Talk:A Song of Ice and Fire/Archive 1

Fourth novel title
The 4th Book is now called 'A Feast for Crows' and will be published sometime around September 2003.

Clean-Up?
There's a lot of discussion and speculation on this talk page about the publication of AFFC which has obviously already come to pass and therefore is now irrelevant. Can I suggest we clean up or archive this information? Cheers--Werthead 21:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Publication Date of A Feast for Crows
A excerpt from George R R Martin's site on June 2004:

''I have been getting even more email asking if the latest publication date announced by one bookstore or another is correct. It isn't. I don't even care what date it is. I am still writing the book. Until it is done and delivered, all these announced pubdates are arrived at by throwing darts at a calendar.'' - George R. R. Martin

None of the messages on GRRM's site since then have announced any further publication date information. Hence I would consider this pubdate (i.e., date unknown) the most authoritative. Adding in other points of view here seems a little silly... Connelly 11:59, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

War of the Roses
I'd never heard of the war of roses until Ajd added that to the page. I looked it up and found it very interesting. It is rather obvious that he drew inspiration from that war. A great addition to the article.

Ivanhoe as reference
The knights, their tourneys, even some characters remind me of Ivanhoe. (Gregor Clegane as Reginald Front-de-Boeuf, Sandor Clegane as Brian De Bois-Guilbert. :)) )

Houses
The houses section should probably be moved to another page. We could (I might) also create a template called Template:ASOIAFHouses similar to Template:ASOIAFPlaces for the great houses (and any other major houses), and make pages for each, where each page lists the pledged houses as well. &mdash;siro&chi;o 09:20, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * At random, I noticed that there is no link in the nav-box to the List of Houses. Books, minor characters, and places, but no major-characters option?  Seems a tad silly to me.  Marblespire 07:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The problem is with Characters from A Song of Ice and Fire. Since it's called characetrs and not minor characters, it should at least point to the house articles.  &mdash; Laura Scudder  &#9742;  08:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, it at least links to all the houses now. Still is lacking the short descriptions of each I think it needs, but that can wait a bit.  &mdash; Laura Scudder  &#9742;  08:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that made sense. The Characters from A Song of Ice and Fire page really contains Characters from A Song of Ice and Fire that don't belong to a major house. Some are major, some are minor. Some even are POVs. Linking to the major houses is not necessary, and certainly no navigational aid. If you want to find a character, the List of characters from A Song of Ice and Fire is the place to go. Why? Well, where would you look for Catelyn Stark of House Tully? House Stark? House Tully? Better yet, where is Joffrey? The reader shouldn't have to guess the editor's choices for deciding such issues. Arbor 17:08, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The problem is that we have no central place for characters aside from List of characters in A Song of Ice and Fire, which is not exactly helpful navigationally. Notice how only house names are linked there, while characters described in Characters from A Song of Ice and Fire are simply listed without any info or links to where there is info.  Characters from A Song of Ice and Fire really needs to be moved a better title unless it has some sort of summary or links for all the major characters.  We need to decide which article will be the central repository for all major characters, and that one should be in the template.  &mdash; Laura Scudder  &#9742;  22:43, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm in the process of fixing List of characters in A Song of Ice and Fire so that it links directly to the character-specific subsections for every character who has one, either on a House page or on Characters from A Song of Ice and Fire. That won't make it any more useful as a central page, since it's bloated and full of incredibly minor characters, but it will make the page less useless. I'm not sure we have much need for a page that acts as a direct central repository, though, or for listing all the House pages on Characters from A Song of Ice and Fire.  However inaptly named, that page already points the reader to both the list page and the House pages, in the intro.  Listing all of the Great Houses there, and particularly adding brief discussions of them, seems rather redundant.  There's currently a "Great Houses" template in use on all House pages; perhaps it could be useful in some way on "Characters from..." Brendan 23:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Completion Announcement
I took this out because Martin has not updated the site yet. I realize that this has been reported on the board by Bronn and backed up by Parris, but I think we should hold off on putting it here until George makes the official announcement on Monday. Indrian 00:33, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Release
Why are we trusting a quote that was merely "reportedly" said at a book expo over the Amazon and distributor dates? Snowspinner 15:49, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Because some of us know these people personally. However, I understand the verifiability issue., report #80, is a statement from GRRM's wife/significant other. Arbor 16:28, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Merging in character articles?
I came across a character article Beric Dondarrion, and as it seemed pretty small, propsed that it be merged with this article. I didn't do it myself as the current structure of this article did not contain a character section, so I thouhgt I'd open it up for discussion first. Thoughts, anyone?
 * He should go to Characters from A Song of Ice and Fire. (If he were of a greater House, say House Targaryen, he would belong there. But House Dondarrion doesn't deserve its own page. so he goes to the catch-all Characters from A Song of Ice and Fire. Thanks for trying to clean this up, by the way. Arbor 08:43, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I've now made the merge. (I also added a link to that character page to the Books template; maybe it should be changed to the comprensive one(List of...), though. Thanks for the response! JesseW 16:35, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I think you're right—it should. Also, the Characters from... ought to make it clear that many (most?) of the really interesting characters aren't on that page at all, but distributed over various House Blah pages or even their own page. I'd be grateful if you look at that. Arbor 17:38, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Arya pronunciation
I removed some homebrewn attempts for what seems to be (?) a variant pronunciation of Arya. But I'm not sure. The suggest was "are-ya", whatever that means. Is this meant to be different from the first suggestion? If no, it has to go, as per WP guidlines (use IPA). If yes, it is interesting and needs to be included. Please answer the following, and I will try to insert it properly Arbor 08:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Which syllable is stressed? If it's the first, then I cannot really discern a big difference from ['ɑːrɪə].
 * 2) Is the r pronounced? Because I say are as  ['ɑː], and there sure is not r in ya.
 * 3) Do you mean ['ɑːrjɑː]? (Last vowel like the first, but unstressed, i more like j)
 * 4) Who says it this way, and what is the source for that?
 * I'm not the one who introduced the pronunciation into the article (pronunciation is not a particular interest of mine), but I can offer a couple notes on it. The source is Martin himself, per Report #104 on .  The problem with that is that it's based on the reporter's own understanding of the colloquial phrase "Are ya?" (As in "Are ya (short form of "you") coming to the show or not?") It's particularly ambiguous as to the final vowel; I think it could credibly be ['ɑːrjɑ:] or ['ɑrj^] or ['ɑrjə].


 * The big difference as compared to Dotrice is that it's two syllables, not three, and has [j] rather than [ɪ]. I'm not at all sure that we should put it in without knowing more clearly what the final vowel is, though. Brendan 09:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for providing the source. The problem with this is the same as with most of the other "con reports", for the reason you mention—most of them are useless, and tell us more about the reporter's pronunciation than about GRRM's. In the current case, I cannot see what we can do, GRRM could easily have said ['ɑːrɪə] at the reading, and the reporter gives his or her closest interpretion, wanting to stress that GRRM doesnt say [ɑ'rʌɪə]. I bemoan this situation as much as the next person.  Arbor 11:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * There are a couple audio interviews with GRRM online; I may listen to them sometime in the hope that he'll happen to mention Arya somewhere. If so, I'll let you know how he pronounces it. Brendan 20:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I found an interview where he uses her name. It is in fact ['ɑːrɪə], just like the Dotrice pronunciation.  You can find it at the Martin interview in the archive at, about 1/3 of the way through.  So no change to the article needs to be made. Brendan 20:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I've looked at some web pages (such as and ) and listened to the Random House audio interview  and edited the pronunciation section accordingly. For instance, I've given Cersei as ['sɜ:rseɪ], and added Doran, Elia, Hodor, Rickon, and Sansa. The transcription of Baratheon seems implausible, but I don't know of an audio snippet of it or a pronunciation hint available on the Web from someone who's spoken with GRRM.Scentoni 10:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem is (i) the attributions are no longer correct. The audiobooks certainly don't use rhotic pronunciation, so you cannot attribute that to them. If you want to attribute it to GRRM (no doubt correctly so), I would be grateful if you updated the attributions as well. (ii) Inferring GRRM pronunciations from the audio interview is good. That's a faithful source. But inferring them from people's records at cons is bad, because you (as a WP editor) add unverifiable information by transforming an ill-defined proh-NAUN-see-ey-shun (or is it per-noun-cee-ehshin) to a very well-defined and faithful one (IPA). That violates WP:V; Wikipedia cannot be a primary source. (I started this effort, and the first version of this page was promptly voted for deletion, and correctly so, for precisely that reason: It's unverifiable. Here's the vote.) Until somebody else (like Ran) collects an external list of IPA pronunciations I cannot see how we can turn people's con reports into proper IPA. I am frustrated by that as much as the next guy. Arbor 13:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * To expand on this: Wikipedia can never have a page attempting to do Correct pronunciations of XYZ. That's not what Wikipedia does; it's not normative. What we can do here is to describe some pronunciations. For example those that we can verify, like the audiobooks'. You and I might agree that GRRM's pronunciations are much more interesting that some stuffy British actor's. But that's irrelevant. Your or mine opinion what the "correct" pronunciation is doesn't enter into it. Wikipedia collects viewpoints—it doesn't arbitrate the truth ("Verifiability, not Truth, is the standard for inclusion on Wikipedia". So we can do GRRM's pronunciations of XYZ and Dotrice's pronunciation of XYZ. That's what we are trying to do here. Describe and attribute. Don't arbitrate. Arbor 13:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think laymen's pronunciation guides are of no use whatsoever—particularly those guides that are found in GRRM's own emails and such—but I agree it's best to solidify the foundations of the section before discussing expansion. Because of that, I took the article and pasted back in the previous version of the pronunciation section and started again from there.
 * The way I initially read the section, it appeared that most of the entries were unattributed, and so I made changes that used the same set of sources, without specifying the attribution for each change. I think now that I misread the section, and that the entries without any specific attribution were actually meant to have a default attribution of "RD and/or JL"—that is, that either that's the way the word was pronounced by RD in the audiobooks (and JL didn't use the word at all) or that's the way it was pronounced by JL (and RD didn't use the word at all), or that both RD and JL used the word and pronounced it identically. Could you confirm that this understanding is correct? Because of this uncertainty, I marked those pronunciations with a question mark (?).  If I misunderstood the attribution, some other readers probably have too, and it seems best to me to attribute every entry explicitly. Perhaps we should change that to another label, like AB for audiobook, or RD&/JL. A more painstaking solution (though not necessarily a better one) would be for you or someone else familiar with the audiobooks to make this more detailed, changing the ? to either RD, JL, or RD&JL, as appropriate for each entry.
 * I listened carefully to the two GRRM interviews linked in the article, and transcribed the names I heard. The Footnotes system has difficulty dealing with multiple references to the same footnote, and it seems unwieldy to have a list of many individual footnotes just for the pronunciation section.  Since there are only two interviews, it makes more sense to me to have only two footnotes (located in the introductory paragraph with a key) and use the labels RH and FF to identify the source for each entry.  Take a look at this version and tell me what you think. Scentoni 06:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This looks great! Thank you a million times for doing this; I will give it a detailed look later. Arbor 06:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Arbor. I see you've added some more pronunciations, marked CBC.  Could you put a reference for this source into the article, parallel to the Random House and Fast Forward interviews?  Is it Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, or some other CBC?  Is it available on the web? Also, some of these pronunciations seem to be in a dialect of English other than what GRRM speaks...the word "no" in general American English is [noʊ] or sometimes [no], not [nəʊ], so I think e.g. Areo Hotah and Doran need to be modified.  Scentoni 18:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yup, there is some cleanup left. AE "no" would maybe even be [o(ʊ)], to be consistent with IPA chart for English. And I want to add Arianne. Arbor 18:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Plans for series pages
(This discussion is not solely about the page titled A Song of Ice and Fire, but about all the pages dealing with topics from the series; I've started it here for convenience.)

I've been thinking lately about how to make the aSoIaF pages on Wiki more useful. (No, I don't have anything better to do with my time; why do you ask?) Six months ago, when I was new to Wiki, I did a lot of revision on the various character pages. Looking at them now, I do think they still need some work- I hadn't quite figured out how to do a character section without summarizing book plot, and successive revisions have in some cases created issues I'd like to look at- but for the time being, they're good enough; there's certainly a lot of detail there (perhaps too much, but never mind).

By contrast, there seems to me to be a paucity of information on the milieu. We do have a few pages dealing with this (Westeros, Wars in..., Tourneys in...), but not all of them are as fleshed-out as they could be. Also, between them these articles offer a lot of opportunity to expand on history and geography, but no so much about the culture and institutions of the series. The way I'd like to remedy that is a catchall page about organizations in the books. "Organizations" is a broad term by intention: I'd like the page to discuss briefly groups like the Kingsguard, the maesters of the Citadel, and the Faceless Men.

Why do this? For one thing, it will help contextualize the character pages. One problem I ran into while rewriting them, and that I've seen looking at subsequent revisions, is that explaining what happens to characters requires going into detail about the milieu. How can we discuss Arya's training among the Faceless Men without saying quite a bit about what Faceless Men are, or mention that Jaime Lannister was the youngest Kingsguard in history without saying what the Kingsguard is? Too often the only recourse has been to add little asides in the character sections themselves, which bulks out the articles and pulls them off topic.

Another reason is that I think such a page will be more immediately useful than the character pages. As I mentioned, the character pages tend to read like plot summaries. While this is somewhat correctable, to a degree plot summary will always play a role there. But plot summaries are easier to glean from reviewing the books. The scattered info about how organizations work can be harder to find via casual reading, so collecting them in one place creates a useful resource.

Why not just create individual articles for each group? For one thing, I think they would probably be AFD'd quickly, and I'm not sure that would be wrong. Just as consolidating most of the character information into Great House pages and a catch-all creates a potentially encyclopedic article out of hundreds of potential stubs, putting all these discussion together allows for a broad overview that works better for general audiences. Also, putting all these things into one article encourages brevity, which I think is important in keeping away from fancruft.

You can see my early work at sectioning such a page at User:Brendan Moody/Kingsguard. The stuff at the bottom of the page is random information about Aerys's court that I pulled out of Aerys Targaryen before it was merged, and should not be mistaken for something that would be added to any page in its present form. You can see from the sections I've worked out there that I'd like to see Night's Watch merged with this page if it is created. Anyone is welcome to add new sections or content to that subpage; if an article is created, I'd like it to be of respectable length right from the beginning, to reduce the possibility of AFD.

So this is what I'd like to hear from other users: (1) Do you think such a page is a good idea? (2) If not, how could we better include this information (or should we include it at all)? (3) What are other organizations that should be discussed if this page does happen? (4) Can you come up with a decent name for the page? The best I can do is Organizations in A Song of Ice and Fire, which I think is terribly clunky and anachronistic. (5) I'd also like to know what others think could be done to improve Westeros and Wars in A Song of Ice and Fire, both of which offer the sort of information I'd like to see from the organizations page. Thanks for reading this bloated, rambling request, and please do comment. Brendan Moody 00:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry I hadn't seen this comment before. As you can see I've already created stand alone Maester, Kingsguard and Night's Watch pages. I would think that many of the Orgs in aSoIaF deserve their own pages just on extent of info alone. I think major institutions can get their own pages when they fall under the following criteria:
 * They are populated by POV or other important characters. (i.e. Night's Watch and Kingsguard)
 * They serve as a central plot device themselves (i.e. Night's Watch)
 * They are unique to the point that a detailed explanation is needed for the reader to understand the basics and why it's important (i.e. Maesters)
 * I wouldn't support an Organizations page because there would only be two ways in which to do it: put every Org in there or only the Orgs that do not warrant their own page in a situation similar to what we have now with the characters pages. If we took the first route then I think we would end up with a very messy and very long page that would be hard to navigate. This is possible to fix with alot of work and some painful trimming edits but I think the reader will be better served navigating by the aSoIaF Template and wikilinks and not having to keep going back to one massive page to find what s/he wants.
 * The second choice is, I think, better left alone in favor of minor context summaries of minor Orgs such as The Faceless Men and religious groups (that might get their own pages in the next few books). This makes it easier to learn as you go and puts everything into place when the reader needs it.
 * Also we might want to consider a Wikiproject for this kind of discussion and editing work. NeoFreak 18:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for replying. I'd given up these plans, and am happy with the current structure in any case. Brendan Moody 19:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think a project or portal or whatever it's called would be a good idea. A nontrivial number of editors are now contributing good material, and some sort of unified frontend would be great for co-ordination. Anybody care to point to a similar setup that we might emulate? Have the Harry Potter people or the WoT people already done this? Arbor 20:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I would love to one day have a quality Portal for ASOIAF but I think we are lacking in material to warrant one at the moment. A great example, as usual, of a good portal is the Tolkien portal at Portal:Middle-Earth. As far as the Wot pages go I would say that they are the last thing we would want to use as an example or inspiration as they are a stub filled mess with very hit and miss writing. As a matter of fact I think the ASOIAF pages are already better than the WoT. Still, I think a Wikiproject for the half dozen major editors to collaborate and attract new attention and editors to the pages would be great. I'll start to fish around and try to review the standards and practices for Projects but I'm as of this moment not familiar enough with them to speak as an authority. NeoFreak 00:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've been looking at the WikiProject guidelines, and I'd say we clearly meet them; it suggests a minimum of three to five articles (we have 35 so far) and five interested editors (I'd say there are about ten semi-regular ASOIAF page editors, and "If you have less than the minimum number of editors recommended above, it may still be worth creating a WikiProject if the work being done involves a lot of coordination," which it clearly does). There are already Wikiprojects on Discworld, the Harry Potter books, the Inheritance trilogy, and the Narnia books, which are of comparable size and/or complexity to this series.  All of which is a long-winded explanation for my creation of WikiProject A Song of Ice and Fire.  Please pop on over and help organize it. Brendan Moody 04:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Martin quote about third person ominiscient?
I am sure GRRM has made a general comment about 3rd person omniscient, something along the lines of it being the best way of writing modern novels. That would fit well under the Style and themes headline. Anybody knows what I am rambling about? Arbor 19:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Trying to find it on westeros.org, not much luck so far. In the meantime: this may be useful to you: "When asked about his favorite/least favorite characters were, he quickly said Tyrion was his favorite character to write and that Bran's chapters were the most difficult and usually the ones left for last in the books released so far. But there aren't any characters that he dislikes per say, as he maintained that he had to be able to 'get into their heads' and 'understand them' in order to be able to tell the story as he wanted. He said the multiple PoV perspective was essential for understanding SOIAF, as he believed it offered a way for not just him, but for the readers to gain multiple perspective on the same events." Paul Willocx 19:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Adaptations
I included the three adaptations to other media (CCG, PRG, board game) here, summary style. These belong to the series-spanning article (this one) instead of Game of Thrones, I believe. (We can discuss this.) I also suggest that two of the articles (RPG, board game) be changed into a redirect to the current page. Currently they contain no other information than what I copied to this page, and that's simply too little for an article. Whenever somebody wants to expand the stubs into full articles, we can revivify the articles. The CCG, on the other hand, has a fully fledged out main article. Also, is Adapatations the best title for this? How about In other media? Arbor 20:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Arbor, I was doing a big edit on this page at the same time you were and some rather odd things started happening to it. Took me a few minutes to fix it. I've put up a section in the article called 'Spin-Offs' which seemed to fit the bill for this section and transferred your information across to it. To be honest, I'd have left the board game and RPG sections up as there's plenty of information that can be put up on them (pictures of the boxes/books and the expansions, further info on the fact that Mongoose Publishing want to pick up the RPG and are trying to work out the financial details etc) and it's an area I might want to look at a few weeks down the road (although I've spent about six hours today on this page and ironing out problems in the plot summaries for the novels, so it's not something I want to do just now). Let me know what you think of the new-look ASoIaF page as well. I'm unsure about having the pictures up so high in particular.--Werthead 21:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Minor Edits
I note that there have been some minor edits sprinkled throughout a lot of the ASoIaF pages, mostly by user 128.210.12.95. Some are good, but some are speculative and some are factually incorrect (Daenerys may become a canny politican by the end of the series, but she isn't one yet and she has no idea about war: that's why she has military advisors). Please remember to list your reasons for edits on the related talk pages. Cheers.--Werthead 22:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits by anon
I reverted the recent edits by an anon user that seemed to be motivated by Brendan Moody's revert of his POV edits to Terry Goodkind. I did, however, think he had a couple of good points and went ahead and reimplemented two of his changes. The part about genre-defying depiction of feudal society may be true to a degree, but does overhype that aspect of the series in a POV manner. I also removed the portion about recomendations by other authors as part of an "impressive" prerelease campaign. There is nothing unusual about getting famous authors to comment on a new fantasy series, and there does not seem to be any reason to single this out for Martin. If someone disagrees with these removals, they can certainly put that information back in. Indrian 03:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

No, they seem to be good edits on your part. Most of the people that are going to devote time to editing GRRMs pages are fans so we should always police ourselves and be on the look out for POV even if that attention is brought by a Goodkin fan in "retaliation" for having his own POV edited out. It's not really an anon IP, it's Mystar. Look up his history of edits and it will paint all the picture you really need. We do need to find that Time article and source it though as it's relevent. I'll see if I can't find it today unless someone else can dig it up first. NeoFreak 14:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Yikes. Hopefully we get no more of that, but good call on the removal of the POV. I hadn't really read through this page in a while and I didn't realize it needed the help it did. -Captain Crawdad 10:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Pronounciation guide Question
In the pronounciation guide, what does the CBC stand for? Some of the creditings are to GRRM-CBC for example, and while the other acronyms are listed, I couldn't find CBC.Coldwind 19:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It's a long interview that GRRM did when he toured Canada to promote FfC. Arbor 20:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion for table: # chapters per POV
Wouldn't a table like this be somewhat informative? It's verifiable and NPOV, and furthermore a good way to explain the POV structure, and some of the structural changes in it (like the increasing number of "other" POVs and the split between volumes 4 and 5).


 * I, for one, like the concept. It's spoilerish but I don't think that should really be a big concern in an encyclopedia. Maybe a page count could be introduced as well? NeoFreak 14:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't the page count depend on the edition, whether it's paperback or hardcover and so on and so forth? &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 19:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a very good point, I didn't even think of that. Duh. I guess the US hardcover should be used as all the books are in that form, they are the most common esp on an englsih wikipedia. As far as I know the only diffrence would be the cover art from edition to edition so it wouldn't matter if we used the 1st 2nd or 3rd. NeoFreak 19:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The format used for the Wheel of Time main page, where they have a similar table, is interesting. Personally I don't think it's entirely necessary, but if you want to set such a table up, than sure. It's not a spoiler since we already list the POV characters in each book anyway. As for page count, you could use the mass-market paperback page counts as actually they are the most common format for the books and I believe they are consistent between the UK and US editions. However, we do have the headache of ASoS being split in two in the UK, which would require accounting for on such a table.--Werthead 23:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Finished the table. I think this is good information—it makes a point about chapter structure in general, but also about the drastic change of viewpoint characters in Feast. This way we don't have to write hogwash like "Many fans were disappointed by the number of foreign POVs introduced in FfC and missed their favourites". Instead, we can just point this out in the table without making a value judgement or guessing what "many fans" may or may not have felt. As to page counts, I am not sure how much interesting information they add (apart from number-cruft). If anybody wants to add them, go ahead. Arbor 09:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

So...umm...why isn't this in the article, if everyone seems to agree? Also, can anyone remind me what the 'other' POV chapters are? Are you counting the prologues (Ser Royce, Maester Cressen, Chett)? --Alex

"Ice and Fire"
The part where it says that the only place that the title is referred to is in Dany's vision of Rhaegar is only half-true. When the Reeds present themselves at Bran's feast, they swear their loyalty to him "by ice and fire". Furthermore, I thought it was pretty clear that ice and fire symbolize the Starks and Lannisters, respectively. Throughout the series, the Starks are described as having ice flowing through their veins, while the Lannister color is crimson, etc. If you guys think that counts as 'original research' then take it out, but the part about the Reeds is worth mentioning.--Alex
 * Your first point about the Reeds is valid and may be worth mentioning, but it is in no way clear that Ice and Fire represent Stark and Lannister. In fact, that is a highly unlikely interpretation.  Far more believeable is that it either symbolizes Daenerys and Jon or the war between the Great Other and R'hllor.  All of this, of course, is speculation, and therefore none of it need be discussed at length in the article. Indrian 17:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Pictures of books
I was reading through the article and noticed that the pictures of books as they are now obscure the title of at least the themes section. I tried editing them down to 100px and looked at the preview - the covers seem pretty visible to me, and it fixed the formatting of the titles and sections. Thoughts? WLU 12:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

That's weird. I just looked at the previous version and the heading was fine. Anyway, I thought I had corrected a problem and it turns out it may not have been there, so if anyone prefers the 200px size images, I'm not too attached. It does seem to be bumping the edit tags down, perhaps a tabled version of the book covers might be useful? WLU 12:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm still obsessing over the images. Here's a possible way of displaying the 4 covers so it's a horizontal row rather than a vertical column. You are more limited on how you can manipulate them, but it doesn't screw up the edits or headings from what I can see. WLU

Or there's an image table: Though I don't understand why SoS and FfC are smaller than the others.
 * I must say that I really hate the horizontal layout. It looks wrong and pushes down some of the text on the screen, creating a sort of vacuum of information at the top of the page. None of the computers I use display any problems when the book covers are placed along the right side. I think they should be moved back to the way they were. -Captain Crawdad 05:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The vacuum is 'cause of the index list, which is very long and I don't think can be moved around. I'm not super attached to the layout, not enough to revert it if someone else feels really strongly, but if it was switched back to along the right, I found the old pictures were very large and messed up the layout.  I'm using Safari on a Mac to view them, perhaps that's why - when I view it on the old size and layout, it cuts off one of the headings and the edits hyperlinks above each section are all screwed up.  Again, perhaps it's just 'cause of my program.  I tried a preview of the old way, but with the images at 100px, I found it to be reasonably satisfactory - you can still see them, the text isn't overwhelming the picture and it doesn't seem to mess with the headings.  Anyone know a way to put it in some sort of grid next to the contents box?  That might solve my problems, but then again my problems might be unique to the computer and programs I'm using.  I'm not a regular contributor here, so I bow before the preferences of those who are.  WLU 14:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The Ice Dragon?
Isn't new novel: The Ice Dragon set in the ASolaF world? It's written by Martin. It should be included in the list AWP_Lizard


 * No, "The Ice Dragon" isn't actually set in the Ice and Fire world, though some of the promotional material inaccurately suggests that it is. Brendan Moody 00:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Template updates
I've corrected a couple of links I missed on the template, added categories, added associated items, and changed the colour scheme (couldn't find a color to match the lavendar-ish background for the categories cells, so went with shades of grey). Pejorative.majeure 20:51, 15 January 2007 (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

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
 * Chapter 18 - CONCERNING THE WAY IN WHICH PRINCES SHOULD KEEP FAITH


 * 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)

"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)

There is this article. http://www.inquisitr.com/2340224/game-of-thrones-george-r-r-martin-to-write-8-books-in-total/

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 Special:Contributions/ (talk)

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)

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)

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 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.  &mdash; Laura Scudder &#9742; 20:33, 21 February 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. 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.  &mdash; Laura Scudder &#9742; 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 Manual_of_Style_%28writing_about_fiction%29, WP:BOOKS, WP:NOVEL and 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

Image:WikiFullASoIaFSizeEdit.JPG

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)

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)

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 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)

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)

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.&mdash; TAnthonyTalk 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.&mdash; TAnthonyTalk 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)

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)

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)

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)

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. – 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, 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. – sgeureka t•c 11:04, 28 February 2012 (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)

I agree. An example categorization could be: --Bairesdragon (talk) 02:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Low fantasy: A Song of Fire and Ice. People die because they fall of their horse and break their necks. Most supernatural elements are monsters and magic is mostly used in terms of simple illusions or elements of horror.
 * Medium fantasy: Kingkiller Chronicles by Patrick Rothfuss. Eventually elements of high magic appear (the fey), but most fantasy elements are put on a certain realistic framework. Dragons are actually draccus, a big vegetarian lizard that spits fire but doesn't fly. Magic works by rules similar to chemistry/physics in that the conservation of energy and matter is mantained.
 * High fantasy: The Sword of Truth saga by Terry Goodkind. Prophecy is a big plot motivator. Magic is not explained and destroys armies of millions of soldiers in an instant.

Fandom
Edited the word "harassed" out as neither of the two sites mentioned ever harassed George R. R. Martin. Unless a clear citation of harassment can be given this should remain so. Edited out the word "renegade" as it has subjective implications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.81.193 (talk) 22:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the first provided source (The Globe and Mail) for that sentence does say "After being stamped out there, angry fans calling themselves GRRuMblers formed new online groups to harass him, including such blogs as Finish the Book, George, brimming with vituperation." And the second provided source (The New Yorker) says "Yet Verhoeve, operating under the nom de guerre of Slynt, now runs a Web forum dedicated to denigrating Martin and his supporters. The site is called Is Winter Coming?" and later "An entire community of apostates—a shadow fandom—is now devoted to taunting Martin, his associates, ..." Plus, it actually uses the word "renegade", as in "In Verhoeve’s telling, disaffected fans—who sometimes call themselves GRRuMblers—formed a renegade movement in 2009, ..."But I guess the current more neutral phrasing ("creating sites such as Finish the Book, George and Is Winter Coming?") will also do. – sgeureka t•c 05:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I would argue both sites fall under WP:BLP and should be handled carefully: "A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group. When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources." Denaar (talk) 00:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

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)
 * Agreed with Werthead. Wikipedia should not provide pronunciation guides unless they are provided by the author; but to suggest that IPA should be replaced with plain alphabet transliterations (as in the original comment) is not a good idea. Wikipedia is accessible worldwide. To suggest that "Cersei" should be written "Sir - sigh" only serves people who pronounce Cersei in a General American English accent. Someone from rural Louisiana or Texas would not pronounce "sigh" the same way as someone from New York or Toronto. Ghanaians do not pronounce "Sir" the same way as RP speaking Londoners or Singaporeans. Transliterations are generally a bad idea in standard international works of reference. I suggest consulting google to find a free, complete unicode font. If you think your browser is at fault, update it or download firefox or chrome. Unicode is not problematic on the modern internet. --Rawlangs (talk) 18:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Genre categorization
I know this article is currently undergoing GA review, and so I didn't want to garishly change something so major in the lede, but are we sure this fits the description of "high fantasy"? I personally think that a large part of the series better fits the low fantasy label, and there are a lot of reviewers who seem to think that way too. Perhaps the series doesn't fit neatly into either category; maybe it would be best to simply describe it as "fantasy" in the lede and refrain from specifying either way? Basa lisk inspect damage⁄berate 01:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Although I wrote the majority of the article, I am fairly inexperienced with the many fantasy sub-genres. The "Genre" section names the fantasy genre definitions for which I could find sources, and that's what's reflected in the lede. I never touched the info box, so that may be a place where more (sourced?) editing may be called for. – sgeureka t•c 07:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The first book is definitely low fantasy. I would say play it safe and just use fantasy. AIR corn (talk) 13:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay I looked into this a bit more and my understanding of High and Low fantasy does not mesh with the wikipedia articles. There is some disagreement with wikipedia and our classification of this series online. A google book search is mixed, but generally seems to agree with our definition. There is probably enough there to add a few alternative views to our articles though. I won't fail this due the description in the infobox, but would still recommend just using fantasy. AIR corn  (talk) 09:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Since GRRM classified it as Epic fantasy (redirects to High fantasy), I've only left High fantasy with a ref in the infobox and removed everything else. – sgeureka t•c 11:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Paperback release date pushed back
According to amazon, the paperback release date of ADwD is pushed back to March 13, 2013. This influences the appearance date of the sample chapter for TWoW in the Planned_novels_and_future section. Did not find a non amazon-source for that, so I feel unsure of how to fix it here (and it's too late and I should go to bed). Pbro (talk) 04:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Dealt with, used a comment by GRRM. – sgeureka t•c 11:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Films
Disney, Pixar, Jerry Bruckheimer Films, Heyday Films, Team Todd and Roth Films plan to make Theatrical-release Live action/CGI-animated 3D hybrid film series based on this novel series and is distributed by Walt Disney Pictures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.145.198 (talk) 10:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * CDo you have a source to back this up? I could not find one after a quick search. AIR corn (talk) 11:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The Themes section reads like a fanboy essay
Just wanted to point out what the title says. I hope someone sees to it to fix the style or at least tag it, as I don't remember the tags to mark for this sort of thing. 94.64.248.225 (talk) 22:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * While it's remarkably well-cited and attributed, and I applaud whoever tackled that task, I happen to agree with you about the tone, so I'm marking it as such. And let me preempt any sofixits by promising I'll be back to look at it. Laura Scudder &#124; talk 22:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * For me the whole article seems very (for Wikipedia standards) biased towards praising the book. 94.75.114.148 (talk) 14:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Number of copies sold
While there are no reliable numbers of the total sale worldwide, the series has so far sold 24 millions in North America (Link) and 27 millions in the Commonwealth countries (Link). In other words, at least 51 million copies. I added this information to the article, and for some reason, it was removed. Why? 84.210.10.52 (talk) 19:04, 18 March 2014 (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)

Guess this fits here as well as anywhere: "Entertainment Weekly" has an interview with the producers of the HBO series...which presumably will follow the same plot line as the books...in which they state that George R.R. Martin's ending for the series is "absolutely satisfying". There is also a photo of Daenerys, holding a dragon egg and sitting on the "Iron Thrown." Here's the link: http://insidetv.ew.com/2014/03/19/game-of-thrones-george-r-r-martin-ending/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.75.37 (talk) 01:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

issues
This whole article is written like an advertisement. Blanket (and wrong) statements are made about how Martin's work is innovative. Certainly SIF has interesting elements, but not by any means novel, either in isolation or combined. Yes, it eschews simplicity, but do does most of the literature that endures. Yes, from media adapatations of some works one may think the whole of their author's output is limited in this or that regard, but that's why judgements should not be passed on such flimsy experience. Someone should go through every single sentence in this article and trim the belieber stuff. 82.155.49.228 (talk) 16:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Honestly I think the article is absolutely packed with fancruft and other information that isn't relevant. I have never seen anything even remotely resembling the "Inspiration and Writing" section on any other book or series page before (or, at least no section nearly that long), and the "Themes" section links to Themes in A Song of Ice and Fire so there is no need for it to be six paragraphs long.  Not to mention the fact that either the Critical Response section is heavily biased or there are no negative reviews of this series at all, aside from a small amount of disappointment with A Feast For Crows.  The last paragraph mentions "the most critical voices" but quotes two reviews that ultimately praised the series.  This whole article reads like a George R. R. Martin fan page of some kind rather than a Wikipedia article. -Rycr (talk) 06:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Reply Does either of you have negative reviews that could be used to balance the article better? I'd be happy to dirty work and incorporate them into the wiki article, but I've found the reviewers who stick around for thousands of pages are usually also the ones who like the books. Same for the people interviewing the author (why should GRRM talk to them if they shoot him down). So most of the source material for this article is just positive to begin with (seriously, negative reviews and critical interviews were the exception in 2011, and the one secondary book I have seemed to be unusable in-universe fanwank). Maybe secondary sources have gotten more balanced since I've stopped looking in 2011, so I sincerely invite you to fix any perceived short comings of the article if you have access to good secondary material. – sgeureka t•c 09:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

"a set of over a thousand named characters." ?
Is there any evidence for this? Certainly there are a lot. And a lot more than most books. Even if there are a thousand named individual people in the books it would seem to be hyperbole to call them 'characters'. In most books on writing, for example, a character is considered to be a person with more than a name: they have history, motives, relationships, fears and desires. If I'm wrong, then perhaps 'set' (in the quote above) should be changed to 'cast'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.53.186.67 (talk) 13:11, 19 May 2014 (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)


 * The articles on this subject (or these subjects) seem to have a lot of issues around keeping clearly defined lines between content about the books vs (in particular) the tv series (especially excessive mentions of details about the tv series). I've been making various edits to try to address this but it's a big job. I wonder if renaming some of the articles to make it clearer that it applies to the books or to the tv series or whatever may help.-- Ty  rS  02:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

RfC on Oathkeeper article
There's an RS-related RfC on the article about the season-four episode Oathkeeper. Participation and fresh voices would be welcome. The matter concerns a single-line reference to the chapters upon which the episode was based. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Italics
According to the manual of style, series of books are not supposed to be in italics. The exact entry under the section for items that should not receive italics (Manual of Style/Titles) is this: Since none of the novels has the title "A Song of Ice and Fire", it would seem that the series shouldn't be italicized. Is there something I'm overlooking?&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 20:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Media franchises (including a trilogy or other series of novels or films) or fictional universes, except in a case that contains or consists of the name of an italicized individual work
 * Hmm. If you look at the talk page for that section of the manual of style, you'll see that there's been some discussion over the years about cases like this, and the manual itself has been changed back and forth a couple times. Despite the current wording, I'm not sure that there's actually a consensus not to italicize titles of book series, at least in cases like this one, where the series has a definite overall title rather than an informal label (like "the Harry Potter books" or "the Hardy Boys series"). It's probably worth discussing at the MOS talk page before changing this or any of the many other book series articles that use italics. Brendan Moody (talk) 22:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I very much considered starting a discussion there, but previous attempts seem to have gotten no traction. The talk page there is not very active. Perhaps I'll give it a shot anyway.&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 00:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Is WatchersOnTheWall.com an expert SPS?
There is an RfC at Game of Thrones (season 5) regarding whether the site WatchersOnTheWall.com meets the criteria for an expert self-published source (and is therefore suitable for use on Wikipedia). Participation is welcome. Piandme (talk) 01:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Game of Thrones and chapter-to-episode statements
RfC: Should the article state which chapters appear in the episode?

This RfC is specifically about one episode, "Oathkeeper," but it is likely to affect all Game of Thrones episode articles. Specifically, should the episodes contain a line such as, "This episode was based on [specific chapters] of [specific book(s)]"? Right now, some episode articles have lines like this and some don't, always in the Writing section. Here's an example:  So far, the first few respondents have outlined the reasons for and against inclusion pretty well, but we need more voices. Participation is welcome and appreciated. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The World of Ice and Fire
With the upcoming release of "The World of Ice and Fire" by George and company, would it be a good idea for someone to create a wikipedia page for it as it currently just links to Works based on A Song of Ice and Fire, which is just a sentence. I think it would be a good page to create now before the book is released, before adding content from the book when it is published, but there is plenty of information to create a page now. Piandme (talk) 20:03, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Genre
Should be classified as fantasy. It is not at all epic fantasy. This is misleading potential fans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.171.187.130 (talk) 20:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What is the definition of "epic fantasy"? Surely a work spanning more than 5,000 pages and a whole world qualifies as "epic"?  Further on topic of genre, what is "High fantasy" vs. "Low fantasy"?  I'm tempted to say I can't define High Fantasy, but I know it when I read it... D A Patriarche, BSc (talk)  (talk) 16:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

See also ==Genre categorization== above, these should probably be merged, but I understand it's bad form to redact a Talk page. D A Patriarche, BSc (talk) (talk) 16:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Our categorization has to be based on how external reliable sources categorize the series, not our own interpretation as editors. The designation "Epic fantasy" has a great source (in the infobox). Obviously ASOIAF may have elements of other fantasy subgenera and I'd be surprised if other sources haven't called it high fantasy etc., in which case it would be appropriate (in my opinion) to list other genres as well (with citations).&mdash; TAnthonyTalk 14:30, 4 July 2015 (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.  &empty; 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).

Interesting about these historical sources but I have to say I find all the similarities to the war of the roses, Holy Roman Empire and everything else high-medieval to be exceedingly slight. However the similarities with British Dark Age history are surely two strong to be coincidence. It strikes me that the novels contain the stories of Romano-British people struggling to contain competing christian/pagan (old gods/new gods) influences, the decline of Roman (Andal) civilisation, Saxon and Viking (various people from Essos) encroachment, various degrees of influence, and puppet kings, and the running down of the wall allowing the Celtic (wildling/first men) tribes to encroach. No idea if there is any evidence for that or not but the parallels are very strong. I've read the Anglo Saxon Chronicles and it does feel like reading Ice and Fire almost word for word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.146.80 (talk) 15:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thinking on this more I'd say we are in around the 6th/7th century. That makes the Valerians/Targarians the Saxons and gives us the Vikings (Dothraki?) to look forward to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.146.80 (talk) 16:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion this question lacks information about Maurice Druon's The Iron King. It's a french novel that GRRM has read. (he confirms it in interviews like this one (in french) or this one on his website. There are a lot of similarities between GRRM work and Druon's and I think it should be acknowledged on his page.

Keeping in mind that this novel of Druon is about narrating the story of the kings of France and Great-Britain around the 1300's, and that the tone and protagonists are very similar to ASOIAF (except the magic and dragons stuff). It would be interesting talking about this influence of his, and the parallels he made when creating the families of Westeros. p.s. I'm sorry if my post is written bad, i'm new to this 93.44.68.213 (talk) 00:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Druon is already mentioned in the lede of the article, but yes, certainly there should be some text in the body to complement that mention. Brendan Moody (talk) 00:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm astounded if no source has pointed out the similarity between Lancaster and York and Lannister and Stark.--Jack Upland (talk) 14:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

When did he say that?
Martin classified A Song of Ice and Fire as "epic fantasy"[1] and specifically named Tad Williams as very influential for the writing of the series. Tad Williams???? He wrote his books well after ASOIAF. Why would Tad be influential in is writing? 24.154.130.201 (talk) 01:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Though Tad Williams continues writing, his first and possibly best known fantasy series, Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn was released between 1988 and 1993, all before the release of A Song of Ice and Fire. Caidh (talk) 04:50, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * And the interview where Martin says this is found in the citation at the end of the sentence that mentions it.&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 17:05, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Is the disambig note necessary?
Does anyone looking for the TV show search for "A Song of Ice and Fire"? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 10:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Martin's stance on the possibility of others continuing the story after his death?
I considered adding this to the article, but no matter how I tried to word it it sounded kind of morbid. I already essentially added it to an unrelated article a few months back. What do others think? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Year and Seasons
I am surprised there is no critique of the strange relationship between year and seasons. I know this is fantasy, but surely GRRM has some idea of what defines a year? 13 moons perhaps? The late Hal Clement would doubtless have had a scientific explanation, maybe a trinary system with a neutron star etc. I don't insist that fantasy obey the laws of our universe, but it should have its own self-consistent laws. Surely there is critical comment out there on this? I'll do some Googling, but unfortunately "year" and "season" are not good search words. Anyone have a lead on this? D A Patriarche, BSc (talk) (talk) 00:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Martin has been asked more than once about years and seasons; here is one version of the answer he always gives, and the fourth response here is another. I doubt there's been enough critical comment on the topic in significant sources to make it worth adding anything to the article, though. Brendan Moody (talk) 00:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, if there's no sig critical comment out there, it doesn't belong in the article. Tnx for the links. D A Patriarche, BSc (talk)  (talk) 16:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Virtually all of the "RS" media coverage of the series in the past few years is inane and superficial commentary based in full or in part on the TV adaptation, and it often confuses the TV show with the books. If there is wide coverage of this specific topic (as opposed to just "the seasons last several years -- isn't that weird") this may need to be taken into account before including such commentary in the article. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:15, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2016
In the Plot Synopsis section of given page, it has been written that Aegon I's sisters' names are Visenys and Rhaenys. While Rhaenys is correct, Visenys isn't. The other sister was named "Visenya", not Visenys. Please change "Visenys" to Visenya. https://www.google.co.in/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=Aegon+the+conqueror%27s+sisters

117.195.56.254 (talk) 10:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Topher385 (talk) 11:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2017 Unclear information about the War of the Five Kings
The following is unclear "When Lord Eddard "Ned" Stark, King Robert's "Hand" (chief advisor), discovers that Joffrey and his siblings are the product of incest between Cersei and her twin brother Jaime, Eddard is executed for treason. In response, Robert's brothers Stannis and Renly both lay separate claims to the throne. During this period of instability, two of the Seven Kingdoms of Westeros attempt to become independent from the Iron Throne: Ned Stark's eldest son Robb is proclaimed King in the North, while Balon Greyjoy desires to recover the sovereignty of his region, the Iron Islands." First, Stannis and Renly lay their claims after learning about the incest, not about Eddard being beheaded. Second, Robb Stark takes up arms to save his father, Eddard, and sisters, Arya and Sansa. After Eddard's death he tries to save his sisters and to dethrone the Lannisters, but not to claim the Iron Throne himself. Third, the Iron Islands is not one of the seven kingdoms, only a region of them. Greyjoy does declare an independence though. EnemyTortoise15 (talk) 09:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * ❌--Absence of WP:RS and an inability to infer what precise changes you wish to incorporate. Winged Blades Godric 16:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 26 external links on A Song of Ice and Fire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160102170255/http://grrm.livejournal.com/465247.html to http://grrm.livejournal.com/465247.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141225035210/http://grrm.livejournal.com/327569.html to http://grrm.livejournal.com/327569.html
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/66ff8Zx9T?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgrrm.livejournal.com%2F3797.html to http://grrm.livejournal.com/3797.html
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/66ff8UE0I?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgrrm.livejournal.com%2F159060.html to http://grrm.livejournal.com/159060.html
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/66fwZ8yLl?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgrrm.livejournal.com%2F169899.html to http://grrm.livejournal.com/169899.html
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6FJAGtUX9?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgrrm.livejournal.com%2F197075.html to http://grrm.livejournal.com/197075.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130703053520/http://grrm.livejournal.com/217066.html to http://grrm.livejournal.com/217066.html
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6FJAGtUX9?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgrrm.livejournal.com%2F197075.html to http://grrm.livejournal.com/197075.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141227101506/http://grrm.livejournal.com/344674.html to http://grrm.livejournal.com/344674.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/01/his-beautiful-dark-twisted-fantasy-george-r-r-martin-talks-game-of-thrones/
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/672etspwS?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgrrm.livejournal.com%2F179778.html to http://grrm.livejournal.com/179778.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721213804/http://grrm.livejournal.com/75053.html to http://grrm.livejournal.com/75053.html
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/672eqKuMx?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgrrm.livejournal.com%2F13374.html to http://grrm.livejournal.com/13374.html
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/672epZlaJ?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgrrm.livejournal.com%2F14144.html to http://grrm.livejournal.com/14144.html
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6Dsy4hj2g?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgrrm.livejournal.com%2F310198.html to http://grrm.livejournal.com/310198.html
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6Dsy4hj2g?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgrrm.livejournal.com%2F310198.html to http://grrm.livejournal.com/310198.html
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6Dsy4hj2g?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgrrm.livejournal.com%2F310198.html to http://grrm.livejournal.com/310198.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0%2C9171%2C1129596%2C00.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.guardian.co.tt/entertainment/2011/06/10/martin-talks-about-new-series-game-thrones
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/672et6No6?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thehugoawards.org%2Fhugo-history%2F2001-hugo-awards%2F to http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/2001-hugo-awards/
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/672etTwOV?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thehugoawards.org%2Fhugo-history%2F2006-hugo-awards%2F to http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/2006-hugo-awards/
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6AOjdWrOS?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thehugoawards.org%2Fhugo-history%2F2012-hugo-awards%2F to http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/2012-hugo-awards/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0%2C8599%2C2081774%2C00.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://dpsinfo.com/awardweb/nebulas/90s.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://dpsinfo.com/awardweb/nebulas/00s.html
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/672elDKSP?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.worldfantasy.org%2Fawards%2F1997.html to http://www.worldfantasy.org/awards/1997.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2017
There is no show like it. 109.150.16.233 (talk) 17:24, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That might be so, but as you have not requested any specific changes to this article, there is nothing left to do here. Altamel (talk) 18:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 114 external links on A Song of Ice and Fire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140619182600/http://njmonthly.com/articles/lifestyle/NJM-Q-and-A/qa-with-george-rr-martin.html to http://njmonthly.com/articles/lifestyle/NJM-Q-and-A/qa-with-george-rr-martin.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0%2C%2C20470532_20511966%2C00.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://shelf-life.ew.com/2011/07/12/george-martin-talks-a-dance-with-dragons/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://weirdtalesmagazine.com/2007/05/24/george-rr-martin-on-magic-vs-science/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://grrm.livejournal.com/3797.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.adriasnews.com/2012/10/george-r-r-martin-interview.html?spref=tw
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0%2C%2C20161804%2C00.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2011/07/george-r-r-martin-on-sex-fantasy-and-a-dance-with-dragons/241738/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.amazon.co.uk/Feast-Crows-Book-Song-Fire/dp/0002247437
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.empireonline.com/interviews/interview.asp?IID=1496
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://grrm.livejournal.com/159060.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://grrm.livejournal.com/169899.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2011/04/game-of-thrones-a-brutal-fantasy-with-mass-appeal/237316/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://book.consumerhelpweb.com/authors/marting/interview.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://edition.cnn.com/2001/SHOWBIZ/books/04/11/george.rr.martin/index.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://januarymagazine.com/profiles/grrmartin.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://grrm.livejournal.com/197075.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.infinityplus.co.uk/nonfiction/intgrrm.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dragonsworn.com/features/georgerrmartin/interview.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.georgerrmartin.com/gallery/thrones.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://mezmera.posluh.hr/bazaar/interview_george_r_r_martin.asp
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.theguardian.com/books/2011/apr/13/george-rr-martin-game-thrones
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.locusmag.com/2005/Issues/11Martin.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2011/08/fantasy-on-tv-how-game-of-thrones-succeeds-where-true-blood-fails/244365/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.scotcampus.com/201112george-r-r-martin
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2011/apr/14/more-george-r-r-martin
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2011/04/game-of-thrones-when-fantasy-looks-like-reality/237196/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sfsite.com/01a/gm95.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.csmonitor.com/Books/Book-Reviews/2011/0712/A-Dance-with-Dragons-by-George-R.R.-Martin
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hitfix.com/whats-alan-watching/game-of-thrones-producers-say-season-3-as-big-as-were-going-to-get
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://sffworld.com/interview/186p0.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/entertainment_tv/2010/04/game-of-thrones-george-r-r-martin.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://harpervoyagerbooks.com/2012/04/10/eastercon-eat-drink-and-talk-sff/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/8553079.stm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://blog.indigo.ca/fiction/item/514-an-interview-with-george-r-r-martin-part-two.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/BfaNomList.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://backissues.com/issue/Asimovs-Science-Fiction-July-1996
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://blog.indigo.ca/fiction/item/512-an-interview-with-george-r-r-martin-part-one.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.shirepost.com/GeorgeMartin.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.joeabercrombie.com/2008/02/16/influences-ideas-and-a-game-of-thrones/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://backissues.com/issue/Asimovs-Science-Fiction-December-2000
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.darkswordminiatures.com/gallery/GRRMline.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.emmys.com/shows/game-thrones
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/04/11/110411fa_fact_miller?currentPage=all
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2011/10/george_rr_martin_on_his_favori.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://insidetv.ew.com/2011/04/19/game-of-thrones-renewed/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/pageviews/2011/12/george-rr-martin-surprises-song-of-ice-and-fire-fans-with-free-chapter-of-next-boo
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://insidetv.ew.com/2012/04/10/game-of-thrones-renewed-3/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/19/books/best-sellers-november-19-2000.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_news.asp?eidn=141
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/1999/02/21/books/best-sellers-february-21-1999.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_minisite.asp?eidm=121
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DEEDB113EF934A15752C1A9639C8B63
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/14/books/george-r-r-martins-dance-with-dragons-sells-well.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.comic-con.org/common/assets/upd2006_2.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/12/books/12crow.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://grrm.livejournal.com/179778.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-553-10803-3
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-553-10354-0
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://grrm.livejournal.com/13374.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-553-10663-3
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://grrm.livejournal.com/14144.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-553-80150-7
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://grrm.livejournal.com/327935.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-553-80147-7
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://grrm.livejournal.com/310198.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://grrm.livejournal.com/310198.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thelifestylereport.ca/2012/03/13/george-r-r-martin-talks-to-fans-about-the-making-of-game-of-thrones-and-what-inspired-his-best-selling-book-series/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/12/entertainment/la-et-book-20110712
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.theguardian.com/books/2011/jul/26/george-r-r-martin-fantasy-reality
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.smartertravel.com/blogs/today-in-travel/game-of-thrones-exclusive-george-martin-talks-season-the-winds-of-winter-and-real-world-influences-for-song-of-ice-and-fire.html?id=10593041
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2009/nov/13/hooked-on-george-rr-martin
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://entertainment.time.com/2011/07/12/the-problems-of-power-george-r-r-martins-a-dance-with-dragons/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2011/jul/12/a-dance-with-dragons-george-r-r-martin
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/new-titles/adult-announcements/article/1096-talking-with-george-r-r-martin-part-2-.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/feb/16/george-rr-martin-new-book
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://entertainment.time.com/2011/04/18/grrm-interview-part-2-fantasy-and-history/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/dec/20/george-rr-martin-fantasy
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118032865
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/2001-hugo-awards/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://entertainment.time.com/2011/04/19/grrm-interview-part-3-the-twilight-zone-and-lost/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2011/07/08/game-of-thrones-author-george-r-r-martin-spills-the-secrets-of-a-dance-with-dragons/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/2006-hugo-awards/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/14/books/review/george-r-r-martin-and-the-rise-of-fantasy.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/2012-hugo-awards/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://comics.ign.com/articles/119/1195832p1.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://entertainment.time.com/2011/04/15/george-r-r-martin-on-game-of-thrones-from-book-to-tv
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/jacketcopy/2011/09/george-rr-martin-joins-kindle-million-seller-club.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/books/book-review-george-rr-martins-a-dance-with-dragons/2011/06/20/gIQAuJ1z9H_story.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/LocusNomList.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.usatoday.com/life/books/news/2011-07-11-dance-with-dragons_n.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/12/arts/television/incest-as-plot-point-on-3-hbo-series-just-by-chance.html?_r=1
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.locusmag.com/News/2012/06/locus-awards-2012-winners/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.salon.com/2011/04/09/game_of_thrones_primer/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.georgerrmartin.com/archive06.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/15/books/a-dance-with-dragons-by-george-r-r-martin-review.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2012/05/21/westeros-goes-social-with-game-of-thrones-ascent/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.usatoday.com/life/books/news/story/2011-12-29/george-r-r-martin-is-author-of-the-year-2011/52256412/1
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.salon.com/2011/07/10/a_dance_with_dragons/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/07/31/books/review/bestsellers-weekly-graphic.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/best-sellers-books/mass-market-paperback/list.html?category=mass-market-paperback
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304520804576343310420118894.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://books.usatoday.com/bookbuzz/post/2011/07/record-sales-for-george-rr-martins-a-dance-with-dragons/176909/1
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/print/20110411/46806-throne-of-gains.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10812F739550C718DDDAA0894DE404482
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.worldfantasy.org/awards/1997.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.worldfantasy.org/awards/2012.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/new-titles/adult-announcements/article/7301-george-r-r-martin-s-adventures-in-comics-part-1-.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://suvudu.com/2010/03/warriors-review-the-mystery-knight-by-grrm.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/game-of-thrones-renewed-season-3-306981
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://insidetv.ew.com/2013/04/02/game-of-thrones-renewed-4-season/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.randomhouse.ca/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780345538543
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.georgerrmartin.com/done.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117957532.html?categoryid=14&cs=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:36, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Anyone more familiar with the series than I care to add it to this list?
Types of mythological or fantastic beings in contemporary fiction is a page of, well, fantasy works (movie, TV, written, whatever) and the assorted mythological and/or fantastic critters they contain. This series would likely qualify. Anyone care to add it? Tamtrible (talk) 23:55, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

"Foreshadowing" the HBO series?
I kinda feel like the sentence After the success of The Lord of the Rings films, Martin received his first inquiries to the rights of the Ice and Fire series from various producers and filmmakers. should be moved out of where it is and into the "Derived works" section, as it looks really out of place where it is, and both the cited source and (virtually?) every other possible source discussing that point would be a source about the TV show Game of Thrones, rather than a chronological history of the publication of the book series. Thoughts? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 22:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 20 external links on A Song of Ice and Fire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20470532_20511966,00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120204044334/http://www.georgerrmartin.com/archive01.html to http://www.georgerrmartin.com/archive01.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20161804,00.html
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/66fwWO2jC?url=http://book.consumerhelpweb.com/authors/marting/interview.htm to http://book.consumerhelpweb.com/authors/marting/interview.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120204044229/http://www.georgerrmartin.com/links.html to http://georgerrmartin.com/links.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120204044229/http://www.georgerrmartin.com/links.html to http://georgerrmartin.com/links.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120204044229/http://www.georgerrmartin.com/links.html to http://georgerrmartin.com/links.html
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/66foTVf7B?url=http://www.georgerrmartin.com/gallery/thrones.html to http://www.georgerrmartin.com/gallery/thrones.html
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/672edbQk5?url=http://mezmera.posluh.hr/bazaar/interview_george_r_r_martin.asp to http://mezmera.posluh.hr/bazaar/interview_george_r_r_martin.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120204044229/http://www.georgerrmartin.com/links.html to http://georgerrmartin.com/links.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120204044229/http://www.georgerrmartin.com/links.html to http://georgerrmartin.com/links.html
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/66ff9PFZs?url=http://blog.indigo.ca/fiction/item/514-an-interview-with-george-r-r-martin-part-two.html to http://blog.indigo.ca/fiction/item/514-an-interview-with-george-r-r-martin-part-two.html
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/672eu98Vx?url=http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/BfaNomList.html to http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/BfaNomList.html
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/66fwa9nw4?url=http://blog.indigo.ca/fiction/item/512-an-interview-with-george-r-r-martin-part-one.html to http://blog.indigo.ca/fiction/item/512-an-interview-with-george-r-r-martin-part-one.html
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/672edwjjr?url=http://www.comic-con.org/common/assets/upd2006_2.pdf to http://www.comic-con.org/common/assets/upd2006_2.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120204044334/http://www.georgerrmartin.com/archive01.html to http://www.georgerrmartin.com/archive01.html
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/66ffA1Ogh?url=http://www.thelifestylereport.ca/2012/03/13/george-r-r-martin-talks-to-fans-about-the-making-of-game-of-thrones-and-what-inspired-his-best-selling-book-series/ to http://www.thelifestylereport.ca/2012/03/13/george-r-r-martin-talks-to-fans-about-the-making-of-game-of-thrones-and-what-inspired-his-best-selling-book-series/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/14/books/review/george-r-r-martin-and-the-rise-of-fantasy.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/699KMlpxp?url=http://www.locusmag.com/News/2012/06/locus-awards-2012-winners/ to http://www.locusmag.com/News/2012/06/locus-awards-2012-winners/
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/672epEvy1?url=http://www.georgerrmartin.com/archive06.html to http://www.georgerrmartin.com/archive06.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Up for deletion Myrcella Baratheon
This is the vanguard of a second wave of an AFD offensive on Game of Thrones-related characters. Note also that there's a proposal to prevent new users from commenting at AfD. That might be significant for such a high-traffic article and so provides good context. I've added lots of sources. WP:Hey, but more is always in order 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 14:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The above blatantly non-neutral message is inappropriate canvassing -- "the vanguard of a second wave of an AFD offensive"!? For one thing, whether (and which!) individual ASOIAF characters should get standalone articles has been a controversial issue among ASOIAF editors for years (I remember having a conversation about the banned editor User:AffeL's creations back before he was banned), and this "second wave" thing is a conspiracy theory dreamed up by the WP:ARS crowd that is quite out of line with the facts, and WP:HEY clearly doesn't apply when the article was WP:ALLPLOT at the time of nomination and still is now. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 01:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Word usage in the books :: keep or delete this section?
I inserted a section A Song of Ice and Fire, and it was deleted twice as trivia by the same editor. I do not want to start an edit war, so please let us discuss here whether or not this section has merit. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:40, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, unsourced material does not belong into articles and can be removed immediately. WP:INDISCRIMINATE also applies. WikiHannibal (talk) 08:36, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The source is the books that this article is about. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:08, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That is a primary source. Are there reliable, secondary or tertiary sources on the topic? Dimadick (talk) 10:02, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually the books do not provide an analysis of this "word usage", so there is not even a primary source. This appears to be completely original research.&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 18:46, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

"冰与火之歌" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 冰与火之歌. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Not a very active user (talk) 09:38, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

"George R. R. Martin/A Song of Ice and Fire" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect George R. R. Martin/A Song of Ice and Fire. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Not a very active user (talk) 09:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

"House Connington" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect House Connington. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Not a very active user (talk) 10:03, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

"Pronunciation of names in A Song of Ice and Fire" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Pronunciation of names in A Song of Ice and Fire. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Not a very active user (talk) 10:10, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

"The War of the Usurper" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The War of the Usurper. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Not a very active user (talk) 10:28, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

"War of the Usurper" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect War of the Usurper. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Not a very active user (talk) 10:29, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

"War of the Ninepenny Kings" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect War of the Ninepenny Kings. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Not a very active user (talk) 10:33, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

June 2021 interview: series may end with Winds of Winter
This interview from June 2021 seems to suggest that Martin is now planning to end the series with Book 6. Might be worth updating the appropriate sections. 70.73.90.119 (talk) 15:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't think so; the article doesn't actually make that claim. Saying the article "seems to suggest" that is based on how you interpret Martin saying "I'm still working on the book but you'll see my ending when that comes out." But if there was actual reason to believe the number of books was changing, that would have been the headline of the article! AJD (talk) 16:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. And I probably should have linked to the original TV interview the news site was reporting on. I think this page and the news station missed the news. (I work as a news editor and there were questions I would have jumped in with had I been conducting the interview and for me the news is the fact he suggests in the interview the series ends with the next book and I would have asked him if that's what he meant.). That said, I did not add to the main article for two reasons. One is this is a "good" article so adds need to be approved and also it's possible as you suggest that Martin might be giving the wrong impression. However, and this is totally anecdotal so again has no place in the article, this isn't the first time I have read Martin interviews suggesting that he's ending it with Book 6 (indeed this very article has content indicating that Martin will decide what to do with Book 7 after 6 is done). So I've just put it here as a heads up. Maybe a reporter will ask the right questions next time and we'll get a more clear answer from Martin. 70.73.90.119 (talk) 18:07, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Are there things he says in the interview other than "you'll see my ending when that comes out" that give that impression? But anyway, unless we have reliable sources stating that he may be planning to end the series after book 6, it doesn't belong here. AJD (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): DarianAfkhami.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:11, 16 January 2022 (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

No other big book series
Regarding A Song of Ice and Fire as his masterpiece, Martin is certain never to write anything on this scale again

I'd say this is a bit of an odd statement by now, considering the author is approaching the age of his life expectancy and it's taking him over a decade to finish the next novel in the series. If he ever will (which i wholeheartedly hope).  PizzaMan  ♨♨♨  18:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC)