Talk:Knight of the Laughing Tree

From A Wiki of Ice and Fire
Jump to: navigation, search

In the format and style that the article is currently written in it contains originally research. In my opinion this is not suitable for a wiki. The article should not speculate about possible identities. The speculation itself is personal and therefore not newsworthy for the wiki.
However if on a number of fan forums there is speculation about the identity then THAT is newsworthy; it is the opinion of a lot of people (as opposed to the opinion of the writer) and the wiki can present it in a neutral way. It is then for the reader to decide which theory (if any) he or she believes. Of course the info should be restricted to presenting the major theories and it should include references, with links, where these theories are discussed.

I am willing to change the article myself but as a lot of effort was just done to change it I thought it better to discuss it first.Scafloc 23:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't at all mind taking the "Theories" section out, or moving them to their own page; it was already there, and presented a bunch of fan theories in an incomplete and partly unbalanced way (e.g. it originally stated outright that Howland Reed was the leading candidate, which is certainly an opinion, and not even the most popular one from what I can tell), so I figured if there was going to be any discussion of theory at all it was better to expand it. Most of the information I've got there is paraphrased from the Citadel link at the bottom of the article, with the main exception being the stuff about Ashara Dayne, which is a theory I remember some folks defending at great length in some threads on the westeros.org forums a few years back. (It's not a theory I share, FWIW, but as it seemed to have about as much evidence as some of the other leading candidates already mentioned I thought it was worth throwing her in.) The discussions are old enough that I'm not sure if I'd be able to find it again, but I can give it a shot. Penelope 03:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I tried fleshing out the history section. Meera's story has a large cast of characters, and an unusual wealth of details. I also tried adding references to the theory section and summarizing the pro and con arguments for each of the theories mentioned. Better? --Dimadick 18:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Definitely a major improved. I have made a few additional changes: another reference and moved the paragraph with the candidates and arguments to Knight of the Laughing Tree/Theories. This way people can read the regular page and notice that the speculation and a short recapture of the facts. If they want to know the speculation they can continue to the theories but if the reader is still reading the books he / she may link to keep the story unspoiled. Ok? Scafloc 21:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Certainly OK for not actually deleting the content. Just one note use "Category:Theories" for such pages. Uncategorized pages remain virtually untraceable. --Dimadick 05:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Navigation menu