Talk: Aegon Targaryen (son of Rhaegar)

From A Wiki of Ice and Fire
(Redirected from Talk:Aegon Targaryen)
Jump to: navigation, search

i tried to flesh out the article, as we have references to Aegon from many different characters across five books. The hard part is to determine who claims what. If I have missed something important, please point it out. --Dimadick 17:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Yikes, this article has spiraled way out of control. I'm not sure it's necessary to include every minute reference to or conjecture about the character. The grammar and syntax need some clean up too. I'd be happy to help but I think a lot of trimming needs to be done. --Citizen_snips 02:41, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The articles are supposed to include the known information about characters. The forum already includes several discussions were readers were unable to recall the necessary information on the character, and I think it was about time the article helped out with that.

What conjecture? Currently the article consists of information from the novels, and excludes theories on this character. Someone else can cover these theories.

I will see what I can I do about correcting my own grammar. --Dimadick 08:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Fact vs Unconfirmed

I feel the article should continue to demonstrate that Aegon's current status is an unconfirmed situation. Namely that no proof has been provided that Young Griff is actually Aegon, an undoubtedly his origin and fate will be further expanded on. Thus, until it is resolved, the article should reflect that ambiguous situation (which is already does technically, but Roxy insists on editing just one aspect of it for some unknown reason). For example, the alias, the main picture used, etc, was challenged before and have remained. Roxy has not bothered to edit those.

Roxy, if you disagree please provide adequate reason before editing. Let's hash out why it is 100% confirmed this is Aegon and the article should reflect that and only that. If you do not possess 100% proof that Varys and Illyrio and their pet Blackfyre army are not part of some game of thrones, perhaps you should drop this and stop vandalizing the article every few weeks. Benethon Stark 22:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Let's start with assuming that all edits are made in good faith: the wish to improve the wiki. Difference of opinion are just that and should not be seen as malice. But it is clear that in discussions we need to come up with arguments.Scafloc 22:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. My argument is stated though: there is not enough data to conclusively state either way, and therefore the article should reflect that.

If the previous edits had been made to improve the wiki, they would have been consistent with the stance taken and involved other edits. Benethon Stark 23:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Scafloc, thank you for the reminder about good faith. I hope we can discuss this without further accusations of vandalism. This debate is fueled by a difference of opinion and groundless accusations like the ones that have been made here and elsewhere do not help resolve the dispute.
My stance is that the text does not indicate that Aegon's status is unconfirmed any more than it indicates that Jon Conninton's status is unconfirmed. The text puts the character forward as though he were the real Aegon. I am not saying there isn't room to speculate whether this will turn out to be the truth. I am not saying the theory that he is a fake won't turn out to be what is revealed in the coming books. What I am saying is that the article should reflect what the text establishes, not what some of the readers are projecting onto the text. As of right now, the stance that Aegon's status is unconfirmed is not what the text reflects and that belief should not dictate how we edit these articles.
For example, the Jon Snow article, like the novels, presents the character as Eddard Stark's son despite the massive fan speculation that he may have been fathered by another character. Jon is also listed as Eddard's son in the Stark family tree and is not on the Targaryen family tree. Similarly, the Ashara Dayne article lists 283 as the date of death for that character despite the lack of a body and the fan speculation that she may have survived as current character. In my opinion, we should treat the speculation around Aegon's identity the same way: By going with the text and keeping the theories to the forum and theory articles.
As for the request of 100% proof that the character is Aegon, since we have all presumably read the books, we know that there are very few things in this series that are 100% certain. The books are told from POVs which are limiting. All we know is that both sets of POV chapters that have included this character have acknowledged him as Aegon and there has not been any indication that his status is unconfirmed.
To answer the question of why I didn't edit the main image: I noticed that there had already been controversy over it and didn't want to open that up again. But since it has been brought up, we probably should have a discussion about choosing a more appropriate image. Maybe a different one of an infant as a compromise with a caption that doesn't reflect fan theory. Roxy 20:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
In similar discussions like Jaqen H'ghar = Alchemist our solution was to refrain from any judgement and just state what the books are saying. Our only conclusion was that the descrpition of their appearences match. Apart from that we left it for the readers to draw their own conclusions. This approach may be usefull in the current dispute. The person that is called Young Griff could be described in phrases like "according to Jon Connington Aegon was rescued from Kingslanding..." and so on. What do you think; could this help? Scafloc 20:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Should Young Griff and Aegon Targaryen be two separate articles?

It feels like this article is too supportive of the possibility they are the same person. --Lord Thornhart 02:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Request The first and last picture be switched around

I don't think it's appropriate to have a picture of Elia holding baby Aegon as the introduction picture, as it gives more credence to the fan theory that Aegon is not who he claims to be, which is just a fan theory and not the base assumption most of our characters are going off of in ASOIAF.

I request that the last picture on this page, the assumed Prince Aegon as he currently, be switched with the Elia picture in order to make the article biased towards a fan theory.

I understand where you are coming from. However, Changing the first picture with the last picture makes the page begin with a young adult Aegon. Those who've only read a few books, and have yet to read Dance, who visit this page, might consider it a spoiler to see a picture of Aegon who survived, as up until beginning in Dance, we are supposed to believe he actually died.
So hereby I suggest an alternative: let's change the description underneath the picture of Elia holding Aegon. Right now, the description is Princess Elia Martell's last moments - by Achen089 ©. She holds an infant who dies with her. Either Aegon Targaryen or the Pisswater prince. I suggest changing the description to Prince Aegon in the arms of his mother, Princess Elia Martell.
Also, don't forget to sign your posts on talk pages with your signature! :) --Rhaenys_Targaryen 10:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
There has been a fight over a spoiler policy and the result was that most people did not agree there should be one. See here for the details.Scafloc 18:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
So there's not really a spoiler policy. But still, changing the Aegon pictures would make the article a bit biased towards one theory, wouldn't it?--Rhaenys_Targaryen 21:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
.. That would be biased towards another theory. Baby Aegon is the only Aegon we can be sure is him. I support Rhaenys_Targaryen's idea. --Lord Thornhart 02:34, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I've changed the tekst underneath the first picture as discussed--Rhaenys_Targaryen 13:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)