Talk:A Song of Ice and Fire

Pronunciation guide

The pronunciation guide, although an excellent idea, is not helpful at all to people who can't read the phonetic language... which is almost everyone. I would do this myself, but I don't know the exact pronunciations. So will someone who can read this or who already knows the sounds write them there? For example - Cersei: Sir - sigh (if indeed that is how that name is pronounced). Thank you!

• Um this may sound dumb but ʒ what is this? I wanted to learn how to prounouce and that is one of the "letters" I saw, is it my brouser?
  • Guys, it's just IPA. It's the standard way of representing pronunciations here. It's the same way pronuncations are indicated all over the wiki. If you don't want to bother learning it - as I certainly don't - you can always just keep an IPA reference open as you read the pronuncations. Sniffnoy 18:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Problem is the stupid IPA symbols don't even display correctly in all browsers, as the anonymous poster before you has discovered. When half of the pronunciations show up as several ʒ symbols instead of what they're supposed to show up as, all the references in the world aren't going to amount to a hill of beans. Whoever decided wiki should only ever use IPA did plenty of users a tremendous disservice. 76.226.99.12 (talk) 04:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
      • ...what? ʒ is a perfectly valid IPA symbol, it's the symbol for the "zh" sound. "dʒ" indicates a j sound. Was it used incorrectly? Sniffnoy (talk) 19:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the entire pronounciation guide's presence is a bit dubious since GRRM himself has said there is no set pronounciation for the books. The pronounciations he uses when reading are different from what his audiobook readers use, for example. There are a couple of pronounciations he insists on = 'Jaime' is pronounced like 'Jamie', not 'JAY-MA' - but overall I'd say the pronounciation section can be culled, at least until such time as GRRM releases an 'official' guide.--Werthead (talk) 03:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Plot Summary

Is there any justification for Westeros being described as a "South American sized continent"? Reading the books, it seemed more like it was an island the size of Britain. Indeed it seems like a fantasy world version of feudal Britain, down to the Viking-like groups on small islands off the coast (Orkneys, Hebrides), the protective wall to the north (like Hadrian's Wall) and the wild painted people beyond that wall (a.k.a the Picts/Scots). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.99.63.218 (talk) 17:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It's modeled on Britain in some ways, including those you mention, but Britain itself would be far too small for the scale of the series' action. The South America comparison comes from the author himself; I've added a reference. Brendan Moody (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

In addition, the Wall by itself is 300 miles long, half the length of the island of Britain. You can use the Wall as a scale bar (GRRM confirmed this is valid on this week's Barnes & Noble forum Q&A). This gives a distance from the Wall to the south coast of Dorne of approximately 3,000 miles (South America is about 4,000 miles from the Panama Canal to the southern tip of Chile), with an unknown amount of land north of the Wall.--Werthead (talk) 03:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

HBO Adaption

Breaking news, perhaps, but surely this should be mentioned in the article somewhere? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.3.0.12 (talk) 15:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

It is, in the Spinoffs section. Brendan Moody 18:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Rewording was nessary. People cannot be expected to read the wording "It was announced...etc..." with out asking the question Who announced it. Also as it is not yet cut in stone, it only remains a possibility. Like many other of GRRM's books that have been optioned. When it is produced, then it is considered a series to be aired and not simply a possibility. Slso adding the term "expected" is proper and we do not yet know more than what they expect or wish to do. It could well turn out that they break up a book into two seasons or use two books per seasen. At this point "expected" is the only realiable wording that works. Mystar 05:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent touches Keven and Brenden Well statedMystar 13:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The reason I changed the heading is because it is not calling for a theatrical or film adaptation, it called for a TV series only. WLU 19:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I changed the section heading back to TV adaptation because I think headings should refer to what is currently in the article, not what might (and is pretty unlikely to) come in the future. If more adaptations do come up, we should change the main heading to "Adaptations" and have subheadings for each type, like the Spin-offs section. -Captain Crawdad 19:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Weapon Replicas

Added a subsection on the planned weapon replicas to the Spin-offs section. 195.235.227.10 17:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC) Grey Wolf

Computer games section

This section piqued my interest, it mentions that mods were made, but only lists the games they're based on, not the mods themselves. Including these would be nice, because...well, I'm interested. Leedeth 13:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Posting the names of the mods themselves or anything else pretty much amounts to advertising. I was part of a team developing a PW for ASOIAF using Neverwinter Nights, but 'advertising' here just seemed kind of wrong. The project is on hold, since I'm currently heading up a popular Wheel of Time PW, and no one else seemed to have the energy and desire to continue.JCSeer (talk) 07:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

Those references to Machiavelli are thin in my opinion, perhaps they should be removeed. But i'll leave the decision to someone else70.111.23.108 19:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Done. Indrian 19:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Have you ever even read The Prince? They are direct references to specific chapters. Check your own research. Orracle107 19:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• Chapter 17 - CONCERNING CRUELTY AND CLEMENCY, AND WHETHER IT IS BETTER TO BE LOVED THAN FEARED

[1]

• Chapter 18 - CONCERNING THE WAY IN WHICH PRINCES SHOULD KEEP FAITH[2]

It's not that it's wrong, you are no doubt right. The problem is, to put it simply, in order for it to not be original research somebody else has to say it first, and in a reliable source outside of wikipedia. I know it seems obvious but we are not allowed to put forth our own observations as fact at wikipedia. NeoFreak 20:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that up. Orracle107 20:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Have you thought about joining the Song of Ice and Fire wikiproject? We could use some new editors that are interested in working in this subject. NeoFreak 23:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Timeline correct?

Is the timeline in the overview section correct? It seems to me that the dragons had been gone from the world for several hundred years before the time of the novel - and if House T had only conquored the land 280 odd years ago, they would have only had dragons for less than a hundred years - and that seems at odds with the number of dragon skulls in the red castly and really seems to compress the time that breeding the dragons in the dragon pits making them smaller and weaker each generation.

First, I think that the reason the Targaryens were able to conquer much of Westeros in the first place is that they had dragons - Vhagar, Meraxes and Balerion. Aegon, Rhaenys and Visenya had dragons when they began their conquering. --Pyreforge 12:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

But that still doesnt address my question of the aparent compression of the time that is implied - If the Targaryens conquored the continent 280 years ago and dragons have been gone from the world for 200 years, that leaves 80 years of rule under dragons, which would be, say, 4 generations in which the dragons to have gone from imposing monsters to extinct. There seems to be too many dragon skulls in the castle basement for that timeline to work.

The Targaryen conquest was about 300 years before the time of the novels: the Targaryen succession listed at the end of the appendix to A Game of Thrones places Aerys' death 283 years after Aegon's Landing, and the series commences fifteen years after that. The same succession listing also dates the death of the last dragons to the reign of Aegon III, about 130-160 years (not 80) after the landing. Dragons have only been gone from the world for about 150 years when the series starts, not 200. References in the text to "hundreds of years" are rounding or hyperbole. Brendan Moody 03:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, the Targaryens were on Dragonstone for 200 years before the Conquest, presumably during which time they also had dragons. The oldest dragon skulls are said to be 'thousands' of years old, suggesting that the Targaryens brought some of the most noteworthy ones with them from Valyria to Dragonstone, and later to King's Landing. Presumably they considered them important heirlooms of the house.--Werthead (talk) 03:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

150 years is correct. This is explicitly stated several times in the text. SharkD  Talk  07:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

"At least" seven novels?

I have removed the phrase "at least" from the top of the article. There is no evidence anywhere (at least officially) that the series will expand beyond this, and GRRM isn't suggesting it. Therefore I consider it misleading. 74.225.243.175 02:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

A Song of Ice and Fire Inspiration

I thought it was a different story that inspired Martin to write A Song of Ice and Fire. Can anyone confirm the story? [REL] 2007 August 10

No, it was Memory, Sorrow and Thorn that made GRRM think that an epic fantasy series could be written to appeal to a more mature audience than contemporary authors (I assume he was thinking of the likes of Terry Brooks and David Eddings). I gather his impression was that the last proper, 'adult' epic fantasy series was Thomas Covenant a deacade earlier. It's in the So Spake Martin part of Westeros.org somewhere. I'll see if I can look it up when I have more time.--Werthead 21:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Critical Response

This really is just a shoddy section. It makes it seem like A Feast For Crows was a terrible book, that was reviewed awfully. While some readers dislike the character of Brienne, it seems unneccesary to include in a criticism, especially because we don't know if her chapters will have any deeper meaning later in the series. I suggest scrapping the section and writing the actual critical response to the novels from actual critics, not just a critical response to the novels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.48.201 (talk) 04:28, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

AFFC is actually the most consistently well-reviewed book in the series. Even A Storm of Swords got some bad reviews on release, but all the major print reviews of AFFC I read (SFX, Dreamwatch, Starburst etc) were unanimous in their praise of it, and it was nominated for the Hugo. I am also removing the 'self-published' template as the only source mentioned in that section is SFX Magazine, which is published by Future Publishing (one of the UK's largest publishers) and is Europe's biggest-selling science fiction magazine. Not sure what that template was doing there.--Werthead 21:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:2005 SoS cover.jpg

Image:2005 SoS cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 21:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe this was fixed by re-uploading the image with a smaller one (<300x300) that satisfies the Fair Use guidelins. WLU (talk) 21:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Apparently not, as all the cover images are now gone. I haven't a clue on how to work with cover images but I think this needs to be fixed.--Werthead (talk) 18:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I fucking hate image use. I think we may be able to use the same cover as A Game of Thrones - it's used twice already and has a fair use rationale that seems to support its use on List of fantasy novels. I'm surprised I wasn't notified when SOS was deleted. One cover isn't as good as all 4, but it's better than none. I'll ask the guy who deleted the old images. WLU (talk) 18:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The thing that BetacommandBot looks for is a fair use rationale for every article that the image is used in. Image:2005 SoS cover.jpg only had a template, which needed to be supplemented by a rationale. — Laura Scudder ☎ 20:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Plot

Does anybody know if there is the Full Plot of the Song of Ice and Fire on Wikipedia?? And if not, then where can I find it?.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soshial (talk • contribs) 09:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You can find the full plot only by reading the individual book articles. Orracle107 (talk) 04:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup, if the series article had the full plot on it, it would likely exceed the recommended size allowance for a Wikipedia article.--Werthead (talk) 21:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Images straw poll

So I've been talking to an admin and there are a couple options for the covers. The lowest option is having a single cover image of one of the books (probably AGOT since it's got the best fair use rationale to date I think). The best is having multiple covers as a collage, a la Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter, which I could probably make without too much trouble. So the debate becomes, should we have a set of a single batch of covers, or the US/UK covers (i.e. standard fantasy versus the more abstract images, not sure if it is edition or country lines that splits them though) or the set of those two, plus the pretty bad-ass Australian covers [3]. So, what is people's preference? If I can't get it done today, it'll have to wait until March as I'm on wikibreak next week. WLU (talk) 12:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd just pick a set. In fact, if there's agreement on which set, I could whip one up in no time. — Laura Scudder ☎ 02:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd go for the American covers on the grounds that they are the most commonly-available and there are more of them in print, plus the American cover for A Dance with Dragons is now available (whilst the UK one isn't, yet) and that can be added to the image. Just to note that I am planning a major revamp of the ASoIaF page using some of the Featured Article pages (like Lord of the Rings) as a guideline. The page at the moment is okay, but I think we really want to go to town on it and make it look as excellent as possible ;-) I also think that the 'spin-off' section - which is now the largest part of the article - should be reduced to a summary and a dedicated page listing those spin-offs should be created instead. SFX also had a major article by Joe Abercrombie on the series in last month's issue which can be used as a sourced for exploration of the series' themes. Abercrombie also posted a second article on the series on his own website, which can also be sourced. With ADWD coming out this year (hopefully) interest in this page should rise again.--Werthead (talk) 19:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, I say go ahead with the American covers. If it's not done by tomorrow, I may try to do it (but don't let that stop anyone else from taking care of it first). Werth - I'm sure you are aware of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(writing_about_fiction), WP:BOOKS, WP:NOVEL and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Novels/ArticleTemplate? There's probably other guidance as well, and you could ask User:Kevinalewis for help or guidance - he's been very good about discussing with me in the past. WLU (talk) 00:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, the Brit cover for ADWD is up as well, but ir does occur to me that that could be confusing, with two volumes for ASoS. The US covers seem the way to go. I tried putting a combo image up here

but I couldn't get the size right and the only image manipulation software I have is, err, Paint, which tends to pixellate the image when you shrink it and make it look rubbish. I may try this again but it's been tedious work so far, to be honest.--Werthead (talk) 23:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• There is a convention in publishing is that the 1st edition is the most significant - so the first edition covers should be those used. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

For AGoT, I agree. However, the Wikipedia convention on series overview articles (such as Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings etc) seems to be that a consistent style is preferred. As such the latest editions of the series make the most sense.--Werthead (talk) 17:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

One thing I don't like about the current images is the white line that stretches across all the books, looks odd to me but I don't mind being over-ruled. Aside from that I think you did a great job with the picture, particular given you had to use paint (feel your pain, paint sucks). From my understanding of image use, a small image is preferred so we don't violate copyright or something, and it's going in the infobox anyway so it doesn't have to look good up close. I resized to 200px and I think it looks OK, I say good job and have no hesitation about putting it on the page. Kevin, is the first edition mandatory, or just a best practice? I do prefer the current image 'cause I don't have to make a new one : ) and I think its less busy and tacky. Plus, do they even make the old traditional fantasy covers for the most recent publications? WLU (talk) 20:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Added image, let me know if there's any concerns. I think it's more than adequate, I think it's good. WLU (talk) 18:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Historical and literary sources - unsourced

I think we need t source these allusions a lot better. As it stands, the only source¹ listed in the section leads to a web portal to an online forum discussing the books, and not specific historical or literary sources noting the comparisons. I don't want to remove it, but it needs referencing, and right quick. I am going to tag the section as unreferenced, and give folk time to find good (read: non-fan forum) sourcing, about a month, and then it will be removed. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I added sources for the literary section, but the historical one is more dubious. I don't think GRRM has ever gone into great detail about historical allusions other than saying that he found Rome and the War of the Roses to be somewhat influential. I'll look at pruning and resourcing the sub-section into something more supported.--Werthead (talk) 14:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the Westeros.org website is an officially-recognised source of information on the books (the creators are co-writing the official ASoIaF companion book with GRRM at this moment) and that subsection of the website is a record of GRRM's own comments which are reprinted with his explicit permission. It's not a comparison (see my comments above), but GRRM has stated that the Wars of the Roses are an influence on the series. The historical section needs to be reworded and resourced (I gather the original reference was lost when the website was reorganised a couple of years back), which I will get to as soon as I have the time to go looking for the quotations.--Werthead (talk) 23:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

"Numerous parallels have been seen between the events and characters in A Song of Ice and Fire and events and people involved in the Wars of the Roses. Two of the principal families in A Song of Ice and Fire, the Starks and the Lannisters, are seen as representing the historical House of York and House of Lancaster, respectively." -The similarities seem to stop at the names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.146.21.142 (talk) 10:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

After a year, it's clear that this section was Original Research. It has been removed. ∅BRIT 17:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Martin has commented on the English and French historical influences on this story (read it here:Martin's historical influences).(User:Lu Xun) —Preceding undated comment added 06:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC).

New RPG

Anyone think this section needs to be updated? According to the page the Corebook was supposed to be out awhile ago, but I haven't seen anything on it and as far as I know, it's not out yet. Can somebody verify? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.136.3.10 (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• The RPG book needs to be approved by GRRM before it can be released. Apparently GRRM has decided to make finishing ADWD as his top priority, and therefore the RPG will not proceed until he has completed that book and can sign off on the RPG. I wouldn't expect to see it before the New Year at the earliest. Note that the RPG is fully completed and ready to go, they are just waiting for GRRM to give the green light to it.--Werthead (talk) 23:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

A name for the eastern continent

This shows how behind the times I am with the SSM. GRRM called the eastern continent 'Essos' in an interview in Spain last year.--Werthead (talk) 00:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Blood of Dragons MUSH

Only as I was mostly done with the edits to include Blood of Dragons MUSH was I reminded of the policies regarding conflict of interest in linking. So I'm leave it up to the fellow editors to decide whether Blood of Dragons MUSH is suitably notable (as the only authorized on-line, text-based RPG) to be mentioned, and whether it merits a separate link in External links (as the Citadel and the forum have received). Elio Garcia (talk) 13:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

And I was just about to remind you of that ;)
I'm thinking that it is OK, but I'd welcome some kind of direct quote or more reliable reference supporting the "specifically authorized by the author to date". A pity that [4] doesn't mention it. Is there something in SSM that you know of? Not quite reliable, but it would be better.
The external links section is pretty long already, in my opinion, so it might not survive there for very long.
Cheers, Amalthea 14:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Nothing in the SSM, as it's not quite the right place for something like that. We can place GRRM's authorization mail and a follow up regarding the fact that we were the only authorized game as of the time of his mail (I've never heard him or anyone saying that he's authorized another game since) in the Blood of Dragons FAQ. Will edit the reference link to that page as soon as that's done. Thanks for the advice, Amalthea! 81.224.96.70 (talk) 18:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

A direct quote would be great, and should satisfy everyone.
Thanks, Elio, and Cheers, Amalthea 02:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Edited the ref. I left in the note regarding verification, in case anyone finds referencing a page on our own site not quite verifiable enough. That said, there is this on-line chat in which GRRM mentions in passing that someone should have asked permission as we did before we started our game. ("I wish they had asked permission, at least, the way Elio and Linda did before beginning their Seven Kingdoms MUSH.") That's hosted on third-party site, and might be considered more reliable? Elio Garcia (talk) 22:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it's fine, I fully trust that you're not misrepresenting his quote. If the messages from GRRM were dated in the FAQ it would be even better, but it should be OK as it is. Thanks & Cheers, Amalthea 22:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Franchise

I realize GRRM is more involved with the franchise process than most fantasy authors, but the section is loaded with details that crosses into the territory of fancruft. I have two suggestions: 1) we clean it up, summarize it briefly, and then merge it within the adaptation section (which also needs to be condensed), or 2) we move the whole Franchise section into a new page titled something along the lines of 'Franchise of A Song of Ice and Fire' and then create a 'See also' section where we provide a wikilink to it. Thoughts or any other suggestions? —Mirlen^Talk 14:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Franchise should even be included as it is not related to the series itself, but of things derived from it. Make new entries for each game, calendar and whatever else is out there if you want, or maybe an all-encompassing page for that aspect of things, but this page should be limited to info regarding the series itself, with little grey area once one starts talking about derivatives. If someone believes otherwise, please say so, else somebody go ahead and take it down or move it after some time. Mukanil (talk) 15:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Blind Guardian songs about the novels

Hi everybody, The power metal band Blind Guardian have written a couple of songs about the novels. I think that it would be nice to include them in the article. I had written a new section about it, but it was deleted claiming it was not "a part of the novels". What do you think? Should we at least add a sentence about this? I think it is definitely worth it.

You can see more details about the songs here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At_the_Edge_of_Time#Song_Information The songs are "War of the Thrones" and "A Voice in the Dark".

Cheers, Trelos physikos (talk) 17:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

This type of thing is usually considered trivia. However, if you can find a reliable, verifiable source (like a review) which discusses this, it may establish enough notability for the information to be included in the article in some way. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 22:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Great, I will work on it asap. However, the question remains: should it be in a new section, eg Trivia as you suggested, or a subsection, under Adaptation or Franchise for example? Thanks Trelos physikos (talk) 07:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Definitely do not create a new section called Trivia, we specifically need to avoid presenting anything as such (see WP:TRIVIA. Sourced info about this would probably fit nicely into the Franchise section even though it's not a licensed use of ASOIAF material.— TAnthony^Talk 15:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I have added a couple of sentences about this and a reference. If there is some problem, please discuss it here and do not delete anything like some guy did with my previous addition. Thanks.Trelos physikos (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

We discussed it on my talk page and on this talk page. See WP:CYCLE. The sentences could definitely use a reliable source. Beach drifter (talk) 16:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, what do you think about these two: gamertagged.net or blackgate.com Trelos physikos (talk) 14:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Both appear to be something slightly more professional than blogs but not much else. In the first link I can find no mention of Martin but in the second it at least clearly says that their album is about ASOIAF. A press release from the band or something of that nature would be good. The westeros.org ref isn't any good because it just makes a statement with no backing, not unlike the blackgate site. Beach drifter (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

In the first link there is a clear mention of the Game of Thrones in the paragraph (surprise!) about the "Voice in the Dark" song. Anyway, if you want more convincing you can have a look at the booklet of the album regarding the two songs War of Thrones and A Voice in the Dark or at this review from metal-sound.net (it clearly mentions that the two songs are written for ASOIAF). Also, I will send an email directly to Blind Guardian later today and kindly ask them to put some comment on their page (don't expect a quick reply as they are on tour). If these won't convince you (especially the review from "metal-sound.net", I don't know what will :( Trelos physikos (talk) 08:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't need convincing, it's got nothing to do with that, I just want good sources for the article that meet wp:source. Beach drifter (talk) 20:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The band hasn't replied yet but I managed to dig up (with google) a relevant post from the official blind-guardian site that clearly and beyond doubt proves my point. The post was about previewing some of the songs (including both of the ones relevant to this topic). You can't get any better source than this! Trelos physikos (talk) 14:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Publication Schedule for 'A Dance With Dragons'

This was getting kind of long-winded. I've reduced it somewhat (excessive details about who said what date where) and wouldn't object if anyone further tightened it up. -- Steve, Oct 28, 2010

Fantasy?

I see this labelled unambiguously "fantasy". I haven't read the books, just been watching the HBO series, but is it possible to classify this as SF? Could this world be some far future human colony, like Darkover or Pern that lost its technology? Human colonists could have brought any number of earth animals and plants as well. Are there any hints of this in the books (e.g., things that could be relics of high technology) or has GRRM ever been asked this? Barsoomian (talk) 05:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

There hasn't been any hint of that in the books or from GRRM. There has been what appears to be magic though (the Wall, the Others, Mellisande, the Warlocks of Quarth). Magic appears to be on the rise since (or possibly because of) the birth of the dragons. It definitely seems to be fantasy, though a relatively low magic context compared to many other fantasy series.Caidh (talk) 13:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

There's magic in Pern and Darkover (though you could handwave them as psychic powers). So that alone isn't definitive. Or a better example , Iain M Banks' Inversions (novel), which reads like a medieval fantasy if you don't realise the magic is actually "Culture" technology. Maybe at the end of Book 7 we find the crashed spaceship. So that remains speculation. Barsoomian (talk) 17:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Science_fantasy "If it is one of space travel and proton-pistols, it gets classified as "science fiction", and the appropriate terms (cloaking device, matter-transmitter) are used; if it is one of castles, sailing ships and swords, it gets classified as "fantasy", and we instead speak of magic rings and travel by enchantment. In short, science fiction uses technology to explain impossible phenomena while fantasy employs magic." There's always room for debate, but I would say that since GRRM never tries in any way, shape or form to explain his impossible phenomena that it should be categorized as fantasy. Kermit814 (talk) 19:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Tables

Is anyone else good with tables? The translation table looks like hell. I could try to fix it but it would take me hours and I'd probably ruin it in the process. Kermit814 (talk) 19:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

criticisms

this thing reads a little like a puff piece I don't have a credible source, but I can't help but think many people feel as I do: that after the first book or so, the series is outrageously padded with all sorts of irrelevant stuff; there are 100s of pages that could be cut with no deficit what so ever also, while the introduction of some sex and bodily functions is a welcome relief from the wierd asexuality of tolkein, and say wheel of time, I find that martin often seems to go overboard, like a kid trying to shock his parents with naughty words...enough already with descriptions of bowel movements !!! also, the authors habit of "killing" characters off and then returning them gets tiresome after a while; it was fun the first one or two times, but afte that it is just lazy plotting and story telling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.135.33 (talk) 01:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

external links

As I said in my editsummary, one link has now become three and more will follow if we let this go (for example, why not include WiC, the television series is important as well!). We actually have a guideline dealing with this kind of stuff: wp:External links, of which wp:ELMAYBE#3 states quite clearly open directory links should be used instead of long lists of links. Also, the IP editor argued earlier that it should be kept because the Russian and French wikipedia have links. This is not a valid argument, as each language wikipedia acts independent and has its own rules. What is allowed on Russian wikipedia may be forbidden here and vice versa. Yoenit (talk) 09:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The wiki clearly falls into the links that is allowed or to be considered. It contains detailed information on the subject. That is also the reason it was added. To show were people could find more and neutral info. So instead of saying "more then two is a long list, which not allowed" you should point out why each link is suitable or not.Scafloc (talk) 09:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I am all for none of these sites being added here, and indeed you will see in the edit history that I removed the wiki several times in the current dispute. All of them used to be linked here, but they were pruned long ago and do not really seem necessary. It is much better to have the one already existing link to fan sites in general, which includes the wiki, westeros, ToH, and any other fansite a reader may be interested in. If the wiki is going to be included, however, other sites to which the reader may go to find additional neutral info also need to be added. There is no justification for adding the wiki and only the wiki. That is why I added the two other major sources for neutral information as a compromise. I agree with Yoenit that none of them should be included, but was hoping to end the edit war with a compromise. Indeed, the edit war appeared to have reached a conclusion with said compromise until Yoenit entered the debate again. While I agree with Yoenit in general, however, I also think it fair to point out that he has mischaracterized the situation. No one would advocate including WiC because it is a news site, not a source for further "encyclopedic" info on the series that is outside the scope of wikipedia. The Citadel and the wiki, both part of Westeros.org, and Tower of the Hand are the only sources I am aware of that provide a large enough amount of information to be worth including here. While I agree none is better than three, Yoenit's assertion that adding these three creates a slippery slope for the inclusion of more links is flat out wrong. Indrian (talk) 10:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The link should be kept because it provides detailed information on the subject, the existence of French and Russian wiki's has nothing todo with policy but to emphasize the scope of that wiki project. with the point being that more readers across all of wikipidea could easily find more neutral info in one place, where also editors who wish to expand the topic beyond the scope of wikipidea can do so using same tools.

As for links Indrian added in the name of "appeasement", I already said that I see no reason to add none of them(also because of the policy mentioned by Yoenit), but couldn't bare to continue adrian's "all or nothing" edit war, trying to promote his favourite site over readers best interest. IMO we should keep 1.martin's official website 2.list of correspondences with martin 3.Wiki as a neutral extension 4.Open directory listing of all other site. 109.64.217.2 (talk) 11:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Tower of the Hand satisfies the same "neutral encyclopedic content standard" as the wiki, and you have yet to explain how this is not the case. Furthermore, I never attempted to re-add Tower of the Hand to the links after it was removed (along with the wiki and a host of other sites) a long time ago and would not have added it now if not for your repeated attempts to add the equally unnecessary wiki, which like Tower of the Hand can be accessed from the all-encompassing list of fan sites. You are the only one attempting to add "your favorite site" without regards to other sources of information. Also, since two separate editors removed your link as unnecessary and you continued to add it anyway and now admit you do not even want to accept a compromise, you are the only user edit warring here. Indrian (talk) 11:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I am suggesting the addition of the proposed wiki link, for consideration base on it's own merits.(not shopping for bundles). thus the only viable question is why it's the best option. which I answered before, that TOH is a portal(much like westeros only much smaller), that feature everything from news on the Tv show to games. with it's "encyclopedic content" being a small sub section and not nearly as extensive(by few magnitudes) as the proposed dedicated wiki just as well it doesnt have nearly the same scope as the proposed wiki which includes french and russian sister projects which are already linked here; and it not as consistent in terms of editing tools. thus the proposed wiki provides the natural most extensive extension to the scope of the this article, to our readers. 109.64.217.2 (talk) 13:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you are mistaken about Tower of the Hand. ToH is in no way like Westeros.org and has never tried to take on the role of that site as a community hub. There is a blog at the site which covers a wide variety of topics on a regular basis, including news and essays, but no forums. The encyclopedic content is not a small sub-section and actually constitutes the majority of the site. Also its scope is just as large as the wiki, though as it is not a collaborative project it does take longer to update for new material. There are complete chapter summaries for the first four books and the first two Dunk & Egg short stories, most of which are more extensive than the summaries on the wiki, with summaries of the other materials pending. Entries are included for every character, house, organization, geographic location, historical event, etc. in the books as well as complete family trees for all the houses and a map of Westeros with known major landmarks identified. Tower of the Hand is older than the wiki, and it took years (don't know exactly how long because I do not follow this kind of thing as a hobby) for the wiki to first reach and then surpass the number of content pages on Tower of the Hand. Volume of pages alone does not really tell the tale, though, as organizational differences at the wiki serve to inflate the number of pages covering the same content vis-a-vis ToH and therefore makes comparison on page volume alone a bit of an apples and oranges proposition. Tower of the Hand has nearly 3,000 entries for people, places, and things, which does not count chapter summary pages or other info. Just looking at a sampling of pages between the two sites, it varies which source has more information on any given topic. They fill the same niche at the same level of comprehensiveness (barring updating concerns) and appear equal to me as sources of content. That is why I believe that if one is there, the other should be too and why if both are there then the Citadel at Westeros should also be included because its cultural concordance and heraldry database are both valuable and different in kind from both ToH and the wiki. My first preference, however, is still to leave all these pages to the site directory, where users can easily peruse a variety of fan-generated content and decide for themselves which sites serve their personal needs best. Indrian (talk) 13:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

That's a nice sale pitch... but the bottom line is that the proposed wiki is larger, more well-developed, has larger community and more consistent with wikipidea style, although TOH do have some nice graphics. 109.64.217.2 (talk) 15:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, which I am not particularly interested in changing, but you are merely being subjective, as both sites are extensively developed and "community size" does not really matter when the topic at hand is neutral encyclopedia information and is not even a particularly valid point of comparison when one site is a wiki and the other is not (I assume you mean community of people developing the site and not users, because there is no way I know of to measure which site receives more use unless both sites share their stats since the wiki is part of the larger Westeros.org and therefore public ranking tools cannot distinguish between Westeros, including its forums, and the wiki). You have not provided an objective criteria by which the wiki is "more well-developed" and in my perusals of both sites I think it is fairer to say that each site has certain areas in which it presents more information. Of course, this is exactly the reason why this stuff is best left off the page. The wiki is already represented through the directory of sites, so your continued desire to extoll it above all other sources and give it special treatment on the webpage reeks of bias. I have never belittled the wiki as a source of information, but your attempt to belittle other sources as a way of enhancing your own also speaks to this bias. No one is trying to push a site onto the page except you, I only want to ensure that all three sources containing significant information appear if one does and would much rather leave all three off. I think it best to do the neutral thing, which is to leave it to the site directory and let users decide what suits them best, and I am not alone in this opinion. At the end of the day, they are all just fans sites with ordinary people summarizing information contained in the books, which stretches the definition of "encyclopedic content" about as far as you can, plus the information on both sites has no interest for general users wishing to learn more about the topic since they are rife with spoilers and therefore only of interest to people actually reading the books and are more useful to keep track of characters, events, etc. as opposed to educating oneself about the series. This would therefore seem to bring the matter to a close unless other editors weigh in with new points of discussion.Indrian (talk) 22:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

"one site is a wiki and the other is not", exactly my point from before, about the proposed wiki providing a natural extension to scope of wikipidea! when I read the novel, I found that Wikipidea had the best general information on the series, but it also lacked on so many specifics that were impossible to add since every time I tried to add, since they were mercilessly cleaved by the 'out of scope' and other reasons. which is how I got the wiki, a place where I could find additional information and continue to contribute in the spirit of Wikipedia and why I suggest it here, it's why the proposed wiki sister projects are linked here and it's also why I never considered your TOH or westeros or any number of other fan sites.

as for the rest, I suggest you take some time to do more googling before you claim it's impossible to distinguished the stats, just as I did before commenting on it; also if we ignore the major topic which are covered on wikipidea as well, then TOH is as developed as the wikia project (unless you count the list of 2000 on liner character pages), so again hands down the wikipidea like proposed WIKI. 109.64.217.2 (talk) 07:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

High fantasy?

Having just finished the second book, I'll concede that magical elements seem to increasingly creep into the series as it advances - presumably because of the return of dragons? - but in the first book there's very little explicitly supernatural content, even the references to Aegon the Conqueror's dragons could be interpreted as metaphor and/or myth if you tried, so I'd argue that the first book might be better categorised as low fantasy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.221.88.125 (talk) 23:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Joffrey and Thommen "illegitimate"?

The lines "Lord Eddard Stark, King Robert's Hand, finds out Robert's children are illegitimate, and that the throne should therefore fall to the second of the three Baratheon brothers" and "Tommen Baratheon, allegedly Robert's son, but illegitimate too" are misleading according to my reading. If Joffrey and Thommen are the children of Cersei and Jaime then they are not illegitimate children of Robert, but rather not his children at all. He has illegitimate children - Gendry, etc - but none of them are claimants to the throne (at least to the end of A Clash of Kings, as far as I read). The relevant fact regarding Joffrey and Thommen is that Robert was not (by this claim) their father. They could be considered Cersei's illegitimate children. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 03:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

FYI: Working on this article

I have started expanding this article (currently in userspace), see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_A_Song_of_Ice_and_Fire#Working_on_A_Song_of_Ice_and_Fire. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the Reception section, which appears to solely concentrate on positive comments; would it be worth noting the contrast between critical and reader response to particularly the fourth and fifth books at sites such as Amazon, where reviews have been less glowing regarding areas such as book length and lack of character/plot development? 212.225.127.33 (talk) 23:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that a balanced view with critical response is useful. I do think we need reviews from reliable sources though as opposed to Amazon user reviews.Caidh (talk) 00:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The reception section is nowhere finished (I just dumped the current content there when restructuring the article). There is a collection of esteemed info/sources at e.g. User:Sgeureka/ASOIAF#Critical_response, which I intend to work into the article in a balanced fashion (pro/con) in the foreseeable future. Like Caidh has hinted at, Amazon reviews should NOT be used, as some of the customer reviews/stars were provided by extreme fanboys or crazy hater-wackos, and wikipedia shouldn't rely on that. Anyone is free to add reception information from reliable sources (be it pro or con) when he believes it to improve the article. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Definitely wasn't suggesting adding Amazon user reviews, merely pointing out the consensus or trend that seemed to be emerging from readers over the course of the series; I'm not sure where to look for third-party sources that comment on this, though. 212.225.121.137 (talk) 17:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Split section proposals

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_A_Song_of_Ice_and_Fire#Meta-article_restructuring. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)