![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
"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)
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)
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)
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'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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Lesbro ( talk) 19:36, 2 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)
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):
Please comment below and help us settle this issue Yoenit ( talk) 19:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
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 redirects here but is not present on the page. 184.166.32.148 ( talk) 00:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
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:
So, any comments are appreciated. The project talk is quiet, and it makes me lonely. :( ~Cheers,
Ten
Ton
Parasol
19:07, 20 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, Ten Ton Parasol 21:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
"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)
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)
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)
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'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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Lesbro ( talk) 19:36, 2 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)
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):
Please comment below and help us settle this issue Yoenit ( talk) 19:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
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 redirects here but is not present on the page. 184.166.32.148 ( talk) 00:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
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:
So, any comments are appreciated. The project talk is quiet, and it makes me lonely. :( ~Cheers,
Ten
Ton
Parasol
19:07, 20 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, Ten Ton Parasol 21:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)