Talk:Major houses in A Song of Ice and Fire

wording ?

"Daenerys convinced the Yunkai forces to switch sides. The entire Yunkish army was slain, captured, or put to flight and Yunkai surrendered a few days later."

Err, I am no native speaker but this does sound wrong. If the forces switched sides, then the entire army was not slain and so on. Either it should be "Daenerys convinced the mercenaries of the Yunkai forces to switch sides ..." or "Daenerys convinced a part of the Yunkai forces to switch sides. The remainder of the Yunkish army ...". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.138.39.54 (talk) 15:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Article Length

In case somebody stumbles upon this article, yes it's length is excessive. The reason is the character description are way, way too long and need to trimmed severely. Please don't go splitting the article without discussing it first. Yoenit (talk) 14:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

And where exactly was this merge discussed? - Reanimated X (talk) 03:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

You got me there, kinda weird to ask to discuss a split first when I just sneaked in a merge without discussion. Anyway, lets discuss the merge now. As far the rationale behind the merge, I think TAnthony's comments on talk:Westeros explain it very nicely. The individual house articles contained much material unsuited for wikipedia (genealogies, list of sworn houses, historical members who play no role in the book, etc). Also character descriptions are too extensive (WP:PLOT) and often contain speculation(WP:OR). All content has been transwikied to the Song of Ice and Fire wiki years ago and even more complete—sourced to individual pages!—information is available in the Tower of the Hand encyclopedia. Yoenit (talk) 08:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I cannot be the only one worried about this...

The last time I checked, Wikipedia articles were supposed to be overviews of a subject, not exhaustive cruft factories full of tidbits culled from the novels and pieced together by editors. I am concerned that each description is extremely overlong and far too much attention is given to each of the characters. Furthermore, there is more than a little bit of speculation occurring as to the ultimate fate of those characters who cease to be discussed in the novels. It is reading like a Fire and Ice-specific wiki. That isn't within our mission.
I'd like to get some feedback before embarking on a significant 'ranging expedition' to cull a lot of the problems I see.- Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Please do. I removed most of the cruft when I merged the separate house articles half a year ago, but it is still quite bad. Yoenit (talk) 08:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I support that effort. Do what you can. I see a completely unsourced article which is problematic in terms of Wikipedia policies. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Not blowing off the responses, Yoenit and Shooterwalker; I am currently powering through the fourth book so as to make sure that I am trimming away only the unnecessary details. Like everyone else, I cannot wait for the 5th book, and dread the cruft that is going to be piling up in the article when the series premieres next month. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this on. It definitely doesn't look like an easy task. But hopefully it will lead to a quality article. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Glad to help. Of course,if I screw up and trim sth important, feel free to let me know, either here or in my usertalk page. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

As it stands now, the article is terribly bad. It's useless both for the fans of the series and for those that do not know anything about it. But, honestly, I would not waste much time fixing it. When the series starts, we can expect articles for individual characters and houses to appear. My recommendation would be to center the efforts in making sure that those are properly referenced and notable.--RR (talk) 08:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a lot of value in that observation, RR. That said, I still think we need to tidy this one up. Organizing by 'House' still seems valid (it is the name of the article, so if we disagree with that, we need t either change the name of the article or nom for deletion), but I am wondering if there might be a ore controlled way to express the basic information. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The only reason this is organized by house is because it consists of merged house articles. If you want to see true cruft have a look at the old house articles. I don't mind splitting them into house articles again, but only if they are properly referenced non-cruft articles. Cleaning this up would definitely help that transition. Yoenit (talk) 13:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, as I see it, the structure to aim for should be: the article of "Major Houses in ASOIAF", with sepparate articles for "Stark", "Baratheon", "Lannister" and "Stark"; and then still another article named "Major Characters in ASOIAF" with sepparate articles for possibly at least "Eddard Stark", "Jon Snow" and "Daenerys Targaryen". But it will come naturally in a near future, I expect.--RR (talk) 15:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The very reason that individual character articles were merged into House articles and House articles were further merged into this one was that, well, they were just huge repositories of plot and nothing else. Martin's books are wonderfully complex, and this makes our plot summaries longer and more detailed, but as far as I have been able to tell there aren't much in the way of reliable sources out there which analyze his works in a way which would be helpful in supporting an article. Yes, there are probably thousands of fictional character articles out there that are all plot, but they all violate basic policy. Once the series airs on HBO we will certainly start seeing individual character articles reappear, but while the fact that they are portrayed on television may make them notable enough for a robust list, it does not necessarily mean they should have individual or even House articles. If we were to rewrite this article so that each House has a decent plot overview mentioning all of its major members and their significant plotlines (not each character split into a subsection), I think we'd find that not much else needs to be written about them. If at some point a House section becomes so full of wonderful analysis and references that it demands to be split out on its own, then fine. But I wouldn't expect that to happen before the show has aired for a season, and even then I'm dubious.— TAnthony^Talk 02:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Dudes, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_call_things_cruft#Don.27t_call_things_cruft

I believe no information should be removed. If necessary, please restructure it to enhance clarity. Details are necessary as this is a detailed series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.60.193.80 (talk) 03:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not adept at posting or editing Wikipedia. However, when I saw the heading at the top criticizing the amount of detail in this thread I thought it was absolute nonsense. Who else but die-hard hardcore hardheaded nerdy fans would look up the specific houses of "song of fire and ice." Minimizing detail and pandering to the typical uninformed masses is like releasing a book on brain surgery and keeping the medical jargon down to "You cut in brain and brain now work good," just in case some non-doctor decides to give it a go. There IS such a thing as specific information guys. Not EVERYTHING on Wikipedia HAS to be a vague general overview...just most things. I for one found this article in its current shape extremely helpful in keeping the clutter of information released piece by piece in the books in some sort of order. 69.37.95.0 (talk) 10:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Since you are kinda new to Wikipedia, allow me to welcome you here. :)

Moving on, I get what you are saying, and I can see how my comment, voiced as it was over a year ago, might have thrown you. However, looking at the state of the article last year, you might have been more inclined to agree with my assessment. The article has improved, due to a more diligent policing of the added material. The rules for this are (imo) simple:

1. Don't add uncited information.
2. See Rule #1
3. Don't add fringe theories, fan speculation, plot evaluations or pretty much anything from an unreliable source.

That seems pretty easy to follow on the face of it, but - due to the largish amount of material in each novel, that can be pretty tricky at times. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

What of the images for the different house sigils?

I've seen them elsewhere, but am unsure of both the provenance and copywritten nature of the images. I think the article would benefit from the usage of the images. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The official house sigils are copyrighted. There are some user made versions on commons [1], but no consistent set for all major houses. Yoenit (talk) 14:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Then we are S.O.L; we need to try and avoid copy-written material if at all possible, and using them without a really good reason would get them yanked but quick. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The term "copy-written" is not appropriate in this context, "copyright" is to do with rights, not writing. — PhilHibbs | talk 14:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

IMHU, most of the sigils should be taken out. An apropiate representation of the blasons would be appropiate and admissible (since it's free content), but most of the ones we've got are just out of place. The Stark direwolf has never been rampant while the Baratheon stag should be (and crowned, too), the Arryn falcon and moon are combined in a silly way, the way the Greyjoy kraken is depicted doesn't match well with heraldry rules... I propose to leave just the Tullys and the Tyrells eliminate the rest.--RR (talk) 14:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

"POV character"

The term "POV character" links to Narrative mode, which does not explain the meaning of, or at any point mention the term, "POV character". — PhilHibbs | talk 14:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The larger question is actually who coined this term in terms of these books. Has a reliable source called them such? I am hesitant to use the descriptor for any character without external substantiation as to whether or not this distinction is of any import. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

A POV character means a first person point of view character, aka a First-person narrative. It is probably better to deep link to that article than the more general narrative one. With regards to Jack Sebastian, the author uses that term regularly, for example here. Yoenit (talk) 20:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

What 6 year old wrote the section on Arya Stark?

Can it be restored to the earlier version?

Thank you, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.98.85.14 (talk) 18:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It has been done by user:Caidh Yoenit (talk) 20:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Female line of House Targaryen?

If I'm not mistaken, the present members of the House Targaryen are actually female line descendants of Aegon, the Conqueror, and thus, female line descendants of House Targaryen through Rhaenyra (daughter of King Viserys I). Shouldn't that be added to the article? --Lecen (talk) 14:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Why would we want to include that? How does it matter in any way? Yoenit (talk) 14:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Spoilers, Speculation, etc.

I was just glancing over this to refresh my memory about the Lannisters when I came across some pretty big book 5 spoilers. In further reading, there are plot points that are unconfirmed, contradicted, and otherwise shaky. And really, does this article need to be about plot at all? A who they are, why they're important, relationship to their house, and that's about it should suffice. I don't need to find out that Ned Stark was poisoned by Tywin Lannister in book six, or that Lysa Aryn paid an assassin to kill Jon Snow. This is about the major houses, not recent events in Westeros. (and yes, I realize the article states at the beginning it talks about these characters in detail - but it doesn't, really, and it shouldn't try) Darquis (talk) 09:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

present/past tense

Ignoring the question of whether detailed plot summaries have a place in wikipedia articles or not, they must be written in present tense, not past tense. In that respect, this page is of a very low quality and should be edited accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.180.221.249 (talk) 12:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Rather than complain about the mess, why not start cleaning it up? It's easy to point the finger, but realize that when doing so, you are pointing three back at yourself.

Unless you have a stump with only one finger. In that case, the metaphor is harder to achieve. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Renly

Recently, an anon IP contributor reinstated material implying Renly was a homosexual, pointing to the series as proof and stating that 'it's constantly implied in the books'. I've reverted it out again. We are not allowed to deduce facts not explicilty stated within the material or commented upon by a reliable secondary source. Until then, I think it should stay out. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

And no, other characters making ribald "japes" about the relationship isn't enough either. One character is always casting aspersions at another. Were we to believe all of them, Cersei would be sexing up good ol' Moon Boy/Pie Face/whatever the jester's name is. I've said it before, and it is no less true now as it was then: get a (reliable) source or three that says Renly and Loras were making the Beast With Two Backs, and my resistance with vanish. Don't get it, and it - quite simply - is not going in. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Is George R.R. Martin considered a reliable secondary source? He mentions it again in this interview. So that's that. --Lost tiree, lost dutch :O (talk) 12:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep, that's a good source; as it states, most of the readers glossed over it, and so did I. Do you wish to add it (since you found it), or should I? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Jon Snow's mommy

I've reverted out the largely OR bits that regurgitate in-book speculation as to the identity of Snow's mother. Different characters in the book have all espoused a pet theory, and without GRRM weighing in conclusively on the subject, all we are offering is errant noise masquerading as concise overview. I expect that if anyone (meaning anyone who fulfills our criteria for inclusion) other than GRRM offers their speculation as to who Jon's mom is, there will be sources to accompany it, and said sources will be notable, reliable and verifiable. Without them, they will be reverted out as the heated fan-forum twaddle they appear to be. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I am removing the targaryan theory as it is NOT explicitly indicated in the books. It's a gratuitous spoiler that people should have the pleasure of figuring out for themselves. Lesbro (talk) 15:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

This whole article is one big spoiler, so that is not a valid argument. See also wp:SPOILER, from which I quote: "It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot.". I have thus readded it with an independent third party reference, as Jack asked for in his comment above (note that was made several months ago). Yoenit (talk) 16:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, at least to the effect that spoilers are not a concern to voice over Wikipedia articles, so long as revealing spoilers doesn't interfere with the copyright or business of the creator. I have modified Yoenit's edit to reflect that the referenced reviewer was presenting their sole opinion as to the parentage of Jon Snow. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

true, the spoiler thing is sentimental, however readers' theories are not encyclopaedic facts about the plot, characters and overall material. Why should any hypotheses be involved? Let's identify what has been confirmed so far. I agree that the books strongly and covertly indicate Jon's Targaryen lineage but there are websites for sharing theories about this stuff.

Lesbro (talk) 19:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Jack, I gotta disagree with your edit. The way you wrote it was as though the guy came up with the theory himself, which is of course not true. He says in the article What if Jon Snow, in other words, is not Ned’s bastard at all? For many readers of the books this has become accepted wisdom – there are so many hints and other signs pointing to the truth of this version found within the first five books. I think this more than adequate to support something along the lines of "according to Erik Kain many readers believe the theory". Yoenit (talk) 20:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I think to do so would be more than a gentle nudge down a slippery slope. The writer is espousing his own opinion, couching it as belonging to "many readers". We cannot cite the other readers; we can only cite Kain. Frankly, to state that "many readers" feel any way affords an undue preference for that particular theory which is - by most accounts - only one of many. I read the same article you did. What I read was Kain's opinion. Not that of many readers.

Well if you insist we can drop "many readers". The problem I have with the current wording that it gives the impression this particular theory was only just invented by Erik Kain. How about changing the sentence from "Erik Kain, of Forbes voices the theory" to "Another theory, supported by Erik Kain of Forbes, is". That should take away your wp:UNDUE concern and clarify it is also Erik Kain's personal opinion, without giving the impression that he made it up himself . Yoenit (talk) 10:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Do we know for sure that he didn't just make this up? It would be a nifty piece of astroturfing if he were to go the fan boards, espouse this theory, write an article basing it off of "fan theories" and then come and support such here in Wikipedia and other places. Trust me, it isn't that far-fetched. You should hear about some of the Large Bag of Crazy that went into the Star Trek boards advocating a relationship between Spock and Uhura before the film was even written. I just don't see that this is more than the reviewers personal theory. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I presume you are familiar with westeros.org, the biggest fansite of the ASOIAF series? They have a thread dedicated to this particular theory, which goes back to May 2006 and is now its 24th incarnation, numbering a combined total of around 10.000 comments to these threads. I think we can safely assume Erik Kain did not start spreading this theory six years ago only to write an article about it in 2012. Yoenit (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I got curious and after a little digging I came up with a mention of the theory as far back as August 2000, with references to even older mailing list discussions. Yoenit (talk) 18:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

{od}}(edit conflict) We cannot assume anything, Yoenit. Westeros.org isn't considered a source reliable enough for refuting anything in Wikipedia. You and I both know that various fan forums can generate thousands of comments by a very small, statistically insignificant number of people (need I point out the Iraq/Iran nonsense here in Wikipedia of several years ago, wherein about 5-6 pro-Iraq contributors were generating thousands of comments through at least a dozen socks each?). The Kain comment is placed within a section denoting several other theories, and if none of the people espousing the same theory as Kain are not notable for inclusion, that isn't our fault. Kain was the first notable person to espouse it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not refuting anything in wikipedia, I am refuting your crazy theory that all of of this is just a bit of astroturfing by Kain. Clearly this is going nowhere though, suppose I should start an RFC or something. Yoenit (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

This article in Forbes by Erik Kain describes a theory about the parentage of the fictional character Jon Snow. Which of the following wording should be used in the article (See also the discussion above):

• "Erik Kain, of Forbes voices the theory..."
• "Another theory, supported by Erik Kain of Forbes, is..."
• Other, namely...

Please comment below and help us settle this issue Yoenit (talk) 19:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Only tumbleweeds around here, ofcourse it was silly to expect anything else on a wp:BIKESHED dispute like this one. For later use: [2], [3] two more mentions of the theory. Yoenit (talk) 08:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, they're both okay, but I prefer the first one. It is 100% true that Erik Kain has voiced the theory, so it is the stronger of our two options (but we've got to lose that comma after "Kain" and put "Forbes" in italics). The idea that Erik Kain supports the theory (suggesting the unnamed "many readers" mentioned in his article) wouldn't set anything important on fire, though.

There's also an RfC over at Talk:Blackwater (Game of Thrones). Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Too long by far

I think the title pretty much says it all - the various sections are getting longer and longer, made so by contributors stuffing in every little piece of data possible. We don't do that here.Wikipedia doesn't do that. We are an encyclopedia, and the articles are - at their best - an overview of a topic. They are not the replacement of the topic.
I am fully aware of the complexities of the books series; Martin is the sort of great writer that can make aspiring authors consider instead a career in fast food or telephone sales. His material is vast. That said, we don't recreate it here. I am not advocating a bare-bones approach (ie, 'Ned Stark was the Lord of Winterfell. he came to King's Lading and got his head chopped off'), but there has to be a middle ground between that and the bloated ruin that keeps puffing the article up. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Harrold Hardyng

Harrold Hardyng redirects here but is not present on the page. 184.166.32.148 (talk) 00:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I think he's too minor to have his own section. Having a redirect but no section is annoying (I agree), but it necessarily isn't a huge problem. I honestly had no idea who he is. After looking him up on A Wiki of Ice and Fire, he hasn't really accomplished much other than being betrothed to Sansa. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 00:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

He used to have a section, but it was removed shortly after the house articles were merged, as he was very minor character and his section was mostly speculation [4]. Perhaps we can point the redirect elsewhere?

What would the new target be? ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 14:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

He is mentioned at A_Feast_for_Crows#The_Eyrie and Sansa Stark's description on this page. I would prefer linking to the former, as it is more likely to remain relevant. Yoenit (talk) 18:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

That seems best. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 18:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Overhaul

So, I mentioned it at the project talk page about two weeks ago, but I should mention it here. I'm drafting a merge of the two character lists, located at this subpage o' mine. I have only twenty characters left to rewrite, mostly those with long sections (as I was too lazy to read through that before). Some comments:

• Organization: I've adopted the organization used on List of characters in Game of Thrones, which is basically arranged by familial associations. Some example headings: House Arryn, retainers and bannermen; Night's Watch and wildlings; Royal court and officials; Other characters. I considered an arrangement similar to the appendices (By Kings or something), but then too many characters change allegiance. In this organization, characters won't move too much. But some of those bannermen and retainers do keep moving around. So I put them under their initial associations. Examples: Brienne is under Baratheon; Roose is under Starks. For wives, I put them under what they are most strongly associated with. I put Lysa under Arryn, and I've titled her heading Lysa Arryn. I'm going to do the same with Catelyn, Catelyn Stark. Same logic with Jon Snow. He's more strongly associated with the Night's Watch than the Starks. Cersei may stay Lannister as she's more associated with the Lannisters than Baratheon, and Elia is still a Martell as I don't think naming her Elia Targaryen will sit well.
• References: I've considered several styles. First I wrote out full refs, but that looked ridiculous and I only had four characters on the page (old diff). I eventually settled on the current format, which I personally like. Links to some referenced character sections: Jorah Mormont, Davos Seaworth, Jeyne Poole.
• Ultimate location: I think it's best to move it to Characters in A Song of Ice and Fire, as that makes the most sense. I'll bring it up at the project talk page when I finish the draft and refs.

So, any comments are appreciated. The project talk is quiet, and it makes me lonely. :( ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 19:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks really nice. I am worried about the list get a bit long though, especially as the characters with the longest sections (Jon, Dany, Tyrion, Littlefinger, etc) are still missing. Have you considered starting separate articles for those? Yoenit (talk) 23:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the length too. I've decided to write separate articles for a good number of them. Eddard (maybe), Dany, Jon, Tyrion, Cersei to name a few. Mostly Starks and Lannisters honestly. But I haven't been following reception and production for the series, so I'm not sure which articles are viable. But I'll have to get around to that eventually if I want to put any of that on the pages. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 01:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so I'm done writing everything, but not referencing it. And it still needs production and reception. I'll move it to mainspace anyway. I've made a new heading at the project talk page for discussion. Please make comments there! ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 21:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)