. By putting them all on the same page, it is possible to create a balance between these two extremes. Indrian 02:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I also like the idea of a catch-all page for some of the smaller groups; it could also serve as a hub for links to the individual pages of more notable groups. Brendan Moody 04:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I think most minor groups can be covered in main articles or grouped into relavent larger ones. The sisters can be covered in the religions and the Seven section for example or region specific groups in their respective regions page/section simliar to what is already done with the Faceless Men. A "bandits, mercenaries and freeriders" page might be in order for the BwB, the eastern mercenary comanies, individuals such as Bronn, Lothar Brune, etc. Still, if somebody wants to put the time and effort into making a good minor org page I certainly won't complain, I just think we should focus more on making the pages we have more comprehensive first and then breaking off info into new pages as necessary. NeoFreak 15:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I love this idea, it's one i thought about starting myself and will help work on it there are so many small factions that get little coverage in the books. However several are important and need explaination to someone who has little consept of ASOIAF. Also The Dortharki should probably go here since they are really minor and are only featured in Dany's few chapters in AGOT after that all we see are Jhogo, Aggo, Rakharo, Irri and Jhiqui who do little to nothing but watch Dany.--Cybroleach 16:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Re the Characters changes I made, I moved Beric Dondarrions information from the Characters page to Leadership on the BWB page. Pejorative.majeure 16:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plot Summaries

I feel the plot summaries for the four novels are seriously lacking at the moment, particularly for ACoK through AFFC (and AGoT is rather over-sensitive to spoilers, so much so that it doesn't really explain the plot of the book) and would ask if there is any objection to me going in and rewriting them?--Werthead 21:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

No objection; please do so. Fixing them up was on my personal to-do list. Brendan Moody 23:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
To say doing the summaries for the first two books was difficult would be an understatement. These are not easy books to summarise. I finally cracked it by splitting the story in three: the characters in the South; characters on and beyond the Wall; and Dany's adventures in the East. That seems to allow a certain brevity whilst containing the information that needs to be contained. That said, I don't feel my summary for ACoK quite hit the nail on the head so will take another look at that soon. Will also try to get onto the ASoS and AFFC summaries before looking back at the Strongholds page.--Werthead 18:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very, very much. Finally somebody is contributing to the important pages. (Looks sternly at own mirror image...) Arbor 14:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I've more or less nailed it, I think. They were originally all a lot longer, but I was pretty brutal in paring them down to just the required info and making sure all the bases are covered. I also included a short, "Where are we now" paragraph at the start of each synopsis just to let people catch up with the current, pre-novel situation, and a note on the date (since it's something people seem to get a bit confused about). I made minor adjustments to the list of characters to keep them all in the same format. However, I'm pondering moving the casts to above the synopsis rather than keeping them at the bottom of each section, as the articles may flow better that way. I also redid the ADWD page to keep it more in line with the others.--Werthead 18:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Repost from general: articles we need

I think one of our main goals should be getting more character information on Wikipedia. Characters from A Song of Ice and Fire has some great information, but there's no real rhyme or reason to the who's listed or what order they're listed in. I think we should expand the biographical section on Night's Watch (maybe a "major brothers" section with multi-paragraph bios for Jon, Mormont, Sam and whomever else is deemed appropriate and a "minor brothers" section with shorter bios). I think a Brotherhood without Banners article is DEFINITELY needed- there are multiple important biographies to put there, and we can also put in stuff about the war in the Riverlands that might not fit anywhere else. Maybe a knights page and a maester's page, and one dedicated to people not living in Westeros. Anyway, we'll work it out.

I also think we need to decide what characters are going to get individual articles. I know we have Jon and Dany, and that's a start, but considering that neither of them has been a major character in all 4 books, it seems strange that they're the only ones with their own articles. I'd suggest adding Tyrion and Arya for sure, simply because Martin has repeatedly said that they (along with our already-articled friends) are the four characters fans like the most. ) edit: Jon got merged when I wasn't looking? I really should spend more time here. Stilgar135 02:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm behind the idea of a Dothraki page but I want a wider consensus before I start one. The characters page serves as a linkable page for all important mentioned characters that either are covered in too many pages to be added to just one (or all) and is really not meant to be a start point. Same goes for the BwB. We already have a Maester page and a knights page would be hugely redundant as so many characters already covered are knights. As for non-Westrosi the Across the Narrow Sea page already serves as a start point for that. Yes Jon got merged and to be honest I'm not so sure I agree with that but the bottom line is it does work. Anybody that wants to find a particular character by name (say he was reading a chapter and the name comes up but he can't remember the details) s/he can look at the alphabetized main list for a link to further reading. I think we should keep individual character pages to a minimum and add them as needed not in anticipation of future developments. NeoFreak 03:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think there will be any consensus on what we need and don't need. Neither does there have to be; Wikipedia works fine with lots of people doing exactly what [i]they[/i] think is right. Myself, I don't see why we need character bios or plot summaries. I don't understand the quest for comprehensiveness at all ("We already have a page for House Targaryen. Hence we also need a House Seaworth.") Instead, I would go for notability and general encyclopaedic interest. Wikipedia has different aims than Tower of the Hand. So my priorities for this project would be to improve the pages that are already there, many of which are simply terrible. For example, we should aim for a Westeros page that is as good as Middle-earth. The latter is a really meaty, well-written featured article. That's what we should aim for. And look how that one is written: Middle-earth does not include a subsection for every kingdom. Arbor 06:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

In fact, I would like us to have some sort of quick-and-dirty peer review on what we already have by filling out a table like this. Note especially the "ambition" entry. There are lots and lots of very good Wikipedia articles out there about other fictional universes. Those should be our ambition. Table below follows in is just a conceptual sketch. No consensus behind the value judgements is implied, and I didn't even try to complete it. Arbor 08:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Moved table to mainpage NeoFreak 11:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind me transfering your table to the mainpage but it is just that kind of thing that we need in the project. Anyway on the issue of consensus: This wikiproject is the way we can foster an sense of community and focused purpose. While we'll never all agree if we can debate what needs to be in the project pages, what doesn;t and establish a self-policed hierarchy of some sort to help make these decisions the pages will benefit. Just my two cents NeoFreak 11:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Re consensus: I completely agree. Focus and community are good things. I just wanted to make sure that nobody should feel disheartened by a lack of consensus. Consensus is a really strong prerequisite. Instead, do good stuff you believe in, no matter if everybody else agrees it is necessary. Arbor 12:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
My own priorities at the moment also involve cleaning up existing pages, particularly the house pages. I'd like to see the character sections move away from plot summary and toward general biography and character description, and to introduce out-of-universe perspective if at all possible. This can help the reader decide for herself how the character functions within the work, which is what the guide to better articles encourages. The paucity of critical sources on the series will make this difficult, but I/we should be able to find some useful material in reviews and SSM. I've rewritten the Eddard section at House Stark into something more like what I'm thinking of, though it was mostly there already. Brendan Moody 18:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Problems

Some of the portraits on the Characters from A Song of Ice and Fire page are getting removed by bots, and some of the other portraits are tagged as possible copyright infringements. I'm not sure what needs to be done to stop the images from being taken down. Can anyone help? -Captain Crawdad 17:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I added it on the "to do list" as the original uploader of the images, Bakilas didn't properly cite his licences. When re-uploading the images make sure it's properly cited as GDFL and "fairuse" as uncommisioned work that the artist granted permission to use. NeoFreak 18:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Per Amok's requirements, the restored images also need to be at reduced resolution, like the Stark and Lannister ones. And we don't want to label them "fair use;" that's for justifiable use without the permission of the copyright holder. Just label them GDFL and note that the holder has licensed the reduced-resolution version only. Brendan Moody 00:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Technically we only have word of mouth permission from Amok right now. Do we have something we can point to showing his approval? NeoFreak 12:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
The user who reported Amok's permission was Ausir; someone could ask him. Brendan Moody 19:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I quote from his FAQ on [[1]]: "Question: "Can I use any of your artwork for...?" Answer: "Yes, as long as it's non commercial and you give me credit for it.Also, you may only use the artwork from these galleries: *Portraits*, *Scenes*, *Wallpapers*, *Locations*, *Terry Goodkind*" " Paul Willocx 14:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
We have discussed this several times. The point is that Wikipedia is not non-commercial. Amok's blanked permission certainly does not allow us to upload his work under GFDL or anything like that. Ausir claimed to have a more specific permission regarding Wikipedia, but we never saw the e-mail. Arbor 14:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
How is Wikipedia commercial? Granted, the permission he gives in the FAQ isn't written in very specific legal language, but it seems to me both conditions he sets are fulfilled nevertheless.--Paul Willocx 14:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
After having read a few Wiki pages on the topic, I'm still not sure about this - the images are certainly not under GFDL, nor could they really be considered fair use. However, I maintain that both of the criteria Amok himself named are fulfilled. --Paul Willocx 14:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict) WP is not commercial. But as soon as you or I put stuff on Wikipedia, you and I loose all rights to it. (That's sort of the point.) That includes the right to prevent commercial exploitation. For example, assume I put a really good slogan for Shell Oil on Wikipedia somewhere. Like her: Oi! Shell Oil sells good oil!. The moment I press Save page that slogan is up for grabs. Shell Oil can take it at become stunningly rich and never give me anything for that stroke of genius. They need not even acknowledge me. (Caveat: there are licensing details here that make this last thing more or less true. I won't go into it.) Another example is that anybody can burn all of Wikipedia on a DVD and sell it for $1000 a piece. Completely legal. A third example is that anybody can take all images on Wikipedia (same caveat as above) and sell them. For example, you could make an alternative Art of Ice and Fire book containing only Amok's Wikipedia images. Completely legal. So even though WP is not commercial, its contents are free to be exploited commercially and the content providers explicitly agree to this by uploading under (say) a public domain or GFDL license. Arbor 14:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. In that case, I guess we should stop using the images unless Amok gives them GFDL license, which seems unlikely - I hardly think anyone would do what you suggest, but even so, I'd think twice about GFDL if it was my own art, as well. You suggest removing (or at least hiding) them all right away, then? --Paul Willocx 15:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Nono. There are ample opportunities to upload Amok's images under some license he would agree to. That's why there is such a jungle of imaging licenses. For example, there are some ways to upload them so that they can be used only in conjunction with specific articles. Somebody needs to sit down and understand this, then write a polite letter to Amok saying "We seek permission to upload your images under this-and-that condition". I am sure Amok would agree. Then we can go crazy. But I would like to have a specific e-mail from Amok to point to that makes this all completely explicit, instead of (as we do now) interpret one of his blanket statements. Arbor 15:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Template:Fairusein is the template I was thinking of. It think that's what we want, more or less. Arbor 15:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Right. But none of us is an expert in copyright issues, so until someone comes along who is and who can write that email, what do we do in the meantime? Incidentally, I'm not sure about the fair use license that you suggested in Talk:Daenerys_Targaryen (and now here too), since the drawings are an illustration of the characters talked about, and the drawings themselves are not actually discussed (it would be different if aSoIaF were an animated movie and we used stills from that movie, for instance). Or at least, that's how I understand it now.Paul Willocx 15:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Not that this really goes here but at www.westeros.org/citadale there are some house banners that are given as free someone should download them and add them to the House pages. I would but i'm not quite sure how.
There is some discussion about Amok's understanding of Wikipedia's licensing scheme at User talk:Unak78. Please have a look. I still read this as Amok not giving us permission to use his images under GFDL. Arbor 10:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amok and GFDL

Copied from User talk:Unak78, with some markup:


Hi Unak. I am trying to track down a verifiable reference to Amok having released some images under GFDL. Could you help me? Arbor 10:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Arbor. On the discussion for this article the users discussing the issue stated that Amok granted permission to use the portrait images on his site but not any he had commissioned for any other companies, and I think I have an example of one he would not be able to authorize. But fortunately I was able to upload one which falls into the former category, resized to a lower resolution. It's under the name Daenarys_Targaryen_Amok.jpg. I'm going to post it with the url for his site included. Unak78
But that's just hear-say, isn't it? (Might still be true, of course. But I am not so sure your should release somebody else's work under GFDL unless you are positive he agrees.) Could you help me trying to hunt for a verifiable reference? Arbor 11:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

There just might be some useful info on his website's FAQ(http://amoka.net/eng/forum/faq.php?sid=f8da175095525d8f45b2d88863e3fad5#38). While non-conclusive it does state this:

phpBB 2 Issues
Who wrote this bulletin board?
This software (in its unmodified form) is produced, released and is copyrighted phpBB Group. It is made available under the GNU General Public License and may be freely distributed; see link for more details

It also seems that many of those portraits have already been posted all over this section of articles. However there is no direct email listed on the site for him. Please contact back with more info. Unak78 06:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I was able to find his email address and am awaiting a reply to my query. However Wikipedia did state that we could either attempt to recieve authorization ourselves or query other users on the site for thier own authorizations. If you want I could see if he (the user claiming to already have authorization) could send me that email. Unak78 07:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I have gotten word from Mr. Papsuev and he sent me this:

Hi (sorry, you didn't mention your name)
The thing is that I permit to use my art to anyone IF this use is not commercial. So I don't really know about 'distribution' part of the license. If it means 'no commercial use' then go ahead and use these pictures as you want. AFAIK Wikipedia links all images with the source website, so there's no problem there either 8-) Anyway, again - if it's not for commercial use - go ahead and take them, I don't mind at all 8-)
Best wishes,
Roman Papsuev

Apart from the actual wording of the liscence I think he is ok with his work being posted here. Unak78 08:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The opposite is true. GFLD is not a non-commercial license. Commercial exploitation of the materials released under GFLD is explicitly allowed. Arbor 10:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
This topic is addressed at Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Free_licenses, which says “Licenses which restrict the use of the media to non-profit or educational purposes only (i.e. noncommercial use only), or are given permission to only appear on Wikipedia, are not free enough for Wikipedia's usages or goals and will be deleted”. The basis for this policy is an [email by Jimbo Wales http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-May/023760.html]. In short, I see no way for us to include Amok's work on Wikipedia unless he releases it under a much wider license. Arbor 11:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Straw poll on Amok image policy

Based on the above exchange, and to get some feed-back, what do you think we should do with Amok's images on Wikipedia? (Add a line with your suggestion, such as keep or contact Amok or something like that). Don't forget to sign.

  • delete all Amok's images. Arbor 12:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd say contact Amok, but the poor guy has already had several emails concerning Wikipedia by now, and I imagine he must be getting rather tired of them. And given his statements, he seems unlikely to agree anyway - can't blame him. So delete it is, I guess. Paul Willocx 15:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete posthaste- as noted above, he doesn't seem likely to agree to any license we can use, and we can't have copyvios here. Brendan Moody 19:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. If someone that has spoken with him before can get him the specific license in which we posted these pics under and have him sign off on it the entire issue can be put to rest. The pictures add alot to the articles and we should make every effort to keep them. NeoFreak 14:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Contact Amok Again I completely agree with NeoFreak on how much the pictures add to the articles. They are naked without them. Maybe someone can point Amok to this page? I don't see evidence that he actually understands the loophole that makes commercial use possible here. I wonder if blatent commercial use is different (and more important) to him than the sort of byproduct commercial use that may come from their presence here. --Soshan 00:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amok GFDL

No one seems to want to use Amok Art so i stopped. Unsigned comment by User:Yayauc90

So... are you going to remove the wrongly applied GFDL license and do all the administrative work needed to get the images removed again? Currently, there is still a lot of Amok's intellectual property on WP under a false license. (If I understand your somewhat sparse comments correctly.) Arbor 10:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Urk. House Greyjoy has a whole bunch of Amok-images, all (probably falsely) released under GFDL. User:Shazzer, please weigh in. Arbor 10:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Getting to work

Please help me. I haven't uploaded any of these images, but somebody needs to clean up the mess. We are looking for each and every Amok-image on Wikipedia. This should be the only incoming link.

  • Balon [2]. ifd'd. orphaned
  • Asha [3]. ifd'd. orphaned
  • Theon [4]. ifd'd. orphaned
  • Euron. ifd'd. orphaned
  • Bronn. [5]. ifd'd (already tagged as copyvio). orphaned
  • Beric. ifd'd (already tagged as copyvio). orphaned.
  • Varys. [6]. if'd', already tagged as copyvio, orphaned.
  • ... and another 15 images at Wikimedia:Commons, mostly houses Lannister and Stark. All copyvio'd, which may be too strong, but I'm fed up... Arbor 19:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for getting the ball rolling Arbor. The ones I've uploaded:

  • Barristan [7]. ifd, orphan
  • Tower of Joy [8]. ifd, orphan
  • Blackwater [9]. ifd, orphan
  • Giant [10]. ifd, orphan
  • Ygritte [11]. ifd, orphan
  • Others [12]. ifd, orphan
  • Pycelle [13]. ifd, orphan
  • Luwin [14]. ifd, orphan
  • Jeor [15]. ifd, orphan
  • Maester Aemon [16]. ifd, orphan
  • Ohorin [17]. ifd, orphan
  • Mance [18]. ifd, orphan
  • Rattle Shirt [19]. ifd, orphan

Next best place to start looking are the House pages. I'll get to it when I can. NeoFreak 18:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Others:

  • Blackfyre [20]. ifd, orphan
  • Aegon I [21]. ifd, orphan
  • Robert Arryn [22]. ifd, copyright violation tag, orphan
  • Robert Baratheon, [23]. ifd, copyright violation tag, orphan
  • Joffrey [24]. ifd, copyright violation tag, orphan
  • Myrcella [25]. ifd, copyright violation tag, orphan
  • Tommen [26]. ifd, copyright violation tag, orphan
  • Stannis [27]. ifd, copyright violation tag, orphan
  • Renly [28]. ifd, copyright violation tag, orphan
  • Walder [29]. ifd, copyright violation tag, orphan
  • Victarion [30]. ifd, orphan
  • Aeron [31]. ifd, orphan

NeoFreak 18:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Red Wedding

A page on The Red Wedding has been created. I've suggested a merge on the talk page, and would like to see others' comments. Brendan Moody 23:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it's already been merged, but for the record, that's a merge I support. IMO, individual events (even ones with series-changing) repercussions should generally not receive their own page, unless there's enough information that wouldn't fit smoothly in the book's page. It might be good for the SOS to mention the fairly intense fan reaction to that page, as well as the fact that Martin wrote the chapter after he had finished the rest of the book because it was so emotional for him. Stilgar135 01:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. I was pondering putting a 'notes' sections on the page to deal with issues like that.--Werthead 13:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Organizing Characters in House Pages

I justed edited House Lannister trying to make the character subheadings more accurate, but I'm unsure about how the various characters are organized in the various House pages. We shouldn't be listing members of a house as "Current Starks" and "Starks of the Past" since there is no "now" in a fiction setting, right? Also, most of the pages separate out characters mentioned or vital to the plot in ASOIAF but that died before the beginning of Game of Thrones. Aren't these characters still "from A Song of Ice and Fire"? So what should the format be? -Captain Crawdad 19:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't see a good way to implement subheadings. I prefer just a long list, roughly in chronological order. Arbor 19:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Well if we consider pg one of AGOT as the now or begining and then everthing that happened before that is history for the story. Thus i think it may be prudent to make the destinction between the people alive in ASOIAF and those who are fotenotes in the past. However i'm also not great with subheading so whatever sounds good and try and keep it consistent to all the houses.--Cybroleach 01:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reappraising

Having redone the book pages and the general ASoIaF page, I was hoping to get some feedback to replace the 'Terrible' and 'Messy' judgements they were listed as before.--Werthead 23:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Looking better. Is there a reason why the book pages have different, more limited tags on the bottom? Other than that, the "Plot Introduction" sections don't really tell you anything useful. I think some of the information in the first paragraphs of the plot summaries could be pulled up there to give an idea of what the book is about without many spoilers, on the level of what would be on the book's dust jacket. People talk about book pages in wikipedia being useful to people who haven't read the book, so an informative but "safe" plot introduction would help towards that end, I think. -Captain Crawdad 03:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not too sure what tags you are referring to. All I changed were the plot summary and introduction paragraphs and the bit above the contents box. Someone else came in afterwards and added all the other translations. They might have changed the tags, or I may have done it without realising.--Werthead 19:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I still don't know what to call them. I'm referring to those link templates at the bottom of the pages, which link to most other ASOIAF pages. The book pages have link templates that are different from those on all the other ASOIAF pages. It's been that way for a long time. I was wondering if there was a reason for them being different. -Captain Crawdad 21:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I imagine it was just that no one bothered to introduce the more complete {{ASOIAF}} template to those pages. I've done so now. Brendan Moody 21:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I think you have done great work there, Werthead. The current appraisals were my own, and simply meant as examples. They certainly need to be updated. However, the Wikiproject Novels already has an appraisal system set up (giving the articles in question B-class, which I think is appropriate, and I suggest we simply use that instead of brewing our own. So my proposal is to remove my own table again. With some technical expertise we should be able to get an automatically generated table of the Ice and Fire-related pages, including their Wikiproject:Novels appraisals to slap on our own project's page. I am simply too pressed for time right now, otherwise it's something I would like to look into. (Seems to be a question of writing a very simple extension to a bot.) Arbor 09:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I talked to the people at the assessment mothership. Read Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index#Factor out logs of certain Wikiproject:Novels pages?. There is some (relatively trivial) coding work left, anybody with programming skills here should be able to do it. Please try. Otherwise I will do it, but not before in a week or (more realistically) two. Arbor 18:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Wow. I have alot of time this evening as I'm on duty so I can start to shift through it and tinker but no guarantees, this is all uncharted territory for me. NeoFreak 22:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Wars Page

Well the Wars page is now offcialy huge at 70kb. There was some talk on how to split it up and I thought I'd weight in and try to get it moving. My suggestion is to make a "War of the Usurper", "Conflicts north of the Wall" and "War of the Five Kings" all individual pages with a couple paragraphs and a main article link on the "Wars" page. This will make the info for each conflict more uniform on that page and also allow us to keep all of them listed there. I want to keep it all on one page but it's just too damned long. Also as Arbor pointed out we need more precise and point by point encyclopedic info that I think that could be done best with accompanying conflict or battle infoboxes. NeoFreak 01:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I think War of the Usurper and War of the Five Kings would be fine. (That means that the Wars of A Song of Ice and Fire should have a three-paragraph summary of these two wars, and inlude a pointer to them using the main-template.) On the other hand, the North-of-the-Wall stuff is simply too small. More generally, we need to do some heavy-handed editing. There are too many small skirmishes, too much book plot summary. Some brave editor needs to make this all much more concise. Arbor 08:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a stab at it by creating the required pages. I think noting the larger conflicts on the War pages is a good idea with links. I'd also put the details on the War Beyond the Wall and War in the East as part of the War of the Five Kings page (under a subheading Wars elsewhere). I was going to call it Wars During the Novels, but I think that will be confusing. War of the Five Kings should be fine.--Werthead 13:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Beyond the Wall and In the East would be the appropriate subheadings. Arbor 18:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New General ASOIAF Organizations Article

I've gone ahead and started an Organizations in A Song of Ice and Fire page as a catch-all page for smaller organizations, and possibly a replacement for some of our smaller articles about organizations. Take a look and decide if this is something we should go ahead with. In the talk page, I've started some suggestions on where the article could go. -Captain Crawdad 04:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aegon Targaryen

Another new article, another request for comments on a merge proposal. See Aegon I Targaryen. Brendan Moody 16:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Out of Universe perspective

I've been reading over the manual of style and was considering the implications of switching to an out of universe perspecitve for all the ASOIAF pages. This of course would require a huge effort and I'm not sure it would read as well. My understanding is that the manual on this point is more a guidline than a rule. Are any other editors more familiar with this and if so what do you think of the idea? NeoFreak 23:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's a great guideline, and I definitely don't think these articles need it. Obviously, the articles should make sure that the reader knows that we're talking about a fictional world and not a real one. I think the ASOIAF pages do that just fine. However, it seems that the primary function of this guideline is using it as an excuse to remove content. Adherents of this policy tend to believe that anything not absolutely essential to understanding an article needs to be deleted as cruft. While we should certainly have the goal of keeping an out-of-universe perspective, I don't think we should take on their whole ideology. Stilgar135 01:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the articles need to be radically rewritten to accomodate a more out of universe perspective. Also, it seems like out of universe perspective would risk POV intrusion by analyzing characters as villains or heroes, listing certain events as surprise plot twists, and so forth. I don't think we need to go down that road. -Captain Crawdad 23:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone recently threw an in-universe tag onto House Tyrell, and they could have done the same for any of the other ASOIAF articles, so maybe this topic should be brought up again. Do we really need to radically change the way the ASOIAF articles are written to distance them from in-universe perspective? Should we ignore or overrule the in-universe tags? Some combination of the two? -Captain Crawdad 22:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a contentious issue from what I've found. While it is less appropriate to write articles using fiction as a primary source from the "in universe" prospective and might better serve the reader it can also lead to confusion for the casual reader and it is not a professional sounding. In the end you are talking about fiction as truth, no a really great policy for an encyclopeida. The precendent is set that using the "in universe" format in "fictinal world" articles. Most of the Tolkien and Star Wars related articles are written in this format and many have reached Good or Featured article status. If I coud go back and start the aSoIaF project over I would try to do an out of universe but I'm not sure the results would have been as good and in the end I think that we're better off as is. Of course some will disageee but in the end it is not a rule and we are by no means forced to abide by it. NeoFreak 01:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with NeoFreak's conclusion. The other thing to add is that ASOIAF is in a fairly unique position. Unlike Star Wars or Star Trek or most of the articles that usually get tagged like this, it's not a franchise with a lot of external information- it's a single series of books by a single author and doesn't have all the out-of-universe detritus that those series gather. On the other hand, it's far more complex than SW or ST, and thus requires a greater degree of detail. If we come across out-of-universe details, they should be inserted where appropriate, but the current style of writing is what's necessary for the reader to understand the subject. Stilgar135 04:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. With Star Wars, Star Trek and Lord of the Rings there is sufficient out-of-universe material available to approach the work in a different manner. With ASoIaF, Malazan, Wheel of Time, Lost, Heroes, Battlestar Galactica and half a dozen other topics I'm interested in, there isn't. In fact, I'd say adhering to the in-universe perspective guideline would actually encourage the breach of the non-point-of-view rule by encouraging contributors to come up with some kind of analysis on the series off their own back. In twenty years or so there may be racks of books on 'Martin Analysis' in your local shop as there is now with Tolkien or Rowling, but until then I do not see how we can actually adhere to this guideline at all, nor, to be honest, the point in doing so.--Werthead 21:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Character Titles

Yet another petty concern of mine, and this is somewhat related to the Out of Universe Perspective question. I'd like to get people's opinions on the regular use of characters' titles in the articles, like referring to Arianne as Princess Arianne or Barristan Selmy as Lord Commander Barristan Selmy. For me they're usually unnecessary clutter and smack a bit too much of In Universe Perspective, even to me. Also, some characters give themselves titles that aren't even recognized by most other characters, like "Kings" Stannis and Euron, so using these titles seems a bit odd. I've been informally and rather passive-aggresively deleting titles when they don't seem to have any relevance to the topic of the sentence, but since they've been cropping back up, I'd like to see if I'm the only person who feels this way. -Captain Crawdad 00:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

No I think it's a good point. Somewhere their titles do need to get mention, maybe once at the start or their first mention in the artilce related to their character. Similar to a wikilink and after the name i.e. Barristan Selmy, Lord Commander of the Kingsguard. Or Balon Greyjey, self-titled King of the North and Iron Isles. Sometihng like that. NeoFreak 04:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
This would be a good page to have an informal policy-decision one can link to. I will put that on the Project page, so that CC can link to it in edit summaries instead of the passive-aggressive style :-). Arbor 05:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project Directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:

  • User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
  • User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
  • User:Badbilltucker/Science directory

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 22:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now moved the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 14:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trimming the fat.

I think this wikiproject has come to a high water mark for content pending the release of more material. While the character page could use some additions I think the best focus of the group is now the elimination of excess material, streamlining articles and navigation and just general clean up. While I did create the Maesters of the Citadel, Ghis and Kingsguard pages I was hoping for some input as to wether or not this project would be better served having these pages merged into others. I think the House Bolton article hasn't really esablished enough notability to warrant its own article. I also continue to wonder at the cruftyness of the Strongholds of A Song of Ice and Fire page as well. Any thoughts? NeoFreak 08:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I would consider merges for some of these articles, but looking ahead to the future of the series might be prudent to avoid unnecessary work. Ghis seems pretty slight for an article, but it's much bigger than the rest of the entries in Across the narrow sea. It's organized, and the next book will likely yield more information to fill out the article somewhat. Bolton is another article that isn't very relevant yet, but might be in the future. Since it's lasted this long, I'd hold off on getting rid of it until the next book comes out, to see if it's necessary. The Maesters article is also small, but also another subject that will likely expand in later books. On the other hand, I don't see much likelihood in the Kingsguard article ever getting much bigger, and it's quite small when you take away the member rosters. I think that could be merged into the general organizations page with the character lists removed. I'm not really a big fan of those lists in the various organization pages. -Captain Crawdad 09:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maesters of the Citadel

Am wondering if it would be a good idea to list the significance of each of the different coloured links in a maester's chain. A black link for ravenry etc? Bakilas 01:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC).

Absolutely. Have at. Stilgar135 01:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I already added all of the link info that I could find covered by cannon. Do you have a resource for more? NeoFreak 02:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Did either of you check the RPG book? Most of the organizations from Westeros are available as Prestige Classes, and forging a Maesters chain seems like a common enough role-playing activity. If noone here has access, I'll have a look next time I'm at the comics store. Stilgar135 02:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
The RPG does not identify any links that are not already in the article. -Captain Crawdad 04:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
The only other source I can think of is the So Spake Martin transcripts, but that doesn't seem likely. Guess we'll probably have to wait for the worldbook or ADWD. Stilgar135 05:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Does this belong somewhere else?

I came across this whole thing about A Song of Ice and Fire randomly, and not to use it pejoratively, but the whole thing is fancruft in a quite crufty way.

Personally, I have never heard of it, and while that does not amount to anything, I find the whole thing to be very excessive and of a non-useful nature to the average person. Articles about the book, the author, and maybe a couple important characters are fine. However, do we need stuff like the very long Strongholds of A Song of Ice and Fire?

This stuff qualifies as perfect content for Wikicities. Please, go on and make an "A Song of Ice and Fire" wiki at Wikia. I appreciate that your list of potential articles includes a "Cruftiness" rating, but with many of them marked as crufty (and many more left blank), it should be an indicator that it's not all general-interest material.

I'm suggesting that you all move this to a special interest wiki and not Wikipedia. Nobody will force you to, probably because it'd be hard to put these through AfD because it's admittedly well-written. There is a HUGE amount of information in the A Song of Ice and Fire on Wikipedia and it's mostly fancruft. It virtually embodies the definition of fancruft. Please, I urge your group to consider making a voluntary move to Wikia. Mazin07C₪T 23:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I am one of the major editors on these pages and I share some of your concerns. I was wondering about the Stongholds page myself and I have done my best to combat the proliferation of superflourous articles. I hate to be the guy that defends cruft accusations by pointing to Lord of the Rings but the Tolkien pages do provide a precedent for what is and is not acceptable for fictional literature articles in wikipedia.
If you have any thoughts on what should and should not be here your opinion would be greatly valued as an editor that is not biased by extensive participation or by being a "fan" of the books. So please, anything in particular in you have issues with or is it just the idea of more than one or two articles covering a fictional realm and books that bothers you? NeoFreak 21:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
A lot of the pages in the project are obviously for fans of the series. The general Wikipedia reader would need: a page for each book, a page for the series, an author page, and maybe some for the main characters. I personally feel that stuff like the individual houses could be merged into one article, with a short summary of each. I'd hate to point to stuff like Tolkien's and Rowling's stuff because they're probably overdoing it as well, but it's also hard to compare with them because of how much popular culture they have pervaded. I don't read A Song of Fire and Ice, and as a non-reader I have no idea what any of the stuff is. I looked at the House Bolton, and beyond the first sentence explaining that it's a fictional family in the fictional universe, I was lost. None of the stuff made any sense, obviously because I had never read it. If you look an Wikia, there's a Lord of the Rings wiki. If you guys made something like that, then you'd be free to put as much detail and minor things as you want. Ideally, fans would go to the Wikia wiki, and other people could get a basic idea of the series on Wikipedia. Mazin07C₪T 17:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the Song articles need some trimming, and there are a few of them that I personally would support the deletion of, but most of what's here seems to me within reason for an encyclopedia with no size limitations; it should be pointed out that comparable fictional universes tend to have much more extensive coverage, which seems to be unobjectionable to the community.
I am, however, deeply concerned about the accessibility of the current material to non-fan readers, and welcome anyone's comments on how to improve that aspect of this content; I imagine removing some of the extensive involved detail would be a good start, and may turn my attention to the problem in the new year. Brendan Moody 22:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Any particular material that you find inaccessible to the general reader? NeoFreak 23:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
If that was addressed to me, then no; I don't know what's accessible to non-fans. That's why I'd like guidance from such general readers before I start looking into any changes. Brendan Moody 00:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I've put in a request for a dedicated ASOIAF wiki. NeoFreak 01:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The whole fancruft thing is a worthwhile comment. However, it is only fair that such a concept is applied fairly. There is the precedent of Potter and Tolkien to consider; although Martin is not in that league (yet), nevertheless some 5-6 million copies of the books have been sold and the last volume was both a NYT bestseller and mentioned in Time Magazine, making it very notable. Greater comparisons can be made with similarly 'crufty' articles for the Wheel of Time, Riftwar and Sword of Truth series, probably many others as well. If ASoIaF is to be asked to be voluntarily moved to its own Wiki - which is a great idea in itself if it does mean we can get into the detail we cannot at present here on Wikipedia - then I would hope that these and other comparable series are also asked to do the same thing.--Werthead 01:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you could take a look at wikiasite:lotr and wikiasite:harrypotter as precedents. Mazin07C₪T 17:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
There are other free wiki sites out there, if anyone is interested in doing something with detail approaching or even exceeding the now defunct Tower of the Hand. I already have two wikis at www.PBWiki.com, and have no complaints about the way it runs. JCSeer 18:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I must say that I disagree completely with the fancruft idea. I am quite happy to use LotR as a precedent - ASoIaF is becoming very popular indeed. And regarding the accessibility, I don't think that the information has to be understandable for the general reader. They wouldn't be looking at the Strongholds article before reading up on the series itself, just like a newcomer to LotR wouldn't be reading the Siege of Angband article (and expecting to understand it), or someone with only a basic mathematical education wouldn't be looking up harmonic analysis. I don't really see why people are against "fancruft" in general anyway, for the reasons stated above, and also that text is very small when stored and hard drives are very big - why shouldn't we write as much as we can, provided it is clear, concise and accurate? Sorry, </rant> :). Pyreforge 13:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to Character Pages

I'm not sure I'm liking the addition of the Minor Houses page. It reduces the Characters page to a more manageable size, but here are some issues that I see:

1. First, most of these characters are going to be the only notable member of their house in the story. It seems a little pointless to have a House Baelish section when Petyr is the only Baelish that is or will most likely ever be listed there. It seems like a generally clumsy way of organizing to me personally. Characters from the same family were already grouped together before due to the shared last names.

2. Some of the characters left on the Characters page are members of minor houses: Barristan Selmy and Aerys Oakheart. You could argue that as Kingsguard knights they have "revoked their membership", but we've got Sandor on the Minor Houses page, and Jaime and Loras in their respective houses.

3. I don't like the way the Characters page is now grouped by location, since this can be a spoiler or simply inaccurate. Characters can move, such as Barristan Selmy, who has been both in Westeros and the east.

4. Just a general FYI that the change has broken a whole bunch of links, so if we do end up keeping the split, someone's going to have to go through them.

5. Another random thought is that if Beric is going to be moved to the BwB page, it makes sense to move Thoros there as well.

6. Do we really want a separate character profile for Lady Stoneheart? I don't know if I'm against this or not, really, but it seems like a topic that should be discussed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Captain Crawdad (talk • contribs) 07:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

I love all the work that PM is doing but I have to say that I agree with everyone of your points. I'm also very concerned about the growing number of seperate articles. Does anyone else have any thoughts one this? NeoFreak 21:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the above concerns as well. The Minor houses page seems to be unnecessary proliferation. Characters was getting very long, but I think a better solution would be trimming some of those character profiles rather than devising separate pages. (Note also that a very similar page, Houses from A Song of Ice and Fire, was redirected following an AFD a few months ago.) Brendan Moody 22:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I remember that page as well. I think the minor houses page needs to go and the characers all brought back onto one page (minus the major houses pages). I'm trying to be cautious about just getting cranky because the format we've had so long (much of which I created) is changing, only because it's changing, but I really think the method of covering the characters was superior before. NeoFreak 15:06, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I think the previous way was better. -Captain Crawdad 17:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Here's my reasoning for the Minor houses page, as well as the renaming of the Characters to Independents.
- Strongholds was way too cluttered. I started moving the characters to the Complete List, but where multiple individuals of a single family showed up, I created the Minor houses page. Characters was also cluttered, so I pulled people out of there, creating a coherent list of the most significant minor houses in the series. The Minor houses thus combines the largesse trimmed from two pages. I've been going through and working on the links as I do this, but I know I'm missing some as I do.
- Barristan Selmy - I left him on Characters (Independents) as he's lived for the Kingsguard but is no longer a member (the Q-guard being different). He has no House ambition or structure. Petyr Baelish and Davos Seaworth (especially) I could see being independent, but I'm not sure if Baelish is considering raising his house or just himself so when I started the article, I could see placed him there, but I can see him as a solo actor. Brienne could probably also be an independent.
- In the East/Westeros - The geographical lines seemed logical to me, although the past fluidity of some and the probable fluidity of others could render that moot.
- BWB - I've been expanding the organizations articles with as much as I could, and working out a framework that would apply across all of them for coherence. For leadership of the BWB, the three - Thoros, Beric, and Lady Stoneheart - would be included (Just hadn't gotten to putting him there). Lady Stoneheart's mention is brief, only focusing on how the group dynamic has changed, with a reference back to Catelyn for all else. As Beric and Thoros have very little outside of the group, breaking them up would not make sense to me.Pejorative.majeure 19:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry if I stepped on a lot of toes, but I had time to look at the articles and thought some needed a bit of cleanup. So I may have become 'too' bold.Pejorative.majeure 19:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I've also created a Westerosi Cities article to pull those large entries out of the Strongholds article - they aren't Strongholds, but I didn't know if placing the five cities in Westeros would mess up its flow, as it only lists King's Landing - it being the capital of the Seven Kingdoms. Pejorative.majeure 19:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
There is no such thing as being too bold. Only when a person does something reckless over and over again against policy or community consensus where policy does't cover does a bold editor become a problem, which is not yet the case here. As a mater of fact I'm glad that you're diving right in! Still, a big concern here is that we want to limit the number of seperate articles that cover ASOIAF. We can be complete in our coverage without getting into cruft. Ask yourself: do the individual cities in a fictional world really need to have their own article in a encyclopedia? Can they be covered better in a catch-all "locations article" such as the poorly named stongholds page? Should they only be mentioned in their respective context articles such as House/Geographical/Country pages? I don't believe that the cities of A Song of Ice and Fire are notable enough to warrant their own article (or even the "stongholds" despite the fact it was/is a cool page).
The Cities article just pulled the five cities, as they are often designated as the only five cities on the continent, making them appear more important than mere Strongholds - while there may not be much about Gulltown, there of course is a ton about King's Landing, and more will presumably be coming on Oldtown. The page may not be needed, but I'm wondering if there should be the two - Cities for the five, with most of the information on them, while Strongholds only has the main Strongholds in each kingdom. The minor keeps and castles are already mentioned in the Sworn Houses under each Major House. Pejorative.majeure 20:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm worried about the slippery slope for the minor houses page. We already have a sperate article for every major house in ASOIAF and one for both minor houses: House Frey and House Bolton {which I was opposed to). I fear that the minor houses page might be used a a spring board for the "next logical step" of making individual pages for the more important "minor houses". After all, which house gets more actual coverage in ASOIAF, "Major" House Arryn or "Minor" Houses Bolton and Seaworth? Aryn has only one actual member who is seldom seen and really unimportant as a individually developed character where Seaworth has had 9 members that appear, one as a major POV character.
True - this is why I pulled all of the information out of the Characters, Houses, and Strongholds pages, in order to create a list of the Minor houses - those that are profiled at the end of the books, as well as figuring prominently into plotlines. I've pulled those characters that are nearly complete independents - Brienne, Petyr, Davos - into the Characters list. The Minor houses list is still decently sized.Pejorative.majeure 20:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Most characters are notable only as individuals and should be covered as such (Davos Seaworth, Jon Umber, the Clegans, Berric Dondarrion, Bronn what-ever-his-new-house-is, Petyr Baelsih, etc). Only in the case of large or powerful families does a character become important as a member of that entity (the Stark/Targaryen children, the Daynes, the Lannisters, etc). This is why characters belonging to a large House are covered by that House's page and the rest are given individual treatment. I understand that you want to reorganize the pages but they were set up in a way to make navigation easy and prevent the over growth of scope. I've left some comments on the article talk pages themselves as well. NeoFreak 19:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I would point out that the term 'Stronghold' was specifically used because of both precedent (it is the combined name for both cities and castles in the Game of Thrones board game) and because, well, nothing else really suited. Certainly a separate 'Cities' article is not needed, IMO. The Strongholds page does require some reworking, perhaps after the ASoIaF material is transferred onto its own Wiki. Am I right in understanding that the dedicated Wiki would support however many articles we wanted, though? So 'Winterfell' would have its own entry, for example, and even a minor castle like Darry or Acorn Hall could have their own articles? If so, that solves the problem altogether.--Werthead 01:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
On our own wiki we could have as many articles as we wanted, yes. Still for navigation and ease of use it's still best to limit the article count to a managable and understandable design. NeoFreak 03:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ASOIAF Wiki

I've put in a request to open a dedicated wiki for ASOIAF which means we will be able to write entries (not just articles) on all the ASOIAF realted maretial we want without having to operate within the restrictions of an encyclopedia. If/when it gets approved I'm planning on Transwiki'ing all the articles over with the exception of the books and primary ASOIAF article. Any help would be appreciated but I wanted to know if anyone here had any other thoughts on what should or shouldn't get transwikied and how much the project participants here would be interested on working on the dedicated wiki. NeoFreak 01:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to help. I'd thought of trying to create a dedicated wiki as well, along the lines of BattleStarWiki or the Doctor Who Wiki, etc. I definitely would contribute as much time as I could. Pejorative.majeure 16:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Any movement on this, NeoFreak? It would be very cool if it happened.--Werthead 10:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
The request was denied and it was recommended that the material be added to the "literature" wikia. Of course this material would be the single largest congruent "concept" of articels on the wikia but Essjay said that if it became "popular enough" a move to a dedicated wiki would be acceptable. I have some issues with this, some which should be rather obvious esp in light of other simliar wikis and their dedicated traffic but, it's not my call. I'm not sure that the literature wiki is the appropriate place for these articles. NeoFreak 17:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Right, so the Sword of Truth pages, which number far fewer than the ASoIaF ones (and are far more crufty, frankly) can warrant its own wiki but ASoIaF doesn't? That makes literally no sense. Is there an appeal process or can another admin be asked for a second opinion as this really doesn't sit right.--Werthead 23:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't really know what to tell you. The Sword of Truth wikia might have slipped in before a flood of requests or something. The response came from Essjay but it might have been an automated email. I don't want to swamp the literature wiki to simply make a point so I've been stewing on this for awhile. I know of no apeal process as it is a private venture (basically) and they have no obligation to afford us jack shit. NeoFreak 01:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I have posted this [32] on Westeros.org and the reaction has been interesting. Ran is now thinking of hosting his own Wiki on Westeros.org and wants everyone interested in contributing to that project to get in touch. Presumably you can't transwiki stuff across, but presumably we can just cut-and-paste stuff. I'm not sure if we could put in links from the articles here though.--Werthead 12:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Don't know if anyone cares, don't know if anyone tried it already, but the MBOTF has its own wiki, and they're using this site to host it. I poked around a bit, and was unable to find out if it was free or not. It might not have the official clout of whatever you were initially trying to use, but its there and you can password-protect it. WLU 15:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I was going to just let the entire deal go and see about a non-wikipedia foundation site hosting a wiki. Then it just kind of began to itch at the back of my mind. Why? Why in the world, with all of wikipedia's inclination to outsource fiction based articles to wikia and all the precedent set by Wheel of Time, Star Wars, and Sword of Truth wikias would a Ice and Fire wikia get denied? Then I saw it: the Christopher Paolini Inheritance Trilogy wikia. It was then that I lost it.

What I need is a no bullshit show of hands of people that will be willing to work on the new wikia, those that will have the time to devote to an admin status and are willing to make an appeal of sorts and slap your electronic wiki Hancock down and say "I want a fucking Ice and Fire wiki, no, wikipedia wants a Ice and Fire wikia." Drop a sig below and get all your felow fans and friends (only those that would be available and willing to help) so I can present this again. I'm counting on a few of you in particular. If we want it we'll have to push for it. NeoFreak 04:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

  1. NeoFreak: willing to admin and traswiki aticles.
  2. Captain Crawdad: willing to help out
  3. Werthead: willing to help out, may be willing to admin (lot of other time concerns)
  4. Pejorative.majeure 01:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC) willing to help out. May be willing to admin (time)
  5. JCSeer willing to write and edit, and more than happy to slap a john hancock down.

If this motion doesn't go through, I can install MediaWiki and set up a subdomain under wellimean.com. This isn't an optimal solution at all, but if you don't want to be hosted under those wiki collections other than Wikia, let me know. Note that I am not signing NeoFreak's list because I am only on the third book. Pomte 08:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I quite understand what's going on here, but I gather that you guys want to start an asoiaf.wikia.com and were rejected for some reason. That would really confuse me, since there's already a dragaera.wikia.com, and Steven Brust novels are far less popular than ASOIAF. If a wikia does open up, I'll be interested in helping out. -Captain Crawdad 22:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty much what happened, yeah. I was just as confused. Thanks for the support. NeoFreak 00:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
What about Ran's wiki if that goes through? I'd hate to be in a position where we had two wikis competing with one another. That wouldn't be very helpful at all. OTOH, does HBO getting an option on the show help with its notability for getting its own wikia? Is there a petition or list we can contribute reasons for ASoIaF getting its own wikia to?--Werthead 11:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I need to get a assesment of how many people would really be active in maintaining the wikia. Once I get all that together and the justifications such as the show, fanbase and precedent with other wikis then I'm going to take it up with the wikia admin and see if he won't reconsider. As far as Ran's wiki my understaning is that was still in the "I'm thinking about it" phase. Since wikia is free and Ran would have to pay to host his own I figured wikia would be preferred. NeoFreak 16:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Apparently Ran's technical guy is working on it now and it should be up and running in about two weeks, maybe sooner. Apparently the original thought was to use it to establish an interactive FAQ, but it can easily be expanded to encompass our needs. If we get Wikia to reconsider, then it will just be used for the FAQ side of things. So we have a good fall-back position if Wikia continues to inexplicably deny us.--Werthead 23:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there already some kind of wiki for ASOIAF? [33] Scafloc 09:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

No. Hence the discussion. There is the Tower of the Hand website, but they're not a Wiki and they've run into some difficulties (such as not being able to do anything when the webmaster isn't available, which is apparently fairly frequently).--Werthead 14:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Run into some difficulties? That is news to me, and I am a webmaster at Tower of the Hand. The only thing that I would consider a difficulty is that our FAQ is out of date because the person who created it has vanished and we are hesitant to change his work without his permission. The series is summarised, everything has a page, the family trees are complete, we are gradually filling in a few holes that remain here and there, and I, for one, am generally always available (though I handle content, not the technical side if that is what you are talking about). How on earth are we having difficulties? Indrian 21:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I was referring to your own comments on Westeros: "Our FAQ has not been updated because the person originally responsible for creating it has vanished off the face of the earth and we are hesitant to change his work without permission". That certainly sounds like a difficulty to me. Apologies if I overemphasised it though. Tower of the Hand remains a very useful resource for any ASoIaF fan.--Werthead 11:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
No problem. I would say you did overemphasize though. The FAQ is merely one aspect of the site (though a popular one I think). Everything else is completely under control. Obviously I have no problem with people creating a wiki, but please try to be vigilant about making sure people do not just rip my work off and paste it to the wiki (I know you and Happy Ent, NeoFreak, Captain Crawdad, etc. would never do that, but there are plenty of others out there). I would be willing to help on a wiki as an admin or some such, but I would not contribute any content because I already have my own outlet for that, and I prefer not to release my Ice and Fire work uder the GDFL. Indrian 21:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
He has a link to one wiki. Here are URLs for attempts:
http://songoficeandfire.pbwiki.com/A%20Song%20of%20Ice%20and%20Fire - abortive
http://asoiaf.solidinternet.com/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page - character wiki
There are presumably others, but I didn't spend much time looking for them. Pejorative.majeure 00:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
PBWiki is easy enough to use, and it has the benefit of being free... but I'm not familiar with the ease of admin (mine's completely passworded out so no one else can access it). I'd love to actually get a wiki resource going that has some meat in it. It seems asoiaf.pbwiki.com is password-locked. JCSeer 00:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I've created a wiki at PBWiki [[34]]. It's automatically set up so that you have to have the password to log in and change things, but it's public in that anyone can see everything. If anyone's interested, let me know. JCSeer 00:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Hedge Knight and The Sworn Sword

I created a page called Tales of Dunk and Egg as the page "The Hedge Knight" was no longer accurate - the series is not named the Hedge Knight, and even though there's no actual official name, the series is informally referred to as Dunk and Egg Stories or the Tales of Dunk and Egg or some other. The Hedge Knight page now redirects to the Tales page, and there looks to be no link breakage involved. Pejorative.majeure 00:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, but unfortunately I think The Hedge Knight may be the official title for the series, or at least the closest. Various publications have referred to The Sworn Sword and the still-unpublished Dunk & Egg III story as the 'continuing adventures of the hedge knight' and The Sworn Sword graphic novel and the original novella are sometimes referred to (on Amazon and the like) as The Hedge Knight: The Sworn Sword. Naturally, George could change his mind on this, but it's the closest thing we have to a 'proper' title at the moment.--Werthead 13:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regional pages

I revisited my notion of Cities & Strongholds, and came up with Regions as an alternative. I've created a The North (A Song of Ice and Fire) page but I've only linked it from here. As it's been indicated that people won't really look for a cities article and the strongholds article is too long and list-y, I think regional pages would be a good compromise as they are the seven kingdoms pretty much (could even list the old kingdoms separately, instead of regions, which is why I started with the North as it applies to both). I know there's a movement toward a separate wiki for all of this, but even so, presumably a core number of articles will remain in wikipedia (unless the plan is to leave it at the one series and the independent book/author pages). Anyway, let me know what you think, before I go any further. Pejorative.majeure 00:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to darken your enthusiasim but I'm not sure that is such a great idea. It's just my opinion, and I for no means speak for everyone, but I feel that we already have some rather superfluous articles (such as the Stongholds and Tourney pages) and I'm not all that excited about the proliferation of more articles. We have alot of articles that need love and, while I've been rather absent on the Ice and Fire pages myself, I was hoping those would recieve attention before the thought of expanding the project's article scope was taken into serious consideration, esp with this trans-wiki talk. My understanding (or maybe my selfish hope) is that, yes, the only pages left here after the trans-wiki will be an article for each novel, one for the overall series and, of course, GRRMs page. In addition to his other non-aSoIaF articles, of course. NeoFreak 00:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Religions of Page

I've created a page on Religion in A Song of Ice and Fire. It's not complete yet (I'm too tired to continue at this point), but it stands up well enough, I think. Please visit and decide whether to add it to the project. Thanks, JCSeer 06:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks like it's up for deletion, anyway. *shrugs, and packs away in his own wiki.* JCSeer 03:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I've deproded the article. While I won't make promises I don't think a deletion consensus will be made there. I'm not totally comfortable with idea of the article but my concerns are not those stated by the prod. My concern is more with the formating of the material into it's own article and the notability issue of a dedicated page. I would suggest you read up on WP:OR, WP:ATT and WP:FICT in preparation for a debate in WP:AFD. His issue is that he thinks you are putting forth your own ideas and concepts in this article but the counter argument is that you are making simple conclusions based upon primary sources. NeoFreak 18:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. The more I read on etiquette here, the more I have to wonder. The person who put my article up for deletion never attempted to contact me, did not put anything on a discussion page to say what their problem with the article was, and gave no option or recourse. Now, I'm looking and looking, but I find no page set up for such a discussion/debate on the fate of the page. When/how will I know where to find this? JCSeer 23:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Added references and looking for more variety than just westeros.orgJCSeer 00:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
No problem, I'm more than glad to help any good faith editor. I would warn you though: if you try to add these sites as reliable sources you're going to run into problems for very good reasons. These are not acceptable as reliable sources as they do not meet the criteria as seconadry sources. Wikipedia has (for very good reasons) very strict guidlines for secondary sources. Please review the appropriate guidline. The original proposal for deletion was because of original research but even as a very deltion prone person I don't find this acceptable. If you have any questions or confusion about the policy please hit me up on my talk page where we can follow this up. NeoFreak 02:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_A_Song_of_Ice_and_Fire_1444.html"