Difference between revisions of "User talk:Rhaenys Targaryen"

From A Wiki of Ice and Fire
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Aegon Targaryen/Theories)
m (Aegon Targaryen/Theories)
Line 32: Line 32:
 
Hello Rhaenys! What you've written about Aegon VI sounds good, but let me ask you one thing, could it also be that Aegon VI is really Aegon VI, rescued before King's Landing was sacked? We all know that George R.R. Martin has a faible for "unhappy endings" and this would be one... for Daenerys! --[[User:Exodianecross|Exodianecross]] 19:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 
Hello Rhaenys! What you've written about Aegon VI sounds good, but let me ask you one thing, could it also be that Aegon VI is really Aegon VI, rescued before King's Landing was sacked? We all know that George R.R. Martin has a faible for "unhappy endings" and this would be one... for Daenerys! --[[User:Exodianecross|Exodianecross]] 19:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 
:Hi! Of course that could be true. I've tried to rewrite the page because I felt it was suggesting that Aegon was fake too much, and I wanted to make it more neutral. Is it not yet neutral enough? --[[User:Rhaenys_Targaryen|Rhaenys_Targaryen]] 20:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 
:Hi! Of course that could be true. I've tried to rewrite the page because I felt it was suggesting that Aegon was fake too much, and I wanted to make it more neutral. Is it not yet neutral enough? --[[User:Rhaenys_Targaryen|Rhaenys_Targaryen]] 20:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
::I would say, there are more reasons written that Aegon is a fake, and not true! But I think that this isn't wrong. There are enough doubts of his true identity because in a world like this, medieval, no one can be sure if he/she is a true son/daughter, from the biological point of view! Just for fun, perhaps George Martin will reveal that Daenerys isn't Daenerys, because the true Daenerys died shortly after the arrival in Essos/Braavos. And Willem Darry stole a female Blackfyre-babe because he knew, that Viserys would need a "sister" to merry her to a strong ally, to get the strength to reconquer the throne! The revelation that Dany isn't a Targaryen would be the worst "unhappy ending" of all times, wouldn't you agree?--[[User:Exodianecross|Exodianecross]] 21:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
+
::I would say, there are more reasons written that Aegon is a fake, and not true! But I think that this isn't wrong. There are enough doubts of his true identity because in a world like this, medieval, no one can be sure if he/she is a true son/daughter, from the biological point of view! Just for fun, perhaps George Martin will reveal that Daenerys isn't Daenerys, because the true Daenerys died shortly after the arrival in Essos/Braavos. And Willem Darry stole a female Blackfyre-babe because he knew, that Viserys would need a "sister" as a marriage proposal to a strong ally, to get the strength to reconquer the throne! The revelation that Dany isn't a Targaryen would be the worst "unhappy ending" of all times, wouldn't you agree?--[[User:Exodianecross|Exodianecross]] 21:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:51, 23 June 2014

A place to discuss

Deletion of Daemon Blackfyre/Theories

Hi the theories pages are intended for speculations / calculated guesses. Not sure why you deleted it. Could you discuss this first? Scafloc 22:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

The contents of that page were a discussion of when Daemon was born, but Daemon's age during a known year has been confirmed, and thus it seemed unnecessary to me to use an entire page for a discussion that ended with the sentence "The author confirmed Daemon's birth date in a mail to the Dabel Brothers." So I figured the page was no longer necessary. Was that wrong thinking?--Rhaenys_Targaryen 06:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
In that case there is no need for speculation (on this point). I think it is better to add this to the theory page. Else how would anyone know this. Cheers,Scafloc 21:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Re: Family trees

Yeah I was just updating the information on a few of the family trees, but if you think they look better with dates for all characters or none, I can easily remove them :) Lord Knightmare 16:59, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I think it looks better if they are removed. I think it would make the trees more orderly. Having the dates removed would also have the advantage of not spoiling deaths of characters for new readers who would like to look at a tree to see how character A is related to character B. --Rhaenys_Targaryen 17:03, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Ok I'll remove them tomorrow, it's getting late here :) Lord Knightmare 17:15, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

There are also recent edits of dotted lines for marriages being changed to solid lines, which have been used for blood relations (for example, House Lydden before and after). Is that agreed upon? Nittanian 14:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Not sure, but it seems logical. Aren't dotted lines supposed to show outer marital activities? For example, the line between Daena Taryargen and Baelor I Targaryen should be a solid one, since they were legally married, but the line between Daena and Aegon IV should be dotted, since they were not married? The line going down to Daemon Blackfyre would be dotted then as well, since he's a bastard, born out of wedlock. How else are we supposed to make clear the difference between children born out of wedlock, and those born within a marriage?--Rhaenys_Targaryen 18:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
It's not used consistently then. For instance, House Swyft and House Stokeworth currently have had dotted lines for marriages for years, while House Frey/Blackwood had them until recently. Nittanian 19:12, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Then perhaps we should also start working on that :) If everyone agrees with using solid lines for marriages, and dotted lines for bastards and affairs out of marriage?
So to take the Stokeworths as an example, between Falyse and her husband should be a solid line, and between Lollys and Bronn, but not between Lollys and the unknown who lead to Tyrion Tanner, since little Tyrion is a bastard --Rhaenys_Targaryen 20:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
According to this BBC page, dotted lines can be used for presumed relationships. It also states that an equal sign is used for marriages; I'm not sure if the wiki template software allows for that. Interestingly enough, the Template:Familytree uses dashes for marriages and solid lines for children & siblings in its sample. Based on the Stark family tree from the Edelweiss extract, TWOIAF will differentiate between marriages and children with different colors, but I don't think the familytree template offers colored lines. Nittanian 20:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't think colours is a good idea. From what I understand, you can colour a box, but not a line. Wouldn't it make more sense to use a dashed line for bastards and affairs, and solid lines for marriages and legitimate children though? How else should we see the difference in one go? It would mean that multiple family trees need editing, but at least they'll be easy to find, with the category.--Rhaenys_Targaryen 11:04, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I checked Wikipedia, which uses family trees inconsistently. For instance House of Normandy, House of Windsor, and the Nevilles use dashes for marriages. House of Orange-Nassau does as well, and includes vertical dashes and "illeg." for illegitimate children. The Shakespeare family tree use solid lines for marriages. The tree for Mary, Queen of Scots also uses solid lines and only uses dashes to help with spacing.

Regarding AWOIAF, I like the look of the Orange-Nassau system, but it's not a dealbreaker. Nittanian 16:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

So dotted lines for marriages or affairs, and solid lines for trueborn children, and dotted lines for illegimate children then? Though I have to admit, having looked at the Shakespear tree again, I really like the look of that one. --Rhaenys_Targaryen 19:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Aegon Targaryen/Theories

Hello Rhaenys! What you've written about Aegon VI sounds good, but let me ask you one thing, could it also be that Aegon VI is really Aegon VI, rescued before King's Landing was sacked? We all know that George R.R. Martin has a faible for "unhappy endings" and this would be one... for Daenerys! --Exodianecross 19:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi! Of course that could be true. I've tried to rewrite the page because I felt it was suggesting that Aegon was fake too much, and I wanted to make it more neutral. Is it not yet neutral enough? --Rhaenys_Targaryen 20:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I would say, there are more reasons written that Aegon is a fake, and not true! But I think that this isn't wrong. There are enough doubts of his true identity because in a world like this, medieval, no one can be sure if he/she is a true son/daughter, from the biological point of view! Just for fun, perhaps George Martin will reveal that Daenerys isn't Daenerys, because the true Daenerys died shortly after the arrival in Essos/Braavos. And Willem Darry stole a female Blackfyre-babe because he knew, that Viserys would need a "sister" as a marriage proposal to a strong ally, to get the strength to reconquer the throne! The revelation that Dany isn't a Targaryen would be the worst "unhappy ending" of all times, wouldn't you agree?--Exodianecross 21:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)